Bigger Figures has it changed the game ?

[Michigan Joe]

I'm with Mark, its great to get some scale to the figures/game to add realism. You know- the bigger/fatter O-lineman (FF, 67 Big Man, or custom) and with the ability to also have the little guy (maybe a hati-repro WR for example). I think the figures we have today can actually blend well to get some interesting figure proportions. I recently created a post about this showing various figures at certain postions in order to create a level of scale that adds to the realism. For anyone interested that didn't see that post you can search for it under: Team construction ideas- utilizing all figures.

Joe

[Reginald Rutledge]

certain things are very difficult to police during the course of a game.

If you look at FF.net (FF.com) players, I show under stock poses the actual weights of players. My players are broken down by position where OL and DL are heavier than the LBs who are heavier than the DBs, QBs, RBs, and receivers.

I thought these things out many years ago but also ran into the issue of police-ing such things. Trust me, I would love to see linmen get their proper respect but when you are looking at time issues and the police-ing of the game, it can be a SERIOUS issue. We tried it here in the DFW. Myself and Michael Robertson were the proponents but so much underhanded cheating can occur with this.

The same weights of all players I have found makes the game more efficient and takes away one more issue about the game. But if someone came up with a logical way to keep the speed of the game (at least in the DFW) high and efficient, I am all ears!

Reg

Short answer is yes. Everything we do has an affect on the hobby. Some things more than others. Some for the better. Others not so much.

I have always maintained that we have room for more weight and NO room for taller, wider, longer figures and bases. The boards can accommodate, or be built to accommodate, more weight. That isn't a tough deal. Most boards will already do just fine, overall. What we do not, have not, and probably will never have, is room for taller, wider, longer figures and bases. That is, if we are trying to keep some sort of scale.

This has been covered in type and talk for over 10 years now. So whomever already got the memo, feel free to ignore.......

Scale for current mainstream players (figure+base=player) is 1.75 to 1.76 inches tall. This is right at .86 inches = 1 yard. That means, IF we do NOT have anything taller than existing mainstream, we would need a board right at 8.6 feet long! Try toting that to an out of town game. And that is strictly height we are dealing with here. Let alone, length, width, footprint, etc.

Most people play on a 620 or smaller. Though the trend has been increasing to slightly bigger (compared to 620) boards. Still, nothing close to actual scale. Point is, w/relation to scale, space is at a high premium already. Bigger stuff means less room on boards that already have way too little. Just doesn't make good sense and it really just isn't necessary.

There are other very good reasons for not going w/taller, wider, longer figures and bases. But that's for another day... make it a week or even a month.

Heavier, yes. Taller, Wider, Longer, an emphatic NO! We're already trying to play in a friggin phone booth.

-Mike Pratt

[Electric Coach]

When I talk about using bigger figures, I am assuming that the coach who increases the size of his figures is already playing on a custom size board. I would never use larger figures on a traditional board because of the board’s small size.

If a coach is going to customize his figures in size, he must customize the size of the board as well. In my opinion, one should get the custom board before actually using custom figures.

Maurice

The Electric Coach

[Pirate Rick]

i enjoy the use of big belly, beefed up players, but i ONLY use them on the defensive line. the weight is still within legal limits and they are NOT wider, taller, or longer then anything else. i use standard 67 big men and ff.com figs and just use a light weight "filler" to bulk them up ie bigger belly, or bigger "hittin" shoulder pads. I dont bulk up runners or recievers but i do like to add shoulder pads for a more relistic look. The enjoyment for me is simply visual...they dont out-perform any other figure just because i made it look different... i love the reaction i get from my oppenent when i set up my d-line with the big belly bubbas and they go.. "man those are huge" because now i am inside his head because now he "THINKS" i have the advantage and it messes with the head...kinda like a intimidation kinda thing.

