Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[neoliminal]

think you misread, the system starts to kick in at 225 not setting 225 as the top end thats far too low and popular opinion shows 250-300 should be the top end

thats what this system should acheive and hopefully testing will back that up

I think you misread.

Actually John ... Grumble was right ... you and I are not having the same conversation to be honest.

I've never been talking about a working hard cap system ever. I was trying to play your game as you requested to show you why I cannot stand a hard cap system.

Right, and I'm trying to show you that your system is *more* restrictive.

[Thadrin]

Whoa...managed to miss this thread building up...

Just my couple of pennies...a hard TRR cap is an AWFUL idea. The soft cap system SHOULD work.

The only part I'm mildly disturbed by is the freebooting apoths...I don't think that - with negative winnings etc - its necessary, and I'm not sure about the effect on low-level teams who are still buying players etc. In addition to that, I like the idea of the team having their "own" premanent doctor.

Thats just me though. The rest is exactly what is needed.

[Joemanji]

The TR 225 was just a handy example, since Galak's team happened to be tr 229. I don't think anyone was suggesting it as "the" value for a hard TR cap.

If I understand you correctly, you would rather have a system that would have not forced you to make this decision.

In otherwords, you would simply not have been able to buy those two rookie skeletons, because negative winnings would have removed that money from your treasury before you could have bought them.

It's not quite that simple is it? Not having those two skeletons, a coach would probably have made a myriad of different in-game decisions - taken less risks etc. He could have played a no risk, "wrap them in cotton wool" strategy in his previous match.

He would have 5 or 6 games previous to the final to take steps to get the team into shape - replacing the niggled chaps for example. If he had retired them, his TR would have gone down enough so that he could afford the replacements.

Most importantly though, he could have seen it coming, and taken steps to avoid going into the final in relatively bad shape.

With a hard TR cap, he just had to hope that he didn't win his games too well, in case his TR got too high.

The TR cap forces the situation. You are two games away from the final. You don't think there is any chance of hitting the hard TR cap, so you don't take any steps to avoid it. Then - BAM!! You roll well in those next 2 games, earn some SPP, roll a couple of 6s for you winnings, perhaps even get a bumped up FF. Hard cheese - you have to cut part of your team at the worst possible moment.

At least if you aren't earning the money in the previous 10 games, you are aware of it. You have 10 games to take steps.

[Azurus]

Well, I voted in favour of the TBB system, but I would like to see the range at which this kicks in different for real-life BB and JBB online.

This is simply because the client keeps paperwork down when playing a big game (which makes RL games between huge teams last for 3-4 hours if you're unlucky).

The other thing is, I did a little working out on the Reavers team from the rulebook.

The Rulebook states the Reaver's TR at 321. Fair enough.

It also states that they have both Griff and Zug (listed as 463 SPP and 374 SPP respectively) on the roster. Between them, these players account for 161 TR (since, under LRB rules, players cannot peak), leaving 160 points for the other (presumably 16) players on the team.

Now, since such a 'legendary' team will of course have plenty of positional players (counting Griff as a blitzer and Zug as a Big Guy - since there's no mention of an ogre on the team). They will also almost certainly have 16 players. That gives (at rookie level)

3 'normal' blitzers = 27 TR (leaving 133)
2 throwers = 14 TR (leaving 119)
4 catchers = 28 TR (leaving 91)
5 linemen = 25 TR (leaving 66)

Then of course, the starting team list in the box (for the Reavers) has 4 RRs, so...

4 ReRolls = 20 TR (leaving 46)

An of course, such a long - established, successful team will have a high FF, say 15.

FF = 15 TR (leaving 31)

And of course, coaching staff, say 5 cheerleaders and 5 ACs.

10 staff = 10 TR (leaving 21)

Now, assuming that's vaguely correct, this leaves the rest of the team with 105 SPP to spread between the other 14 players in the team. So thats just over 7 SPP per player.

So the book has the Reavers being a team composing of two stars and a load of 1-skill players (or more likely, 6 2-skill players and loads of rookie linemen).

Now, I know this doesn't seem too unreasonable at first, but could you imagine trying to build up a team into that situation? Taking an equal TR team from FUMBBL

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... am_id=1487

This team has 2 [5 skill] players, 5 [4 skill] players, 5 [3 skill] players, 1 [2 skill] player and 1 [a skill] player. Also 1 more RR, slightly less FF, less staff but more treasury than the Reavers. (also 14 players as opposed to 16).

Now, i've seen a lot more teams like the one from FUMBBL than i have like the Reavers team from above, simply because that's how teams tend to grow. I have a 260 TR team which shows a similar level of development.

So, after a rather long and tedious post, , my point is

Either JJ hasn't done his maths right, or the Reavers are in a very big slump with regard to player quality. (which would be a result of a system such as the TBB model, where the Reavers have fired all their mid-range players to keep hold of it's two stars). Just something to think on, take this how you will.

[Joemanji]

Good point, though you could quite easily trim 335 SPP of Griff and Zug to spread around the rest of the team.

+++ edit +++

Just checked, I think this is the team they were talking about, with a TR of 310:

http://www.blood-bowl.net/OtherTeams/Ch ... avers.html

Not the same as whatever you have seen.

