Team RU

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 10:57 pm

Here's some rollups to play with. I won't be running them soon if ever, but I feel like posting something, and there's only so much to say about your personal turns and so on.

12-11-9-10-12-12-4
12-3-11-16-6-10-12
5-19-12-13-6-7-8
5-11-15-6-19-4-10
17-8-13-11-9-3-9

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 11:34 pm

OK, I'll play. Design is one of the most interesting facets to me anyway.

12-11-9-10-12-12-4

12-11-9-16-17-12-7 Sl/Lu in that order. If I can get a 17 wit for one easy burn I'm inclined to do it. Physicals are somewhat more certainly suited to a slasher than a lunger as I don't like to have even higher "spray" on my hits than is usual for a lunger, especially on marginal endurance/damage guys.

12-3-11-16-6-10-12

12-3-11-21-9-11-17 Str/PS Limited by the endurance available and lack of HP's. With a 9 will though, it's very unlikely to be an ADM star anyway so the (fairly) early basic peaking striker makes the most sense all the way around. Could throw that one speed point into str or will but this is my preference for minimum anyway and there's no clear benefit to the other choices.

5-19-12-13-6-7-8

ouch, I suspect nothing is going to work really well with this one.

9-19-12-17-9-8-11 Could try a PR or TP, but while it could theoretically be any not too endurance intensive style save AB it's sort of doomed to marginal basic success I think. If it wins early and learns like a demon it could be fun through basic though.

5-11-15-6-19-4-10

11-17-15-7-20-4-10 scum would probably win the most but isn't quite brickly enough for tourney prizes I'd guess.

5-11-15-11-21-6-15 PL might work as an alternative if you wanted one but won't be anything special.

17-8-13-11-9-3-9

17-8-13-17-15-3-11 WOS (with precious little rip) BA (but offensives would beat it forever) PR (I'd probably try this even though the DF is unpromising)

We'll see what some of the others make.

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:57 pm

All of my initial designs for this team have a ? after the style. Smile

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 5:46 pm

12-11-9-10-12-12-4

Considering the rest of the make-up of the team, I'd probably DA this one under the 'almost useful' rule. However, if you want it, go 12-11-9-16-17-12-7 LU. The attack spray that gameogre is so concerned about is no big deal, and lungers use con FAR better than slashers ever will.

12-3-11-16-6-10-12

17-3-11-21-9-10-13 ST, although I guess you could risk the 50/50 great damage and try basher. Depending on learns, this could do very well in an Initiates or lower tournament. I TV'd Initiates earlier this year with a similar (17-3-9-21-9-14-11) design.

Gameogre: My design has the same starting attack, no chance of very little endurance, and a very realistic shot at great damage. This is one case where ST overrides the DF skills.

5-19-12-13-6-7-8

9-19-12-17-9-8-11, tough call on the style. I'd likely say PS or TP (yes, it can win a a TP).

5-11-15-6-19-4-10

11-17-15-6-20-5-10 TP. Run in this upcoming FTF, train WL, then DF, then ST until 13. DA afterward.

17-8-13-11-9-3-9

Here I'd probably have a little fun and go either 17-8-13-17-15-3-11 BA or (more likely) 21-8-13-17-9-5-11 BA. Don't be too concerned about the starting decise - bashers are only behind strikers in the amount of decise they learn.

Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:07 pm

OK, I don't mind the first one as a lunger or I wouldn't have included it. For me the preference would probably go to slasher is all.

I like Ichabod's 17 str version on the second one. I never get that great damage roll on those but you might and it's got other advantages.

And yeah, even when set-up there's some options on style for you on these.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:10 pm

My initial thought for the first rollup was 13-11-9-15-17-12-7 LU. Low DF lungers are pretty much the ones I have always had fun with, but I prefer better WL. I guess in the last while people started burning skills again eh? I still don't think that way unless it's a basher or something else that I don't expect to do well in advanced.

15 WT doesn't bother me much--15, or 21, or 7, my fighters all seem to learn like crap. Selena Steele in Darkholm has a 5 bumped to 7 WT and she learned like 4 this turn. My 15 WT slasher learned 3 and my 21 WT AB learned 3. *shrug* Always seems that way.

I like the second one as 12-3-11-21-10-10-17 AB. I've always done well with those kind of AB's, so it sounds fun. The ST design, I've got a dozen like that already, and just looking at them is boring Smile

But it definitely crossed my mind, and depending how the rest of them end up, it's a possibility I'll consider. I've not been big on tourneys, and I don't have a proxy for the FTF so I'm not thinking a whole lot about it.

That third one, believe it or not I thought about a scummy PR, too. I had it 5-19-12-17-11-7-13. But right before the 'PR' note is the 'DA' note.

Fourth one, yeah, pretty much. Tired of scum TP's though. Maybe a scummy burner AB? 10-16-15-7-20-4-16? I like ABs.

I had the last one as probably a BA, 17-8-13-17-15-3-11, though I can't help but wonder if in reality he'd be a good WS or even a LU. If he gets lucky on the damage doing he could be pretty good, and he feels like a killer to me. *shrug*

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:30 pm

*shrug* Your designs won't do nearly as well as the ones Slaughter Priest and I tossed out, but hey, they're your guys.

