There have been several suggestions to alter this, such as having a step increase in cost per skill a player takes (e.g. +10 for the 3rd, +20 for the 4th etc so normal skills would cost 20, 20, 30, 40 etc) or including skill access in the cost of designing a player.
I have issues with both of those: the first doesn't address the issue of skill access, it simply increases the cost for taking more skills. This will effect all teams equally, only really hurting teams which stack skills. If anything, players which are forced to take less-than-ideal skills which cost even more would probably be hurt even more.
The second option I dislike because it is pre-payment for what might happen. If we look at a 6338G player and a 6338GA player there is no actual difference between them as rookies: one is just as (in)effective as the other. With that in mind, why should the GA player cost more? Because he might get to 16SPP and take advantage of having two skillsets available to him? Seems to me that such a measure would have a large effect on the low-TV game, nerfing the good skill access teams across the board at that level. Do they need it at low TV? I've seen no stats to suggest that they do. Chaos in particular are renowned for being poor at low TV, and this would make them even worse.
I do get the difference between the 6338G and 6338GA player, of course, but the difference is one of developmental possibility rather than actual effectiveness as a rookie. That's why I don't see an up-front premium as the solution. My solution would be for such players to pay a premium when the synergy kicks in rather than beforehand - it's a better representation of the actual on-pitch capability, which is what we seem to want TV to be (and it isn't now). To that end I rather liked an "unlock" option for multiple skill access players. As an example, our 6338G player would be able to take skills at the normal 20TV cost, or doubles at 30TV etc in the usual manner. Our 6338GA player would be able to take his first skill at the normal 20TV cost, and any further skills from that category at the same cost. On doubles he would be able to select any skill he could normally select on a double at 30TV if the category is not yet "unlocked", unlocking the category in the process. Should he roll a single and want to take a skill from a new unlocked normal category, though, a premium would be applied (e.g. an extra 20TV).
Example progressions for 6338GA:
-------
Skill 1 rolls singles: Block 20TV
Skill 2 rolls doubles: G for 20TV or ASP for 30TV (because A skills are not yet unlocked)
Skill 3 rolls doubles: GA for 20TV (assuming he unlocked A at skill 2, otherwise A for 30TV), SP for 30TV
-------
Skill 1 rolls singles: Block 20TV
Skill 2 rolls singles: G for 20TV or A for 40TV (20TV for the skill, 20TV to unlock it)
Skill 3 rolls doubles: GA for 20TV (assuming he unlocked A at skill 2, otherwise A for 30TV), MP for 30TV
This makes progression for cross-category skills more expensive. It would add 40TV to a Block CPOMB player and 20TV to a blodger, for example, unless doubles rolls were used to unlock skills at a lower cost. It's not a massive amount, by any stretch, but a few blodgers would soon add up, as would a few CPOMBers.
Players who start with a skill from a skillset (e.g. block on blitzers) would not be considered to have that skillset "unlocked" yet. That way a DE blitzer, for example, could blodge up at the same cost as now, but taking tackle would cost the premium. Similarly, doubles become an interesting option: do I take Guard on that same DE blitzer, or do I take the lower cost of opening up tackle and dauntless; where do I want the player to go? Sounds like a no-brainer, but if you have a few guards already then it's not so simple.
One of the downsides, though, is individual players costing different amounts with the same skills depending on whether they unlocked the skill with doubles or not. That's no major issue so long as it is annotated somewhere - certainly no issue for an online environment, and no more of an issue for TT than noting the correct number of SPPs.
The main advantages are that it does alter the dynamic for synergistic cross-category skills, making them cost more for the reasons stated above, and it doesn't involve any changes to the rosters themselves. If anything it might make skill selection, particularly in MM environments, more interesting. I'm not pretending this will fix everything, but it will increase the cost of taking those high-synergy, cross-category skills.
Thoughts?
