Negative Traits, how can they be improved.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:09 am

It is always better to take any non-wild animal big guy, that it is to not take one.

If anything, the neg traits need to be very negative. So negative in fact, that you only see big guys rarely, not all the time.

Further more, how do you determine who gets to have a big guy? The current crap shoot method is faulty. The only fair an equitable way, is to give them to everybody, and make them so negative that only a few teams will use them.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:18 am

i disagree with giving them to everybody

the teams that dont' get them atm don't need them, if they did then statistics would show that

while its true that all the other teams don't need them also letting them have them hasn't unbalenced them to the teams that don't get them

besides a big guy on undead would suck and the elves don't need one

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 26, 2003 3:46 am

I wholeheartedly agree. I would hate seeing every team have a big guy. Talk about borebowl. It's balanced as it is now, which proves that not every team needs a big guy.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Mon May 26, 2003 5:28 am

So in your opinion, randomly distributing who gets a big guy is balanced? Because this is the way it has always been, and you like the status quo.

Unfortunately, you are failing to see that there is a better way, one which will end the big guy wars and bring back diversity. Simply nerf all the big guys through negative traits, and then give everybody one. then you will not feel the need to take one to counter the other guys.

The only other alternative, is to take them away from all but the weakest of teams.

Unless you like randomly determining what team gets blessed with a big guy.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon May 26, 2003 12:20 pm

Why don't you argue against these stats based on over 25000 games and tell me they aren't baleneced?

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=stats&op=development

look the high and dark elves are doing rather well in % games won and so are the amazons for that matter

look at the lowest 4 excluding flings and goblines in the 200-250 tr range, orc, norse, chaos and dwarfs and then the next team is humans all of which have a big guy.

Post by **Dave** » Mon May 26, 2003 9:11 pm

Scary, I find myself agreeing with you grumble. All the time for buggers sake..

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Mon May 26, 2003 9:26 pm

Tell them to put the base statistics out in a standard table or spreadsheet.

Currently, their interpeted data is near usless.

You need to factor in the win ratio of the coaches, take similar win ratios and compare how they did with the teams. Curently it is sorted by team rating, with no regaurd given to the coach. A simple list of the top 100 teams, by win ratio would be helpfull. As would a list of the ratio of teams that fild big guys to those that do not.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 26, 2003 10:26 pm

Hey, amazons are easily one of the best teams there is, no matter who you ask. And high elves are just as good as wood elves, maybe better. You don't need big guys to be competitive, and you don't need statistics to prove that point either. A little experience with a team that doesn't have any should be enough to convince you.

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Mon May 26, 2003 10:35 pm

So you are saying that teams like orc's need their big guy to be competitive?

Did teams need their big guy's before they added the rules for rookie big guys?

Does any team (other than stunty) need a big guy at all?

If so, then how do you determine who get the privilege of having one?

If the negative traits balanced out the advantages of having a big guy, then why can't everyone have a big guy to have fun with?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon May 26, 2003 10:44 pm

when did anyone say they need the big guy to be competative?

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Tue May 27, 2003 12:31 am

You are saying that the teams, without a Big Guy, are strong enough. So that is the same as saying the other teams with Big Guys need them to keep up with the teams without.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue May 27, 2003 12:34 am

the teams without a big guy would benefit way more than the teams who got one have

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Tue May 27, 2003 12:46 am

How so? Many of the teams now benefit greatly with a Big Guy, the same teams who are still extremely competitive during the rare occasions that they do not take a big guy.

How is it any worse to add a big guy to High Elves than it is to have one on the Wood Elves? Without the treeman, Wood Elves might be considered on par with the High Elves (although I would still rank them slightly better) add in the treeman, and their is no comparison.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue May 27, 2003 1:20 am

the big guys compliment the strengths of the teams they are on, adding them to the others eliminates their weakness

MistWraith · Post by **MistWraith** » Tue May 27, 2003 1:27 am

Which would be the textbook definition of a treeman on the wood elf team.

What is the strengths of a wood elf team, high movement and agility 4.

What are their weaknesses, Cost and armour.

So, by your logic a treeman should make the wood elves faster and better at handling the ball because he helps with the strengths of the team.

What kind of a treeman does your league play with, because it in no way resembles the one in the LRB?