Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM etc
Moderator: TFF Mods
- Shteve0
- Legend
- Posts: 2479
- Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 10:15 am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM etc
Hi dode
We've had this debate before of course, but please allow me to vainly reiterate here
I firmly believe that its no more insensible to cost in skill access on the basis of a player's development potential than to consider the impact of moderating a player within the context of their teammates. Your example of the 6338 player works fine of course, but why is there not a cost differential between Orc and Human throwers, given that there's (only) an MA difference? It's not quite so cut and dried between the two teams' blitzers, but it's hard to justify the cost split there either.
The only real problem with A-access is where it's coupled with block or G-access; and the issue with S-access is where it's coupled with block or G-access. Likewise, G-access on a dodge player. Giving a dodge player G-access only (or gating any other access) doesn't solve or recognise this issue. It's the potential to escalate into combos that causes the problem (imo) and needs to be recognised at the outset.
(Of course, I've argued before that in several cases it is, and that theory has been put down quite comprehensively, but I still contest that the teams I reckon are best designs contain this costing (one day I'll get off my arse and prove it... just not today ).)
Moving on, my preffered 'solution' would be to lose all S access on 0-16 players outright (GM is more entertaining and less predictable than GSM). That doesn't the solve GA issue of course, and you might choose to go a step further into the more extreme solution of moving block out to S access (and risk big guys becoming rampant).
I wouldn't do that, but I would look at costing in GA access (note that I think it largely already is!). It's not perfect, but I'm still wedded to the concept that the same resource might be prescribed a different price n a different roster landscape; and so it's absolutely reasonable that their future role (as well as current role) in said roster be costed into their initial price.
We've had this debate before of course, but please allow me to vainly reiterate here
I firmly believe that its no more insensible to cost in skill access on the basis of a player's development potential than to consider the impact of moderating a player within the context of their teammates. Your example of the 6338 player works fine of course, but why is there not a cost differential between Orc and Human throwers, given that there's (only) an MA difference? It's not quite so cut and dried between the two teams' blitzers, but it's hard to justify the cost split there either.
The only real problem with A-access is where it's coupled with block or G-access; and the issue with S-access is where it's coupled with block or G-access. Likewise, G-access on a dodge player. Giving a dodge player G-access only (or gating any other access) doesn't solve or recognise this issue. It's the potential to escalate into combos that causes the problem (imo) and needs to be recognised at the outset.
(Of course, I've argued before that in several cases it is, and that theory has been put down quite comprehensively, but I still contest that the teams I reckon are best designs contain this costing (one day I'll get off my arse and prove it... just not today ).)
Moving on, my preffered 'solution' would be to lose all S access on 0-16 players outright (GM is more entertaining and less predictable than GSM). That doesn't the solve GA issue of course, and you might choose to go a step further into the more extreme solution of moving block out to S access (and risk big guys becoming rampant).
I wouldn't do that, but I would look at costing in GA access (note that I think it largely already is!). It's not perfect, but I'm still wedded to the concept that the same resource might be prescribed a different price n a different roster landscape; and so it's absolutely reasonable that their future role (as well as current role) in said roster be costed into their initial price.
Reason: ''
League and tournament hosting, blogging and individual forums - all totally free. For the most immersive tabletop sports community experience around, check out theendzone.co
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
@ VoodooMike
That said, adjusting skill costs still doesn't address the issue that teams with natural access to multiple categories gain both a TV and an access advantage. Unless you either remove the TV tax for rolling a double, or add one for opening access, that advantage will remain in TV. Adjusting access will lead to some fairly homogeneous teams, imo, and I don't want to go down that route.
@ Shteve0
Fluff-wise, TV is the value of the player. A player who has gained more rare (to that race/position) skills is more valuable than one who has not.What is the "fluff" behind doubles costing more in terms of TV? Seems more like a "well, we've been doing it since the start" thing than something that is adhering to any thematic fluff.
