24 coaches online • Server time: 09:01
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2012 - 18:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Random mutations could actually be the very thing to demarcate Moulder from the other stunty rosters (btw, snotlings have regen from the swarm aspect as well right?)

With each and one of them being a unique mix of left over living parts this could also go for the Abomination (being a star player or big guy as I think it should be).

E.g.

0-1 Abomination
3 6 1 9
Loner, Break Tackle, Stand Firm, Animosity*, Really Stupid, Disturbing Presence, 3 random mutations

* Changed No Hands with animostity, since some mutations involve ball handling. It's reluctant to give the ball back to any lesser ratlings.
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2012 - 18:05 Reply with quote Back to top

SvenS wrote:
Doubt we need more gimmicks to keep them unique
(As a rather well known coach used to say "Stunty teams should have a schtick". Mutations are Moulder's schtick moreso than anything else right?

SvenS wrote:
as you reminded me of when TTM was in Wink).
I objected to TTM because throwing Giant Rats was silly. Wink
Olesh



Joined: Jun 24, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2012 - 22:27 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
So a 6 2 3 7 Dodge, Grab, G, P (ASM) is 100K on your chart!? Really?
...
Fixating on a cost formula for players and disregarding the synergy, or lack thereof, of those skills on the team is wrong.

Not all skills are of equal worth depending on the situation. Skills that are more valuable on one team may not be as valuable on another, it's the TEAM as a whole that needs to be balanced. (e.g. How much does "the chart" say Break Tackle is worth? Do you think it would be worth as much on a St 2 as a St4 player?)


When did I ever mention anything about a chart? Don't bother - I didn't. You also seem to have conveniently ignored (or failed to comprehend) that I considered the team (and costs!) as a whole, even going so far as to calculate what the cost of a roster of 12 would be.

In fact, in my original writeup regarding the team, I even explained my entire methodology, including which players I used as examples for reference. Do you have some sort of issue with the technique I used? Do you disagree with the specific pricing? I have stated a position and offered the basis of my position. If you want me to consider you seriously insofar as disagreement is concerned, you should have the courtesy to point out where, exactly, I'm wrong in your view - and much like I'm obligated to provide support for my assertions, you have a similar requirement to provide countering evidence for your rebuke.

In short, I do not use a "cost formula". I price players based on their skills and how valuable those skills/players are in the context of a whole. That's why, for example, I don't generally consider passing access on the Packmasters to warrant an increase of price. Any additional utility or benefit gained from that access (based on how they are currently) is earned through play and player development and diversity in that respect should be rewarded, not punished with increased costs.

You have yet to actually do any of this, instead merely making (flawed) assertions that I haven't considered the team as a whole and attempting to dismiss my argument via ridicule rather than debate.


SvenS wrote:

Concidering the rats Olesh do you honestly think 6 rats makes the team more over powered then 4??
The more of these you field at once the less effective they get :/


Let me go into my reasoning a bit more.

Rat Ogres: These are big guys. They do big guy things, and in the context of stunty these are some of the best big guys around. They deny an area, are more likely than other big guys to be able to knock down a given player (frenzy gives them better odds at rolling a pow in most circumstances). This is partly counterbalanced by the fact that frenzy can be a hindrance sometimes and come back to bite you if you aren't careful. But it's really valuable nonetheless.

Packmasters: These look like combination ball-managers and blitzers. You could build them as carriers, build them to knock guys down, strip the ball, whatever. General skill access lets them be really reliable at knocking guys down and stealing the ball, and when they're not doing that, they've got grab which is useful for clearing jams and opening holes for players to run through or cages to reposition.

Giant Rats: These guys are major threats on the field, basically miniature big guys. Frenzy and piling on make these guys a lot more likely to take the average stunty player off the pitch, and with no hands they don't ever have to be concerned with actually handling the ball. They're a lot like squigs in that regard, except they're harder to knock down (Since they have dodge), they can blitz cages with reasonable safety (they're stunty), and they need assists to do their thing.

