Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
malladin.ben

Suggestion for next year's Draft

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AaronWilson. said:

I think people sometimes read too much into fun community things, just go with the flow. Play some games drop some votes enjoy hte little things.

I think that more people can be engaged by understanding why they make their choices.  If you don’t think the event can be improved that’s fine, but its only one possibility among many.  Since this is a conversation specificly about making things better it’s a bit ironic to suggest that everyone who doesn’t share that view is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Golden said:

I think that more people can be engaged by understanding why they make their choices.  If you don’t think the event can be improved that’s fine, but its only one possibility among many.  Since this is a conversation specificly about making things better it’s a bit ironic to suggest that everyone who doesn’t share that view is wrong.

I didn't say everyone was wrong, what I think isn't fact it's a oponion :) My main point was I don't see how they give you a framework of a player that will be very different into any guild it goes into. The framework would have to be so bare bones it would defeat of the process anyway wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 11:33 AM, AaronWilson. said:

The problem is every rookie would work differently in each different guild, so having a "framework" wouldn't really work.

I thoroughly disagree with this. Yes there will be differences, but the core of a model - stats, playbook, a signature play or trait or two - can stay the same and then guild flavour (additional plays or traits, stat tweaks, momentum) can be added on top.

And it wouldn't even mean that you can't change things fundamentally to add guild flavour - for example let's say you had a model with a 7/9 MOV and where'd they go. Place that model in alchemists and they could be changed to 5/7 MOV with smoke bomb and cloud jumper. It stays close to its original concept of a super mobile model, keeps roughly within the same sort of mobility parameters (some advantages some disadvantages in relation to the original model, overall perhaps slightly more powerful), yet adds a significant amount of guild specific flavour to the model. 

Further, it allows the design team a large amount of potential early phase playtest data to help them balance the final model.

Essentially, the advantage to this idea is that it would allow people to engage with the process at a more interactive level. To allow them to actually try out the models in their teams and come up with their own stories involving these players in the same way to come up with your own stories about your favourite models in your team. 

What would be the disadvantages? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AaronWilson. said:

I don't see how they give you a framework of a player that will be very different into any guild it goes into. The framework would have to be so bare bones it would defeat of the process anyway wouldn't it?

I think there can be a enough of a difference between the raw stats and a basic playbook for each model to give you a better idea of how they play, and having them there gives you the chance to actually play games with them.

Thats the key, the ability to actually put these rookies on the table and play games with them. Thats what leads to improved engagement in the process.

If you were engaged before, fine, I don't think this would take anything away from the process, but I personally found it a lot harder to engage with the process this year than previous years and in the end it was only for (inevitably futile) negative reasons that I ended up getting involved. Something like this would have helped me, and it seems for listening to GBT maybe one or two others as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue with giving explicit rules is that some guilds just can't have certain things for balance reasons. For example, Fish aren't allowed momentous damage, butchers aren't allowed 'hard' control abilities and Masons couldn't have a momentous result at the top of the playbook, for example.

At the end of the day there's always going to be different people who want different things to get them really engaged and those things in turn would turn other people off being involved. Some people would love to see renders, but I know some people would be put off voting if they didn't like a pose for example.

This year struck a good balance. The report gave each model enough flavour and rules potential to make people speculate and the art definitely gave a good feel for the characters in question. But I think the real allstars were the members of the community who really pushed forwards on getting the memes and hashtags going.

I will also sing the praises of the MUCH improved method of submitting games.

 

In short? I really enjoyed this year. I thought it was a really, REALLY enjoyable event and I look forward to the next one, be it new players for Majors or something entirely different, like the community voting on which disreputable urchins make it into Greede's new Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RTBailey said:

The main issue with giving explicit rules is that some guilds just can't have certain things for balance reasons. For example, Fish aren't allowed momentous damage, butchers aren't allowed 'hard' control abilities and Masons couldn't have a momentous result at the top of the playbook, for example.

At the end of the day there's always going to be different people who want different things to get them really engaged and those things in turn would turn other people off being involved. Some people would love to see renders, but I know some people would be put off voting if they didn't like a pose for example.

