TS4 Gameplay Balancing Suggestion

[Ary1g]

First of all. The rules are simple! Don't have stats over 91. The seven exceptions is how to use players that else is banned by this rule.

Yeah..... And we'll get posts on the forum everyday by someone asking why he can't use his coach. Someone will then have to explain the seven exceptions that allow his coach...... A simple rule would be "Don't have stats over 91" - with no exceptions.

Also, you answered this one guy that it would eliminate tons of coaches. WRONG. With limit at 91: It will eliminate 1 coach,

Quickly looking through the calculator, I count 4:
Claire Roberts (minimum reflexes = 93)
Luka Skippetrov (minimum serve = 93)
Michael Kelly (minimum volley = 94)
Remi Ercolani (minimum speed/stamina = 94)

Wow, havent you even read the exception rules?
The only coach completely banned will be Michael Kelly. The three others you mention is specified in the exceptions and can be used.

Why can't we try this rule in a tournament or two? I don't know. I can't really see any reason not to use this rule. Other than many of you don't want it and claims that it's not necessary. Well necessary or not, this rule adds realism to the tour. The one that can tell how this rule does not add realism, will have my respect and I will forever be at peace on this subject.

[Ary1g]

Same here, I have zero problem with playing against 100 builds....my problems are with Welsh and Rabarri mostly - when it comes down to setup only, both of them will still be there stronger then ever. But the REAL problem are the players navigating them - they are simply better then me. This is really the only argument I need to nix this idea. I see no benefit of doing such a complicated rule.

How is the rule complicated??
When it comes to Welsh and Rabari, I honestly don't think that they will be overpowered with my suggestion. I really hope that we can maybe try this for just one tournament as I am certain that it won't be a problem for players to follow. For god sake. It's just 6 lines of exceptions and stay under 91 with attributes. It's really not that difficult as all of you are saying.

[RainingAmoeba79]

Same here, I have zero problem with playing against 100 builds....my problems are with Welsh and Rabarri mostly - when it comes down to setup only, both of them will still be there stronger then ever. But the REAL problem are the players navigating them - they are simply better then me. This is really the only argument I need to nix this idea. I see no benefit of doing such a complicated rule.

How is the rule complicated??
When it comes to Welsh and Rabari, I honestly don't think that they will be overpowered with my suggestion. I really hope that we can maybe try this for just one tournament as I am certain that it won't be a problem for players to follow. For god sake. It's just 6 lines of exceptions and stay under 91 with attributes. It's really not that difficult as all of you are saying.

They are overpowered NOW, how will they not be when EVERY other good coach is banned too?

[Ary1g]

They are overpowered NOW, how will they not be when EVERY other good coach is banned too?

What are you talking about?
Every other good coach? What Michael Kelly? He is the only one that will be banned with the suggestion. Please read my earlier posts and check the coach calculator and see for yourself.


As for the managers and crew here. Why are you so quiet suddenly?
If you're so certain in your case. Why havent you come up with a argument that is so good that even I can't counter it in any way. You're not having a discussion here at all. You don't want to open and look at new possibilities. In my earlier thread here where all this started. You were positive to my thoughts, but could not see it done because it would require more than just having a attribute limit. Now I have come up with such a suggestion, and all you have to say is:"It's too difficult to understand", "You'll have to explain everyday why and how to use a coach", "it's not needed" etc.

Well, Rob, you claim that the rules are too difficult to understand and after that you claimed that there would be four coaches banned, which is just nonsense. The rule is 91, except for 7 exceptions. There are very few ways of using any of the overpowered coaches and not get over 91. And if you do find a way, they will be way overpowered. Like say Welch. Some said he can still be used with wings 90/90. This speaks for it self that it will be overpowered, and extremely unrealistic in any way. No one is equally epic on both wings. That's why I suggested that he can only be used with a level 18 player. Then he would probably not be able to get overpowered(requires testing to confirm). Because at max, one wing will be 89 or both would be 84/79(you can't get them equal because you have only got 3 wing upgrades).

If you think there will be a lot of questions how to use a coach and why this build is banned. I would really like to be the "complaint-department". If anyone have questions, I can answer them.

