TS4 Gameplay Balancing Suggestion

[Ary1g]

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.

Well, if the poll was the truth. This ban should have been effectuated already from the earlier thread I created. http://www.intertopspintour.net/forum/v ... hp?t=15773 Please check the poll there if you think it's that easy.

[DennieFR1908]

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.

yea and good luck with ur idea

[Ary1g]

yea and good luck with ur idea

Thank you very much

[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!

Just reposting my post as there was a little discussion with dennie that pushed it far out of sight. Looking forward to read more contructive answers from now on.

[tigerofintegrity]

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 you just pointed out yet another problem about why it's overly complicated. At least with over 91+ you can instantly just scan the stats and see if it's legit or not. Now with separate rules for every coach, you either learn them off by heart or both you and your opponent stop at the character screen, go here, check up on every stat to make sure they followed the rules right and only then can you play. That is far too much hassle and I know I wouldn't want to do that before every match.

[emate007]

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!

First of all, you're taking this way too personally. Outrage and suppression is quite an exaggeration... I'll echo the sentiment of many others here when I say it's a noble cause to try to find a more realistic and balanced form of TS4. However, your suggestion IS too complicated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but this site has always gone by the mantra of 'the less rules the better.' And yes, having a stat limitation for all stats except one and then 7 coaches who are excepted from this but not all in the same manner because each coach has a different stat that is excepted from the rule.... is a bit long winded and certainly not easy to pick up and play.

Maybe you've addressed this in another thread, but why do you feel this would be better than SIM tour? The principle is the same as your idea, more balanced gameplay with no OP setups. It works very well, and is charmingly simple. It's existence is a big reason why your idea is not needed.

[Ary1g]

And you just pointed out yet another problem about why it's overly complicated. At least with over 91+ you can instantly just scan the stats and see if it's legit or not. Now with separate rules for every coach, you either learn them off by heart or both you and your opponent stop at the character screen, go here, check up on every stat to make sure they followed the rules right and only then can you play. That is far too much hassle and I know I wouldn't want to do that before every match.

I have explained this before. This will not be a problem as most of the builds you think about have all attributes way over 91. There are maybe 1-2 coaches that may be hard to see through, but that's all. The exceptions are very strict and are the only way of using some of the exceptions coaches.
I can't believe that this would be a problem because as 95% of the time, all you will have to do is to scan to see for attributes over 91, to see that it's either under or have any of the easy coach exceptions like:

C. Roberts who is the only possibility to use a player with reflexes exceeding 91(93).
Skippetrov who is the only possibility to use a player with serve exceeding 91(93).
Michael Kelly which you btw never will meet because his attributes exceeds 91 any way you mix or match the build. Lowest possibility at 94 volley, which I decided to be too much.
Ercolani is the only possibility to use a player with speed and stamina exceeding 91. 94/94. (His wings are 74/64 at max one wing btw)

These are the simple ones.
A total of 4 coaches with a total of around 10 builds out of (guessing) 200-300 builds.

The only difficult one's are Babb and Rabari which may need reworking on my suggestion about them.

I think that this will be automatic within a month of trial. For anyone that are playing a lot on ITST this will not be so difficult as you all want it to be. Then the new one's can just use some different coaches than the exceptions. Have a rule like: "If you use a banned coach/build, you will be banned." Then no newbie will ever try to use one of the exceptions if he or she does not understand them and don't want to bother asking about, since he or she probably are using a different coach. Since there's 50 coaches available to use easily without having to worry about nearly anything.
I have to go to work now. Will post more in a few hours. but hope this give you some idea of how this will work

[Rob ITST]

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.

We've spent weeks discussing the idea of limiting stats. It's not needed, and doesn't place any restrictions on the strongest setups. You "exceptions" don't make the idea any more attractive.