Not really. I agree with your description of skills that work on the same rolls, personally. What I am sayong, though, is that there are combinations of skills which give an advantage over an Action (not a roll) which happen to be cross-category, and teams which have natural access to those categories gain the advantage not only in access but in cost. Block and Dodge are an excellent example, as is CPOMB (which, while Claw is of no use against AV7, is of use against all other non-stunty players). Block combines well with CPOMB, as do tackle and frenzy, since the overall result of the Block Action becoming a player out of the game for a turn or more (stunned or better) is affected by all those skills.A lot of this seems to be predicated on the concept of "skill synergy"
Exactly. Those are the teams which seem to do best at higher TVs, so increasing their TVs for the same skillset will mean that either their opponents will get more inducements (mostly league and tournament play) or their opponents will get more skills (all play), thus giving their opponents better on-pitch value compared to what those teams have.What does your system do to "even out higher TV play" exactly? It means that some teams will have higher TVs than they do now... yes, CPOMB heavy teams will. So will Dark Elf teams, likely.. in fact, all the Elf teams will, since they'll all have to pay the TV tax to get agility access.
As I say, I agree. Feel free to come up with a suitable system thoughAdjusting the skill costs themselves, however, accomplishes more without any associated issues...
That said, adjusting skill costs still doesn't address the issue that teams with natural access to multiple categories gain both a TV and an access advantage. Unless you either remove the TV tax for rolling a double, or add one for opening access, that advantage will remain in TV. Adjusting access will lead to some fairly homogeneous teams, imo, and I don't want to go down that route.
Amazons are, as I think you agree, a fairly poor team design even among those we have. Personally I think they are the team which could most do with a rewrite from the ground up. While I accept the basic premise of the statement above, I think that any criticism based on what Amazons would do is fairly weak. I would agree that there may be some short-term advantage for Dwarves and, to a lesser extent, CDs, but they will also gain at high TV, which is where they suffer and where I am aiming.I bet we'd see Amazons curb-stomping people for a much wider TV range with what you're suggesting.
Exactly.They don't - it took a few readings to see what you were precisely suggesting. It comes down to a 10-20 TV tax on each player that has more than one normal skill category and actually wants to use them.
As I said, I'm happy to go either way: remove the tax for rolling doubles, or introduce one for adding normal categories. So long as it is more equitable I've no real issue.I'm pretty much opposed to TV taxation since the game uses TV as a measure of performance for judging the amount of available inducements.
Without an extensive rewrite of the team and player costs such a wide costing bracket is not really feasible. Even extending to 30TV will give some teams (e.g. Dwarves & CDs) a low TV advantage.You use that method to create skill costs ranging from 5 TV to 50 TV. If a skill is very useful, but only in certain situations, you apply a (very rounded) adjustment based on the % of the time that situation is likely to be faced.
@ Shteve0
For the reasons I've stated above and before, I disagree entirely.I'm still wedded to the concept that the same resource might be prescribed a different price n a different roster landscape; and so it's absolutely reasonable that their future role (as well as current role) in said roster be costed into their initial price.
Reason: ''
- VoodooMike
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
Which isn't inherently true - it's only true when the player manages to snag a powerful skill from the doubles categories... that skill is probably no more valuable to said player than to players who can take it on a normal roll, just more unusual. I'm not sure TV needs to reflect "unusual" skill placement, though I know this isn't something we disagree on.dode74 wrote:Fluff-wise, TV is the value of the player. A player who has gained more rare (to that race/position) skills is more valuable than one who has not.
Yes, there are certainly combinations that require access to multiple lists, but not every combination of skill categories creates such combinations, and the component skills of these combinations are not less useful than their portion of the combination, even in absence of the other skills. They're really just stacking effects that apply to the same action, not things that come together to make an unreasonable effect that wouldn't exist without all the pieces of the combination.dode74 wrote:What I am sayong, though, is that there are combinations of skills which give an advantage over an Action (not a roll) which happen to be cross-category, and teams which have natural access to those categories gain the advantage not only in access but in cost.