[mklingbeil]

Mike,
I totally agree with you, if the board is a 620 or smaller, larger figures and bases should not be used. However, I think the game is evolving past that. I have been playing on a custom field I made for seven years now. It is 60" long by 27" wide. On a field that size, there is some room to make the figures and bases for linemen a little larger. I agree with you Maurice...it ALL has to be bigger!

This is just how I enjoy playing, but it sounds to me like people are looking for other options than the old standards format, and perhaps the time has come to look at other styles we can employ. I still prefer the standards for tourneys on small boards, but am really looking for something better.

What do y'all think?
Mark

[Geno H]

I love the idea of a multi weight team. Lineman 4.0 , TE, FB, LB 3.6 everyone else 3.3 grams. To me it seems simple to regulate. We weigh in all the players at Tournament time anyway. ?????? It is as simple as to set a rule that "NO ONE" can remove a figure from a base at anytime from check in to the crowning of the champ. NO extra empty bases allowed. A standard heighth and width can be controlled by a "cube". Pass through the cube and you are good to go.
If we let the possibilty of cheating regulate our rules it stifles us. It lets the minority rule.
Do we really believe the majority of the Coaches we are around will cheat?
Look at your league mates and answer that question. The cheaters will weed themselves out. Imediately when the game is over you simply & quickly weigh the championship teams, in front of everyone.
I personally think the conversations we have had over the past months, years whatever have revealed the interest in multi weight system.
With all of this being said. I DO NOT support Larger size figures or bases for obvious reasons that Mike Pratt pointed out. Weight is one thing Width & Heighth are another. We are all wanting to play on a bigger field now to open up the play. So it makes absolutely no sense to me to put ourselves right back out of room with larger bases or bases heavier than 1.3 grams.
Bluesman280 has it right. The visual effect is very pleasing and looks real and can be done with the rules we now have.
If we continue to up the size up the weight it will never stop and the cost will continue to go up & up & up.
We have witnessed that even within the standards today that evolution is still possible. The TDQ and TDK in my opinion are living examples. It is improvement without changing the standards.



Geno H

Ask 100 people for an opinion and you'll get just about 100 different opinions just about 100% of the time. Most of us are more prone to visual stimulation (shinny things) versus mental stimulation. I also prefer OL and DL to look bulkier than LB's, TE's, WR's, etc. But none of that has a thing to do w/the point I was making... size, scale, how it affects the hobby.

My point was scale. My point was IF we use a mainstream scaled player, irregardless of weight, on a scaled field, then we have a player that is 1.75-1.76 inches (tallest) on a field that is just shy of 8.6 feet long. So BEFORE introducing any taller players you need to get the board at that length JUST to achieve proper scale. Any board that is smaller is not to scale. Any taller player throws the scale off exponentially. Like I said, we are already playing in a phone booth, w/respect to scale. Even w/a board that is made at 1/2 inch = a yard, it's only about 3/4 scale. STILL not to scale of the 1.76 inch tall mainstream players.

So, please tell me, how is reducing the room to operate by introducing yet taller players on unscaled boards any sort of an evolutionary act? Evolution is generally thought of as a progression - Moving forward. Putting yet taller players on a board that is well short of 8.6 feet long is moving backwards. I.E., we never actually achieved a scaled board for the 1.76 inch figures. Taller figures on boards already too small is somehow an advancement? Advancement to better simulate football would require (a) same size players on bigger boards or (b) smaller players on existing and/or bigger boards.

I respect everyone's opinions. And I'm fine w/whatever people decide. It's not going to change my life either way. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. People are going to do what they want. I am just trying to inject some basic logic. Scaled players on a scaled field.. basic math.... how it affects the hobby.... trying to simulate football.