[LokiSharpShootr]

And you just pointed out yet another problem about why it's overly complicated. At least with over 91+ you can instantly just scan the stats and see if it's legit or not. Now with separate rules for every coach, you either learn them off by heart or both you and your opponent stop at the character screen, go here, check up on every stat to make sure they followed the rules right and only then can you play. That is far too much hassle and I know I wouldn't want to do that before every match.

I have explained this before. This will not be a problem as most of the builds you think about have all attributes way over 91. There are maybe 1-2 coaches that may be hard to see through, but that's all. The exceptions are very strict and are the only way of using some of the exceptions coaches.
I can't believe that this would be a problem because as 95% of the time, all you will have to do is to scan to see for attributes over 91, to see that it's either under or have any of the easy coach exceptions like:

C. Roberts who is the only possibility to use a player with reflexes exceeding 91(93).
Skippetrov who is the only possibility to use a player with serve exceeding 91(93).
Michael Kelly which you btw never will meet because his attributes exceeds 91 any way you mix or match the build. Lowest possibility at 94 volley, which I decided to be too much.
Ercolani is the only possibility to use a player with speed and stamina exceeding 91. 94/94. (His wings are 74/64 at max one wing btw)

These are the simple ones.
A total of 4 coaches with a total of around 10 builds out of (guessing) 200-300 builds.

The only difficult one's are Babb and Rabari which may need reworking on my suggestion about them.

I think that this will be automatic within a month of trial. For anyone that are playing a lot on ITST this will not be so difficult as you all want it to be. Then the new one's can just use some different coaches than the exceptions. Have a rule like: "If you use a banned coach/build, you will be banned." Then no newbie will ever try to use one of the exceptions if he or she does not understand them and don't want to bother asking about, since he or she probably are using a different coach. Since there's 50 coaches available to use easily without having to worry about nearly anything.
I have to go to work now. Will post more in a few hours. but hope this give you some idea of how this will work

Stop posting, this is useless, ure just wasting your time and anyone else who´s posting here(including mine) the hosts have been over this matter, they arent doing it period.

And if the way that ITST is being runed doesnt feel right to you, just leave bro, you will not be missed.

You can discuss how many times you want to, you can post how many times you want to, you can try to appear being the smartest how many times you want to.

And BTW man a lot if not all top players are using the OP builds as you say so whats the big deal??? if everyone are using them, the best player will win right?

[Ary1g]

We've spent weeks discussing the idea of limiting stats. It's not needed, and doesn't place any restrictions on the strongest setups. You "exceptions" don't make the idea any more attractive.

I say the same to you as to Dennie. Can you please explain you statements? It really should'nt be that hard if you have discussed the idea for weeks. Also, you can forget that I will show you much respect in the future if you just come with big statements and does not care to explain why you say them just because you're a manager here and have 7000+ posts here. It's a matter of principle. And then in the future when someone start talking about this again, you can just redirect them right here and own their ass(if you can turn me over) and be very happy with yourself.

What are the strongest setups in your opinion or knowledge?
What do you think the exceptions do with the idea?

[Ary1g]

Stop posting, this is useless, ure just wasting your time and anyone else who´s posting here(including mine) the hosts have been over this matter, they arent doing it period.

And if the way that ITST is being runed doesnt feel right to you, just leave bro, you will not be missed.

You can discuss how many times you want to, you can post how many times you want to, you can try to appear being the smartest how many times you want to.

And BTW man a lot if not all top players are using the OP builds as you say so whats the big deal??? if everyone are using them, the best player will win right?

First of all, I'm not trying to appear being the smartest. I'm just presenting my idea and answering your posts. Sorry that I appear trying to appear being the smartest

Secondly why do you even bother posting here if you're just going to throw shit at me and throw shit at my opinion? I don't see any constructivity with that.

Thirdly, I very much enjoy being a part of the ITST and I'm very much enjoying these discussions so I'm not going anywhere.

Fourthly, I will be using OP builds in regular tour from now on. So looking forward playing against people and start getting complaints on my OP builds. I'm that confident I'm a sufficient player on the court. Which is why I want a change on ITST.