And Djarvik. Let me quote you from the earlier thread: "I am all for balanced play and always will be, that is what sets us apart from the "rest".....but it has to be done right." Also you wrote this in the same post: "BTW - did anyone try going the opposite way? ...try and see if imposing a minimum stat could solve the problem?" In the last quote I made, you say it's a problem. Now it's not needed? Maybe it isnt needed. And yes, there may be few finals with these builds. But how can that tell if people are using OP builds or not? You can easily choose to use a OP build in the earlier rounds so that you can get to the "good players". And when you're in the final you know you will be hated if you win a final with a OP build, so you change to a more decent build that you still play good with. Then if you loose there, it is no problem anyway. Hopefully you can say that your opponents build was OP, but who cares? You were in the final.
Anyways, a little digression, but that is just thoughts I have. Over to a better argument than what I wrote above. Why have so unrealistic builds if they arent used anyway? And why have them at all? If anyone of you cared for realism you would have agreed to this suggestion right away. Which brings me back to where you were all so positive earlier, but when I actually come up with something interesting, you just shove it aside and talk dirt about it and only presenting the bad things about the suggestion. Where are your objectivity? What so difficult with trying to look it from the other side? What's the positives with a rule like this? What would it really mean and do when put into effect? I'm really getting tired of you big bosses just coming with a lot of hatred toward this idea and not talking about any of the positive aspects of the suggestion.

Hope this will open this suggestion to more discussion, instead of just this outrage and suppression.

I now know that I will start using the OP builds. And I really hope I can show just how pathetic these builds really are. Hopefully I will be hated for using a OP builds

Thank you for reading!

[tigerofintegrity]

That's because if it is unworkable, there there are no positives since it won't make sense to implement. Like everyone says, it's far too convoluted. It's even more complicated than sim and if that happens, you know you've gone wrong somewhere. Nobody wants to come here to play competitive tennis only to realise they have to learn a long set of rules like they're taking law school.

[Rob ITST]

As for the managers and crew here. Why are you so quiet suddenly?

I'm done with this. We've spent weeks looking into this idea already, and it's not the way to go. And I still haven't seen anything that tells me it's needed - the players with stats over 91 are some of the weakest setups in the game.

[Ary1g]

That's because if it is unworkable, there there are no positives since it won't make sense to implement. Like everyone says, it's far too convoluted. It's even more complicated than sim and if that happens, you know you've gone wrong somewhere. Nobody wants to come here to play competitive tennis only to realise they have to learn a long set of rules like they're taking law school.

What do you have to learn!??
If you're not using one of those 7 out of 53(!) coaches! All you have to do is to stay under 91! What so difficult about that?! Yes, IF you're using one of the 7 coaches mentioned in exceptions, then it might be a little bit confusing at first, but still! If you want to use say Slavina. All you have to do is read HER exception. If you want to use Welch, read his!

Also, when it comes to controlling if people are following the rules, it's all up to you how picky you want to be. Let's say you start a match and you know that your opponent is using a banned build. Well then it's your problem if you loose(obviously since you accepted it by starting the match). But if you don't accept playing that banned build, you say it to your opponent and then he has to change player or retire from the tournament. It's THAT simple!

And yes, this suggestion is the first draft of such a rule and will need testing before actually effectuating this rule/change.

[DennieFR1908]

That's because if it is unworkable, there there are no positives since it won't make sense to implement. Like everyone says, it's far too convoluted. It's even more complicated than sim and if that happens, you know you've gone wrong somewhere. Nobody wants to come here to play competitive tennis only to realise they have to learn a long set of rules like they're taking law school.

What do you have to learn!??
If you're not using one of those 7 out of 53(!) coaches! All you have to do is to stay under 91! What so difficult about that?! Yes, IF you're using one of the 7 coaches mentioned in exceptions, then it might be a little bit confusing at first, but still! If you want to use say Slavina. All you have to do is read HER exception. If you want to use Welch, read his!

Also, when it comes to controlling if people are following the rules, it's all up to you how picky you want to be. Let's say you start a match and you know that your opponent is using a banned build. Well then it's your problem if you loose(obviously since you accepted it by starting the match). But if you don't accept playing that banned build, you say it to your opponent and then he has to change player or retire from the tournament. It's THAT simple!

And yes, this suggestion is the first draft of such a rule and will need testing before actually effectuating this rule/change.

Yea but the point is it's just too much. If you would just add a no 90+ rule it would be simple and clear to everyone, this is just to much work, you can keep on talking about it as long as you wanna, I won't stop you but believe me it won't happen, just to complicated so save your time and effort.

[Ary1g]

As for the managers and crew here. Why are you so quiet suddenly?

