What Do You See?

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:09 am

I thought I would throw this topic out -- I believe it's been discussed before, but I'm not sure... besides, I'm curious. This came up because I'm starting a new team in Shadowspire, and it's been a long, long time since I've stared at a new rollup sheet. Five sets of numbers clustered on one page, at one time, for me to manipulate, tinker with, and forge into weapons of destruction... or horribly incapable wannabes. Sad

As I agonize over the roll sheet for this new team, a big, BIG lightbulb went off in my head. It seems that everything I see is either a Striker, a Slasher, or a WASTE!! Gee, isn't that strange? Confused

I mean, I KNEW I had this tendency to lean towards certain styles, but I thought I had conquered it --- but apparently NOT!!

Sure, I consider other possibilities, and I DO try to let the numbers lead my decision-making process. (I really like what Buri said in another post: "It is what it is." This was the mantra in my workplace last year; I heard it a lot. So trite; so fatalistic; so true.) HOWEVER, I noticed that I still can't seem to shake the prejudices and preferences that I bring to the table. "Oooh, that would work as a WoS! That would work as a Slasher!" (My two very favorite styles.)

And I'm thinking --- I'm probably not the only one. In fact, I KNOW I'm not! I know, for instance, that Assur is pretty much thinking "potential Basher" with every new recruit. And the Consortium has made no secret about their preferences for the T-Parry scum. "If all else fails, it'd probably make a good TP scum." Wink

So I throw this question out to the community -- when you see a new rollup / recruit, do you find yourself trying to fit the numbers into a pattern that would favor your preferred style? Is every recruit a potential Striker? Or TP? or P-Rip? Or whatever??? If so, what would be that style? And why do you like that style so much? Question

If you find yourself unswayed by sentiment or other visceral influences, than what STAT, (or STATS) above all else, helps you decide (or lean towards) a given fighting style? NO, I'm not asking for a brief synopsis of your "How to Create a Fighter That Wins" article. I'm asking: If you don't think you HAVE a tendency to choose one style over the others when you're shaping the template of your warrior, than what DO you look at??

Really think about this, because I suspect that everyone tends to favor one style over another. I don't mean simply "I prefer Slashers vs P-Strikes", but rather, "I tend to have a lot of Slashers on my team -- in fact, there is always at least ONE at any given time!"

And I realize some will say: "High WL & CN, defensive. Everything else, offensive." Yeah, yeah, sure... but I read those blurbs from the DM's column when fighters graduate, and sometimes the stats of some of these out-going, AD or retirement-bound veterans surprises me. I'm thinking: "Gee, I wouldn't have made THAT setup into a ????, but this guy did and it seemed to work out okay..." When I see something like that I'm guessing: "That manager shoe-horned those numbers into that style because that's his favorite. And it worked!!" Or sometimes I say to myself: "Too bad that warrior was killed. But, with those stats married to THAT style, it was probably inevitable. What was that guy thinking?!"

Of course, this raises the question: Which is more important -- the stats of a fighter or they way it is run? Obviously it's a combination of both, and throw in random rolls and whatever else the opponent has on his side of the table... but what's the overriding factor??

As I brood on this I arrive at a simple explanation: Most managers tend to choose amongst two or three styles when they design a new fighter. They always avoid certain styles, and lean toward a small group of favorites. They do this because they either like that style, OR that's the style whose rhythms they are most familiar with, so they feel more comfortable (and turn out to be more successful) when they run that fighting style.

But I could be wrong. What do you guys think about this theory? Wink

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:25 am

Very interesting topic, KidArcane. I'll bite, especially since you may be surprised by my response (well, at least part of it). This assumes I don't have another goal for the team underway (right now in Talcama, my highest priority is to finish a round robin)

Step 1: Is this warrior tourney caliber?
- Looking for 21 wit, will, or deftness off the bat. I'm much more picky with designs that don't have a 21 in one of those three stats, but I definitely look at them if the other stats line up.
- What scenario can I envision that would enable the warrior to TC? Is there such a scenario or is the warrior just teasing me? What tourney class(es) am I designing for?
- Most of the styles chosen at this stage are STK, AB, L, TP, WOS, and PR.

Step 2: Bustable? Dual 21's. 19-20 wit/will. Most of the styles chosen here are AB, L, and the parry learners, unless the combination is STR+WIT or WILL and size is on the large side, in which case they often become bashers.

