Talk Fantasy Football

Okay, I hope this appears as simple written down as it seems in my head. The basic idea is that when rolling for an Improvement you would get to choose skills equal to the (current) value of that Improvement instead of a normal skill. So for example, if you rolled double 6 (worth 50K) you could choose a 'normal' skill (20K) and a 'doubles' skill (30K) instead. Alongside this some normal skills would be changed in price, ranging between 10K-30K.

I'll try to address some of the issues this system might bring up later in the post, but for now let's spell out exactly what the table I'm imagining might look like:

*IMPROVEMENT TABLE*
2-9 = A single New skill of any value or new skills with value no greater than 20K.
10 = Increase the player's MA or AV by 1 point or a single New skill of any value or new skills with value no greater than 30K.
11 = Increase the player's AG by 1 point or New skill(s) with combined value no greater than 40K.
12 = Increase the player's ST by 1 point or New skill(s) with combined value no greater than 50K.

Note : the new skill(s) a player takes must always come from the categories he has normal access to unless the Improvement roll is a doubles.

Alongside this some skills would change in the value they add to a player's TV, summarized below:

10,000gc = Fend, Kickoff Return, Pass Block, Pro, Shadowing, Catch, Sprint, Sure Feet, Diving Catch, Hail Mary Pass, Nerves of Steel, Dump Off, Grab, Thick Skull, Strong Arm, Extra Arms, Disturbing Presence, Prehensile Tail, Very Long Legs, Horns, Big Hand.

20,000gc = everything not mentioned elsewhere

30,000gc = Block, Dodge, Leader, Guard, Piling On, Claw

Skills players do not have Normal access to and have to be gained by rolling doubles cost +10,000 instead of the flat 30,000.

As you can see, lots of things go into the 10K list, as this will encourage people to take two good skills instead of the same good (but boring) one or two.

For example, an Human Lineman rolls a Normal Improvement. He could take :

Block, adding 30K to his TV.
Wrestle, adding 20K to his TV.
Fend and Pro, adding 20K to his TV.

To me this perfectly logical. The Block guy is the better player, and the Wrestle guy is probably still better than the Fend/Pro guy. But this gives coaches the option to mess around more without being punished quite so harshly. At the moment there really is a right and a wrong way to build teams, and poor old skills like Pass Block don't get much of a look in.

Note that this doesn't increase the frequency of doubles skill access, and doesn't change how likely a player is to get any given skill. I don't like the stick of traits, that stops you taking certain skills. I much prefer a carrot system like this, that rewards coaches who try to build outside the cornerstone skills such as Block/Dodge/Guard. It also has a built in mechanism for punishing abuse of ClawPOMB. Note that some of the 10K skills are in that list because the only players who want them require a doubles to get them. E.g. NoS is a skill desired by catchers, and isn't worth 30K (the same as Block) IMO. I'd also say stunties don't have to pay the 10K doubles penalty. 40K for a Block Goblin ain't right.

Thoughts?

The Block guy is the better player, and the Wrestle guy is probably still better than the Fend/Pro guy

Here's an example of where I have an issue. The effectiveness of the skill will depend on the role of the player. Wrestle is better on a ballhunter than block is, and arguably wrestle is better on lineelves than block (as they have a reasonably high MA anyway and easy access to Jump Up). Similarly, wrestle is often better on a safety (for taking down blodgers).

The worth (as opposed to cost) of a skill is entirely dependant on the opposition. Tackle is worthless unless the opponent has dodge somewhere on their team, for example. Any attempt to make an "accurate" system is doomed to failure as it will either be too inaccurate for some or too complex for others - there is no middle ground that people can reasonably agree on.

The worth of one skill on one player in one situation varies greatly. There will always be one turn where Pass Block is of more value than Block. That is not the point of such a system. Rather, it is to judge the worth of each skill on thousands of players over 16 turns of thousands of games. And indeed, quite crudely to either 10K/20K. So Block is better than Wrestle unless you need a player to take down someone with Block at the cost of going prone yourself. Block is better than Wrestle in the vast majority (perhaps 19/20 situations). Average out that cost, and you find Block is categorically worth more than Wrestle (for example).

