CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 18:02 |
 
|
As there is a bit of discussion about the TS formula that comes up in different threads, I want to bundle it here. Also I have been thinking about formula tweaks from time to time and I think here would be a good place to order it properly. Mayhaps Christer might read the suggestions or even might want to join the discussion.
I will try to sum up stuff that comes up in the discussion here. Problems as well as possible solutions. So if you feel like rambling about the TS formula shafting your team, just post it here.
For discussion, it might be good to keep the TS reference page in mind.
Circ's personal choice tweaks:
1) Tweak on +stats skills
At the moment, +stats increases the TS value according to the attribute grid and on top of it the cost for a regular skill (2+cumulative). This leads to situations, where +ST or +AG is overpriced. Most prominent examples are low AV players without skills that get multiple statsincreases. While a +MA+ST hobgob is nice, is he really worth the 15TS you pay for him? A BT saurus is cheaper (12TS) and most of the time more efficient.
Therefore I want to propose, to change the costs of stats increases. The TS value is changed according to the attribute grid and the cumulative gets a base +1 for +ST, +0.75 for +AG and +0.5 for +MA/spikes.
2) Tweak on AV calculation for high power players
At the moment, AV is incorporated in the player worth with a fixed value. But armor becomes more valuable, the better the player is that is wearing it. A human lino has 2 more TS than a hobgoblin. A +ST guard block tackle human lino contributes only 1 more TS (because both player values are above 12) than a +ST guard block tackle hobgoblin. The chances of leaving the pitch haven`t changed for both - but the impact has.
As a solution, I would like to modify another fixed variable: The Star Scaling Factor (SSC)
| Reference page wrote: |
If the player value is higher than 12, set player value to 12+(player value-12) / 2 |
If you replace the bolded '2' with a multiplier depended on the AV of the player, then stars with a glass chin will not grow in worth as fast as those that you can use in the middle of a fray without fear.
I would suggest to make the initial modification to 3/2.5/2/1.5/1.3 for AV6/7/8/9/10 respectively. Numbers are up for discussion.
An alternative tweaking option would be the star discount threshold (SDT), that is currently set at 12.
By modifying the SSC or SDT you could also account for the survival skills block and dodge and in a negative way for the stunty skill.
3) Big Guys and general use skills
If a player has the Big Guy trait, increase the player value by 10% for each of the following list of skills:
- block
- dodge
- pro
- tackle
4) Core skills and survivability
There are players that are massively overpriced, because they have statsincreases but low armor and lack block or dodge. On the other hand, a superskink with ST4 and block is still dispatched very easy, as the +1 inj modifier of stunty combined with the AV7 reduces the fieldpresence significantly. Therefore I want to propose an alternative to the generic blodge bonus: A modification to the star discount threshold.
At the moment the TS of every player is modified, if it exceeds 12. I want to propose the following:
1) Move this threshold to 10.
2) Block increases the threshold by 2.5
3) Dodge increases this threshold by 1.5
4) Stunty reduces this threshold by 4.
Optional adjustments:
1) Every guard increases the threshold for the whole team by 0.1.
2) ST5+ increases the threshold by 2.
3) AG4+ increases the threshold by 1. |
Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %25, %2010 - %12:%Feb; edited 2 times in total |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 18:42 |
|
There are certainly some quirks with TS, but that is likely with any system.
I find it strange that Block Ogres are less TS than Guard ones, I think most stunties quickly become overpriced with just Side Step and Diving Tackle, and I think Elves are penalised for taking Blodgers and yet, I still see little point in changing the system.
Since we are moving towards LRB 5.0 in the future, it would perhaps be better to just wait for that. If some changes were to be made, then perhaps TV should be used more as a guide, although we would not have wrestle to compensate for the strength of blodge.
But, if you are just discussing TS, then it's the high cost of 2 skill stunties that I think is really out of kilter. |
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 18:45 |
|
The cost of stunties was only raised fairly recently.
It used to be that a sidestep stunty was the same TS value as a rookie one.
Can't determine wether the tweak was overdone though. |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
Thomcat
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 18:46 |
|
1) Tweak on +stats skills
First of the stats increases are often worth the bigger TS value (and hey there is noone forcing anyone to take them). It has to be taken into account that stat-increases often indirectly gives the team an extra positional player. Excample a +ST orc lineman can to some extend work as a BOB. Giving the team more options - it is even more obvious that a noskilled +ag beastman is worth more than a noskilled Dark elf Lineman - even though they pretty much look alike. Having +AG on a bashing team just add more to the team than when a ballhandling team gets a +AG. This is also the reason why the Count is involved so heavily in Undeads successes. So IMO stat increases (if they are changed) should be more based on Race than on pure stats.
The part about Low AV players with stat-increases I completely agree with - but should that not be handled in the AV debate?
2) Tweak on AV calculation for high power players
In general I think AV cost way to LITTLE in TS - and it gets worse with every skill the player get. And it is amplified on teams where all 11 starting players have High AV. To me upping the TS in a way that would make players like Trees more expensive is not what this is about. A tree (or players like it) are already priced high - and upping them would just make even more leave them out of their teambuilds. High AV is to me like the statsquestion more a Racebased problem. It is not single players having high AV that is the main problem. Because every team can handle being 1-2 men down - it is more a problem when it is hard to get anyone of the opponent players of the field.
But generally I think your proposed solution is AWESOME and will bring more even games.
