Negative Traits, how can they be improved.

grotemuis · Post by **grotemuis** » Fri May 23, 2003 7:52 am

Dave wrote:
grotemuis wrote:maybe it's a good idea to design a big guy for every team and to take into account the way the teams play
no please don't. That would give os only teams with BG's.

Take some away, make them scarce pleeeese

I don't think you got the idea of my post. What I meant was for each team (that now has access to big guys) just one big guy representative of that race (exception chaos). then there would be no whinging about fluffier options, you only have one. And if you think the big guy isn't as good as another, oyu can just play the other team

Post by **Dave** » Fri May 23, 2003 8:35 am

ahhh, you got me there, agreed then!!

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Fri May 23, 2003 10:39 am

Please explain to me your logic in saying that some (apparently randomly selected) teams, should not have Big Guy access.

If you are going by the fluff, then Dark Elves should have access to all Big Guys, as they are notorious for using monsters and large creatures as slaves. While, Dwarfs and known to despise them, in fact they have a whole cult devoted to slaying them.

So we know it is not fluff.

Team balance maybe? Do orcs really need another high strength high AV player? Do wood elves need a treeman to win regularly? How about Skaven? None of these teams with Big Guys would be classed as a poor team without them. Currently they are classed as some of the strongest. Losing their Big guy would help bring them back into middle of the pack balance.

So it is not Game Balance.

What is it then?

Why should every team not have its own Big Guy type player?

Post by **Thadrin** » Fri May 23, 2003 11:48 am

Because every single team having a big guy is INCREDIBLY boring?

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri May 23, 2003 2:21 pm

Thadrin wrote:Because every single team having a big guy is INCREDIBLY boring?

Nah, that's not true at all. Lizardmen have a lot of character.

And they taste like chicken.

Post by **Dave** » Fri May 23, 2003 10:06 pm

actually like frogs-legs but that's okay

It is indeed boring to have teams with BG's only, they can add character to single teams (mino for norse for example) or fun (treeman throwing 'Flings) rules.

No fun at all if every team has them

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat May 24, 2003 9:04 am

Dave wrote:It is indeed boring to have teams with BG's only, they can add character to single teams (mino for norse for example) or fun (treeman throwing 'Flings) rules.

No fun at all if every team has them

I agree with this, i'd like to see the teams with BG's be more interesting because they have chosen to play with a powerful but unreliable big guy, where other teams dare to tread.

This character is negated where every team plays with a BG because it is there is an overwhelming tactical reason to do so. (Note I am excluding those gentlemen players here who do not use BG's or choose lesser ones for fluff reasons).

The only way this will be overcome is by following both of the suggestions that have already been made:

1. Reduce access to Big Guys on certain teams
2. Make the more mild negatraits more of a disadvantage

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Sat May 24, 2003 8:20 pm

So how do you decide who gets them and who does not?

Fluff? Balance? or randomly pick a few favored teams to become more powerful?

I have already debunked the first two, leaving the last one.

The only reasonable way to give out Big Guys is to give them to the weakest teams. Thus, only two or three teams should ever get them. Unless you nerf them to lineman usefulness, through negative traits.

As for it being no fun if every team has them, how so? Why is it fun now, if no one hardly play without them? Is it not fun to have choice? Is it less fun to play with them?

This is faulty reasoning, Big Guys could be made fun for everyone without taking away the fun from a few randomly selected teams.

Each team getting its own unique racial Big Guy would be fun and interesting. The current state of "always take a big guy if you can, to stop the other sides big guy from eating up your team" is not fun.

Post by **Dave** » Sat May 24, 2003 8:25 pm

I agree with your last statement.

If less teams have acces to a big guy, the way of choosing becomes different. 'Do I want reliability' or 'Hmmm, ST5 AV9'
This can make you choose in favour af a team with access or make you choose for another team without.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:39 am

So everybody then chooses teams that can have them, because the over all benefit far outweighs the negative for any of the non-wild animal big guys. Thus creating even less diversity than there is currently.

The only way to have big guys and still maintain balance, diversity, and fun, is if every team has its own unique racial big guy. If you make it so they are all somewhat different than each other, yet fitting the fluff for the team and balance for the game, then their should be no problem.

Post by **Dave** » Sun May 25, 2003 11:33 am

I don't think so, there are many people who prefer Ag based teams. Hardly any big guys there. If the unreliability of BG's gets worse (or better, depending how you look at it) more coaches will not have a BG in their starting team but buy it much later on. Thus there will be more diversity. Giving every team a BG, makes less diversite as all teams will have one in the end, or even from the beginning.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun May 25, 2003 12:14 pm

i played my chaos dwarfs for about 23 games before i got a troll and in only use him to get hit

there are also plenty of coaches on fumbbl who just play elf teams

Post by **Dave** » Sun May 25, 2003 8:45 pm

And I think they'll stay, even if all other teams have acces to a BG, or if only some other teams have that..

Bevan · Post by **Bevan** » Sun May 25, 2003 10:30 pm

MistWraith wrote:The only way to have big guys and still maintain balance, diversity, and fun, is if every team has its own unique racial big guy. If you make it so they are all somewhat different than each other, yet fitting the fluff for the team and balance for the game, then their should be no problem.

I prefer the current system where Big Guys are somewhat unreliable so that it becomes a difficult choice whether to take one or not. If the negative traits are just right it then doesn't matter if some teams don't get them.

Wild Animal is probably too severe, but that will probably be adjusted.
Bonehead is probably not quite severe enough. Very few coaches consider it a difficult choice whether to add an Ogre to the team or play without one.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun May 25, 2003 10:56 pm

wild animal is fine, after block and pro its not so much a problem, i believe its the only negative trait that actually makes the coach decide if they want to take one or not, personlly i don't take them but other coaches swear by them

the other big guys its kinda a no brainer to take them, sure they may be kinda useless at times but they don't have a detrimental effect

for those reasons i think wild animal does the job the best

Talk Fantasy Football

Negative Traits, how can they be improved.

Unreliable Big Guys