Given that justification what are PO and claw doing there (PO is not always useful, and claw is completely useless against many players)? And leader, I'd argue? In fact, leader is one where all you're really doing is nerfing the cost-effectiveness of a thrower.

If you're talking about the universal usefulness of a skill then I think you're missing that the specific usefulness of a skill on a specific player is more important. A skill doesn't need to be used in order to be of use - pass block is a typical skill which divides the community in that manner.

I think I see what you're trying to do, I just don't see the need. You've come up with a solution without defining the problem. In a word: why?

It also has a built in mechanism for punishing abuse of ClawPOMB.

Is this the real nub of the issue? Another CPOMB thread?

dode74 wrote:If you're talking about the universal usefulness of a skill then I think you're missing that the specific usefulness of a skill on a specific player is more important. A skill doesn't need to be used in order to be of use - pass block is a typical skill which divides the community in that manner.

I completely disagree. When it comes to what a skill is worth in terms of TV, it's universal usefulness is all you can sensibly consider. How can you award a permanent cost/value in gold crowns to a skill based upon it's potential in some theoretical situation in a future game? Why would you want to? But it relatively easy (in fact you can bring it stats) to see that over even 16 turns of one game a player with Block is better than a similar one with Fend. I agree that "a skill doesn't need to be used to be of use", because this is a fairly empty statement. But considerations of worth must bring in relative use, not a binary comparison between useful and worthless.

dode74 wrote:I think I see what you're trying to do, I just don't see the need. You've come up with a solution without defining the problem. In a word: why?

To increase the variety of skills and skill combinations seen in developed teams without changing the fundamentals of the skill descriptions, Improvement mechanism or TV. IMO there is nothing wrong with certain skills (e.g. Pass Block, Fend), but they are clearly suboptimal in comparison to Block/Guard etc. This offers a way for people to have more fun building their teams without having to completely abandon being competitive. Fend just obviously isn't worth the same as Block.

Is this the real nub of the issue? Another CPOMB thread?

Nah that was just an aside.

I like it, but I think the idea as you have it is a bit much. Certainly, it's better for some players than others. What Block or Block/Guard BOB would take +AV or +MA, if he could instead have Fend, Grab, and Thick Skull? My, that would be a frightening player: 4/4/2/9 Block, Fend, Grab, Guard, Thick Skull, 150k....

Also, that's the death-knell for the Dark Elf Runner as a unique piece. Meet the 31 SPP High Elf Thrower with Blodge/Nerves/Dumpoff. At 51, he gets Catch and Fend. 76? Sure Feet and KOR. 76 is like 20 games for that guy. 6/3/4/8 Block, Catch, Dodge, Dump Off, Fend, Kickoff Return, Nerves of Steel, Pass, Safe Throw, Sure Feet, still not done, no special rolls, 190k TV....I think you should take your 10k list, give or take, and make it easier to get them. But not two-for-one.

And then there's the whole matter of Wood Elf Catchers. Sure Feet and Diving Catch, for one improvement? Well, maybe not the first one, but after that, you bet I'm taking at least one guy with Block, SF, DC, if the DC is free?

Doubles on a Gutter Runner? VLL, Horns. Next skill, doubtless you'll think of something. Then when he gets the improvement after Leap, give him your choice of two from Pass Block, Pro, and Shadowing.

Got a MA10 player? Spend a normal skill on Sprint + Sure Feet. And then there are the Werewolves and Wardancers who just keep getting better and better....

Would be good for big guys who aged without doubles: Guard, SF, (Grab + Thick Skull) is much nicer than staring down the bare cupboard.

What about this? "If you have one of these (your 10k list) skills before you select your fourth or later improvement, you can take another one, free of cost, in addition to the improvement, once per player." That would limit it to advanced players and cut down on cheesiness. So, for instance, your Zombie with Block, Tackle, and Fend rolls doubles at 51 SPP: you give him Guard, and he gets (Sure Feet, Thick Skull, Kickoff Return, Pro, Sprint, Grab, whatever) tacked on just because! If he didn't get doubles, you could give him Kickoff Return or Pro, or you could hold on until he hit 76 SPP, or even 176 (probably not). But if he had Block, Tackle, and Guard, he'd need to wait for 76 SPP, because he doesn't have anything from the lesser list yet.