This year struck a good balance. The report gave each model enough flavour and rules potential to make people speculate and the art definitely gave a good feel for the characters in question. But I think the real allstars were the members of the community who really pushed forwards on getting the memes and hashtags going.

I will also sing the praises of the MUCH improved method of submitting games.

 

In short? I really enjoyed this year. I thought it was a really, REALLY enjoyable event and I look forward to the next one, be it new players for Majors or something entirely different, like the community voting on which disreputable urchins make it into Greede's new Union.

I agree with your reasoning and this year was the best yet :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RTBailey said:

The main issue with giving explicit rules is that some guilds just can't have certain things for balance reasons. For example, Fish aren't allowed momentous damage, butchers aren't allowed 'hard' control abilities and Masons couldn't have a momentous result at the top of the playbook, for example.

But the whole point of my argument is that you can have skeleton rules for a model that are not at full squaddie power, that you can add to or tweak about a bit for the finished product. You could even have rules for tweaking the playbook depending on which guild they were playing for, or just let players pick X results to be momentous. 

It doesn't matter if they have something a guild "shouldn't" have because they're not set in stone or fixed any more than the union in chains models were - we had stats for those models before hand that weren't the finished product but gave us an idea as to what their playstyle would be.

I agree with a lot of the rest if your post, but I did find it harder to get into this one than previous years' community events and know a lot of other people who were just a bit "meh" about it.

I'm essentially a fluff bunny - I love the lore of this game and want to get involved in events like this. But if people like me are finding it difficult to get involved, then surely a slight change wouldn't hurt? I don't think anything I have suggested would take away from what you've enjoyed this year, but would add to it for those who found it less engaging this year, or just didn't get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly with you on being a fluff bunny in that regard, but I didn't have any real trouble getting behind the rookies personally. I think a couple of them were a little dry / could have done with some 'screen time' (Looking at you Knuckles).

I think a skeleton player is interesting idea but would probably be, at least from a design perspective, a bit of a waste of time if the stats / playbook / etc may well change heavily in post. Plus people have a habit of getting hung up on things that change during development, for example the people who were disappointed that V.Gutter didn't keep Scything Blow.

As a positive example of the idea, the idea that Kami would have Kill the Ball that was going around when she was first shown or Layne possibly having Charmed Female. I think these were a good example of how to tease a potential mechanic and didn't feel out of place (and I'm sure a lot of people got on board because they wanted Kill the Ball, for example). I think the primary issue was how it required a certain amount of reading between the lines and it wasn't hugely obvious.

If I was to suggest how to make that better, I'd genuinely suggest releasing some of the Lore for the next draft before the draft starts, maybe alongside the scout report next time. That way people can get a feel for how that model might play (For example if in the fluff Champ is shown to use a quarterstaff, for example, people could guess she has a 2" reach) and get a feel for the character before they start voting, which would probably have a similar effect to letting people toy around with a skeleton player? Just my two cents on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RTBailey said:

for example the people who were disappointed that V.Gutter didn't keep Scything Blow.

I don't remember that specifically being an issue. I remember her being described as dull.

That said, I do like the idea of more story being released before the draft. It did help me get involved when I could see more what the personalities of the different characters were.

I suppose a question is, how much would the stats need to change. If you give each model a below-par stat line (like a level 1 or 2 rookie for example) then you're probably mainly looking to add to the base stats to create the finished card. You could even wind things back for flavour reasons. E.g. A 4/8" kick Layne in butchers might drop to 3/6" but gain blood scent (if you cause damage gain +1/+2" kick), for example - adds flavour and forces a more butchers play style onto how you use him. 

