dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 11:10 |
 
|
| tmoila wrote: | | dode74 wrote: | | Basically makes all BHs come back on the pitch until you roll your first perm/MNG, |
No, BH players would only return to reserves if the second result would also be BH AND apo is used. |
Ok, my misunderstanding. But does that mean that you cannot apo a BH back onto the pitch unless BH is rolled again? |
|
|
Foad
Joined: Sep 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 11:23 |
|
Firstly, this isn't a troll - and I'm not judging...
But.... Can an admin fix the spelling in this thread title? Every time I look at my Overview and see this thread in the Recent Forum Topics, I get a "I wonder if this kid is complaining about the RNG or CPOMB" moment...
Secondly, with the loss of aging, I think the apoth is fine where it is... |
_________________
They see me Trollin', they hatin'...
 |
|
cdassak
Joined: Oct 23, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:20 |
|
With BHs there is no need for the apo roll, just the decision to use him now or save him for another injury. The big difference is with serious injuries and deaths where you get to see the apo result first and then decide whether to use him or not. The proposed rule protects you from apo 'failures'... |
_________________
 |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:32 |
|
exactly, apo failures are an important factor in attrition.
I think Voodoo mike might actually be right, it really seems people want zero attrition in this game.....  |
_________________
 |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:46 |
|
| Garion wrote: | exactly, apo failures are an important factor in attrition.
I think Voodoo mike might actually be right, it really seems people want zero attrition in this game..... |
Lol u only just realised?! |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:52 |
|
Its so utterly selfish though, these people want to cause cas, but they want it to be impossible to get hurt. Its ridiculous.
Yes there is a problem in this edition with cpomb being too dicey, but attrition is absolutely vital. I just cant get my head round it..... who cares when players die???? Their reason for living is to die to help you win a game. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:56 |
|
He is right. People want it to be an MMO, where you never actually lose anything. People are loss averse (stuff as opposed to games). Losing players has a long-term effect, losing games does not, so the logic is simple.
That doesn't mean the game should change to pander to popularity, though. This is a niche game because it appeals to a limited audience who think a bit differently to those MMO players. Turn everything into McDonalds just because it is popular and you lose the Fat Duck at Bray. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:57 |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:59 |
|
Wrong thread  |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 13:01 |
|
|
tmoila
Joined: Nov 25, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 13:11 |
|
I understand that attrition is needed.
What I would hope to gain by this change, is reduce the amount of attrition in a single game. Yes. in effect you would not use apo if it fails. If it fails, you lose the player anyway. Thus in a single game you wouldn't lose 3 stars and possibly the game if your first apotechary fails and you let that one star die. Amount of attrition would in fact stay pretty much same, who heals other than good players anyway?
And if the BH-recovering is important, it could be still used as it is now. If apo is used (=spent) when initial casualty was BH (regardless of the other result), player is put to reserves. KO's can also be turned to stuns as usual, by spending apo. |
_________________
gg |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 13:14 |
|
no one would use it on BH anymore though, because of how good it is at protecting skilled players. People would just use it on the first skilled player injured, then decide whether or not to use it after it works or fails. Obviously if it fails they would save it for the next one. If it works they would then decide. |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 13:22 |
|
| tmoila wrote: | I understand that attrition is needed.
What I would hope to gain by this change, is reduce the amount of attrition in a single game. |
And what do you think the long-term effects of that would be? |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 13:34 |
|
exactly, the only problem attrition wise in this edition imo, is too much comes from one source CPOMB or PO against Av7 teams, where I would rather see it more evenly spread, using buffed fouling and surfing instead. So that teams don't gain silly player advantages so quickly in a drive within 1 or 2 turns, whilst still maintaining the player turnover required to keep team's TV down. Personally I'd also rather see a little more low TV bash (again, buffed fouling) so that creating perfect killers or perfect elf ballers becomes a little harder. at the moment the jump in attrition between low and high TV is to severe a more steady stream of attrition would again be beneficial imo. |
_________________
|
|
Wizfall
Joined: Dec 09, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 19, 2014 - 16:50 |
|
As someone who only see the apothecary as a way to have a cheap extra player/an on pitch advantage and not a way to save a star i dislike this house rule a lot.
Although i find CPOMB to be massively unfunny and a bad gameplay mechanics (too good coaches'skill equalizer and create too much one sided game early, not necessary OP depending the matching system though) overall attrition rate is fine and should not be lowered. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
