Talk Fantasy Football

Okay ... gken1 and some other discussion is narrowing this down.

So the thread is going to start with these 2 givens ... for this thread its just the case.

Based on other polls and threads ... assume that these 2 things are done:
1) Rule Change: Niggles are rolled before each half. Failure means you miss the rest of the game (ie failing before the game means you miss the whole game; and if you are still there at half time; failure would miss the 2nd half; failure before OT if still around would miss the OT).

2) A simple scaled handicap table was added:
viewtopic.php?t=9777&start=115

Okay based on the discussion ... both of these have a lot of TBB support.

So then that brings us to which long term balancers is desired, because I think both will work with the above 2 changes. So which would you rather have?

Plan A) Skill based Aging. Either the current LRB aging or even a varient of it.

Plan B) Negative Winnnings Rule mixed with Freebooted Apothecaries

Negative Winnings:
If your cash roll at the end of a game is negative, this amount is deducted from your treasury. This may cause your treasury to go negative. If it does, the negative amount is recorded to your roster as a team debt (ie negative cash). Negative treasuries will be treated as if they are positive treasuries for Team Rating points. You cannot purchase anything for your team if your treasury is negative.
Freebooted Apothecaries:
Change the Apothecary from being purchased for 50k to having to be freebooted for any game for 10k. (Much like the wizard was changed from being purchased for a team to being only freebooted in the LRB 1.0)

==============================================

If you don't understand the Negative Winnings + Freebooted Apothecary system ... read this link before voting:
viewtopic.php?t=9777

I'm just trying to see which way TBB is leaning. GKen suggested that if you had the 1st two items you could leave the game alone and it would work and I agree with that. The reason for Neg Win/10k Apoth change was to remove aging from the game. If I'm wrong that folks would like the effect that this would have to moving most long term effects to long term instead of having short term league impacts, that information I really want to hear.

Galak

i said this in other post but I really don't see the bbrc changing apothecaries. It's a huge change to the game and without it the negative winnings won't work. that's another concern. I wouldn't want to see negative winnings without the free-booted apoth.

gken1 wrote:i said this in other post but I really don't see the bbrc changing apothecaries. It's a huge change to the game and without it the negative winnings won't work. that's another concern. I wouldn't want to see negative winnings without the free-booted apoth.

I wouldn't mind seeing the free booted apoth without negative winnings.

You still get the constant drain on money - naturally keeping TRs lower - and if you are getting lots of 0 winnings you'll eventually not be able to afford an apoth and will lose players whether you want to or not.

As for the degree of impact I wont argue that its an insignificant change but I feel that the change is relatively balanced and worth trying.

Personally, I prefer each niggle to have a +1 to the injury roll than the extra niggle roll at half time......

I think that there are a number of ways to go with this and full and complete testing needs to be done. That said, a system that removes the post game rolls must be a step forward.


Dave

I think negative winnings should do the job on their own myself...as long as teams are forced to cut costs if they get into debt.

hate any system that makes me dread getting a skill!

Thadrin wrote:I think negative winnings should do the job on their own myself...as long as teams are forced to cut costs if they get into debt.

Thrads the only problem is and I don't really want to get into this much ... if you force cuts ... you might as well have just installed a hard cap at that point. The whole point of the debt system was not to have a forced game effect.

Galak

Leave the Apo alone, it helps everyone equally. Freebooting him hurts beginers more than established teams, what kind of balance is that?

Sixpack595 wrote:Leave the Apo alone, it helps everyone equally. Freebooting him hurts beginers more than established teams, what kind of balance is that?

Its actually the exact opposite. It gives starting teams more position players, better survival rates when starting, and makes established teams more difficult to play.

I've posted the numbers to prove this one out. I'll like you sixpack if you need to see the link.

Galak

Voted for Negative winnings but like Gken said it would need the Apoths to work properly I think.

Personally I would be happy to keep aging as well as I like the team management aspect it brings before teams start to reach the peak. (although I would probably drop the first skill roll and any -ST/AG results).

I'd like to see how it helps newer teams. I'd hate to see a low TR team get a bad roll for winnings and not be able to afford an Apo going into a game against a bruiser Orc or Chaos team...even if it is an Elf team

How is a newish team not going to win at least 10k?

You need at TR of 126 and 20k or lower gate to be able to get no winnings.

Given that will be a rariety maybe you'll just have to manage your finances better (like leaving some money in the treasury).

Sixpack595 wrote:I'd like to see how it helps newer teams. I'd hate to see a low TR team get a bad roll for winnings and not be able to afford an Apo going into a game against a bruiser Orc or Chaos team...even if it is an Elf team

Just check to make sure before posting this. In the 340 games that the MBBL has played in 3 seasons and the 509 games that the MBBL2 has played in its 3 seasons.

During those 849 games, I've had 9 teams receiving winnings of zero from their TR and the gate (ie the point at which if their treasury was empty they could not have freebooted an apothecary for thier next match)

In order of TR where the zero earning occurred:
TR 153 - 40k gate
TR 196 - 27k gate
TR 199 - 60k gate
TR 208 - 68k gate
TR 211 - 79k gate
TR 216 - 80k gate
TR 227 - 70k gate
TR 233 - 68k gate
TR 237 - 60k gate

849 games means 1,698 winnings rolls. 9 of those so far have resulted in 0k winnings. That's 1/2 a percent of all games.

I need re-state. The whole reason I liked the Neg Win+Freebooted Apothecary system was that it doesn't impact rookie teams. In the MBBL2, I had a High Elf team get a Niggle on BOTH of his Dragon Warriors from aging on their first skill after their first game.

The Neg Win+Freeboot Apoth system is designed to completely remove the negative effects from the short term leagues and move it only to higher TR teams and long term leagues. I hope the above shows how that's true.

Also I've run the analysis on the freebooted Apothecaries. Its allows any team to start with 40k more in position players AND start with an apothecary which is a big deal for entering an experienced league. The 10k freeboot cost only really costs 20k over the first 10 games for any team because of the fact that your TR stays lower which gives you +1 gold bonuses you would not have had.

Galak

I would agree on negative wins if the rule on natural one and sixes be cancelled. I happen to know teams with 20 games played and only two won with 13 ff while others with over 30 games played with a75% win with 3 ff, just because he usually rolls a one at the end of the game.