I really think it is not beyond the wit of our fantastic development team to come up with a basic skeleton rules for a model to give us a rough idea as to that players playstyle without tying themself into any other rules than wouldn't be on that model long-term anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this idea has potential and could be done well. I still think the potential for disappointment is a concern though. Even the example of replacing a 4/8 kick with a 3/6 kick and blood scent would be disappointing for anyone who voted for that player based on the 4/8 kick. A 4/8 kick provides a huge snap shot threat that must be dealt with by your opponent. A 3/6 kick with blood scent provides a player that you have to activate before they are useful and forces you to damage someone, disengage from that player, then get somewhere safe enough to provide that same snap shot threat. That’s a very big and disappointing change. 

Creating a skeleton player that is interesting/useful but at the same time doesn’t provide the potential for disappointment is going to be harder than you think. Maybe this should be a community project at first to see how it goes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, malladin.ben said:

I suppose a question is, how much would the stats need to change. If you give each model a below-par stat line (like a level 1 or 2 rookie for example) then you're probably mainly looking to add to the base stats to create the finished card. You could even wind things back for flavour reasons. E.g. A 4/8" kick Layne in butchers might drop to 3/6" but gain blood scent (if you cause damage gain +1/+2" kick), for example - adds flavour and forces a more butchers play style onto how you use him. 

The issue is that you're still talking about designing a huge amount that you're not going to use.
For example, lets use Layne.
Lets say his "Raw" form has the literally average stats for a Striker, which is:
Mov 6/8 | TAC 5 | Kick 3/8" | Def 4+ | Arm 1 | Inf 2/4 | HP 12 | 1" melee

So, how different would he need to be for each guild? Well, for a start, he'd need different playbook for each guild because obviously if he's a Brewer, that's going to need to be 1 shorter than his TAC, but if he's a farmer he should have 2 damage in his first column. Can't have both those things or he'd clearly be silly with Ox!

Then you need to give each team a rundown of what should be momentous. First three columns for Masons, only the damage for Butchers, etc etc.

Then you want a flavourful rule for each guild as well.

So you need to do a playbook and back of a card for 10 different incarnations of the same player.

And that's not even assuming you want to tweak stats in that as well.

Then you have to get your design program and punch out 10 cards, one for each guild.

Then repeat than nine more times.

And then, above all of that, you'd need to put a disclaimer to each that they may change heavily during playtesting.

You're already guaranteeing that you wont use 90% of the stuff you've put time into, which they probably would rather put into designing / finalising things for the next Minors, the next veteran players, etc etc etc.

By the time you've pumped all of this into a skeleton version of each rookie, all you've probably done is confirmed what you could hint at with fluff. Players should know that "I'm a brewer, so my Rookie is probably going to wrap naturally" or "I'm a mason, so the low end of my playbook will be whats momentous". They should probably be aware that "A Centre Back is going to have more HP than a Winger but have lower def".

I'm not saying the idea of Skeleton Rookies isn't a neat one, I just don't think it's a time efficient one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand what I mean by "skeleton". The whole point is you DON'T have any guild-specific rules on there. They are just some raw stats, a playbook (probably devoid of momentum and just let people pick X results to be momentous when they play with them, or generic rules for adding momentum to the pb for each guild) and one or two signature plays or traits.

The whole point is that it's a rough idea, nothing set in stone, just something to let people put a proxy model on the field and see how they feel in your guild. Even if this doesn't actually give you much more information than we had last year (although I would argue it significantly does), it will help get people involved who aren't natural fluff bunnies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read almost all the posts in this thread. An interesting collection of ideas/opinions.

I was engaged with this years Draft. My only problem was my own lack of initiative and therefore inability to find out where you recorded games at Steamcon. There was a big queue at the shop when I looked and Bryce was too busy to be doing anything other than running the tournaments.

Guess I need to be more pushy in these situations and go for the throat like Ritch! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're gonna do a skeleton rookie, you make them a base framework which will get guild specific additions to it. I put these together as ideas for how I'd make each model as a 'baseline' before adding guild stuff to it. All of them have only one result on each PB column and zero momentous results. Like first level rookies they'd suck, but they're not intended to be fully established players yet so I don't think that's a problem - it's enough that you could run them if you wanted to. 