Step 3: Can it be made into something 'special?' Quad 17? Quint 15? Mr. Right Handed? 9-10-11-...-15? 6-8-10-...-18? 3-6-9-...-21? Reverse of those? There are a few other warriors I typically look for. Style chosen to match stats.

Step 4: Is it size 9 or bigger with enough decise/strength to be a basher? Lots of guys rolled here...

Step 5: Is there something cool and unique that I'd like to try on this guy?

Step 6: What would save this warrior from the Dark Arena for me?
Here is where I tend to design to see bonuses on the overview. I also look at starting skills. Parry learning styles with low parry are just going to lose. I tend to make zero strikers on this step. What are my goals for this team?
My standards for rolling Lungers (physical requirements), Parry Ripostes (need parry, damage, and carry), and Wall of Steels are much stricter than other styles at this stage. I roll a lot of total parries and pikers here.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:11 pm

For the first 15 years played I was more of an "arena" manager and my tourney entrants were all from my regular arenas. If you had asked me this question then it would be totally different than it is now , where I mostly only care about tourney results. That being said I am going to steal straight from Assur but I have fewer steps.

Step 1: Is this warrior tourney caliber? If yes , I keep it .. if not see step 2

** small caveat here .. some 21 wit/deft or will/deft AB's I won't run in a tourney trying only to get to ADM asap to set up for a future bust out. **

Step 2: Dark Arena

** Like Assur I usually design these guys to see juicy bonuses on the roll ups .. if they do , great!! , I run them along side their team mates as I prep. If they don't they just get DA'd **

As for picking the style ...I like all the styles and get bored easily just running all AB's and ST's etc ... so I don't mind "wasting" a nice 17/21 or 21/17 set up etc. on a Parry Strike or Basher if I don't have one presently. Though I would never dream of running one of every style in a tourney nor limiting myself to only one of each style in a certain tourney class. You'd have to be insane to limit yourself like that!!! Shocked

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:56 pm

Assurnasirbanipal wrote:

Very interesting topic, KidArcane. I'll bite, especially since you may be surprised by my response (well, at least part of it). This assumes I don't have another goal for the team underway (right now in Talcama, my highest priority is to finish a round robin)

Step 1: Is this warrior tourney caliber?
- Most of the styles chosen at this stage are STK, AB, L, TP, WOS, and PR.
Step 2: Bustable? Dual 21's. 19-20 wit/will.
Step 3: Can it be made into something 'special?' Quad 17? Quint 15? Mr. Right Handed? 9-10-11-...-15? 6-8-10-...-18? 3-6-9-...-21? Reverse of those? Style chosen to match stats.
Step 4: Is it size 9 or bigger with enough decise/strength to be a basher? Lots of guys rolled here...
Step 5: Is there something cool and unique that I'd like to try on this guy?
Step 6: What would save this warrior from the Dark Arena for me?
Here is where I tend to design to see bonuses on the overview. I also look at starting skills. Parry learning styles with low parry are just going to lose. I tend to make zero strikers on this step.
My standards for rolling Lungers (physical requirements), Parry Ripostes (need parry, damage, and carry), and Wall of Steels are much stricter than other styles at this stage. I roll a lot of total parries and pikers here.

Okay -- so what do you NOT roll? By step six you've eliminated ST, and also (apparently) the SL and PL. At least, you didn't mention those styles. So the two questions remain (though you did an excellent job of walking us through your thought processes! Very Happy

)

a) Which do you think is more important ( the stats or the way it's run?)

b) Would you agree/disagree with my assertion that most managers tend to stay with a handful of styles that they're more comfortable with, and avoid other styles? (either completely or as a rule)

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:07 pm

FLOYD1 wrote:

Step 1: Is this warrior tourney caliber? If yes , I keep it .. if not see step 2
** small caveat here .. some 21 wit/deft or will/deft AB's I won't run in a tourney trying only to get to ADM asap to set up for a future bust out. **
Step 2: Dark Arena
** Like Assur I usually design these guys to see juicy bonuses on the roll ups .. if they do , great!! , I run them along side their team mates as I prep. If they don't they just get DA'd **

As for picking the style ...I like all the styles and get bored easily just running all AB's and ST's etc ... so I don't mind "wasting" a nice 17/21 or 21/17 set up etc. on a Parry Strike or Basher if I don't have one presently.

