Carthage
Joined: Mar 18, 2021
|
 Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 02:15 |
 
|
Yes its done now, but its for a moderate gain. With your system it would double the gain because you would save on both the skill cost and the redraft cost associated with that skill.
I *might* do it to save 20k. I'm *absolutely* going to do it to save 40k.
I'm not saying its a bad system. Just pointing out a weakness of it.
Might instead scale it off total career gained SPP? 0-10 is 20k, 11-20 is 40k, etc.
Which would track more the fluff of what agent fees realistically are. The bigger stars of the team demanding more money. It would also prevent the SPP banking, scale costs up when you pick a stat instead of a skill, and provide some risk-reward for at least the first 2 random rolls so people maybe keep them during redraft instead of firing and hiring fresh guys. |
|
|
Diablange
Joined: Apr 27, 2020
|
| Posted:
Jun 07, 2025 - 21:48 |
|
| Carthage wrote: | Yes its done now, but its for a moderate gain. With your system it would double the gain because you would save on both the skill cost and the redraft cost associated with that skill.
I *might* do it to save 20k. I'm *absolutely* going to do it to save 40k. |
Your example only stands if you put a 100% skill fee. Of course a possible choice, but if you take a "more reasonnable" fee of 50%, then you have to compare 20k and 30k only.
| Carthage wrote: |
Might instead scale it off total career gained SPP? 0-10 is 20k, 11-20 is 40k, etc.
|
That would be interesting too, yes. And it should also work for both 2016 and 2020 skilling systems. Only drawback is the number of spp needed to have skills is not linear, meaning either your formula shouldn't be linear either, or having a formula not very accurate.
All these possibilities seem better to me than the current system, honestly. |
|
|
[Suggestion] Add an ...
Search
