New Inducement - Profit Sharing.

[Bludbowler]

Profit Sharing – A coach may convert any unused inducement funds to Petty Cash for the duration of the match, and may be transferred into his Treasury, along with the rest of his Petty Cash, after the game.

[GalakStarscraper]

Really???

No way.

So I play a team with 1 Million more in Team Value ... I can get 1 Million in cash if I play the match without inducements. Holy cow is that broken and really take out the fun of developing your team.

Galak

[voyagers_uk]

hey 3DB is he one of yours?

[mattgslater]

We've been experimenting with a trio of inducements that we call investments.

* Quick Turnaround (100k): You invest some of the league's inducement cash in a short-term deal that you think could make you some quick gold. Add +1 to the Winnings roll.

* Side Bet (100k): You put some money down on your team, hoping that you can beat the odds. If you win, you may roll an extra d3 for Winnings: you may only re-roll this result or the d6, not both.

* Humanoid Interest Story (200k): You hire a wandering troubador to follow your team around and write a rousing song about one of your players, increasing his esteem in the eyes of fans and opponents alike! In addition to your normal MVP at the end of the match, one random other player gets an MVP too!

[voyagers_uk]

how are they working out?

[GalakStarscraper]

Matt ... those are better for this type of thing than what was mentioned in the 1st post (a LOT better).

I think Side Bet is too cheap. I cannot see a reason why I would ever take Quick Turnaround (100k for 10k) over Side Bet (100k for 15k on average if you round down, 20k on average if you round up). I'd put Side Bet at 150k and have the D3 round down.

Galak

[Ullis]

I think Side Bet is too cheap. I cannot see a reason why I would ever take Quick Turnaround (100k for 10k) over Side Bet (100k for 15k on average if you round down, 20k on average if you round up). I'd put Side Bet at 150k and have the D3 round down.

But taking these inducements lower your chances of winning in the first place so the cost could be ok. If the chances of winning are around 1/3, then the cost is fine.

I don't really like these inducements as they encourage coaches to think that there are matches that they just can't win. Isn't the main idea of inducements to give the underdog a fair chance of winning the match in the first place? And the system works, evidenced by the occasional gripes that inducements are too powerful as they can be tailored for the opponent. Even the extra apo is pushing it a bit. Taking these winnings inducements is a bit like conceding. They give an easier time for the overdog and lessen his chances of losing players. I'd hate to play in a league that has coaches that don't fight for every each and every win as hard as they can.

Why not just give new teams a small plus to winnings or let them start at some average of all the other teams TV?

[GalakStarscraper]

Should have been more specific.

I personally would never add these type of inducements to the game. They are not what inducements were about.

But if I HAD to do it ... I'd be looking at the value to your team being 10% of the cost of the inducement.

Galak

[Darkson]

Seem to defeat the object of inducements to me - inducements were meant to even (not level) the playing field for the up-coming game, not for future games. This was why the old bonus MVP rule was never brought back in.

[mattgslater]

@Galak: the +1d3 Winnings is only if you win, and is rounded up. So it's actually +1d3/2 if you think your odds are 50/50, or +1d3/3 if you think you're 1/3 to win.

I'd take a Side Bet only if I liked my odds to win. I have only seen one guy take it (against me, no less; I creamed him 5-2 for his hubris), but the other two inducements are pretty common in our league. One guy has been losing a lot but building his guys on Humanoid Interest Story: my b-team took one in their first game, and got an MVP on my Afrit/Yhetee for it (I'm going to start naming him Vegas: he kept rolling 7s, and took forever to get Mighty Blow). Quick Turnaround has been the #2-3 long-term survival option, after the first Wandering Apo and maybe a Babe or two, and is also popular for teams that really need 30k or 40k right now.

For us, the problem is late-season parity, when the elimination game comes around. If you play regular seasons followed by a postseason tournament, then "in-match" inducements above 250k or so are generally not your friend in the regular season, when winning doesn't matter as much as improving. If I have to settle for some teams going into the tourney having played half the matches of others, I'd like to see those teams able to bank up on the cash and MVPs.

What I've encountered is actually kind of what you'd expect. Underdogs which are on track generally don't touch them, and those that need a boost tend to go for the +1 Winnings or the +1 MVP. So far, teams that have taken the MVP are 1-2-1, but that's no population to appeal to. It clearly hasn't solved our key problem: for one thing, the 1-1-10 guy has a TV right up there with the winners, and for another, the teams with the worst TV mostly have coaches who are still convinced they're doomed to go one-and-done in the postseason.