So you're saying you don't really have a favorite? So what stat(s) do you look at right away? WT/WL? WT/WL/DF? What would be the overriding criteria (or stat) for a 'keeper'? Confused

I can see you have a fairly straight-forward system... which is much shorter than mine! lol So... Not trying to be mean or petty, but.... what do you think about the two questions?

a) Which do you think is more important ( the stats or the way it's run?
b) Would you agree/disagree with my assertion that most managers tend to stay with a handful of styles that they're more comfortable with, and avoid other styles? (either completely or as a rule)

Advanced Master Poster Joined: Jul 15, 2008 Posts: 380

When I get a new roll up, I look to see where the numbers should go (ex., if the roll up has a 12 WT, I almost always add 5 to it). A lot of roll ups design themselves. Then, with whatever points are left over, I look to see if I can make it into the style I'm currently interested in. Right now, it is PS. Last year, it was SL. Two years ago, it was OTPs. Next year will likely be something else.

I think we all lean towards what is comfortable, and slowly expand into new styles as our experience and comfort level evolves.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:13 pm

KidArcane wrote:

FLOYD1 wrote:

Step 1: Is this warrior tourney caliber? If yes , I keep it .. if not see step 2
** small caveat here .. some 21 wit/deft or will/deft AB's I won't run in a tourney trying only to get to ADM asap to set up for a future bust out. **
Step 2: Dark Arena
** Like Assur I usually design these guys to see juicy bonuses on the roll ups .. if they do , great!! , I run them along side their team mates as I prep. If they don't they just get DA'd **

As for picking the style ...I like all the styles and get bored easily just running all AB's and ST's etc ... so I don't mind "wasting" a nice 17/21 or 21/17 set up etc. on a Parry Strike or Basher if I don't have one presently.

So you're saying you don't really have a favorite? So what stat(s) do you look at right away? WT/WL? WT/WL/DF? What would be the overriding criteria (or stat) for a 'keeper'? Confused

I can see you have a fairly straight-forward system... which is much shorter than mine! lol So... Not trying to be mean or petty, but.... what do you think about the two questions?

a) Which do you think is more important ( the stats or the way it's run?
b) Would you agree/disagree with my assertion that most managers tend to stay with a handful of styles that they're more comfortable with, and avoid other styles? (either completely or as a rule)

Couple questions there ...

My favorite style by far is the wall of steel .. ( I think this comes from my early success with the style. My first Duelmaster , TV and TC were all wall of steels. )

A "keeper" to me is something I feel has a good shot to TV ( in my opinion anyway). It's not as easy to say it has to have a 21 wit or will or whatever. I run plenty of tourney warriors with no 21's at all.

I guess I will say #s are not everything .. I can pull the holy grail sheet and design them all pretty ... but if I can't figure out a winning strategy then its all or not.

And lastly ... I guess some managers avoid certain styles now a days but its more from those styles sucking than any comfort level.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:03 pm

KidArcane wrote:

FLOYD1 wrote:

Step 1: Is this warrior tourney caliber? If yes , I keep it .. if not see step 2
** small caveat here .. some 21 wit/deft or will/deft AB's I won't run in a tourney trying only to get to ADM asap to set up for a future bust out. **
Step 2: Dark Arena
** Like Assur I usually design these guys to see juicy bonuses on the roll ups .. if they do , great!! , I run them along side their team mates as I prep. If they don't they just get DA'd **

As for picking the style ...I like all the styles and get bored easily just running all AB's and ST's etc ... so I don't mind "wasting" a nice 17/21 or 21/17 set up etc. on a Parry Strike or Basher if I don't have one presently.

So you're saying you don't really have a favorite? So what stat(s) do you look at right away? WT/WL? WT/WL/DF? What would be the overriding criteria (or stat) for a 'keeper'? Confused

I can see you have a fairly straight-forward system... which is much shorter than mine! lol So... Not trying to be mean or petty, but.... what do you think about the two questions?

a) Which do you think is more important ( the stats or the way it's run?
b) Would you agree/disagree with my assertion that most managers tend to stay with a handful of styles that they're more comfortable with, and avoid other styles? (either completely or as a rule)

I'm like Scruffy in the sense that if it has an 8 DF I know 3 points are going there (2 for a burner). The WT is 14 almost always 3 go there (at least 1 and maybe 6 if I want to burn to 21 WT). Is his SP odd? If I have some points left and it is an offensive then it goes to even for a DEC skill. Etc,etc,etc.

As an example here is my latest RU. There's not a whole lot of mulling over to do with it.