Thrallings: These guys are really good at repositioning themselves - Dodge, stunty, and titchy means they're as unlikely to trip as you're going to get without some sort of outside influence (tackle, prehensile tail, diving tackle). ST1 on the field would normally mean that these guys are a weak link on the field, offering regular ST2 guys straight up 2DBs without assists except that this weakness is marginalized by the fact that you only have to field two of them at a time with a full roster. Their ability to dodge away on a 2+ with reroll also means that it's unlikely that you'll end up standing next to a guy who will punch you unless you're offering an assist to a rat - who, in all likelihood, will punch him away in short order.

Taken as a whole, this is a team that relies on a very strong bash presence to tie down the enemy team and win a player advantage on the field. And the team's a glass cannon, which I dislike from a balancing perspective. You have four players on the field to reliably handle the really stupid players - if one or more of these gets taken out, then your ability to affect the field outside the limited zone of your wild animals/non-stupid players is drastically reduced.

Fundamentally, if you reduce the number of giant rats on the field, you've mitigated the bash threat by a small degree (the odds of you being able to arrange six favorable ST2 frenzy blocks in any given turn are pretty small, but by having fewer rats you actually increase the effectiveness of the remaining ones). You can do this without reducing the maximum number of positionals. If I were to play the team as-is, I would likely not field more than 4 rats at the same time but I would absolutely want the extra 2 rats in reserve for use in case one or more goes out.

However, this sticks in my craw. If a player takes down a giant rat through tactical fouling or bash player, they should be rewarded for their success by having to deal with fewer rats on the next drive. As-is, the easiest way to victory against this team would be to focus on the thrallings and the packmasters - with fewer rats on the roster, the overall expense of fielding full positionals goes down and the team has more control over their own plays and more available chaff.

When I talk about balance, I don't strictly mean underpowered or overpowered. It's possible for an aspect of the team (for example here, the Giant Rats) to be strong in limited quantity but a liability in larger doses. A player's individual pricing is a part of the team's overall pricing, and teams which have very strong players should have their players priced appropriately to represent the overall cost of the team - at a given TV, the more expensive team should have fewer additional skills, or fewer spare players, or fewer rerolls, whatever the compromise is necessary to ensure that any given matchup, including inducements, is reasonably fair.
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 20, 2012 - 22:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Thx for a well thought through and extensive reply Olesh! Smile

Hope you dont think Im too negative to your feedback, its exactly what we need with new team discussions.
I'll get back to you tomorrow on the subject.
Cheers

On the random mutations subject I have to say I doubt we'd get a "go ahead" from the admins on that even if I was completely sold on that idea (which Im not Wink ).

Asking for custom rules / extra work from Big C is a bit much IMO. lets stick to what we have available rulewise.

_________________
IL-S

SL
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 02:25 Reply with quote Back to top

Olesh,
First off, if I've offended you I apologize, that was not my intent. I think we simply have a different way of approaching the issue. I'll try to be more clear on where I think we differ:

Olesh wrote:
Packmasters: Using a stock goblin (6237), for two doubles skills you should be paying 100k. Losing stunty and gaining G access, as per the example of the Head Carver, is worth another 20k (reduced by 10k for being over 100k), bringing it to 110k.
You seem to be following some kind of "pricing formula" (if not a "Chart" per se) correct? My point is that these formula were not meant for Stunty and many of its assumptions are therefore inapplicable/incorrect.

Olesh wrote:
You also seem to have conveniently ignored (or failed to comprehend) that I considered the team (and costs!) as a whole, even going so far as to calculate what the cost of a roster of 12 would be.
As I said, I don't think I'm making myself clear...I didn't ignore that you considered the team, I simply feel that way you approach it is incorrect. You have to evaluate individual Position costs in the context of the team, compared to other teams, not just comparing a position from one team directly with one from another. A position on one team may not be priced the same as a similar (or even identical!) position on another because of the dynamics of the team composition or other (fluff?) factors. (this factor may be the big difference between our approachs)

Olesh wrote:
I even explained my entire methodology, including which players I used as examples for reference. Do you have some sort of issue with the technique I used?
Obviously I do, and therein lies the misunderstanding. I get what you're doing, I just don't agree with it. I think you're focusing on evaluating the position vs other positions on other teams, whereas I'm focusing on evaluating the team as a whole vs other teams as a whole.

