New winnings table

[wesleytj]

I like the concept behind the new and expanded winnings table. I like the negative modifiers for big teams with small crowds.

After some playtesting, I also, however, feel that it is a little TOO rough. This is especially true given the fact that it is very difficult to get a very large fan factor now, given the modifiers (as well as the always down on a 1 rule).

I started my team with a 9ff. I'm TR 148 (I was over 150 for a bit but had 2 line elves die) And I still am having trouble breaking even. I understand that the idea of the new winnings table (and ff mods over 10) was to sort of put a clamp on teams getting too big, but I think this is too extreme, and everyone I've talked to in my league agrees with me.

I would suggest 3 things:

1. Shift the whole table by +1 or +2 (i'd say +2)
2. Make certain that the +1 modifier for winning the game is applied last. (IE as long as you win the game you're guaranteed 10k regardless of other mods)
3. I'd also like to see the rule of 1 and 6 not apply to ff anymore like it did before...it makes no sense to win the game, score a lot, and cause lots of cas, and still lose fans. I've had that happen to me several times now, as have other coaches in the league. It sucks!



So, in summary, like I said, I really do like the idea of what the new winnings table is trying to do. I see the need for the -'s at the top end. But after playtesting I think it's too harsh and needs to be nerfed a bit.



Opinions? Maybe I'll run a poll on this topic this evening when I get back.
I've never done one before.

[Zy-Nox]

I just roll badly on the winnings anyway, I need a table that applies a +6 mod to any team I use,(on top of d6 and table and winning games)
I dont really mind the table though,it cuts the income but I havent been unlucky enough to be badly effected by it yet.
I agree about the FF I've had the same, butcher opposition and FF drops, but I just pass it off as Hmmphhh...Its BB
Run a poll, It will get you the answers you want......or not

[DoubleSkulls]

Overall I don't think there is too much wrong with the money. In a 14 game season (starting with rookie teams) the average winnings were between 33k and 49k per game. That should be enough to keep you growing at the start.

I suspect you've been a bit unlucky with fatalities, and that can make a big difference.

Ian

[wesleytj]

Overall I don't think there is too much wrong with the money. In a 14 game season (starting with rookie teams) the average winnings were between 33k and 49k per game. That should be enough to keep you growing at the start.

33-49? It seems very odd that you'd come up with 2 odd numbers so far apart. You don't mean the gate was that do you?

I suspect you've been a bit unlucky with fatalities, and that can make a big difference.
Ian

Actually I play dark elves, and I didn't lose a single player in my first 8 games, which I would call rather fortuitous. My last 2 I've lost 1 line elf each, but I certainly wouldn't call that massive. I have rolled poorly for winnings, but still I can see the trend where in not too many games it will be very tough to break even on the table, let alone grow.

[Dragoonkin]

The league I play in threw the "rule of 1 or 6" out the window for the FF roll, for the very same reason as winning and having your FF drop. Stuuuuuuuuuuuupid.

[Diesel]

That has just happened to me today - a convincing win with Amazons over Skaven only to loose 1 FF by rolling a 1.

Gutting!

Diesel

[High & Mighty]

I started my team with a 9ff. I'm TR 148 (I was over 150 for a bit but had 2 line elves die) And I still am having trouble breaking even. I understand that the idea of the new winnings table (and ff mods over 10) was to sort of put a clamp on teams getting too big, but I think this is too extreme, and everyone I've talked to in my league agrees with me.

Sounds like you've had some pretty bad rolls. With a TR around 150, you're going to be getting +1 to +3 per game depending on winning/gate rolls. But I do know no matter how much money I get, it never feels like enough. Maybe that's why my real bank account is always empty too.

In our league after 45 games, the bottom five TR teams (TR 135-160) are averaging 51k/game while the top three TR teams (TR 174-210) are averaging 34k, so it would seem to be doing it's job.

That has just happened to me today - a convincing win with Amazons over Skaven only to loose 1 FF by rolling a 1.

But getting trounced only to have your FF go up is always a welcome surprise, as well...not that I ever get trounced...

[GalakStarscraper]

Like the table as it currently stands. The table was the result of a lot of testing (over 200 matches on an 18 game league season) and it seems to top out the teams about where everyone felt and it needed tweaked to get there. The original table proposed for BB2k1 was REALLY tight on money. This table reduced from that position works very well.

Galak

[wesleytj]

Like the table as it currently stands. The table was the result of a lot of testing (over 200 matches on an 18 game league season) ...

Is 18 games/team really enough to gauge the effect of that whole table? Also was this playtesting also done in conjunction with the negative modifiers on the fan factor roll (-1 for each 10 ff you already have), as this would affect gates and hence winnings as well?

and it seems to top out the teams about where everyone felt and it needed tweaked to get there. The original table proposed for BB2k1 was REALLY tight on money. This table reduced from that position works very well.
Galak

OK so it's better than one that was even tighter on money...how bout going a little farther the same direction?

Like I said, I'm for the idea. I don't think the original winnings table was adequate, and I like having some negative mods for big teams with small gates. But, I think given the fact that it's nigh impossible to get a big ff (and hence a big gate), this table goes a little too far. I'm starting to feel like the only one on here who feels this way, or at least outnumbered.


Or maybe we could kill off that FF rule (plus the apparently unpopular rule of 1 and 6 for ff too) That rule seems to punish winning teams imo...(and who cares about the weasels who luck out after getting creamed)

[Toby]

we roll a D8 instead of a D6

[Acerak]

I started my team with a 9ff. I'm TR 148 (I was over 150 for a bit but had 2 line elves die) And I still am having trouble breaking even.

TJ, maybe you're using a different definition of "breaking even," but even at TR 151 you're going to get at least a -1 modifier on any gate of 41K or more. And that measn you're guaranteed to "break even" on a game. Even at TR 201, you can guarantee yourself money with a win and 61,000 fans. That's not tough at all.

Judging by the feedback we've had here and on other forums, I'd have to say that the table is doing just fine. Give yourself more time to gauge its effects. Remember to look at the league as a whole, not just your own team.

If I could add one tweak right this minute, I'd make the lowest band "100 or less." (The second band would become "101-125," which would give this band a range of 25 TR rather than 26 TR.) That would place an extra 10K in the hands of every rookie team and add some simple consistency to the table.

If I could add a second tweak, however, I'd make negative money come out of your treasury and then add a small rule to cover any shortfall after that. But by most accounts, teams are capping out at 250 TR (give or take). And if that's really the case, we don't need to fiddle with the table, because the system as a whole is doing what it's designed to do.

We'll review this again in October, but we were all set to bring down the hammer on money before playtesting!

Cheers!

-Chet

[GalakStarscraper]

Like the table as it currently stands. The table was the result of a lot of testing (over 200 matches on an 18 game league season) ...

Is 18 games/team really enough to gauge the effect of that whole table? Also was this playtesting also done in conjunction with the negative modifiers on the fan factor roll (-1 for each 10 ff you already have), as this would affect gates and hence winnings as well?

18 games for a team is a pretty decent season ... I know a lot of leagues that never make it that far. Also there are several leagues now that have tested the table BEYOND that and they are reporting that its working very well. Oh and yes is was with the -1 for each ff and the 1/6 rules which I don't have a problem with either.

and it seems to top out the teams about where everyone felt and it needed tweaked to get there. The original table proposed for BB2k1 was REALLY tight on money. This table reduced from that position works very well.
Galak

OK so it's better than one that was even tighter on money...how bout going a little farther the same direction?

Or maybe we could kill off that FF rule (plus the apparently unpopular rule of 1 and 6 for ff too) That rule seems to punish winning teams imo...(and who cares about the weasels who luck out after getting creamed)

Nope ... I like the TR 250ish cap that the mix of the new winnings table, the new FF mods, and the removal of Random Events cards has produced and I would not want to do anything that would cause it move higher.

Galak

[wesleytj]

we roll a D8 instead of a D6

Wow that's a nice simple fix. Maybe I'll push for that in the local league.

[wesleytj]

TJ, maybe you're using a different definition of "breaking even," but even at TR 151 you're going to get at least a -1 modifier on any gate of 41K or more. And that measn you're guaranteed to "break even" on a game. Even at TR 201, you can guarantee yourself money with a win and 61,000 fans. That's not tough at all.

Yes, sorry. I just meant breaking even on the MODIFIER. Not the overall winnings. Then when I roll 1's for winnings the last 4 games, it doesn't help either. Fortunately I won all but 1 of them as well. =^P

Judging by the feedback we've had here and on other forums, I'd have to say that the table is doing just fine. Give yourself more time to gauge its effects. Remember to look at the league as a whole, not just your own team.

Well I haven't been sneaking around looking at people's rosters, but when I talk to other coaches they generally seem to think I have a point about the winnings table being a bit rough.

If I could add one tweak right this minute, I'd make the lowest band "100 or less." (The second band would become "101-125," which would give this band a range of 25 TR rather than 26 TR.) That would place an extra 10K in the hands of every rookie team and add some simple consistency to the table.

I like that one.

If I could add a second tweak, however, I'd make negative money come out of your treasury and then add a small rule to cover any shortfall after that. But by most accounts, teams are capping out at 250 TR (give or take). And if that's really the case, we don't need to fiddle with the table, because the system as a whole is doing what it's designed to do..

I don't like that one. First of all, why is it important/necessary to have teams cap out at 250? To me, that sounds kinda like a d&d game where your characters can't go past 8th level or something. I think the fun of the game lies in team development, making cool players on cool teams. I guess that's probably the reason I don't like the expanded niggling injury section of the injury table. (Though I do actually like the aging rules)

So humor me for a minute. Everyone on here has been talking kinda like it's a given about why it's good to cap a team at a given level. Why it that the case?

Now, I'm partially just playing D.A. here, because as I mentioned I do like the idea behind the new winnings table, which I guess means I also like the idea of some sort of cap where no matter what your FF is you can only get so big. But I've also had some TR 250 teams that were just starting to get really good.

I think what's happened is that we've nerfed out the natural attrition so much from the game with softer fouling and yougher penalties on it, not to mention the weakening of some important ST skills, that we've had to put in artificial caps that weren't necessary in the past.

We'll review this again in October, but we were all set to bring down the hammer on money before playtesting! Cheers!
-Chet

You mean MORE??

[GalakStarscraper]

The TR limits are there because I've seen TR 500 teams in 3rd edition ... and no matter how you look at it that's just plain wrong.

Galak