Since not every combination of skill access categories results in the possibility of a combination... and not every player will benefit from every combination even if one can be made... it seems overkill to start taking EVERY player for having access to more than one normal skill category. I agree that linemen having multiple normal skill categories, without having a negatrait, tends to make those teams better long-term performers... it isn't a necessary condition for good long-term performance, and it will be rough on teams that have poor lower TV performance, as it will cost them more to deal with teams that have linemen that start with skills from a category other than what they'd have cheap access to under your system. Lizardmen won't need to pay any more for their skills, for example, but they're quite a strong roster, even in later play.
It's certainly one way to do it... though again, teams like Lizardmen and Skaven won't be held back at all, and they're also strong performers at high TV. The lower TV play will be even more dominated by teams that start with cross-category skills on their linemen (such as Dwarves and Amazons). I'm just not convinced that what you're suggesting will handle the issue it is meant to handle... and that it won't cause a lot more problems in the process.dode74 wrote:Exactly. Those are the teams which seem to do best at higher TVs, so increasing their TVs for the same skillset will mean that either their opponents will get more inducements (mostly league and tournament play) or their opponents will get more skills (all play), thus giving their opponents better on-pitch value compared to what those teams have.
As I said, I would start by removing all TV taxation anyway... so no additional cost for doubles skills, certainly. While I certainly don't like the additional cost for doubles skills, I don't really think that the additional cost is what is what is causing performance issues at higher TVs... the inability to take those skills, except on doubles, seems a more likely culprit. If you want to add a tax on premium access, you might consider a more simple system which doesn't need to track "unlocks" and instead allows a player to take a doubles skill on a single roll by paying a TV premium, instead.dode74 wrote:That said, adjusting skill costs still doesn't address the issue that teams with natural access to multiple categories gain both a TV and an access advantage. Unless you either remove the TV tax for rolling a double, or add one for opening access, that advantage will remain in TV. Adjusting access will lead to some fairly homogeneous teams, imo, and I don't want to go down that route.
Well, low TV has to be a consideration too - you can't make changes to a game that includes both low and high TV play and say "I don't really care what it does to one of them"... especially since you need to survive low TV play to GET to high TV play. Certainly Amazons are a badly designed team, but unless we're ALSO going to change amazons, they'll be doing terrible things to everybody for a larger TV range if the other teams are being penalized for skilling up their players, while the amazons are chugging along happily as usual... at least in the TV range where most games are being played.dode74 wrote:Amazons are, as I think you agree, a fairly poor team design even among those we have. Personally I think they are the team which could most do with a rewrite from the ground up. While I accept the basic premise of the statement above, I think that any criticism based on what Amazons would do is fairly weak. I would agree that there may be some short-term advantage for Dwarves and, to a lesser extent, CDs, but they will also gain at high TV, which is where they suffer and where I am aiming.
I'm not, of course, opposed to taking a hacksaw to the Amazon roster, either... though revising the cost of skills would probably handle that as well.
I'm not sure I agree. While it would certainly benefit from updating player purchase costs to reflect the updated skill costs, I'm not sure it would be a necessary step for it to work, or to avoid a serious increase in low TV advantage to teams with the starting skills. Since skills that do NOT have significant and constant on-pitch advantage would cost LESS than 20 TV, the TV shift for teams at low TVs would depend on which skills they took... likewise, Dwarf and CD teams don't seem to benefit heavily from inducements either way... their TV progression/win% relationship seems to be "start strong at low TVs, then tank rather quickly at higher TVs" which suggests they're already based on those starting skills, and don't get much out of player progression or inducements.dode74 wrote:Without an extensive rewrite of the team and player costs such a wide costing bracket is not really feasible. Even extending to 30TV will give some teams (e.g. Dwarves & CDs) a low TV advantage.
Teams like Amazons would be paying quite a bit more to accomplish what they can already accomplish in a trivial fashion. Slap a 50 TV pricetag on Block and on Dodge, and I suspect you'd see the Amazons no longer dominating low TV play in the way it does now... since it'd quickly leave the low TV ranges if they had a full lineup of blodging linemen. Since the skill costs would affect everybody equally, the TV <--> Performance relationship would become sharper, and likely teams of similar TVs would move closer to one another in terms of performance at both low and high TV levels.