4-13-17-14-5-9-9 Well with the CN ( as I drop the blue sheet down line by line) makes me think TP. Then I see the SZ, welllllll. Then I see the WT and WL, nope to TP or any of the P-styles (save maybe PS). ST says no to BA. We know 2 goes to DF for 11, 2 or 4 go to WL, 3 go to WT. 5 points left and it's probably a ST. So I take ST to 7.... 1 point left. I'd like another DEC skill so SP. 7-13-17-17-9-10-11 ST (5 ATT 9 DEC to start.... meh 50-60% w/l expectation, as learns and tendencies become apparent I will temper or heat up the expectation).

I have found myself with WAAAAY to many ST,TP,LU in my system but I cannot seem to break from it. I get alot of good AB (mostly 21 DF, with a deficient stat of secondary need (ie WT/WL)) RUs and most seem to die. I'm bad at the P-styles and don't seem to get many low SP roll-ups for a WS (higher speeds become LU or SL). I lack alternate strats for SLs so I seem to be pigeon-holed into the above 3 listed styles. Don't feel alone or feel different we ALL have developed tendencies and "go to"s!

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:24 pm

Street_Legal wrote:

As an example here is my latest RU. There's not a whole lot of mulling over to do with it.

4-13-17-14-5-9-9 Well with the CN ( as I drop the blue sheet down line by line) makes me think TP. Then I see the SZ, welllllll. Then I see the WT and WL, nope to TP or any of the P-styles (save maybe PS). ST says no to BA. We know 2 goes to DF for 11, 2 or 4 go to WL, 3 go to WT. 5 points left and it's probably a ST. So I take ST to 7.... 1 point left. I'd like another DEC skill so SP. 7-13-17-17-9-10-11 ST (5 ATT 9 DEC to start.... meh 50-60% w/l expectation, as learns and tendencies become apparent I will temper or heat up the expectation).

This was actually a very good example of linear thinking and a sound decision processs, and I suspect, this is an excellent example of how most veteran managers think. (I'm not saying I think like this, but real LONG TIME veterans... ) Wink

Everytime I see a "How To" article (even the one's I've written) I see a tendency to say/read things like: "Well, ST between 7-13, and CN should be double digit, and etc. etc." But we don't really design fighters this way, do we? We go line by line and make adjustments as we go along, don't we? So somebody needs to write an article like this, for the newer (and those-of-us-older-who-want-to-improve) players.

Articles that talk about style favorites and design leave out the most important aspect about creating their given fighting style. That is,the fighting style is not chosen by the manager; it's practically preordained by the roll-sheet. The numbers set the parameters; a good manager follows the numbers and will, as the Consortium (and others have) said, "...make the most of the strengths..." of the rollup, and then look and see what style best fits that design. I think that's how it SHOULD be done!

I'm just saying --- I still tend to pull out my favorite styles and shove the rollup into it, like dressing a stranger into an ill-fitting suit. May look pretty on the surface, but it won't work well in practice. It's good to hear that others fall prey to this bad habit... but I like that line-by-line thought process. An article that addresses that... one of you guys needs to write it!! Very Happy

But wait -- what do you think? Is it the numbers or the management that make the difference?

Site Admin Joined: Jun 20, 2002 Posts: 1300

I skipped reading the replies so I can get down a brief description of my process without 'tainting' myself with better ideas from other posts.

My general flow (keep in mind I don't roll PS/BA/PL and I am a tourny manager):

1) Any 21s on WT/WL/DF?
21 WT is highest priority.
21 WT/WL are 90% LU. (Then come ST/SL or WS for the high CN one.)
21 WL/DF 100% AB.
21 WT/DF 90% AB with ST/PR in the runner up spot.
21 WT with 15 + WL can be ST/SL/LU depending on physicals
21 WT with lower than 15 WL can be ST/PR
21 DF with other numbers on WT/WL are almost always AB
21 WL with good WT WS/TP/LU
2) No 21s? Look for high WL and CN and make a scum. Or big last 4 numbers for a LU bonus check guy.

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:47 pm

Quote:

This was actually a very good example of linear thinking and a sound decision processs, and I suspect, this is an excellent example of how most veteran managers think. (I'm not saying I think like this, but real LONG TIME veterans... ) Wink

Actual VETERAN MANAGER Thinking on Street Legal's RU:

4-13-17-14-5-9-9:

"It's 2 points to 11 DF, 5 points to 9 ST, 3 points to 17 WT and the WL still sucks." (Marks as Trash to either be never sent in or instantly DA'd) Should never spend more than 15 seconds of your life on this thing.