Fifthly, if there is a chance of creating more builds being able to be used in regular tour without getting your ass kicked by a lame 100/90 wing player for example, I will persecute this chance to the bitter end. Which this isnt near of being in my opinion. If it was I wouldnt have bothered to explain so much to you people, so that you maybe understand that this is worth trying out.

Sixthly, I'm just kidding, I don't have a sixthly point. At least not right now.

[Ary1g]

First of all, you're taking this way too personally. Outrage and suppression is quite an exaggeration... I'll echo the sentiment of many others here when I say it's a noble cause to try to find a more realistic and balanced form of TS4. However, your suggestion IS too complicated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but this site has always gone by the mantra of 'the less rules the better.' And yes, having a stat limitation for all stats except one and then 7 coaches who are excepted from this but not all in the same manner because each coach has a different stat that is excepted from the rule.... is a bit long winded and certainly not easy to pick up and play.

Maybe you've addressed this in another thread, but why do you feel this would be better than SIM tour? The principle is the same as your idea, more balanced gameplay with no OP setups. It works very well, and is charmingly simple. It's existence is a big reason why your idea is not needed.

Okay, I may have been exaggerating on the outrage part, but certainly not on suppression part. Before I continue answering you post, I must really say: Thank you! Thank you for explaining your statements and giving a good contribution to this thread.
I think I'm being suppressed by the managers, staff and some players
because they don't want to explain why they say what they say and none of them have even bothered looking really into the idea(it appears). Rob for example came with a statement that 4 coaches could not be used with this suggestion, clearly he didnt check the coach calculator before saying that. Djarvik does not respond on my latest question and answer to his post and a lot of others just come and tell me that I should stop posting about this. Even though they don't have any arguments other than "no needed" and "useless spending time on".

Over to your opinion on the rule being to difficult.
I believe that the way you write the rule discription, makes it sound way more difficult than it really is.
Just think about it.
If you are not using any of these coaches mentioned, you don't really have care about the exceptions. All you need to do is read them once, then when you see them in-game you will probably reqognize them. Otherwise, if you have reasons to doubt that your opponent is following the rules, all you need to do is ask them. The people using the exceptions will probably be very sure about what they can use and not. Also most of the time there won't be any stats over 91 that needs questioning. The only difficulty at the moment that I see, is Rabari and Babb. They'll need some testing to make sure they arent overpowered with these suggestions.

With this thinking, I really can't see how it is such a difficult rule. :S

Looking forward reading more good posts from you.

[LokiSharpShootr]

You Wrote

Fourthly, I will be using OP builds in regular tour from now on. So looking forward playing against people and start getting complaints on my OP builds. I'm that confident I'm a sufficient player on the court. Which is why I want a change on ITST.

I use Welch and i just won the US Open, and i dont see anyone complaining about my overpowered build.

[VMoe86]

I just want to mention three points respectively questions:

1. Will this suggestion lead to a balanced tour or not? A tour in which IR/MD and TI/MD are allowed? I'm not sure if I want this. Or do ITST's classical rules for the regular TS 4 tour still apply?

2. Maybe there are some loopholes you haven't considered yet and people may come up with overpowered setups relative to these rules?

3. Surely stats play an important role regarding overpowered setups, but in some cases it is more about the skills the coach offers: IR/CPS for example. Rabari is such a popular coach because of the skills, I think. Take away IR from him and I don't think he'd be considered overpowered.

As you said: All this requires testing. Even more testing is needed than for the SIM Tour, because there are many more possible match-ups.

[emate007]

I believe that the way you write the rule discription, makes it sound way more difficult than it really is.

It's exactly the opposite, I boiled it down to on sentence. It's far more complex if you look at all the rules/exceptions you've created around this scenario.

This discussion has reached its end, all points have been covered from what I can tell. Again, respect to you for thinking about every possible setup and presenting your idea clearly (if a bit emotional at times). But it's never going to happen, and I'm guessing you already know that.

Also - you didn't answer my question. Why would this be better than SIM?