My beef with the bank!

[koadah]

As a ox player I'm not keen on the Bank.

Who cares if AV9 teams have a million in cash. It's more important that the lower AV teams can put a bit by if possible.

IMO the bank favours the high AV teams as they have less need for the money. (Otherwise they wouldn't have such a large surplus).



It might not be such an issue in a less bashy environment but if you set the bank at different levels for different races...

[dode74]

IMO the bank favours the high AV teams as they have less need for the money. (Otherwise they wouldn't have such a large surplus).

I'd be interested to see if the playtesting from the vault (which was played with the bank) backed this up.

[Darkson]

The Bank favoured no-one, and there had been no complaints from the playtesters (though it had been asked for an optional rule that it could be set at 150k).

If anything, it hampered the high AV teams, as they couldn't sit on their millions*, so when they have the inevitable game where they lose 2 (or more) players, they couldn't just go out and replace them immediately.


*(Without giving up inducements)

[koadah]

IMO the bank favours the high AV teams as they have less need for the money. (Otherwise they wouldn't have such a large surplus).

I'd be interested to see if the playtesting from the vault (which was played with the bank) backed this up.

Though I did say as a ox player. The Vault sure wasn't the ox.

We're back to win% not being the only measure of 'good'.

Even without the bank we don't need to worry too much about teams ballooning over 2200.
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b ... printId=15

Though I suppose if you are going nerf C-POMB...

[plasmoid]

Hi Koadah,
the idea was that lower AV teams have a need to spend their cash continuosly, so they'd rarely be affected by the Bank. They rarely have a surplus.
High AV bashers have a surplus, which the bank rule will wipe out, which means that they can not stay aflot very long above the 2.2mil mark.
AFAIK it worked will in playtest.

But yes, sometimes softer teams will get affected.
It any given post-match sequence they'll have their bank (100K/150K) + any excess they dare carry around + the winnings roll from the game that just ended. That ought to be enough for 2 linemen or a positional.

Cheers
Martin

[koadah]

That sounds fair enough.

But in the Box I would take it as another disincentive to play anything but bashers.

I figure that they would be happier running an 11 or 12 man team when cash was short.

[Smurf]

BTW it states in the rule book commissioner's rules. The LAW!

So imo I'm capping spirralling at -40K. They can generate money slowly. I'll see how this works over the next few years.

[Dzerards]

Okay, so obviously I'm out numbered here... it seems that people like the bank ( )

I don't like it either. It feels clunky and a bit like a joy reducer. I bet Ageing sounded like a good idea at the time too.

Don't get me wrong, I really like all the other proposed LRB7 house rules, just not this one.

[garion]

To be honest, having thought about it for a while there is no point in the bank really.

Why not just increase the starting point for Spirraling expenses by 100k or 200k then make money count towards your TV. It would ultimately have the same effect long term, and it just means that you don't have to have two pots of money.

[plasmoid]

Because ultimately the new TV system was about making handicapping more fair - now that handicapping is also more potent.
So if my ogres are saving up for a reroll, with 130K in the bank, and I end up sucking on a wizard for it, then that would go against the intent.

[garion]

fair point lol

[Steam Ball]

The Bank favoured no-one, and there had been no complaints from the playtesters (though it had been asked for an optional rule that it could be set at 150k).

If anything, it hampered the high AV teams, as they couldn't sit on their millions*, so when they have the inevitable game where they lose 2 (or more) players, they couldn't just go out and replace them immediately.


*(Without giving up inducements)

It would also affect teams with Raise the Dead, Nurgle's Rot or lots of Regeneration, they wouldn't sit on the money either.

Knowing that the long testing was done with bank instead of petty cash, and that it would affect the resistant teams (read that as mix of high AV and skills to endure or recover from damage), you have to wonder if (part of) the problem with bashing dominance is this money cushion petty cash gives, allowing them to withstand smashing for long periods, instead of making a dent once they get a bit kicked in one or two matches.

[GalakStarscraper]

I don't like it either. It feels clunky and a bit like a joy reducer. I bet Ageing sounded like a good idea at the time too.

Don't get me wrong, I really like all the other proposed LRB7 house rules, just not this one.

But this is the thing ... we have real proof it WAS NOT LIKE AGING. IT was TESTED for over a YEAR and was very well liked by the playtest leagues. The feedback was so good ... it was 100% voted in by ALL the BBRC player members to be part of the LRB 5.0 rules.

It was not seen as clunky ... it was not seen as a joy reducer ... it is not some mad house rule we just came up with. It would be part of the current BB rules if JJ would have followed his own rules that he laid down for moving BB from LRB 3.0 to LRB 5.0. IE no rules go into the book that were not tested by the playtest leagues for at least 3 months (this moved to a year for CRP). Petty Cash was something he thought up in seconds and FORCED into the LRB 5.0 in place of a tested system that worked and was well liked.

I realize the history of this game gets lost quickly ... but sometimes its important to understand it.

you have to wonder if (part of) the problem with bashing dominance is this money cushion petty cash gives, allowing them to withstand smashing for long periods, instead of making a dent once they get a bit kicked in one or two matches.

That is my opinion. Petty Cash was a moment of hubris by JJ ... an unfortunate moment and one I wish we as the BBRC would have re-opposed with the final playtest round before CRP became official.

To be honest, having thought about it for a while there is no point in the bank really.

Why not just increase the starting point for Spirraling expenses by 100k or 200k then make money count towards your TV. It would ultimately have the same effect long term, and it just means that you don't have to have two pots of money.

Hi garion ... plasmoid answered your question pretty well ... I'll just confirm what he said. The bank at 150k is important because given up a Wizard or a Bribe and Babe just because you are saving for a re-roll just was seen as a rule that actually pentalized teams for trying to develop. Which I agree with. Just having cash be part of TV doesn't work if you want to encourage team development (just like inducements making matches equal was anti-development (so they were aimed at 35% successful)). So the bank becomes important to work to make players fell okay with developing their teams.

[bouf]

I love a good history lesson as much as the next guy Galak, but some of your comments offer nothing...

Tested for over a year you say...? How long has the Experimental rules be out (pre LRB5 I mean)? I dare say that the Petty Cash System isn't busted, and has well more than enough testing. The most important benefit should be that the "Game" is fun and as fair as possible. (by "game" I mean a single instance of playing BB - and by "as fair as possible" I mean that I understand the BB isn't designed to be a level playing field) The Petty cash system doesn't not affect any single game, but has knock on affects that affect "League results"

Forced in by JJ was it...? Hubris is it..? Why does that justify any change in any form. It was done, the reasons for doing it do not affect the present. Now... today... lets implement change it if it needs changing, and only if it's beneficial.

As I see...
The Issue you are trying to address is that "Resilient Teams" can carry WAY too much cash, especially at high TV and as a result are able to ride the High TV wave for longer than intended. This is not something that affects a single game per-se, but rather affects League performance.

To address this you are looking to implement a change that has an affect on a single game, and also has the possibility to affect all teams and at any value.

The intended benefit may be achieved, but the clumsiness of the change has other effects that are of no/negative benefit.

What you want to do is keep teams within a TV range that is acceptable. (A league play issue)
What you are actually doing is forcing me to spend the excess cash the rules provide me. (a Game play result)

And I don't want to be forced into anything... especially if I am already making positive/progressive decisions that manage my TV to acceptable limits. If I can maintain a TV that is within 1800 and 2200, why force me to buy inducements I don't want.

The more i think about it the more i hate the bank.

[bouf]

By all means, address the excess cash issue...
But please only address the excess cash issue.

Maybe a Salary cap need to be implemented to address the root cause (High TV)