I'm done with this. We've spent weeks looking into this idea already, and it's not the way to go. And I still haven't seen anything that tells me it's needed - the players with stats over 91 are some of the weakest setups in the game.

We've spent weeks looking into this idea?! It's exactly 5 days and 17 hours since I first suggested THIS attribute ban and I havent heard of any country in this world that count 5 days as "weeks". So stop exaggerating and start to discuss properly.

Please explain in detail how Welch, Slavina, Rabari, Babb, Claire Roberts, Skippetrov, Michael kelly and Ercolani are some of the weakest setups in the game?

[Ary1g]

Yea but the point is it's just too much. If you would just add a no 90+ rule it would be simple and clear to everyone, this is just to much work, you can keep on talking about it as long as you wanna, I won't stop you but believe me it won't happen, just to complicated so save your time and effort.

Why is it to much? Why is it "just to much work"? Please explain your statements.

I won't stop, but I will start using the OP builds and show just how horrible they are and why they only ruin the tennis experience of this game. Look forward playing against me.

[DennieFR1908]

As for the managers and crew here. Why are you so quiet suddenly?

I'm done with this. We've spent weeks looking into this idea already, and it's not the way to go. And I still haven't seen anything that tells me it's needed - the players with stats over 91 are some of the weakest setups in the game.

We've spent weeks looking into this idea?! It's exactly 5 days and 17 hours since I first suggested THIS attribute ban and I havent heard of any country in this world that count 5 days as "weeks". So stop exaggerating and start to discuss properly.

Please explain in detail how Welch, Slavina, Rabari, Babb, Claire Roberts, Skippetrov, Michael kelly and Ercolani are some of the weakest setups in the game?

Hes just talking about banning all stats above 90, and I can imagine they did spend weaks before deciding they wouldn't do it.. you shouldn't relate everything to yourself.

[DennieFR1908]

Yea but the point is it's just too much. If you would just add a no 90+ rule it would be simple and clear to everyone, this is just to much work, you can keep on talking about it as long as you wanna, I won't stop you but believe me it won't happen, just to complicated so save your time and effort.

Why is it to much? Why is it "just to much work"? Please explain your statements.

I won't stop, but I will start using the OP builds and show just how horrible they are and why they only ruin the tennis experience of this game. Look forward playing against me.

You can do what you want, nobody cares otherwise they would ban them.... give your best with whatever setup you wanna play when you meet me, we'll see if you beat me.

I have nothing to explain about my statement, just telling you the ITST staff won't introduce ur "great idea" and you could better save your time instead of starting this useless discussions which will come to no result anyway.

[Ary1g]

As for the managers and crew here. Why are you so quiet suddenly?

I'm done with this. We've spent weeks looking into this idea already, and it's not the way to go. And I still haven't seen anything that tells me it's needed - the players with stats over 91 are some of the weakest setups in the game.

We've spent weeks looking into this idea?! It's exactly 5 days and 17 hours since I first suggested THIS attribute ban and I havent heard of any country in this world that count 5 days as "weeks". So stop exaggerating and start to discuss properly.

Please explain in detail how Welch, Slavina, Rabari, Babb, Claire Roberts, Skippetrov, Michael kelly and Ercolani are some of the weakest setups in the game?

Hes just talking about banning all stats above 90, and I can imagine they did spend weaks before deciding they wouldn't do it.. you shouldn't relate everything to yourself.

Well, I DON'T see any forum posts that suggests something even close to my suggestion on ITST, and no one seems to be able to explain WHY this would not work and WHAT is so bad with it. If they have spent several weeks on this subject they should have much better arguments than "It's too difficult", "It's not needed" and so on! They should be able to tell me exactly WHY this WON'T work. (And YES, I'm am using caps lock to emphasize words, because there's obviously difficult to get my points in my posts).

Side note: I'm not talking about banning stats above 90. I'm suggesting 91.

[DennieFR1908]

I think someone has to talk to you with caps so the last person that doens't understand why it's to comlicated finally gets it..... you already anoyed me to much im off just watch ur own created poll and see the truth about the public opinion about ur idea.

[Ary1g]

I have nothing to explain about my statement, just telling you the ITST staff won't introduce ur "great idea" and you could better save your time instead of starting this useless discussions which will come to no result anyway.

Then you are not contributing in any constructive way in this post and should really not write more here. If you have nothing to explain I really don't want to read anything from you in this thread anymore. Thanks and goodbye for not contributing with anything.