3) Big Guys and general use skills
Agree - But there are other just as great double skills for some Big Guys. Lets include Mutations as well - I would choose Claw or Tent anyday over dodge and pro on a minotaur on a double.
(Just so this do not sound like a bashing of Ogre teams only hehe) |
_________________
Og inviterer hermed alle danskere MED godt humør ind i #fumbbl.dk |
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 18:48 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | But, if you are just discussing TS, then it's the high cost of 2 skill stunties that I think is really out of kilter. |
Perhaps Stunty could be treated like the Big Guy traits and given a blanket % reduction of the player worth? I mean, if you're considering the increasing TS of players based on AV, why not consider the "skill" most likely to get your own player removed from the pitch? |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 18:53 |
|
I like the suggestions.
How possible is it to encorporate anonymous functions into the calculations?
For example, it would be nice to be able to stack the impact of a skill, giving it an increased ranking the more times you have it. Eg: 5 players with block/guard may be more effective than 1 player with block/guard and 4 players with block/diving tackle (as silly as the example is).
The specifics obviously can be determined, I was just wondering whether it is possible to consider the entire team as a unit when deciding the effectiveness of a skill? |
_________________
http://www.calculateyour.tv - an easy way to work out specific team builds.
 |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2010 - 19:01 |
|
I would have suggested, that stunty lowers the the star discount threshold by 3. So the star discount would hit at 9 TS (with the first skill). |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 12:17 |
|
New suggestion:
Core skills and survivability
There are players that are massively overpriced, because they have statsincreases but low armor and lack block or dodge. On the other hand, a superskink with ST4 and block is still dispatched very easy, as the +1 inj modifier of stunty combined with the AV7 reduces the fieldpresence significantly. Therefore I want to propose an alternative to the generic blodge bonus: A modification to the star discount threshold.
At the moment the TS of every player is modified, if it exceeds 12. I want to propose the following:
1) Move this threshold to 10.
2) Block increases the threshold by 2.5
3) Dodge increases this threshold by 1.5
4) Stunty reduces this threshold by 4.
Optional adjustments:
1) Every guard increases the threshold for the whole team by 0.1.
2) ST5+ increases the threshold by 2.
3) AG4+ increases the threshold by 1. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 12:51 |
|
I think most of the ideas would be big improvements.. however modifying a price modifier by 4 for stunties seems to be a bit much considering the other modifiers for AV. After all you can very well compare it to having one less av. Of course mathematically the impact will be the worst if both odds are reduced in the middle, still it is only the second roll after AV. It isn't easier to stun such a player. Maybe you should just calculate the stunty skill as having one less av and reduce it maybe by another 0.5...
As for block dodge i dunno /care if the modifiers are too high...
But since we are talking about it... increasing the price for dp was wise but increasing it so much was a bit of a longshot so i'd suggest, bumping it down a little to four.
Also the stars could need some serious fixing. Zara adds there almost as much as the count while she has only av8, one less strengh and can be banned from the game. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %25, %2010 - %16:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 12:59 |
|
As a mainly necro coach the biggest issue i have with the TS system is taking +ag +ma on a zombie will make that zombie worth more than a wight, that just doesn't make sense. The normal arguement for this is that another ag3 player on a necro team is worth a lot, however this only holds true if you have the full compliment of positions at the time, if not then the zombie is not as good as buying a new player. Give that play block and it becomes more the twice as good as a -ma wight.
Also as was pointed out in a blog, the value of dauntless should negate the penalty of having a low strength more, for example dauntless runners, or -st dauntless slayers. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 13:52 |
|
heh yeah... zombies are really a pain... a st4 zombie is just not worth as much as a st5 mighty blow mummy that's missing on your team... if you'd have to face a real undead team like this you'd just get wasted... |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 14:37 |
|
Wreckage, you realize, that the modification I proposed is not a direct TS modification, but a modification of the star discount threshold. As stunty always comes with dodge, that would mean that up to a TS of 8.5, there is no difference between the current and the proposed model. Only if the stunty gets valuable, the discount kicks in.
The star-values are probably best estimated on a fixed value instead of the formula, because they don`t take into account the +stats rolls involved in creating them.
Dauntless could cut the low-ST modifier in half. So worth 1.5TS extra on ST2 players and 3TS extra on ST1 players. Sounds about right? You still have to roll and you still are blocked more easily. |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 14:40 |
|
The dauntless idea sounds spot on, would you also take that into account for high str dauntless players?, i.e a dauntless ghoul that get's to strength 5 (can't remember whose it was) |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 15:27 |
|
You could imagine a reduction of -1 per ST point over 3. |
|
|
Gromrilram
Joined: Aug 28, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2010 - 15:31 |
|
ok i like the general approach of a lot of your things, but just one quick thought:
"While a +MA+ST hobgob is nice, is he really worth the 15TS you pay for him? A BT saurus is cheaper (12TS) and most of the time more efficient."
i dont like that comparison.
scoring: an MV 7 AG 4 player is increibly good at scoring in 2 turns. Do that with a saurus...
blitzing: mv 7 and 2+ dodges give you a huge range to blitz with st4. mv6 and 1 times 2+ and than 5+ dodges make that A LOT less.
general bashing: the only point where the saurus with av9 wins.
so to sum it up: the hobgoblin wins at the crucial sitiations. what is why i dont see a necessity to deal with it. |
_________________
Every problem can be solved by a Desert Eagle .50 |
|
|
|
1150 - OWA TT Tourna...
Search