Olesh wrote:
If you want me to consider you seriously insofar as disagreement is concerned, you should have the courtesy to point out where, exactly, I'm wrong in your view
Obviously I haven't done this as effectively as I hoped to.

Olesh wrote:
In short, I do not use a "cost formula". I price players based on their skills and how valuable those skills/players are in the context of a whole.
It certainly seems that you do (see first quote of this post).

Olesh wrote:
Giant Rats: These guys are major threats on the field, basically miniature big guys.
You do realize they are St2 right? It seems a rather big stretch to call them "miniature big guys". I would agree with your reasoning if they were (like Squigs or Mechavermin) St 3 or 4.. but St 2 RS, Frenzy, PO without G Access seems very, to invent a word, un-uber

SvenS wrote:
On the random mutations subject I have to say I doubt we'd get a "go ahead" from the admins on that even if I was completely sold on that idea (which Im not Wink ).


Christer has shown a willingness in the past to do small things in an effort to help make stunty work (e.g. Nurglings create Nurglings not Rotters). I don't think it's a given that he wouldn't be willing to have the "Buy new player" assign a mutation at purhcase. Given that the coding would be fairly trivial and the idea fits so well with the team.

(I think you should design the team the best way you can and only if told that what you want can't be done do you scale back)

****************************************************

With all of the above said, I feel like I've done what I can to offer ideas to help make an interesting (imo) new team idea for Stunty. I did it because I like Stunty and I enjoy game design. Obviously I have my own opinions on how things can/should be done and other's may disagree, but hopefully it has been helpful. I think I'm going to end my participation in this thread. Good luck to Sven with the team idea and I'll see you all on the pitch.
Olesh



Joined: Jun 24, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 07:02 Reply with quote Back to top

I'm not offended, just a bit disappointed. I'm not sure what I could possibly say to convince you of my position, Craftnburn, but it doesn't seem terribly necessary at this point, considering your refusal to attempt a debate. You took your ball and went home. In future, you might find it more worthwhile to advance your own position (with appropriate examples and support) rather than trying to find flaws with reasoning that you don't quite comprehend.

--

SvenS: I'm not sold on the idea of random mutations, either. It seems like the sort of thing that would end up being gamed by coaches who have the money to afford to fire/rehire players until they get a mutation that they want.

I'm glad you find my feedback helpful.
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 07:28 Reply with quote Back to top

Olesh wrote:
I'm not offended, just a bit disappointed. I'm not sure what I could possibly say to convince you of my position, Craftnburn, but it doesn't seem terribly necessary at this point, considering your refusal to attempt a debate. You took your ball and went home. In future, you might find it more worthwhile to advance your own position (with appropriate examples and support) rather than trying to find flaws with reasoning that you don't quite comprehend.

I apologize for possibly offending you and you insult me on the way out... Very classy.
Olesh



Joined: Jun 24, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 07:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I'm sorry you feel insulted, as that was by no means my intent. However, I've resigned myself to the understanding that any criticism, no matter how well-meant, might be misunderstood and taken personally by those to whom it is directed - especially over the internet where concepts such as "tone" and "intent" are so difficult to judge. In any event, I no longer lose sleep worrying about it, but I do wish you well in all your future endeavors (whether outside this thread or not).
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 15:14 Reply with quote Back to top

Olesh wrote:

Rat Ogres: These are big guys. They do big guy things, and in the context of stunty these are some of the best big guys around. They deny an area, are more likely than other big guys to be able to knock down a given player (frenzy gives them better odds at rolling a pow in most circumstances). This is partly counterbalanced by the fact that frenzy can be a hindrance sometimes and come back to bite you if you aren't careful. But it's really valuable nonetheless.

Ageed. They are very good stuntyhunters, but also pretty much the only option for taking on oponents big guys in the list.
As such they are also pretty vulnerable with av8.

Im leaning towards having only one, but the relative vulnerabilty of the RO along with the lack of any other options to take on non stunties, makes me hesitate.