Just wanted to put things in perspective!

That said, your theory is pretty much correct. Most managers have stylistic preferences in what they like to design and run. I'd say the best managers in the game aren't well rounded (it's too hard in terms of resources and efficiency)--they do a few things and they do them really really really well.

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:59 am

Posted in recent Noblish Island newsletter

Remember the Consortium warrior design principles?
1. Design to strengths/excesses, making high roll numbers higher
2. Offensive oriented warriors need WT high to last. Design to 15, 17, 21 for skill breaks
3. All warriors except AB must have normal damage and really need good. Make certain that ST/SZ allow that and have high enough WL to bump stats if not.
4. 9 WL is the acceptable low for offensives. Some warriors can do well with 7 or 8. No lower.
5. Do not add to CN for offensives.
6. Defensive style warriors need solid WL and CN.
7. Physicals never hurt any warrior. Warriors can win early with lesser skill, but good physicals.
8. If all else fails, make the design a TP. They can win under almost any circumstance. However, they need a higher combination (total) of CN, WL, ST.
9. If the warrior is to be long-term (meaning a godling or really nice roll), do not design a burner. (A burner is one where the manager intends to raise stats and physicals as a major strategy to winning.)
10. However, there is not a thing wrong with making a burner.
11. Design each warrior with the idea of winning 60%+ of its fights.
12. Have variation in styles in arenas. This allows for better challenging and matchups.

Site Admin Joined: Jun 20, 2002 Posts: 1300

Managerr wrote:

Quote:

This was actually a very good example of linear thinking and a sound decision processs, and I suspect, this is an excellent example of how most veteran managers think. (I'm not saying I think like this, but real LONG TIME veterans... ) Wink

Actual VETERAN MANAGER Thinking on Street Legal's RU:

4-13-17-14-5-9-9:

"It's 2 points to 11 DF, 5 points to 9 ST, 3 points to 17 WT and the WL still sucks." (Marks as Trash to either be never sent in or instantly DA'd) Should never spend more than 15 seconds of your life on this thing.

Just wanted to put things in perspective!

That said, your theory is pretty much correct. Most managers have stylistic preferences in what they like to design and run. I'd say the best managers in the game aren't well rounded (it's too hard in terms of resources and efficiency)--they do a few things and they do them really really really well.

I second this. Both on the rollup and what managers do.

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:44 am

Managerr wrote:

That said, your theory is pretty much correct. Most managers have stylistic preferences in what they like to design and run. I'd say the best managers in the game aren't well rounded (it's too hard in terms of resources and efficiency)--they do a few things and they do them really really really well.

Yes, I believe that this view has been validated, though The Consortium may prove to be the exception to the rule.

Personally, I have steered clear of BA's, AB's, PL's, and PR's, for the most part. I have been stuck trying to figure out how to run a PS for a while now... I don't play outside Basic, and a sound PS should rule in Basic... or so the old Masters used to say...

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:55 pm

Managerr wrote:

Quote:

This was actually a very good example of linear thinking and a sound decision processs, and I suspect, this is an excellent example of how most veteran managers think. (I'm not saying I think like this, but real LONG TIME veterans... ) Wink

Actual VETERAN MANAGER Thinking on Street Legal's RU:

4-13-17-14-5-9-9:

"It's 2 points to 11 DF, 5 points to 9 ST, 3 points to 17 WT and the WL still sucks." (Marks as Trash to either be never sent in or instantly DA'd) Should never spend more than 15 seconds of your life on this thing.

Just wanted to put things in perspective!

That said, your theory is pretty much correct. Most managers have stylistic preferences in what they like to design and run. I'd say the best managers in the game aren't well rounded (it's too hard in terms of resources and efficiency)--they do a few things and they do them really really really well.

Hey are you saying I am NOT a VETERAN MANAGER? I am as veteran as most (save Consortium who we all know is more "Veteran" than is Dirt Laughing

), I'm just not a tourney Veteran. I am one of those who runs almost everything. Unless it starts with a 3 WT and WL I run it generally. My RU indeed is garbage but in the small arena she is in I should have no issue getting over 50% as a ST. Tourney? Not a chance!!!! Come see me in 14 and no DAs and I'll match you arena-wise..... Tourney you are one of the "Mega Manager Gods" admitted!