 

Amber

4/0/12

Mv6/8 Inf2/3 K2/6 Tac5

:1:, :T::PD::2:

Unpredictable Movement

 

Kami

5/0/10

Mv6/8 Inf2/3 K2/6 TAC4

:1::D::DD::2:

Kill The Ball

Hot Shot

 

Layne

4/0/12

Mv6/8 Inf2/3 K2/8 Tac4

:T::D::PD::GB:

Where'd They Go?

Scores For Fun

 

Edge

5/0/10

Mv6/8 Inf2/3 K2/6 Tac5

:D::2::T::DD::3:

Acrobatic

Support From The Wing

 

Gaffer

3/1/15

Mv5/7 Inf2/3 K2/6 Tac4

:1::PD::GB::KD:

Marked Target

Match Experience

 

Champ

4/1/12

Mv5/7 Inf2/3 K2/6 Tac5

:1::T::2::PD::KD:

I'm Open!

Poised

 

Nomad

3/1/15

Mv5/7 Inf2/3 K2/4 Tac4

:P::T::GB::2:

On My Mark

Potbellied Pass

 

Cutlass

3/1/15

Mv5/7 Inf2/3 K2/6 Tac5

:T::P::2::PP::KD:

Goal Defence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Buzzard said:

PLEASE don't let Cutlass have "goal defence". That is the last thing Smiths need! :o

Eh, Smiths already ruin footballing teams anyway, if Cutlass is just a ball of stats with Goal Defense nobody will play her anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

If you're gonna do a skeleton rookie, you make them a base framework which will get guild specific additions to it. I put these together as ideas for how I'd make each model as a 'baseline' before adding guild stuff to it. All of them have only one result on each PB column and zero momentous results. Like first level rookies they'd suck, but they're not intended to be fully established players yet so I don't think that's a problem - it's enough that you could run them if you wanted to. 

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking of, although possibly a little closer to a finished model in terms of stats -- but just 1 or 2 signature plays or traits and a playbook without momentum is exactly the sort of thing that lets you see how they might play in your team and give you a better idea of what you were bidding for.

As for the playbook, you could have rules for each guild e.g. Brewers: KD, > and and damage results above col 2 are momentous, Butchers: Any playbook damage results, etc.

Alternatively there could just be a generic "At the start of the game Choose X results to be momentous" rule. Then people could just pick what they wanted, but in the knowledge that if they're playing Fishermen and play their rookie with all momentous damage results its likely they won't be getting that in the final model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, speedfreek said:

Is Hot Shot now Far Strike? Already forgot the old names.
And I like your 'skeletons'.

Yeah, Hot Shot got renamed to Far Strike now. 

 

31 minutes ago, malladin.ben said:

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm thinking of, although possibly a little closer to a finished model in terms of stats -- but just 1 or 2 signature plays or traits and a playbook without momentum is exactly the sort of thing that lets you see how they might play in your team and give you a better idea of what you were bidding for.

As for the playbook, you could have rules for each guild e.g. Brewers: KD, > and and damage results above col 2 are momentous, Butchers: Any playbook damage results, etc.

Alternatively there could just be a generic "At the start of the game Choose X results to be momentous" rule. Then people could just pick what they wanted, but in the knowledge that if they're playing Fishermen and play their rookie with all momentous damage results its likely they won't be getting that in the final model.

Yeah, you could scale them up a little bit, I just wanted to have basic options that wouldn't have to 'lose' anything to join any guild. Changing the playbook is definitely a place you could add some more options if you wanted to though.

Butchers - :1::2::3:

Fish - :KD::D::PD::GB:

Masons - first two columns

Brewers - :KD::P::3:

Engineers - :KD::P::PD:

Alchemists - :D::PD::DD::GB:

Morticians - :D::2::GB:

Hunters - :P::D::2:

Farmers - :KD::P::GB:

Blacksmiths - choose either :KD::P::GB: or :D::2::3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Eh, Smiths already ruin footballing teams anyway, if Cutlass is just a ball of stats with Goal Defense nobody will play her anyway.

You understand my point exactly! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×