Next time I won't bother wasting my time.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 8:37 pm

I posted with my initial designs. If I didn't want to see and consider your opinions and designs, I wouldn't have asked. I haven't decided anything yet, including if I'm even going to run the team at all.

If you don't want to respond in the future, that's up to you. No need to be snarky about it.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:24 pm

My initial thought for the first rollup was 13-11-9-15-17-12-7 LU. Low DF lungers are pretty much the ones I have always had fun with, but I prefer better WL. I guess in the last while people started burning skills again eh? I still don't think that way unless it's a basher or something else that I don't expect to do well in advanced.

Burning skills in one possibility that is considered depending on circumstances. BA's are certainly one instance. Strikers for many people are Freshman Tourney maximums so burning skills isn't much of an issue. In this case I just looked at the number of points in non or low skill stats and decided the base wasn't going to get you a high ADM level stud anyway. Might as well win while it was still likely.

I like the second one as 12-3-11-21-10-10-17 AB. I've always done well with those kind of AB's, so it sounds fun. The ST design, I've got a dozen like that already, and just looking at them is boring But it definitely crossed my mind, and depending how the rest of them end up, it's a possibility I'll consider. I've not been big on tourneys, and I don't have a proxy for the FTF so I'm not thinking a whole lot about it.

Ah, the famous dead AB style. If you run into a situation where you will face a high number of defensives this can be fun. Otherwise the results are problematic. In a way, you are making this a burner, permanently losing two attack skills with the 17 DF but I don't know that it will last long enough to care.

That third one, believe it or not I thought about a scummy PR, too. I had it 5-19-12-17-11-7-13. But right before the 'PR' note is the 'DA' note.

Cool, we all have different standards of what's worth running.

Fourth one, yeah, pretty much. Tired of scum TP's though. Maybe a scummy burner AB? 10-16-15-7-20-4-16? I like ABs.

That could be good for some fun, since you like the style and the options are pretty limited it doesn't hurt.

I had the last one as probably a BA, 17-8-13-17-15-3-11, though I can't help but wonder if in reality he'd be a good WS or even a LU. If he gets lucky on the damage doing he could be pretty good, and he feels like a killer to me. *shrug*

I'm not much for the 3 speed lunger, you'll see me ignore the possibility on other examples too but anything can be tried. If it had a bit more con it could work by wearing armor and ignorring the jump altogether. BA if you're patient enough to wait for the decise learns works and WOS works until high basic where it suffers unless you happen into a rip fav learn.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:41 pm

gameogre wrote:

Burning skills in one possibility that is considered depending on circumstances. BA's are certainly one instance. Strikers for many people are Freshman Tourney maximums so burning skills isn't much of an issue. In this case I just looked at the number of points in non or low skill stats and decided the base wasn't going to get you a high ADM level stud anyway. Might as well win while it was still likely.

I never ran many slashers to know how they do with low DF. I like your SL idea for that rollup much more than LU. I don't like many lungers, but this one leans that way, like it might be gawky spaztic fun, but since it seems SL do well enough at low DF I'd definitely give it a try (and mental note that for future designs).

gameogre wrote:

Ah, the famous dead AB style. If you run into a situation where you will face a high number of defensives this can be fun. Otherwise the results are problematic. In a way, you are making this a burner, permanently losing two attack skills with the 17 DF but I don't know that it will last long enough to care.

Yeah, they've always died a lot (even when I played before) but I always got a kick out of them. I'd probably want to look at my potential arena choices before I decide what to do with it, because I know the striker setup would do well. I just have a lot of low WL strikers already.

gameogre wrote:

Cool, we all have different standards of what's worth running.

In this case it's just that I don't feel comfortable with PR's. I liked your design more than my own, for the weapons and damage, but I don't know that I'd do well with either one. I know from speaking to people long ago that I've designed some decent or good PR's, but I haven't ever done well with one. I'll be playing with them some more though, and at least the high CN on this would help keep it alive. I just...ick.

gameogre wrote:

That could be good for some fun, since you like the style and the options are pretty limited it doesn't hurt.

Right...if he dies, no biggie.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:37 am

saucyjack wrote:

I never ran many slashers to know how they do with low DF. I like your SL idea for that rollup much more than LU. I don't like many lungers, but this one leans that way, like it might be gawky spaztic fun, but since it seems SL do well enough at low DF I'd definitely give it a try (and mental note that for future designs).

Low DF lungers, in my experience, have performed far better than low DF slashers, at least partially because the slashing weapons tend to require higher DF (yes, I'm aware of the BS). Generally, low DF slashers tend to suck no matter what you do with them.

saucyjack wrote:

Yeah, they've always died a lot (even when I played before) but I always got a kick out of them. I'd probably want to look at my potential arena choices before I decide what to do with it, because I know the striker setup would do well. I just have a lot of low WL strikers already.