[Azurus]

Ah right, so with a couple of dumbed-down stars. Ok, that makes more sense. I just worked it out from the team/player bios in the rulebook.

Where'd you get that one from (i don't mean Galak's site), was it just somebody's guess at how it SHOULD look?

[gken1]

well the aging system doesn't exactly work there are quite a lot of teams on fumbbl who have silly high team ratings

yeah but if handicap was installed...greater than 100tr you choose a handicap--might be easy with fumbbl basing games on str. grab the handicap which forces all niggles miss the game.... and laugh.

[neoliminal]

It's not like you don't see the Salary Cap coming. In fact, most teams are fairly consistant in the way they gain TR. Look at a graph of TR growth on any just about any team. (Remember here that it takes 5 spp's to get 1 point of TR...)

You see the TR coming and you know about where it will hit, and you would have a plan in place for it.

[neoliminal]

Code: Select all

Animal House
Race: Khemri
Coached by: The Trainer (Brian Hixon)
# PLAYER'S NAME POSITION MA ST AG AV SKILLS INJ COMP TD INT CAS MVP SPP VALUE 
1 Godzilla Mummy 3 5 1 8 Mighty Blow, Regenerate, Block, Tackle, Guard, AV -1         9 3 33 $110,000  
2 King Kong Mummy 3 5 1 9 Mighty Blow, Regenerate, Guard, Piling On, Block, Tackle, Break Tackle         33 2 76 $110,000  
3 Mothra 2 Mummy 3 5 1 9 Mighty Blow, Regenerate, Block       1 3   8 $110,000  
4 Iron Giant Mummy 3 5 1 9 Mighty Blow, Regenerate, Block, Tackle         6 1 17 $110,000  
5 Lassie Thro-Ra 5 3 3 7 Sure Hands, Pass, Regenerate, Accurate, Block     2   6   18 $70,000  
6 Silver Thro-Ra 5 3 3 7 Sure Hands, Pass, Regenerate, Block, Kick     3   1 1 16 $70,000  
7 Old Yeller Blitz-Ra 6 3 2 8 Block, Regenerate, Stand Firm, Dodge     6   1   20 $90,000  
8 Rin Tin Tin Blitz-Ra 6 3 2 8 Block, Regenerate, Stand Firm, Dodge, Frenzy     5   3 2 31 $90,000  
9 Azmar Kalazar Bonz Skeleton 5 3 3 7 Regenerate, Sure Hands, Block, AG +1   6 6   1 3 40 $30,000  
10 Fetch Skeleton 7 3 3 7 Regeneration, AG +1, MA +1, Block, MA +1, Sure Hands N   22   2 3 85 $30,000  
11 Sel Fish Skeleton 5 3 2 7 Regeneration, Block, Dauntless M   1   3 2 19 $30,000  
12 Ball 2 Skeleton 5 3 2 7 Regenerate               $30,000  
13 Gluttony Skeleton 5 4 2 7 Regenerate, Block, ST +1 N       2 3 19 $30,000  
14 Rawhide Skeleton 5 3 2 7 Regenerate, Block, Leader N   1   7   17 $30,000  
15 Dolgan Goldstrike Skeleton 5 3 2 7 Regenerate, Block, Tackle M       8   16 $30,000  
16 Squeeker 2 Skeleton 5 3 2 7 Regenerate               $30,000  
 Team: Animal House RE-ROLLS: 5 x $70,000 = $350,000  
 Race: Khemri FAN FACTOR: 17 x $10,000 = $170,000  
 Team Rating: 229 ASSISTANT COACHES:   x $10,000 = $0  
 Treasury: $0  CHEERLEADERS:   x $10,000 = $0  
 Coach: The Trainer (Brian Hixon) APOTHECARY:   x $50,000 =    
 TEAM WIZARD:   x $150,000 =    
 TOTAL VALUE/COST OF TEAM $1,440,000  

BTW Galak, where are your winnings from last game?

[DoubleSkulls]

The only part I'm mildly disturbed by is the freebooting apoths...I don't think that - with negative winnings etc - its necessary, and I'm not sure about the effect on low-level teams who are still buying players etc. In addition to that, I like the idea of the team having their "own" premanent doctor.

Wasn't it your idea in the 1st place?

Personally I like the freebooting apoth idea so much I think you could run without negative winnings (no money in the bank = no apoth = lose players to in game effects = lower TR). Also it sucks money out of the team every single game. So lowering team growth and generally making getting to higher more difficult.

[David Bergkvist]

I voted "The TBB Package with some other change or step removal (please describe below)":

I find it a little bit boring (and "unfluffy") that the bad thing about having negative cash is that your TR increases.

It would be more fun if negative cash meant that you owe a loan-shark money, and he isn't very friendly. For example: For each 10k you owe after you have collected your winnings, roll a D6. On a roll of 1, the loan-shark seriously injures a randomly selected player as a reminder of your debt.

This would have the effect that it's not a good strategy to have lots of negative treasury (just like Galak's rule), but would provide a fluffy explanation why.