At any rate, if bigger is better then let's just cut to the chase. I propose 12 inch figures on the field. Just like the old G.I. Joes, Captain Actions, Barbies/Ken, etc. The paint jobs will look better, they'll be much easier to detail, much less controversy on tackles, completed passes, etc. We can use a scaled field to simulate football for these IF our backyards are big enough. Now that is BIG. And that, to me, would be worth ditching all of my invested hobby goodies to start fresh. Lemme know when they're available. Until then, 1.76 inch tall players are already too tall until 8.6 foot boards are mainstream. I'm all in for bigger boards. So, at least we completely agree on that issue.

-Mike Pratt

[5-13 Studios]

i love the idea of a multiple weighted style, but it would be difficult to regulate, in my opinion.

[Electric Coach]

Originally Posted by TheTweakFreak

Ask 100 people for an opinion and you'll get just about 100 different opinions just about 100% of the time. Most of us are more prone to visual stimulation (shinny things) versus mental stimulation. I also prefer OL and DL to look bulkier than LB's, TE's, WR's, etc. But none of that has a thing to do w/the point I was making... size, scale, how it affects the hobby.

My point was scale. My point was IF we use a mainstream scaled player, irregardless of weight, on a scaled field, then we have a player that is 1.75-1.76 inches (tallest) on a field that is just shy of 8.6 feet long. So BEFORE introducing any taller players you need to get the board at that length JUST to achieve proper scale. Any board that is smaller is not to scale. Any taller player throws the scale off exponentially. Like I said, we are already playing in a phone booth, w/respect to scale. Even w/a board that is made at 1/2 inch = a yard, it's only about 3/4 scale. STILL not to scale of the 1.76 inch tall mainstream players.

So, please tell me, how is reducing the room to operate by introducing yet taller players on unscaled boards any sort of an evolutionary act? Evolution is generally thought of as a progression - Moving forward. Putting yet taller players on a board that is well short of 8.6 feet long is moving backwards. I.E., we never actually achieved a scaled board for the 1.76 inch figures. Taller figures on boards already too small is somehow an advancement? Advancement to better simulate football would require (a) same size players on bigger boards or (b) smaller players on existing and/or bigger boards.

I respect everyone's opinions. And I'm fine w/whatever people decide. It's not going to change my life either way. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. People are going to do what they want. I am just trying to inject some basic logic. Scaled players on a scaled field.. basic math.... how it affects the hobby.... trying to simulate football.

At any rate, if bigger is better then let's just cut to the chase. I propose 12 inch figures on the field. Just like the old G.I. Joes, Captain Actions, Barbies/Ken, etc. The paint jobs will look better, they'll be much easier to detail, much less controversy on tackles, completed passes, etc. We can use a scaled field to simulate football for these IF our backyards are big enough. Now that is BIG. And that, to me, would be worth ditching all of my invested hobby goodies to start fresh. Lemme know when they're available. Until then, 1.76 inch tall players are already too tall until 8.6 foot boards are mainstream. I'm all in for bigger boards. So, at least we completely agree on that issue.

-Mike Pratt

I am speaking hypothetically. I am not saying that Tweak Freak is suggesting that the hobby goes to this level. I am only speaking in regards to what he said.

Tweak Freak when I pick up a magazine, I don’t read it. I only look at the pictures. When we talk about customizing our equipment in the hobby, we must be careful to keep it all in perspective. That is my approach to the hobby.

Tweak Freak talked about the actual scale a board must be to truly accommodate a figure of a certain size. In regards to the hobby, it would be unnecessary to go to that level. Furthermore, there isn’t enough space for a tournament to house multiple boards that are 8 feet long. I personally, don’t have enough space in my house to accommodate such a board.

I like the hobby where it is now. I don’t see a need to go bigger than what we are in regards to the size of figures and boards. The total size of my board is 45 inches long by 35 inches wide. The actual playing surface is 39 inches long by 21.5 inches wide. The rest of the field is sidelines and space behind the goal post.

In my ideal world, I believe that a board should be no bigger than 5 feet long by 3 feet wide. Within that a playing surface can be set. The figures need not be bigger.

Maurice

The Electric Coach