You don't need to incentivize middling skills. Wrestle is a tactical decision, and coaches who choose it know they're taking something that's not as good as block. They take it anyway, and usually they have good reasons.

Horns has no business up there. It's a good skill already for a select few players, and I betcha Horns/Fend on a Marauder or Ratnegade is better than you think! I kind of think Fend doesn't belong there either, unless your intent is to see Norse teams with skadz of Fend/Pro Linos. (Roll 10, get free Shadowing or Pass Block.) It does make some sense if you don't let players cash in right away. Pro might belong there, but be warned that elves can cheez that skill pretty well too.

I think you should work to fine-tune it, balance it downward, and whatever you come up with, give it a go! Good basic idea.

I agree it's a good basic idea, but like Matt, I think that being able to take 2,3,4 or even 5(!) skills for a single roll is a bit much.

I disagree with Leader being in the 30K bracket, for the reasons Dode gave, but then I disagree with Leader being a Pass-based skill - move it to General, and it can stay as 30K (I always thought it stupid that the "captain" of the team became the Thrower).


But this is just a step closer to individual advancement tables for races/positionals - not necessarily a bad thing imo, but to "complicated" for the average gamer (if some are to be believed).

To increase the variety of skills and skill combinations seen in developed teams without changing the fundamentals of the skill descriptions, Improvement mechanism or TV.

Developed teams where? Is this a league issue or an MM one?

mattgslater wrote:I like it,
[snip]
Good basic idea.

Matt puts things in a much more coherent fashion than i could and his idea regarding bonuses at higher experience levels isn't bad as long as the league environment could handle it but i think even that is a min/maxers dream.

I do like the idea of a Thrower getting Strong Arm on a double, and still taking another worthwhile (if not early) track skill. Clearly better than Accurate, which is the main criticism of taking Strong Arm.

It would also be fun for passy Chaos: Extra Arms and Big Hand feels worthwhile if it's all on one skill.

I disagree with dode, I do see the need. I play a pretty fair amount of BB, and there are some skills that I never see which is a shame. I think the fairly recent approach to tourney BB of weighting skills has really improved variety and decreased the number of no-brainer choices, which can only be a good thing.

mattg does have a very valid point, some mega players do very well out of those cheap supplementary skills. I think the key thing is that these supplementary skills can be ace when combined with a good player and core skills. I think the approach to take is some kind of exponential cost of extra skills, while (preferably) retaining some incentive to choose the lesser taken skills. LRB4 had the first mechanism by costing SPPs rather than skills/stats, which encouraged team building.

This is just a rough idea for 6am in the morning, so I may be missing a fundamental problem, but bare(?)/bear(?) with me...

Take Joe's revised costings for skills.

A player may still only take 1 skill per level (be it 10K, 20K, etc.)

For each level after the first, there is an additional 10K penalty (so if a player only takes 20K skills, the first is 20K, 2nd is 30K, 3rd is 40K etc.)

Obviously, SE would probably need looking at.

Problems I can see:
a) some basic players only need 1 or 2 cheap skills,
b) this may lead to coaches sacking 3/4 skill players to keep TV down,
but I don't see either as a big problem, especially b), as player turnover is something the game actually strives for.

But as I said, it's a 6am thought, so I've probably missed something major...

Serious question: what is the actual problem which needs solving here, and is it still the problem in leagues?

I completely disagree. When it comes to what a skill is worth in terms of TV, it's universal usefulness is all you can sensibly consider. How can you award a permanent cost/value in gold crowns to a skill based upon it's potential in some theoretical situation in a future game? Why would you want to? But it relatively easy (in fact you can bring it stats) to see that over even 16 turns of one game a player with Block is better than a similar one with Fend. I agree that "a skill doesn't need to be used to be of use", because this is a fairly empty statement. But considerations of worth must bring in relative use, not a binary comparison between useful and worthless.

Because teams are made up of a whole host of skills, not just those universally useful ones. It always makes me chuckle when people say "skill x is useless/bloat on player y" because it always depends on what that player is used for within the team.

dode74 wrote:Serious question: what is the actual problem which needs solving here, and is it still the problem in leagues?

Some skills are pretty much universal, and other skills rarely, if at all, get taken.
Yes, it's a problem in leagues.

Was that not also the case in LRB4 though?