You might argue that "but this removes my choice", but I would disagree: you knew that there was a risk of a player suffering a serious injury when you decided not to have enough spare treasury in case you rolled badly on the winnings table. That a team end up in the hands of the loan-shark is the coach's own fault.

This change would remove the (very unlikely) possibility that a team spirals to its doom, but if I read things correctly, teams being able to do that is not supposed to be a feature, but rather a side effect that is neither bood nor bad.

[GalakStarscraper]

Right, and I'm trying to show you that your system is *more* restrictive.

John ... forgive ... honestly I don't like to appear dense or argumentive ... but I've failed to see where you've managed to show me this at all. Really. I honestly have been scratching my head at your comments throughout this thread. On other posts I've shown how the math would work, and I just don't understand where you are coming from that this is more restrictive. Its a fair cry from that so I just have no idea what you are trying to say. I know you like to only type one sentence answers normally, but I need a lot more to understand where you are coming from.

BTW Galak, where are your winnings from last game?

My last game had a gate of only 60,000 fans because my opponent had an FF of 4. I won and rolled a 1 on my gold roll. 1 + 1 -2 = 0k. I came into my last game with 0k in treasury so there was no change and I still have no money in treasury.

Galak

[Kaz]

Hello, FUMBBL/TOBBL denizen here to make my comments, give my opinion and get flamed for it all.
(before flaming, try to keep in mind that A)I've only been playing Bloodbowl for half a year now B) typed word is not my best form of communication of ideas and C) I've never flamed you before.)

Step 1: Remove Aging from the game.
== I don't think aging needs to be removed entirely, since it is a method for restricting team growth. However, I do like the idea of moving back aging rolls to the second or third skill roll, since this removes/decreases the problem of aging for short term leagues and lets aging still work in long term leagues.
On the same subject, I think a version of the Experience system could be workable where each player earns a minimum of 1 SPP per game. With this, if the player earns no SPPs through the normal channels in the course of a game, he still gets a little from practice and actually taking to the field(Something many people will never do). This also prevents the 15 game, no skills players. I have one on one of my teams and it can be frustrating.

Step 2: Move to a better handicap table like the CHUBB table for example: http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/handicap.html
== yes. flat out agreement.

Step 3:Niggling Rule Change:
== Seems logical, but also makes for more die rolls, and thus more work and time per game.

Step 4: Add the Simplified Coach's Choice Negative Winnings rule:
== Once I read what this was all about, I agree that it would work.

Step 5: Change the Apothecary to be freebooted for 10k.
== This I am against. Compare who needs the apothcary the most (DE, HE, WE, PE, Skaven) to who has the most expensive linemen (DE, HE, LE, PE, Dwarves). The teams that need the apothcary are also less likely to be able to afford to freeboot him, since they are trying to keep a decent sized roster. As for short term leagues, this can hurt any league that runs more than 5 games, since they will wind up paying more for the same services. Perhaps an option to freeboot or hire an apothacary for different prices (say 10k and 80k) might be a better way to go.

[Thadrin]

The only part I'm mildly disturbed by is the freebooting apoths...I don't think that - with negative winnings etc - its necessary, and I'm not sure about the effect on low-level teams who are still buying players etc. In addition to that, I like the idea of the team having their "own" premanent doctor.

Wasn't it your idea in the 1st place?

Personally I like the freebooting apoth idea so much I think you could run without negative winnings (no money in the bank = no apoth = lose players to in game effects = lower TR). Also it sucks money out of the team every single game. So lowering team growth and generally making getting to higher more difficult.

Don't THINK it was my idea...I certainly never had it as a serious suggestion...maybe some throwaway thing. Mind like a sieve me....
Either way, I'd at least be willing to give it a go - assuming we'd have a standard "50k hire for tournaments" rule.

I think it is too much with negative winnings though. One or the other, preferably negative winnings representing higher costs of running the team.

[Origami]

First, I agree with Kaz that freebooting an apo tends to hurt the expensive, fragile teams a lot more. It also signigicantly affects the short term leagues, which is something that we are trying to avoid. However, without freebooting the apo, the entire TBB system breaks down.

One solution might be to make the apothecary available to hire at any point during the game. In game terms, think of this as having a local doc on hand to treat injured players...but he doesn't work if you don't meet his fee.

One per game, when you have a player injured, you would have the choice of hiring the apothecary for 10k. This would have less effect on short term leagues and expensive/fragile teams, while still make using an apo dependent on having money in the bank.

Second, while I like the idea of negative winnings, I can't see the benefit in having those negative winnings boost TR. It mainly seems cause a small, but real, chance of someone getting into a nasty downward spiral. Just keeping someone from buying new players or having an apo seems sufficient to knock those high TR teams back down.

Finally, I don't really recommend looking at FUMBBL in making these changes. It's a very different environment from the live leaques. It has no handicaps, winning is more or less irrelevant, and there is a lot of cherrypicking of games. Elf teams will rarely, if ever, play a bashy team like orcs or chaos. Bashing teams will deliberately avoid skills like MB or PO, just so that people will agree to play against them. I play on FUMBBL almost exclusively, and what I just described really doesn't sound much like the environment in which most of you are playing.