Fixed League, Fixed TV target?

[mattgslater]

Hey, guys,

I'm looking for a simple, holistic solution to my problem with the current inducement structure given my league's preferred form. Way back when, we established this cool fixed format that we really liked and contained a lot of built-in workarounds to the balance issues of the day. We like our workarounds, but the logic has changed, and we're finding that LRB5 Inducements tend to punish successful teams in fixed formats, which is very frustrating given our season structure. The initial instinct is to limit the allowed inducements, but that reduces the fun factor.

Each week, each team will be up against an opponent who has played the same number of games, and the season will start at TV 1.1M, lasting about 12 games plus 3-5 games in a tournament. The regular season is for seeding only: everybody makes the tourney, though some have a steeper hill to climb than others. Since all teams have the same number of games under their belt and most teams are still on their way up when the season ends, healthy teams will tend to maintain similar TVs (with a few exceptions).

Here's the kicker.

Instead of comparing your TV to opponent's TV in the pre-match, compare your TV in the post-match to a target TV to determine what if any inducements your team receives in the next match. This target TV is 1M, plus some amount (I'm thinking 40k-50k) per match played. If your TV is less than this, you receive the difference in inducements. If not, congratulations. To avoid confusion, money appropriated to cards goes into a "card-fund", and doesn't have to be dedicated to specific draws until the start of the next match.

So the overdog might get inducements too. Perhaps throw in a bit to slow down any runaways, like say an extra 50k in card fund for each full 100k the opponent is over the target. WDYT?

Added benefit, this gives me more flexibility to deal with my old-timers, who would be very happy with major changes in the Journeyman rule that didn't involve added complexity. With these rules, I could take JMs clean out, and still never see a team go below 11 players.

[mattgslater]

Aww... not even an explanation why it's a terrible idea, huh? It would cut down on bookkeeping. It would also be a modular rule: the target could be set at "Overdog TV" (the current rule) in the postseason tournament, when the games really count, and in the regular season this floating target would essentially function as a softening of the inducement rules without any actual internal tinkering.

It doesn't quite totally replace JMs in weeks 2 or 3, for teams missing only linos (often, but not always). After that, though, it should. At 50k/week, a team that's missing a lino and has two earned skills and a FF gain would only be the lino's price below the target on week 2, unable to afford the extra 30k. With only 1 skill (+20k inducements), the team would have to jettison the FF to get a merc, or suffer with 10 for a match. A less-fortunate might also be tempted to wait an extra week buying an Apoth: again, a unique perversity of week 2 economics (and really only week 2). But frankly, that team is 1-0, and if fielding 10 players is the price of success, hey. If they were down to 9 players, they could get a Merc (a positional, even), and at 8 could probably take 2. So it replaces JMs late, and JMs in multiples, but one missing guy in the second match is a possibility, and it provides a 30k penalty for each JM, which will make my coaches happy.

Ooh... I could up the threshold by +50k per week, including the current one (so everyone gets 50k inducements in week 1). That solves the 11 players problem. Not really sure it's a huge issue in context: in my little group, the lower-tier coaches are all addicted to bash, while the upper-tier coaches mix it up, so whatever's bad for elves is good for balance (to a point).

[Jural]

It's a good idea, actually. But I'm not sure that it really helps when one team just starts to dominate the league. Good winnings, many advancements, etc... An elf team who plays the right opponents might get to some nasty team value and nobody could play them straight up...

So maybe full inducements up to the set limit, and half inducements afterwards? So if the target was 1.5M, and there is a 2M team and a 1 m team, the 1M team would get the first full 500k, and 250k of the next 500k. This is a bit more complex than LRB 6 or your suggestion.

Another option is to use a handicap style table or a vicious earnings cap for teams over the target amount, or over it by 200k+, or something like that.

All in all, I like the idea. But I just think a team with a good run of luck over the opening 6 games might run away with the league.

And I may have missed it- but what inducements are in use during your postseason tournament?

Also, if you remove journeymen and increased teams to 11 using linemen after every game (which I like) then MNG players come back and take the team over 11!

[Grumbledook]

read through this a couple of times and if i am honest it seems more complex

what is the issue with the current system that you feel changes need to be done?

If I can understand the motivation behind the changes it may make more sense

[mattgslater]

Here are my givens. If I don't stick with any one of these, there will be walkouts. We have an irascible, intractable bunch, and getting them to agree to these common principles took years. If I don't get it more-or-less right the first time, it could be more years before I actually have a full-on league going.

Fixed season: Everyone plays the same number of matches against a schedule that a) includes everyone, and b) is built around the coach's relative success and the team's relative bashiness. There is no opportunity for any team ever to play any other team that has not played the exact same number of matches, except in the postseason where one team may have one more match than another.

8 teams. Maybe 6....

Each season is 13 games. Each team has 3 games per month, plus a bowl game at the end. Then there's a tournament: all teams automatically make the tournament, but regular season and bowl-game success dictate seeding, and there may be an NFL-style bye round/qualifier in one of the first two elimination rounds.

A few concessions to 3rd ed that mostly balance against each other (more blood, more money, better apoth) and absolutely some nerf to journeymen.

So I must do some tinkering, one way or another. This seems like an easy way to do it. Personally, the one thing I want to change is the rule of 1:3. I think that the objective of regular season inducements instead should be "I don't know for a fact that I'm a goner," rather than "I have a good chance." Part of this is because our system doesn't really reward victory until it's all on the line: we're playing for pride and development most of the time. The sense that a victory was un-earned or was stolen when it's obvious that inducements were the difference maker is very much not a fun thing. But if inducements were never more than a little wind at the back, or if both sides had them at their disposal, I think it would be more enjoyable to lose to them (or to win with them).