So what you're saying is you wont run a design that will almost certainly TV (and with some luck could be a TC contender) because he's somewhat similar to some other strikers you have who probably aren't as good?

saucyjack wrote:

I posted with my initial designs. If I didn't want to see and consider your opinions and designs, I wouldn't have asked. I haven't decided anything yet, including if I'm even going to run the team at all.

If you don't want to respond in the future, that's up to you. No need to be snarky about it.

Your post read as what you had decided to do, dismissing out-of-hand the suggestions made by both of us. In the future, label your 'initial thoughts' as such to avoid that kind of confusion. In addition, I don't claim to be the master at design (Scrag would likely get that title), but I do claim to be fairly good. You would probably be well-adviced to at least ask about anything that I suggest which you disagree with or have questions about.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:55 pm

Ichabod wrote:

Low DF lungers, in my experience, have performed far better than low DF slashers, at least partially because the slashing weapons tend to require higher DF (yes, I'm aware of the BS). Generally, low DF slashers tend to suck no matter what you do with them.

That was what I've always thought, but I don't have much experience with slashers. So the low DF version is just basically the 'offensives don't need DF to win' idea?

Ichabod wrote:

So what you're saying is you wont run a design that will almost certainly TV (and with some luck could be a TC contender) because he's somewhat similar to some other strikers you have who probably aren't as good?

Well, maybe from one perspective I'm saying that, though I would see it as more like this: I'm not likely to be very active in tourneys in the immediate future, and since I wouldn't have fun running yet another low WL striker in whatever arena I put this team in, I would probably not want to go that route right now. (Again, I'll probably just hang on to the team and so the striker idea is a definite possibility, since I don't know what I'll be doing when I use the rollup.) A low WL striker I designed for my wife's old team snagged a TC once, so it's not like I don't understand the idea. If I want to seriously pursue a tournament soon and don't have one I like more, the striker definitely looks like a good choice.

Ichabod wrote:

Your post read as what you had decided to do, dismissing out-of-hand the suggestions made by both of us. In the future, label your 'initial thoughts' as such to avoid that kind of confusion. In addition, I don't claim to be the master at design (Scrag would likely get that title), but I do claim to be fairly good. You would probably be well-adviced to at least ask about anything that I suggest which you disagree with or have questions about.

I didn't mean for it to read that way, sorry. I guess I just started rambling on when I started the post. I am asking because I want to know, I have not dismissed anything yet, but I am mentioning my leanings to see what you all have to say.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 2:18 pm

saucyjack wrote:

Well, maybe from one perspective I'm saying that, though I would see it as more like this: I'm not likely to be very active in tourneys in the immediate future, and since I wouldn't have fun running yet another low WL striker in whatever arena I put this team in, I would probably not want to go that route right now. (Again, I'll probably just hang on to the team and so the striker idea is a definite possibility, since I don't know what I'll be doing when I use the rollup.) A low WL striker I designed for my wife's old team snagged a TC once, so it's not like I don't understand the idea. If I want to seriously pursue a tournament soon and don't have one I like more, the striker definitely looks like a good choice.

Regardless, the 9 will striker is the strongest design you can get from that rollup. It will do well in the arena whether you run it in tournaments or not. Going with a design you KNOW is inferior is just silly - I'd understand if there were one version that would do well in tournaments and another that would do better in the arena, but that's not the case here.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2003 11:59 pm

Yep, I don't do everything the way he would do it, in part because his standards are so high, but Ichabod has a real eye for design and will improve your set-ups invariably with consideration of why he chooses to go the directions he does.

As to the slasher/lunger discussion, I think there are three non-scum styles that set up well enough with low deftness. Basher, lunger and slasher. This is based partially on attack skills, of course. I often like the slasher over the lunger because it is less endurance intensive, makes less use of the defensive skills on preferred numbers anyway and as I mentioned sprays hits less than a lunger on lunge tactic (which has seemed to matter on less than powerhouse hitters who tired early, this could be a tactic/management mistake on my part but it does reflect some actual experiences). You have to consider giving a pass on the SC when you make the decision and it is a negative. But 7 is enough for HA for a speed weapon, BS which is good though not best among your choices and BA (two-handed) which I really like to have as an option for these styles. Considering the limitations (of tactics that are well suited for instance), I've felt slashers learned attack early enough to support lower deftnesses. I'd have to look at a specific case to see which I'd guess would do better, though, and I'm not saying the lunger doesn't work (but I do hate limiting a lunger to SH and SS for well suited weapons, it's a bigger loss if not the fav than with many styles where the fav is harder to find and attack skills are learned the same or earlier).

It takes a bit more managing and sort of acquiring the 'feel' of them to succeed with PR's than several other styles. It's worth some more tries when you have some well suited set-ups though. A really good PR is amazing. There isn't any style one can't beat (although they fall to the wayside like almost all styles later in ADM to the best lungers and AB's).

Now, if you have too many 17 deftness, genius strikers who have to overcome a poor endurance I could probably help you out with some... Laughing

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 4:36 pm

Ichabod, just curious--what do you think of that striker, as per your design, except putting ST and DF both to 15 rather than maxing out one or the other?