Brainstorming team growth.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:08 pm

And what do you suggest for the poor norse coach?

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 4:37 pm

If you drop AV from 8 to 7 you're adding 5/36 to 10/36 for a total of 15/36 of the time that armour's broken, whereas 7 to 6 adds 6/36 (to the former 15/36) for a total of 21/36.

The raw PERCENTAGE increase isn't more, but the actual physical DIE ROLL POSSIBILITIES that can break your armour are more. The percentages are misleading in this case, due to the fact that 7 is the most common result on 2d6.

Of course, if you add something like Mighty Blow to that AV6...then you just see lots of -AV Elves dying all over the place... (26/36...ouch.)

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 6:00 pm

Dragoonkin wrote:The raw PERCENTAGE increase isn't more, but the actual physical DIE ROLL POSSIBILITIES that can break your armour are more. The percentages are misleading in this case, due to the fact that 7 is the most common result on 2d6.

I do know, and understand the difference. No need to shout.

My point is that Av7 players who drop to Av6 actually suffer a lower proportional increases in armour breaks than Av9 who drop to 8.

Of course they still suffer more armour breaks but the ratio has changed to be slightly more in their favour.

This ratio more important when discussing who suffers the most for the change. Also to bear in mind is that Av7 players generally are expected to run away, rather than hang around and fight.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 6:25 pm

i don't like the based on TR attacking the top players on that team because this aversely affects teams that can't score often/well with lineman. Dwarves/Undead rely on dedicated scorers and would have their scorers attacked. Ag teams can easily score with anybody so they are at an advantage at spreading out spp's. So this method would not be balanced.

I think the best alternate would i've heard so far is increase the aging roll to every 25 spps' .. that way you get your first two skills... the most major complaint i've heard. But I would start the ageing roll at 4 or 5 + then. also if a player gets to a 7th skill without ageing by having it every 25 spps' he'll still have a chance to age unlike the current system.

SBG · Post by **SBG** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:32 pm

I agree with you here gken1: to me, this is the suggestion that is the most appealling, if screwing with my players can be appellaing in any way.

It is still limked to player development, but not skill related. Starting the rolls at 4+ would be fair, I think. By the time you reach 51 SPP, you would then have 4 skills, but only two ageing rolls, 5-3 at 76, I think it is the fairest way we've found so far.

Again, only my two cents (I better start counting, or this thread will cost me a lot!!!

)

Fred

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 9:45 pm

As a Norse coach I really don't like the idea of decreasing AV. Yeah, elves, stunties, amazons and skaven play the dodging game, but that's not really their style. If this was brought in Norse would need an AV increase.

Sushé Wakka · Post by **Sushé Wakka** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:10 pm

I second Darkson. Norse are already on the lower end of the competitive teams, and this kind of modification will hurt Norse much more than any other team, as they are the only lightly armored team that cannot get away of the pain efficiently.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:19 pm

If you want mechanics for lowering the AV of player without hurting some teams more than others, then use the AV as the stick.

There are two ways I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Check every X games for AV reduction. Roll an Armour roll. If they pass then lower their AV. Example: A player with AV 7 rolls an 8, so their AV stays the same. If an AV 9 player rolled an 8, then they would go down. This is a self resolving system because if a player starts losing AV, then it becomes harder for them to lose more.

2. Have AV filters. Let's say you wanted every player to end up with a 6 AV after 30 games. (These are just example numbers to explain the mechanic) You could then make a chart like this:

Max | Games
AV -| Played
10 - 10
9 - 15
8 - 20
7 - 25
6 - 30

When a Player reaches the above games played and their AV is higher than the list value, they must lower it to the new max.

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:46 pm

Darkson wrote:As a Norse coach I really don't like the idea of decreasing AV. Yeah, elves, stunties, amazons and skaven play the dodging game, but that's not really their style. If this was brought in Norse would need an AV increase.

Yep. I can't see why they're not designed with AV8 already - if Troll Slayers have AV8, why can't the norse have it? With the AV7, they must already have a hard time getting competitive at the highest TR:s.

Neo:s suggestion with rolling for AV to see if there's an AV decrease could work, if it's implemented with TR rolls or current aging rather than "roll every X game". But I'm not sure if AV decreases really would be worse for low AV stars then for high AV ones. A wardancer type of player with AV 5 could very well have better chances to stay on pitch than a saurus with AV 7, don't you think? Or a troll slayer with AV 6? Hmm.

To me, MV and AV decreases would be the most interesting and characteristic way of representing aging. Perhaps that super catcher really is competitive even though he's down to MV6? And maybe that orc blitzer still is of so much use that he should be kept on the team even if he often misses the second half of the matches?

Add to that the joy of getting more star players trashed on pitch when AV gets lower, and it can't get much better

Micke

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:15 pm

yer but it has the drawback of keeping a match record for every player

Perrinbash · Post by **Perrinbash** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:29 am

If they pass then lower their AV

wouldn't this be unfair to the higher av teams as they are more likely to "pass"?

Have AV filters.

So in this case by the 30th game all players would have the same AV?

I occasionally play dwarves and am not sure that I would anymore if I knew after X games that I would have the same AV as woodies or skaven.

rolling for AV to see if there's an AV decrease could work, if it's implemented with TR rolls or current aging

I still think even if used in this manner it would hurt high av teams more than low av. see comments above

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:52 am

A rather straightforward solution to get rid of ageing would be to simply raise the later levels for skills:

Code: Select all

1st skill:   6 SPPs
2nd skill:  16 SPPs
3rd skill:  31 SPPs
4th skill:  61 SPPs
5th skill: 121 SPPs
6th skill: 241 SPPs
7th skill: 481 SPPs

- no ageing/peaking
- one table less, less rolls
- uberplayers would have a significantly higher impact on TR

SBG · Post by **SBG** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:24 am

Good idea Mirascael! Your solution removes what is I think the most hated thing in the game.

Fred

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:27 am

What, people with more than four skills?

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:31 am

Elfball...lalalala...Elves hate to age...lalalala...let's remove Blocking from the game too so all the Elves can live forever to score hundreds of touchdowns...lalalala...