One option if the team turns out too underpowered with just 1 is to make it non loner (better trained RO in Clan Moulder then regularly) which would also explain why it can semi-lead the rats. Might be too much though so I say we'll start with 1 regular one.

Olesh wrote:
Packmasters: These look like combination ball-managers and blitzers. You could build them as carriers, build them to knock guys down, strip the ball, whatever. General skill access lets them be really reliable at knocking guys down and stealing the ball, and when they're not doing that, they've got grab which is useful for clearing jams and opening holes for players to run through or cages to reposition.

As the leaders of the team I say they need what the rest lack: reliability.
As they will be targetted I prefer them with dodge, but as I explained earlier only st2 to avoid them being superblitzers. Non stunty means more durable but less likely to dodge thru TZs.
While Grab would be fun in the team, its the skill Im least set on.
I think maybe 6237 Dodge, leader G access is the way to go. Again a leading from behind skill instead of a blocking skill. Prehensive tail (whip) would also be cool but I dont want to stack to many skills on them from the start.

Olesh wrote:

Giant Rats: These guys are major threats on the field, basically miniature big guys. Frenzy and piling on make these guys a lot more likely to take the average stunty player off the pitch, and with no hands they don't ever have to be concerned with actually handling the ball. They're a lot like squigs in that regard, except they're harder to knock down (Since they have dodge), they can blitz cages with reasonable safety (they're stunty), and they need assists to do their thing.

I think you are overvaluing the rat threat in actual play. Basicly they are great stuntyhunters but due to being very hard to control (both RS and frenzy in an environment where SS is very common).
They are also very much glasscannons and will take injuries both from blocks and fouls.
They are a liability against any big guys.
These guys could potentially get the dreaded clawpomb, but Id say most guys will prefer block on the 1st double and claw aint that useful on a low St player in stunty (mechas being main exeption).
I doubt they will live long enough to get the combo frankly.
Also dont underestimate the drawback with multiple no handers.

Olesh wrote:

Thrallings: These guys are really good at repositioning themselves - Dodge, stunty, and titchy means they're as unlikely to trip as you're going to get without some sort of outside influence (tackle, prehensile tail, diving tackle). ST1 on the field would normally mean that these guys are a weak link on the field, offering regular ST2 guys straight up 2DBs without assists except that this weakness is marginalized by the fact that you only have to field two of them at a time with a full roster. Their ability to dodge away on a 2+ with reroll also means that it's unlikely that you'll end up standing next to a guy who will punch you unless you're offering an assist to a rat - who, in all likelihood, will punch him away in short order.

Well put. I think to use this team successfully you need more of these then you put on.
They are the underappriciated glue that keeps the team together. Im concidering upping their cost now that they got titchy (2+dodges).

Olesh wrote:
Taken as a whole, this is a team that relies on a very strong bash presence to tie down the enemy team and win a player advantage on the field. And the team's a glass cannon, which I dislike from a balancing perspective. You have four players on the field to reliably handle the really stupid players - if one or more of these gets taken out, then your ability to affect the field outside the limited zone of your wild animals/non-stupid players is drastically reduced.

Fundamentally, if you reduce the number of giant rats on the field, you've mitigated the bash threat by a small degree (the odds of you being able to arrange six favorable ST2 frenzy blocks in any given turn are pretty small, but by having fewer rats you actually increase the effectiveness of the remaining ones). You can do this without reducing the maximum number of positionals. If I were to play the team as-is, I would likely not field more than 4 rats at the same time but I would absolutely want the extra 2 rats in reserve for use in case one or more goes out.

However, this sticks in my craw. If a player takes down a giant rat through tactical fouling or bash player, they should be rewarded for their success by having to deal with fewer rats on the next drive. As-is, the easiest way to victory against this team would be to focus on the thrallings and the packmasters - with fewer rats on the roster, the overall expense of fielding full positionals goes down and the team has more control over their own plays and more available chaff.