I agree that players that start with certain skills that they don't pay extra for, would benefit... but they also benefit under what you're proposing when they start with skills from anything but the first category they'd have normal cost access to. Starting skills are just a handy thing to have, and unless the purchase price of the player is adjusted to either reflect the updated skill costs in what I'm saying, or the unlock costs in what you're suggesting, that's just going to be a fact of life.
Reason: ''
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
Indeed. You asked for the fluff justification, though, so I gave it.I'm not sure TV needs to reflect "unusual" skill placement, though I know this isn't something we disagree on.
I'm not suggesting a synergy in the sense of the dictionary definition of the word, as I already said. The fact is that the component parts of the combinations would not be able to be so easily put together without the skill access in the first place, and for those who are lucky enough to roll doubles and get access it costs them more.Yes, there are certainly combinations that require access to multiple lists, but not every combination of skill categories creates such combinations, and the component skills of these combinations are not less useful than their portion of the combination, even in absence of the other skills. They're really just stacking effects that apply to the same action, not things that come together to make an unreasonable effect that wouldn't exist without all the pieces of the combination.
This is where the low individual cost of paying for skill access comes into play. On teams with a few multiple category players the tax will be minimal, but on those with lots of multi-access players, particularly linemen, the tax is likely to be levied on a lot of players, and will therefore be higher.agree that linemen having multiple normal skill categories, without having a negatrait, tends to make those teams better long-term performers
I'm not sure how. The only non-stunty team which starts en masse with a skill which many teams don't have a natural counter to is Zons, and I've already spoken about them. Lizards are quite a strong roster, and they will be paying more to combine the S skills with other necessary skills such as block and tackle. It only happens on a few of their players, so they will pay less than, say, Chaos or the Elven teams.it will cost them more to deal with teams that have linemen that start with skills from a category other than what they'd have cheap access to under your system
Do they need to be? Strong is not necessarily too strong.It's certainly one way to do it... though again, teams like Lizardmen and Skaven won't be held back at all
Possibly, but it's also an aspect which gives each team their own flavour: some have lots of access to one type of skill, some to another, and some to a smattering of each.I don't really think that the additional cost is what is what is causing performance issues at higher TVs... the inability to take those skills, except on doubles, seems a more likely culprit.
So you track the premium instead of the unlock? Doesn't seem like a big change to me, tbh. I also don't particularly like either the fluff aspects (how do you pay for a talent like that?) or the "clunkiness" of such a system (why not simply pay for it on the player up front? After all, who is not going to want to take it?). I think such a route will lead to roster homogenisation.If you want to add a tax on premium access, you might consider a more simple system which doesn't need to track "unlocks" and instead allows a player to take a doubles skill on a single roll by paying a TV premium, instead.
I'm less sure. Since most races' linemen have G access then they can take tackle at no premium just as they do now.unless we're ALSO going to change amazons, they'll be doing terrible things to everybody for a larger TV range if the other teams are being penalized for skilling up their players, while the amazons are chugging along happily as usual... at least in the TV range where most games are being played.
Block at your stated 50TV would be a big advantage for any team with block on lots of players to start with: Orcs, Humans and DE in particular spring to mind. Since they can take more lower cost skills while other teams are still taking block then they will retain their advantage.I'm not sure it would be a necessary step for it to work, or to avoid a serious increase in low TV advantage to teams with the starting skills.
I'm not sure how you're concluding that they don't benefit from inducements based on their TV progression/win% relationship. Surely you'd need to do an analysis of their matches when down by certain amounts of TV at different TVs, and I'm not sure there's enough data to be able to do that effectively.likewise, Dwarf and CD teams don't seem to benefit heavily from inducements either way... their TV progression/win% relationship seems to be "start strong at low TVs, then tank rather quickly at higher TVs" which suggests they're already based on those starting skills, and don't get much out of player progression or inducements.
Not many teams do, though. Zon Blitzers and WE Wardancers are probably the worst offenders, with Dwarf/CD linemen next on the list. Most other players don't start with multiple "top tier" skills - at best they get one.I agree that players that start with certain skills that they don't pay extra for, would benefit... but they also benefit under what you're proposing when they start with skills from anything but the first category they'd have normal cost access to.
