Nerfing orcs. How?

[mattgslater]

I quite like that.

[Jural]

SInce the data doesn't support your claim that orcs are too good, can you explain why you think that? Maybe the problem is that your houseruled orc team isn't very well done, as Joemanji indicates.

I'm not swayed by the argument that Team X is actually very good, but their performance is dragged down by n00bs, idiots. lazy people, or predominted by doctors, who tale an inordinate amount of forfeits because they get called into emergency surgery.. Whatever the excuse, I've heard it applied to orcs, humans, dark elves, skaven, wood elves, dwarves, Norse, and Slann.

So, it's all personal taste, change for change's sake. Your change is as good as any other. You could go 0-6 BOB 0-1 troll, and the rest linemen. You could drop all positionals to 0-2 except the troll. You could remove the throwers and goblins and make the team boring to play against, or remove 1 troll, 2 blitzers, and 2 blockers and make the team easy to play against.(hello Necromantic team!)

Martin, if you are having so many problems in your league with orcs and dwarves, I suggest you let your league get access to claw on a doubles roll.

[SillySod]

I think its a fair assumption that orc statistics get dragged down by newer players. If I'm advising a struggling rookie I'll point them in the direction of orcs to get a better feel for the game (many many other people do this too). New players are usually drawn to them anyway.

Goblins 0-2

Ever seen an orc team with more than two goblins? If so.... did you not think "ooh good this game should be fun"

[Jural]

I think its a fair assumption that orc statistics get dragged down by newer players. If I'm advising a struggling rookie I'll point them in the direction of orcs to get a better feel for the game (many many other people do this too). New players are usually drawn to them anyway.

Sure, it's a fair assumption. All teams have their performance drawn down by new coaches or bad coaches. I would even agree that orc performance is more dragged down than, say Ogres, Vampires, or Dark Elves. However... that doesn't mean they are secretly one of the best 1-3 teams in the game.

So... the question remains, aside from asthetic arguments (too many positionals, too much green, etc.) what problems do people have facing this roster in the hands of a below average, average, or above average coach?

I don't have orc issues, personally- they seem as easy to beat as most teams, i.e. it is not dependent upon roster, but relative coaching skill and the luck of the die!

But if you are nerfing, and without data, you need to at least have a design goal... so, what is the problem with orcs in your league?

[plasmoid]

Hi Jural,
everything else was based of the LRB5 sample. So my league has no particular problem with dwarfs (at least no more than the next guys).

Don't have a particular problem with orcs either. But I've talked with several coaches online, who's opnion I respect, who all find the orc team to be... not broken, just needlessly good.

And - the tweak we made was after that fact. So it is not the cause of any further problems. In fact, I'm the one coaching those, and I'm struggling a bit. So I'm not completely convinced by Joemanjis analysis. I kind of agree more with SillySod, who stated that gobbos really aren't that great for hardcore 15 turn caging. In my experience, running the ball on an ST2 player who gets hurt easily isn't all thrills.

So, a few wrong assumptions.
Just looking for ideas.

Cheers
Martin

[mattgslater]

I agree with Martin on the issue of Orcs being needlessly good. But they're certainly not broken.

One thing I like about Orcs is that you can revisit them at several different points along your coaching process, and every time you come back to them you see something new. I really think the Orc roster is an awesome bit of game design: it's not better than most of the others, just more multifaceted, and very appealing to beginners. If anything, I think the game needs a buff to Humans to give them a similar impact. It's gotta balance like that, though: tall order.

[spubbbba]

Sure, it's a fair assumption. All teams have their performance drawn down by new coaches or bad coaches. I would even agree that orc performance is more dragged down than, say Ogres, Vampires, or Dark Elves. However... that doesn't mean they are secretly one of the best 1-3 teams in the game.

Orcs are one of the best teams in the game and are easily the best of the "bashy" races. Unlike other bashers they are just as strong as rookies as they are when well developed, Chaos suck at low TV whilst Dwarfs and Undead struggle once they get above 175.

I struggle to find weaknesses in the Orc team, all i can think of is, they are a bit slow and have a few low AG players.

I do quite like taking G access away from Black Orcs though, it would be a nice little nerf and differenciate them from being cut price Chaos warriors.