I disagree. The teams identity is closely tied to the crazed rats, and where's the fun in playing them if you run out of rats too quickly.
I think 1 or 2 reserve rats makes sense.
I like that fact that you can focus on taking out the non rats much like thralls on a vamp team (every team should have at least a drawback).
Olesh wrote:

When I talk about balance, I don't strictly mean underpowered or overpowered. It's possible for an aspect of the team (for example here, the Giant Rats) to be strong in limited quantity but a liability in larger doses. A player's individual pricing is a part of the team's overall pricing, and teams which have very strong players should have their players priced appropriately to represent the overall cost of the team - at a given TV, the more expensive team should have fewer additional skills, or fewer spare players, or fewer rerolls, whatever the compromise is necessary to ensure that any given matchup, including inducements, is reasonably fair.

Well put again. Though you are kind of contradicting yourself on the rat issue Wink
I'll go over the costs again and post up a revised version.

Thx for the detailed feedback once again! Much appreciated! Very Happy

_________________
IL-S

SL
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 15:56 Reply with quote Back to top

0-1 Rat Ogre 6 5 2 8 Loner, Frenzy, Mighty Blow, Wild Animal, Prehensile Tail - S (GAPM) 140k

0-2 Packmasters 6 2 3 7 Dodge, Leader, G,M (ASP) 90K

0-6 Giant Rats 7 2 3 6 Dodge, Stunty, No Hands, Really Stupid, Frenzy, Piling On - A,M (GSP) 80k

0-12 Throtlings 5 1 3 6 Dodge, Stunty, Titchy - A, M (GSP) 40k
RRs @70k
Apo yes
Wiz No

Stars:

Abomination 5 6 1 8
Loner, Prehensile Tail, Break Tackle, Claw, Disturbing Presence, No Hands, Really Stupid, Stand Firm
Cost: Hell of expensive! 250k+?

Ratcentaur 7 2 3 7 Loner, Dodge, Stunty, Dauntless - 80k

Packmaster lord 7337 Loner, Block, Guard, Prehensive tail (whip) - 130k?

Less ROs, more M access higher costs.

Still need feedback on the stars too!

_________________
IL-S

SL
MisterFurious



Joined: Aug 11, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 18:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Would it be too much to give the Rat Ogre SM access? It is a potent combination, but there's only one Rat Ogre on the team plus, there's several Big Guys in the Stunty Leeg that get it.
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 19:43 Reply with quote Back to top

MisterFurious wrote:
Would it be too much to give the Rat Ogre SM access? It is a potent combination, but there's only one Rat Ogre on the team plus, there's several Big Guys in the Stunty Leeg that get it.

Not sure. It would make its easier to handle opponent BGs for sure.

If there is any skaven list that ought to have blanket M access I guess its the Moulders though.

_________________
IL-S

SL
Olesh



Joined: Jun 24, 2010

Post   Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 23:59 Reply with quote Back to top

It's really hard to give good feedback on stunty stars. At least, I feel it is. I will say that I really like the most recent revision of the team as-is. Consider me temporarily converted in regards to the current version of Giant Rats, i.e. 0-6. I'd also give P access to the Packmasters A quick mathing out of a full 16 roster puts the price at 1080k for 16 players. Certainly on the expensive side, but you can moderate the cost by not running a full set of Giant Rats right away (which, as previously discussed, you probably wouldn't necessarily want to do right off the bat).
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 22, 2012 - 09:26 Reply with quote Back to top

Thx!
Agreed on the stars hence the request for help! Very Happy

_________________
IL-S

SL
SvenS



Joined: Jul 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Feb 23, 2012 - 22:23 Reply with quote Back to top

Here is the icons I made but they are pretty useless compared to the stunning S work we're currently seeing, so if anyone more talented feels up to making new ones be my guest! Wink
SvenS wrote:
Icons:
Imagemoulderpackmaster1.gif
Imagemoulderpackmaster1an.gif
Imagemoulderpackmaster1b.gif
Imagemoulderpackmaster1ban.gif
Imagemoulderrat1.gif
Imagemoulderrat1b.gif
ImageRatcentaur1.gif
ImageRatcentaur1b.gif
ImageRatcentaur1an.gif
ImageRatcentaur1ban.gif

_________________
IL-S

SL
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic