Talk Fantasy Football

I doubt that many will agree with me here, but I'll put it forward and prepare to don my flame resistant clothing for protection.

The handicap rolls intend at the moment to balance out the difference between teams, but no attempt is made to balance out difference between coaches. OK, in a tournament, the goal is to find the best coach, so no such balancing should be attempted. On the other hand, to encourage new or less able coaches (and I include myself amongst the latter when considered with the many experts on these boards) and to increase fun for all concerned would it be worth considering such a balance?

As an example, a not-very good coach (we'll call him Martyn ) has played 5 matches with his team and lost all 5. His next match is against a fairly new team run by a truly excellent coach (insert your name here) which has one its first 2 matches. Nevertheless, there is sufficient difference in TR that the newer team gets a handicap roll, which of course turns out to be "In Da Bag". Is this really realistic? Would Martyn's team really think this was a guaranteed win, when it's just lost five matches in a row and when playing against a team which has won two matches?

Anybody think this is worth considering?

Martyn

martynq wrote:.....and prepare to don my flame resistant clothing for protection.

LIke Galak i think the Handicap table needs work. Having recieved one "Grudge Match" which dint help me squat because of igemoy and the fact that i never had much chance of winning on a get the ref roll (which never happened). However thats not to say i want it micromanaged to the level your asking. By the way just how much did it affect your team? Im sure u dint lose 4 guys from it like i did my last match, not to mention with 5 losses just how experienced were the players u lost.

sean newboy wrote:By the way just how much did it affect your team?

Sorry, I was giving an illustrative example, rather than one which had actually occurred. I probably didn't make it clear.

My point was really that the handicap rules only balance out differences in the teams, not in the coaches. If someone has a team which keeps losing, they have little encouragement to keep playing with them (or even to keep playing at all), because even when they meet a team which they are stronger than, the handicap rolls kick in.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that perhaps handicap rolls should only affect teams that have won a lot, and not affect those that have lost a lot?

Martyn

I would feel (if we are talking local league here) that if you have one really good coach who wins despite having a new team against the odds then that coach should offer advice and pointers to assist the weaker coaches, they are friends after all.

We looked at allowing an extra sort of pre-match prep card for the weaker coach or making the better coach have a go with a "weaker" team hence my purchase of 24 Halflings off of Ebay yesterday. . But we also felt that if it was too weighted in favour of a weaker coach winning games there would be no fun for the experienced coach.

any ideas on this would help us too

Helping a coach should never be up to the rules but rather up to the fellow coaches in the league. If the coach is always losing due to bad luck (a dark elf coach springs to mind, tho he is not online) thats nothing that can be avoided, but if its a stratagy thing his opponents should step in and help him try to shore up his game. Almost all of us need help from time to time and all of us were at one point clueless novices. I dint get to be a good coach without the help of my more experienced fellow coaches.

The BBRC will review the Handicap table again in October. I'm afraid we won't be providing help for the rookie coaches, though - as someone pointed out, that's a function of the local league coaches.

It's been my experience that the best coaches tend to have the highest TRs. They win more games, so they accumulate more SPPs and more winnings. So I think the system is somewhat self-regulating in that respect.

Cheers!

-Chet

Acerak wrote:The BBRC ... won't be providing help for the rookie coaches, though

Shame!

Acerak wrote:It's been my experience that the best coaches tend to have the highest TRs. They win more games, so they accumulate more SPPs and more winnings. So I think the system is somewhat self-regulating in that respect.

But TR is also a function of how many games you've played. If you play 10 matches and you lose them all, then you're likely to be a bit unhappy that you still get penalized when coming up against a team that has played 2 and won 2 (for example).

Perhaps the reason you don't see many teams with high TR that have lost a lot is that the coaches just give up and decide to go off and play a different game instead. Do we really want to encourage such a practice?

I guess I'm just pontificating... while increasing the number of posts I'm making to these message boards. I don't think I was really expecting anyone to take my suggestion seriously, so I wasn't too surprised.

Martyn

we all start as rookies, make your experience train, ask and accept advices (some rookie coaches disagree with my advices even if they loose by 3 TD....). But those who accept advices are better coaches now.
I am not agree with handicap for good coaches.

Or you can do like me as playing gobbo for the moment in my league. Ot like Trambi with Ogre.

You will never see in any sport a handicap on a good team just because it is a good one.
Forget it is my humble opinion but train more and talk with experienced coaches.

Deathwing wrote:

martynq wrote:.....and prepare to don my flame resistant clothing for protection.

I like this one ....

Martyn,

The problem with trying to have a Handicap Table to help out rookie coaches is how to define a rookie coach. Whilst I can see that there is merit in the suggestion it is just too difficult:-

Is a rookie coach someone who has played less than 10 games?, 50 games?

Is a rookie coach someone who has lost 60% of games? But if so what if he plays with a team with a TR of 120 vs teams with TRs of 175+?

What if both coaches are rookies?

I agree with other posters - I don't think its for the game system to set this out. However, locally I don't see why a rookie coach couldn't be given more than 1 million gold to set up his team. That way he already has an advantage. Alternatively the more experienced coach could pick a weaker team - eg gobbos or flings.

Now this won't help your Elves in the PBEM League. Perhaps your style is not suited to Elves - your Undead team is doing pretty well - so run with a team that suits your style - or play Galak's 'Flings!



Dave

Dangerous Dave wrote:The problem with trying to have a Handicap Table to help out rookie coaches is how to define a rookie coach.

The thought that was going through my head is that you compare the current winning streak of the lower rated team with the losing streak of the higher rated team and reduce the number of handicap rolls by the difference accordingly. Probably wouldn't work, but it's just a thought.

Dangerous Dave wrote:Now this won't help your Elves in the PBEM League. Perhaps your style is not suited to Elves - your Undead team is doing pretty well - so run with a team that suits your style - or play Galak's 'Flings!

I wasn't just thinking about my elves. I have a friend who gave up playing Blood Bowl, because he rarely won. Every time I play against him, I'd beat him. His opinion is that he now knows that me and another friend are better than him, so he's "done the Blood Bowl thing." The only reason why I can see that he lost was the two who used to beat him thought much faster. What can you do in such a situation? With his departure, another friend giving up because he felt we argued too much about particular rules, another one dying tragically young, that league is now defunct (and has been since October). Bit of a shame really, so my only BB is played via e-mail now.

On the subject of my PBEM elves, I just don't know what my "style" is. I find the undead actually frustratingly slow moving, so wouldn't like playing dwarves. The league I was just mentioning we all ran 2 teams, at the point when it was disbanded, I had a chaos team that was top, and a dark elf team that was fourth. I had thought that I was experience in playing dark elves - the MBBL is proving that I am wrong. I like to be able to pass the ball lots and move quickly, which suggests elves are more my style. I've no idea why the undead are so high up - though the first victory this season was pretty lucky.

Martyn

Martyn ... just a thought ... if you ever retire the Tomb Raiders, you might want to try an Unholy Araby team ... the team is a mix of the Undead and Skaven teams ... might appeal more and fit better with your winning with PBeM.

Galak

GalakStarscraper wrote:if you ever retire the Tomb Raiders, you might want to try an Unholy Araby team ... the team is a mix of the Undead and Skaven teams ... might appeal more and fit better with your winning with PBeM.

I've just had a look at the Unholy Araby... hmmm, AV7 and no apothecary or regenerate for most of the players. Sounds like suicide in MBBL2 Division B.

I don't know if I will retire the Tomb Raiders at the end of the season. I'm thinking about it... but think that they'll still have a lot of potential developing to do. (The lack of movement might not be such a big problem once more of my wights have skills.) I'm certainly not intending to retire the High Elves - eventually I'll get the hang of playing them. (I'm at the beginning of a practice match against Deathwing, and he's already made a comment in an e-mail about what I've just done, which suggests I might be about to learn a new area in which my play can improve. I'll know once I get home and can load the game-file up on my PC.)

Martyn