Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 13:10 |
 
|
To answer the question: Yes 3*1000 should not be more difficult to manage than 3*176, because the SPP > 176 are "over the top" and only reflect in team rating, not power.
For me the goal of the system is to cap team power. And Grum is right thats the crux of the whole topic.
Some interesting things have been raised in the last postings:
Some people were argueing about how to limit "uber-players".
I strongly oppose that the solution to a ST5/Block/Tackle/Claw/Piling On/ Mighty Blow/Pro chaos warrior is waiting for his Coach to retire him.
Same goes for the MA10\VLL\Sprint\Sure Feet\Catch\Dodge gutter Runner.
I think how powerful a single player can become is subject to skill/trait & starplayer roll rules.
Also, I imagine at high TR apothecaries will be rare, so the chances for a guy to level up that high are worse than before.
Has anyone some links to high TR DivX teams thar were created under the new rules? |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 13:17 |
|
| Force wrote: | | Has anyone some links to high TR DivX teams thar were created under the new rules? |
No, the rules have only been changed recently. The only high TR teams around in divx (i.e. tr 250+) were all created before those changes. Have a bit patience (and play more divx games :p)
-Mnemon |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 13:26 |
|
I think the current (Open) system works beatifully, and TR is IMO far better than TSTR which is a no-brainer system. You have to manage your TR to get the most out of it, in order to force (no pun intended) the most handicap rolls out of your opponents. I have an Elf team with two VERY good catchers (both have Blodge, one has +ST the other +AG on top of that) and I try to not give them SPP's wherever possible, so that 1) they won't age out, and 2) I won't end up with skills that increase my TR a lot, but which I don't need.
So IMO Team Rating works very nice.
oh and as a side note, I find that most players max out around skill 3, max 4. Anything on top of that in unneccessary icing, people should have the OPTION of getting their players to "lvl. 7" but they would have to pay for it, and if they want to keep using those same players then they should pay for that too. From a fluff perspective, just think of the players increased ego/maintenance/whatever demanding more and more of the team's resources.. a vote for never change TR! |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 13:27 |
|
Wow.. this thread must be a barn... judging from the amount of horse shit being shoveled around... |
_________________
 |
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 13:42 |
|
| MixX wrote: | | I find that most players max out around skill 3, max 4. Anything on top of that in unneccessary icing, people should have the OPTION of getting their players to "lvl. 7" but they would have to pay for it, and if they want to keep using those same players then they should pay for that too. |
I agree.
However i think there should be a maximum TR impact a single player can have. Lets assume we have player that is equipped with 5 skills (76SPP) and basically has everything he needs. Then you use him a lot and he levels up to 176 SPP but only gains superflous skills. That boost your TR by 20 Points but you gain almost nothing from it.
Imho thats enough (TR) price to pay for keeping such a uber-player.
So i am not questioning the concept, i just want a maximum. If someone says: 500 SPP should be the maximum, thats ok with me. The number of the max is subject to discussion. However I think 176 SPP is just fine, because you basically carry the (increasing) burden from 76 to 176 already, with each additional player multiplying the effect. |
|
|
phillier
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 14:23 |
|
I didn't read everything so sorry if this was already suggested. Instead of peaking why not take new skills after the seventh to replace others. As players age they learn new skills and may forget others. This also gives players a chance to regain str, ag, or ma lost from aging as they may have hired a personal trainer to extend their career(doesnt matter in dX I realize). |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 14:30 |
|
well, I can see what you mean but I don't agree - but that all depends on how you like to play the game. The games I enjoy the most are low-TR games where tactics and strategy count for more than uber-players and player-protection-issues. (or in short: ladder games  ) |
|
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 15:50 |
|
| Force wrote: |
I agree.
However i think there should be a maximum TR impact a single player can have. Lets assume we have player that is equipped with 5 skills (76SPP) and basically has everything he needs. Then you use him a lot and he levels up to 176 SPP but only gains superflous skills. That boost your TR by 20 Points but you gain almost nothing from it.
Imho thats enough (TR) price to pay for keeping such a uber-player.
So i am not questioning the concept, i just want a maximum. If someone says: 500 SPP should be the maximum, thats ok with me. The number of the max is subject to discussion. However I think 176 SPP is just fine, because you basically carry the (increasing) burden from 76 to 176 already, with each additional player multiplying the effect. |
You still don't get it. Using such a good player all the time (and you will, cause he is damn good) gives him more and more SPP which reflects his skills and his useability for his team. Therefore he should raise and raise until the coach decides that a one man show is no longer acceptable OR he dies on the pitch. (Basically the reason why i find star players lame and don't use them).
And you miss a second point. There is a maximum. It just can be bend until infinite. The maximum is the moment when you retire the player. Easy call, easy go and it works like suggested. Use your player all the time and you pay for using him. Don't use him and he will stay at his current stage. Easy go in my mind.  |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
Wol
Joined: Jan 08, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 15:58 |
|
I find that the aging roll resulting in a capping of the player SPPs is a pretty good idea.
Remove the capping for the 7th roll, then, because it would be damn great to cap your player after his 7th roll. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 17:14 |
|
I'm with Grumbledook here. 
Toby/Force/Cpt.Powerpoint, if a player with 7 skills peaks at 175 SPPs and still earns many more SPPs then he seems to be incredibly strong. And I don't think that such players should be around forever. If a player is that good you should have to pay for it and that's exactly what the rules achieve by counting SPPs beyond 175 SPPs, for a very good reason IMHO. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 17:36 |
|
Right I am locking this thread now both sides have been said and we are just going in circles now.
Don't start this up on another topic or i will delete it because all the points from both sides are already stated on this one and its down to differing opinion now. |
|
|
|
|
Roster Tiers
Search
