Team Rating Cap

NightDragon 2 · Post by **NightDragon 2** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:03 pm

This is the 3rd year of using this rule and I have to say I think it is great. A TR Cap so that at the start of each season all teams have a maximum rating of whatever. It is a real equaliser.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:11 pm

Any rules that put a hard-and-fast cap on teams get's a huge thumbs down from me, wheter it works or not.

NightDragon 2 · Post by **NightDragon 2** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:46 pm

Why? Otherwise all you end up with is too powerful teams. A TR Cap enables you to play and gives all teams a chance in my experience.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:31 pm

Having to fire experienced, but uninjured, players to stay under a arbitary value just isn't fun imo. If a team is destined to grow, let it grow.

shagga · Post by **shagga** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:15 am

A TR cap means teams who naturally perform better at higher ratings do not get a chance to out perform those teams better at lower TR. For example if the TR cap was 200 why would anyone choose chaos who really start to come into their own at that point. With artificially low TR's Norse and Amazon end up with a massive advantage. It's impossible to balance all teams fairly at a set TR so letting teams all go through development is the only way you get a fair representation in my opinion.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:45 pm

Some of us actually happen to LIKE the idea of building powerful teams. That's a large portion of the enjoyment of the game for me.

duff · Post by **duff** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:33 am

"Soft" caps have a more natural feel. Arrange the rules of the game so the higher you go the harder it is to climb/stay there. Ideally the teams which will win tournements in an ongoing league will be the ones which have managed to peak and hold it together, before slumping int a rebuild phase.

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:02 am

Spiralling Expenses anyone?

Mo · Post by Mo » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:53 pm

I like the idea of a floating minimum for new teams. It even makes sense that when there are big powerful teams in a league, any owner trying to break in with a new franchise will have to pony up a lot more starting money to hire a team that has a chance of competing.

At the start of a new season, first all coaches decide whether or not they are keeping their old team or starting a new one. Use the TR of the ongoing teams to decide how much can be spent by anyone starting a new team, including new coaches coming into the league. Use the lowest, or next to lowest, TR of any continuing team, but not less than 100.

If the starting TR is over 100, a new team must buy a legal starting roster with its first 100 spent. Then for any money spent over the first 100, RR costs jump up to their higher level. This is less broken than relying entirely on any handicap or inducement system. New teams will at least they have a deep enough bench to get started.

Cheers,
Mo

NightDragon 2 · Post by **NightDragon 2** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Does anyone who does not like the TR Cap idea use the ageing rule? That is the most damaging of all the rules. I use a TR Cap of 300. That seems to be sufficient for all teams to develop to their potential. Over that the Orcs and Chaos become too powerful, but too much under that the Elves dominate.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:30 pm

In my TT league, we've taken ageing out, because invaribly only play one season before the coach tries something else/

However, the PBeM leagues I've been in (where the majority of my BB is

) have normally used aging, with no limit to TR except what the winnings table brings in.

Do (did) you get many teams breaking the TR300 barrier? It's meant to be hard to stay there once you break the 300 mark.

shagga · Post by **shagga** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:15 pm

I have an orc team that is permanently stuck at TR250. Above 300 requires ogres or a lot of SPP which get lost very easily as players die or age bad.

NightDragon 2 · Post by **NightDragon 2** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:39 am

Some of the Elven teams had the greatest propensity, but it does seem a good limit. What about on PBeM?

lawquoter · Post by **lawquoter** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:12 pm

I've discovered more death in the game is a great equalizer. Encourage more fouling, not less. It shouldn't have the stigma that it does.

NightDragon 2 · Post by **NightDragon 2** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:43 am

And I don't see how you can like building powerful teams when the rules over the last editions discourage it.