[mattgslater]

BOBs are a bad bargain, taken individually. Saurus @ same price = better. Other ST4 players @ 20-30k more = way better. BOBs are great because you have 9 guys who would count as sledgehammers on most teams and BOBs are 4 of them. That's all.

The Orc Thrower is the worst deal on a dedicated Thrower in the game. MA5 on a Thrower is a huge handicap. Still a better deal than a Dwarf Runner... but anything called a Thrower is a better (sometimes much better) player for the same price or a little more.

Blitzers are a great deal. Trolls, not so much. Orc linemen would be ok on a team that needed a lot of them, but I find I never field any. Their low MA hurts a lot more than their high AV helps given that there are 15 positionals on the roster. Even if you took out the Goblins, though... I'd field one Lino for awhile, then eventually replace him with a Thrower and leave the Lino as a full-time benchwarmer. And as I said, the Thrower would be a bad deal on his own.

[Jural]

I'll make my point differently and hopefully more clearly:

1) Usually, a team should be nerfed or boosted based upon data.

2) The data for orc teams is unreliable, but no reliable data exists.

3) If you aren't using data to nerf a team, you are using using anecdotal evidence or re-designing the team from the ground up- essentially adding in a new team.

4) If you are adding in a new team, there are many resources (Some conflicting ) which give team building and costing guidelines.

5) If you are modifying an existing team, you need to have a goal in mind! The goal can't be "to make the team worse" because nobody knows how good they really are, and you can't really quantify the changes. It needs to come from the anedotal evidence!

So- what does the distillation of the anecdotal information tell us? Doesn't that need to be addressed before understanding what to change? Basically, if a coach says an orc team is too good, why?

I may be a bit pedantic here, but I'm really not getting this. Why change from 0-4 goblins to 0 if no coach has a problem with goblins? Why change from 0-2 throwers to none if most orc coaches don't use their throwers? Why get rid of black orc blockers when people complain about Stand Firm blitzers?

I don't have a problem with orcs. I think the general consensus around this way is that they are a good team, but a paper tiger. In the hands of a good coach developing them correctly, they win, but so do dwarves, chaos, undead, Dark Elves, Norse...

[Grumbledook]

people have been suggesting to remove goblins on the orc team FOR YEARS on this very forum ;]

[mattgslater]

You might be able to get a handle on the skewing effect by checking the disparity in win rate between the upper quarter and lower quarter of Orc teams vs. the disparity in win rate between the upper and lower quarters of other individual team races... particularly the bashier ones, as you'll also see large disparities on the teams that favor more advanced play-styles.

[SillySod]

people have been suggesting to remove goblins on the orc team FOR YEARS on this very forum ;]

People have been asking for (4329 SF/TS G/SAP) longbeards for years on this forum and it still doesnt sound any less dumb

[Hache]

I have not played orcs more than 2 or 3 times. I have not played against orcs more than 5 or 6 times. I play mostly norse and elf.

But when I look at the orc roster, I am envious. It's not stat based, it's just a feeling. Orcs seem to have everything :
- 4STR players
- blitzers
- lots of strengh progressing players (access to guard)
- throwers
- big guy
- agility players
Whichever team you take, orcs "seem" to be able to say : "hey I have it to, and I also have things you don't have".

But as I said, it's not stats based, it's just a feeling. I'm not skilled enough to say if orcs are overpowered or not. But I'm not the only one to have this feeling that orcs seem to have everything.
This is also a disadvantage, because few players I know like orcs. They don't seem challenging enough, just a bunch of overpowered guys that have everything and just have to hit with their 4 BOB and TTM to win.

So I really can understand the idea of nerfing orcs. But like many here said, nerfing orcs should really be based on stats, how orcs are performing in league/tournaments. On this topic, I let more experienced coachs handle the situation

[Ikterus]

In the 10 buff/nerf threads, I found the candidates by consulting the data for LRB5.
This final thread is a matter of personal opnion only - but I think that orcs are a very powerful team, and that most likely their newbie appeal are skewing their numbers.

So, as an intellectual excersize, what would you suggest for a league looking to nerf the orc team?

Cheers
Martin

AV8 on the linos

[Andromidius]

Which would make them worse then Human Linemen, for the same cost.

I'd probably leave the roster alone completely, or at most raise their Team Reroll cost by 10k. Generally they are fine, and aren't really a problem team (just a strong team).

~Andromidius