| Poll |
| Which grammar style would you prefer? |
| Previous style - He/His/It/Its/etc. |
|
52% |
[ 23 ] |
| Modified style - The Singular They |
|
47% |
[ 21 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 44 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
 Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 13:39 |
 
|
I still don't understand the concept of "journeyman abuse", but this is a whole different story, I guess |
_________________
 |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 13:46 |
|
I think it's the people that are vehemently against "journeyman abuse" that are the ones that don't understand. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 13:54 |
|
I added something called the bench to the next revision. A comment in the thread reminded me i wanted rosters of 20 players where you could elect up to 16 players each game to customise your roster somewhat for each opponent. Wait until you see that and the. We can talk how broken/exploitable it is and how JMen fit in that picture. |
_________________
 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 13:59 |
|
There are a couple of problems with it though. Which came up in my thread. |
|
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 14:58 |
|
| WhatBall wrote: | | I added something called the bench to the next revision. A comment in the thread reminded me i wanted rosters of 20 players where you could elect up to 16 players each game to customise your roster somewhat for each opponent. Wait until you see that and the. We can talk how broken/exploitable it is and how JMen fit in that picture. |
You're talking about having a 4 men reserve that would only join your team when you decide to?
It makes sense in TT environment where the number of games are limited, but on FUMBLL... I would put all my stat freaks in the reserve and save them for tournaments. I believe even my Flings would become scary with those three guys randomly showing up (uninjured of course), plus one of the many blodge tree I've had:
The Hulk, the Flash, the Sneaky
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea on the paper, but if it looks scary already with Flings, what would it be with WE or Nurgz?  |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
 |
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 15:33 |
|
We could call it the Rule of 4
Best 4 players on the bench, never gonna get pombed there.
Next best 5 hidden in backfield.
The Meta metagame. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 17:12 |
|
Well, you would still be restrained by roster limits, so these "scary" players would all essentially be linemen as any reserve positionals would just be swapped out for another. And having 4 scary linmemen would therefore be a suboptimal approach as you would have no reserve positionals and your one dimensional team would likely be dumped out of every tournament in the second round.
The point of a bench would be to:
a. create more strategic team building with specialist players
b. create more tactical thinking during prematch setup
c. encourage matches at any tv with any team
d. allow easier recovery after the death of a star player (via a resevere)
d. make it much harder to flatten a team mid-tourney
I think the idea of a "bench" does work best though where you introduce some other changes so as to maximise its potential.
Personally, if you were to take this approach my suggestions would be,
Allow an 8 player bench - so that team selection on large squads really is flexible
Discount tv value of players 12-16
Bring in variable periods of mng, ie 1-6 matches
Consider reducing the likelihood of perms
Allow bribes and a masterchef to be a rostered "player(s)" for gobbos and halflings
Increase net money via winnings
Allow the sale of players (but not to other teams, as that invites abuse)
increase the tv value of journeymen for teams over 1300tv, but allow journeymen up to 13 players
Make SW players optional, ie field 10 players and keep the chainsaw in reserve |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 17:39 |
|
Appreciate all the ideas for abusing he bench and suggestions to avoid issues. Keep them coming. |
_________________
|
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 18:01 |
|
| uzkulak wrote: | | Well, you would still be restrained by roster limits, so these "scary" players would all essentially be linemen as any reserve positionals would just be swapped out for another. And having 4 scary linmemen would therefore be a suboptimal approach as you would have no reserve positionals and your one dimensional team would likely be dumped out of every tournament in the second round. |
Nope, I think you missed my point.
If you play enough games, you will get stat freaks. It's easy, you just have to be patient. The hard part is to keep them alive. But if you put them in the reserve as soon as you're happy with their development and save them for tournaments, then the probability of having them maimed or killed is drastically reduced. And in the meantime, the survival rate of your other players (including other potential stat freaks) drastically increases as you don't have to save your apo for your legends.
Also, that would give an unfair advantage IMHO to teams with players who alone can make the difference and win games. Think one-turners for instance. We've seen how broken they can be in the hands of a decent coach (including in the last major), but they're also fragile. Now what if the guy had one or two more one-turners in reserve? Or what again if those one turners didn't have to play outside tournaments, and therefore were assured to survive while you're skilling up the rest of the team, hidden in the reserve? And the same reasoning probably goes as well for stat freak wardancers, AG4 thro-ras, ST5 blodge blitzers, etc... |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 20:53 |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 21:26 |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 22:12 |
|
In will check that out when I get a chance. One idea I had is that stars are too pompous to be benched. No player over 50 SPPs would be able to be benched. |
_________________
|
|
tmoila
Joined: Nov 25, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 22:28 |
|
Or any benched >50SPP player would have 50% chance of leaving the team? |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 22:32 |
|
| tmoila wrote: | | Or any benched >50SPP player would have 50% chance of leaving the team? |
Yes, something similar to concession rules. I also thought of that, but wondered why anyone would risk it. It just seemed to be an extra rule for little/no gain. If a team were for some reason to be able to field 11 or more 51 SPP+ players, then there would need to be a rule to handle that. |
_________________
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 06, 2015 - 22:51 |
|
Well, the idea of a 20 man team with 4 reserves is also the idea that you have 16 full time players. So you cannot have a team of 16 and put 4 in reserve and play with 12.
This idea is from 2ED. Blood Bowl and that was how it was done then. Remember back in the day the goal of team development was to ALWAYS have a 16 man roster, the rules were written that way. You could not have reserve players until you had 16 full time players active for the next match.
Now also in 2ED Injuries could have players out for multiple matches. So those players missing the next 8 games would go into reserves as an example. |
_________________
Comish of the: 
Last edited by PainState on %b %06, %2015 - %23:%Jun; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