Reason: ''
- Darkson
- Da Spammer
- Posts: 24047
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
- Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
- Contact:
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
Screws Vamps.
Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
Vamps do very well as TV increases. I don't think it would screw them that much, tbh.
Reason: ''
- Darkson
- Da Spammer
- Posts: 24047
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
- Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
- Contact:
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
Tv-matched MM or in full leagues?
Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
See here.
What data I do have from Leagues shows vamps doing pretty well - OCC has them at 45.7 to 55.5 win% (mean 50.62%) thus far over 407 matches, and Martin's league data (which I believe is for shorter term, and therefore generally lower TV, leagues) has them at a mean of 42.7% from 324.
What data I do have from Leagues shows vamps doing pretty well - OCC has them at 45.7 to 55.5 win% (mean 50.62%) thus far over 407 matches, and Martin's league data (which I believe is for shorter term, and therefore generally lower TV, leagues) has them at a mean of 42.7% from 324.
Reason: ''
-
- Legend
- Posts: 5334
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
- Location: Copenhagen
- Contact:
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
I like the fact that you don't pay for 'potential'.
During the LRB6 process TV was restructered to better reflect power over potential.
What I don't like if that if you lose your notes, you can no longer tell a skilled player's cost just by looking at his picks.
I also think that paying a premium will make it even less likely to see fun/outlandish skills.
In a nutshell, I think we should go straight to the source, rather than use a system which is well thought out, but still somehow manages to charge a player (say) 40K for catch.
I think we should instead look at which skills or combos are overpowered.
As mentioned before, I still quite like the system where 5 powerskills are worth +10K:
Block (G), Dodge (A), Leader (P), Piling On (S), Claw (M).
A price hike is certainly easier to implement than skill re-writes.
A problem may be rosters starting with Block/Dodge. Not Block so much perhaps, because expensive Block is likely to make wrestle a more popular choice, and Wrestle trumps Block. Not sure about players starting with Dodge. After all they'll pay +10K when the blodge up - which is what they usually do.
But if we are focusing straight on combos, then I think none compare to Blodge and CPOMB.
Maybe just charge for those?
Or, perhaps, since Block is awesome on CPOMBers - just charge extra for block?
Cheers
Martin
During the LRB6 process TV was restructered to better reflect power over potential.
What I don't like if that if you lose your notes, you can no longer tell a skilled player's cost just by looking at his picks.
I also think that paying a premium will make it even less likely to see fun/outlandish skills.
In a nutshell, I think we should go straight to the source, rather than use a system which is well thought out, but still somehow manages to charge a player (say) 40K for catch.
I think we should instead look at which skills or combos are overpowered.
As mentioned before, I still quite like the system where 5 powerskills are worth +10K:
Block (G), Dodge (A), Leader (P), Piling On (S), Claw (M).
A price hike is certainly easier to implement than skill re-writes.
A problem may be rosters starting with Block/Dodge. Not Block so much perhaps, because expensive Block is likely to make wrestle a more popular choice, and Wrestle trumps Block. Not sure about players starting with Dodge. After all they'll pay +10K when the blodge up - which is what they usually do.
But if we are focusing straight on combos, then I think none compare to Blodge and CPOMB.
Maybe just charge for those?
Or, perhaps, since Block is awesome on CPOMBers - just charge extra for block?
Cheers
Martin
Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
-
- Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
- Location: Near Reading, UK
Re: Paying for multiple normal skill access, e.g. GA, GSM et
As I've said, I've no issue with repricing skills themselves, but this does nothing to alter the fact that players with extensive normal skill access will still pay less for those skills (and therefore combos) than those players with limited normal skill access. A 6338G player will still always pay more for Blodge than a 6338GA player despite the fact that they are exactly the same capability on pitch.In a nutshell, I think we should go straight to the source, rather than use a system which is well thought out, but still somehow manages to charge a player (say) 40K for catch.
I think we should instead look at which skills or combos are overpowered.
Reason: ''