First of all, my name is not erm. Secondly, what I wrote was that all of my starters have at least 8 skills that are at least respectable. My pg has 2 prominent, 3 strong, 1 wondrous,4 respectable, 1 average and 1 atrocious (shotblocking). My SG and SF are similar- my SF has 3 prominent and 3 strong. My C has 1 prolific, 3 strong, and 5 respectable. That is what I mean. I assumed, falsely, that having a team of guys who do everything well but nothing spectacularly would be able to compete. I was wrong. What I don't need is you assuming some condescending attitude in response to my post, thanks.
Your PG and C are not balanced. They are distinctly one-skill monsters with a single one of their attributes far ahead of the others.
A basketball team has 5 positions, which obviously need different skills sets to be efficient. So obviously fielding 5 players that are very similar in that they are jack of all trades but master of none is suboptimal.
On the other hand, the other extreme where you have 1 major skill and everything else lagging behind significantly is likewise suboptimal, so I wouldn't be surprised if you get routinely whacked by better constructed teams that seem to be of your caliber.
edit: Oh yes, and the other reason why your players might not work as you expect is that skills often work in conjunction with each other -- e.g. IS and DR or JS and JR. So if one skill is lacking, another might not function as well as you might expect.
Last edited by GM-kozlodoev at 7/13/2008 2:35:05 AM"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."