Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[Tinkywinky]

Galak:
I read your entire post 3 times. I'm not sure I understand. You think negative winnings will scare you away from SPPs more than aging does or a hard TR cap?

Yes in some ways, at least when compared to aging. You aren't sure that your beloved star will age and if he does he usually gets a niggle or AV drop anyway.

What I meant was that a human catcher with 31 SPP = 13 TR. A catcher with 100 SPP is worth the double but he is nowhere near double as good. therefor it would be wise tactic to keep the SPP-count low for a player that has made some good advances as this will keep him from early retirement when his salary spirals out of control.

250 TR is pretty much though so I don't think it's going to be that big of a problem.

[GalakStarscraper]

I'll TRY the freebooted apoths...I'm sceptical in the same way DL is though. I think the neg winnings will prove bad enough to curb teams.

Thads ... this is the reason I think you need freebooted apothecaries mixed in with the Negative Winnings rule:

Norse said on Dec 3rd:

well, I can only go from personal experience...

my Dwarves have not suffered a death in over 20 games (at least not one that my apothecary couldn't handle)...

15 players, 300 TR... I don't make any money any more , but I don't need it either

This quote by Norse shows the reason for Negative winnings and how the freebooted apothecary is the enforcer to help make sure a team doesn't ignore the debt they might accumulate. Otherwise ... based on his experience could you tell me why Norse would bother much with worrying about his team debt ... he doesn't ever find the need to replace players.

As I mentioned the package is meant to be overlapping ... one step covers the holes in any individual step by itself.

Galak

[Joemanji]

This is also a good example of why team debt needs to increase TR.

If it didn't, then being in debt would actually work in Norse's favour - in that he wouldn't have to worry about cash reserves raising his TR. He would want to get into debt, so that there was no chance of his winnings for a game making his treasury positive, which would count for TR.

[Azurus]

250 TR is pretty much though so I don't think it's going to be that big of a problem.

I'm not sure about this. The one thing that worries me about this is that it will cause a total lack of the so-called legendary (ie 7-advance) players.

I've had several teams above the 250 mark. (Curently I have some 260 TR dark elves on FUMBBL). None of them have ever had a 'legendary' player until well over 300 TR. A 250 team tends to be made up of a bunch of 3 and 4 skill players, with a couple of 5's and some near-rookies.

I'm not saying that the system doesn't work, but if it begins to kick in at say, 225 TR, then this is so early that the only high-level stars will be one-turners, and they're terminally boring anyway. There will simply be no reason to field one, and the game will lose a good part of it's 'feel'.

I don't like the idea of good players being such a great liability that you simply cannot afford to use them at all.

But, since something wil be done, the TBB package is preferable to the other options up there.

[Joemanji]

Team's hitting TR 250 for the first time don't usually have any 7-skill players. But if you can manage your team well enough, and keep them at that level for a while, then you'll get to the stage where 7-skill players are a factor. But you'll have to cut a few corners elsewhere in your team (in order to afford his wages, in effect).

It's quite possible to get 7-skill players under this system. It's just that they will be playing in TR 250 teams rather than in TR 350 teams.

If you manage your team well, anything is possible. I find the prospect of this challenge to be pretty exciting. Think of 7-skill players as a reward for playing well. An unlockable extra, if you will.

[Ithilkir]

Hmmmm, wonder how the freebooted apoth + negative winnings will affect high rated Khemri teams. Obviously the apoth isn't needed so that's an extra 10k per game at the high levels, plus you don't need to replace players as often (though try telling that to my mummies), and the basic lineman only costs you 30k to replace if needed anyway. Compare it to a Dark Elf team, the cheapest player to replace is 70k, and you still have 4x100k players and 2x110k players.

Would a Dark Elf team be able to compete at high levels compared to Khemri?

[Thadrin]

This quote by Norse shows the reason for Negative winnings and how the freebooted apothecary is the enforcer to help make sure a team doesn't ignore the debt they might accumulate. Otherwise ... based on his experience could you tell me why Norse would bother much with worrying about his team debt ... he doesn't ever find the need to replace players.

As I mentioned the package is meant to be overlapping ... one step covers the holes in any individual step by itself.

Om the other hand, my Dwarf team had their best Longbeard killed twice in two turns in one recent game. Norse has been lucky. Again I say: Dwarfs are NOT immortal. The freebooted apoth would probably have hurt my team - which has hovered nicely around 220 along with the other top teams in the league (though is now retired, along with the rest of those top teams).

If anything, what this WILL do is hurt developing teams who will have a choice of replacing dead players or protecting those that are left. Apoths will only ever appear in high TRR teams who have few players killed anyway.

I'm not sure we can look at existing data for teams growth. We need to see the negative winnings rules tested, and that includes with AND WITHOUT the freebooted apothecary. Not only that, I think the Freebooted apoth would be a hard sell for my league anyway. If it turns out the freebooted apoth is necessary then all well and good, but to say the package is necessary in every detail, without testing some of the ideas independently of the others, seems very blinkered. I think Negative winnings alone should be enough. Teams like Norse's will find themselves creeping into debt when players DO start dropping dead.

This is making my head hurt now.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Hmmmm, wonder how the freebooted apoth + negative winnings will affect high rated Khemri teams. Obviously the apoth isn't needed so that's an extra 10k per game at the high levels, plus you don't need to replace players as often (though try telling that to my mummies), and the basic lineman only costs you 30k to replace if needed anyway. Compare it to a Dark Elf team, the cheapest player to replace is 70k, and you still have 4x100k players and 2x110k players.

Would a Dark Elf team be able to compete at high levels compared to Khemri?

A Dark Elf team is going to reach the 250-300 mark much sooner than a Khemri team. A Dark Elf linemen is a huge threat and nasty player at 3 or 4 skills compared to a 3 or 4 skill skeleton (actually I don't think I've ever seen one of these!).
Undead and Khemri teams tend to have several slobs and a handful of stars while elf teams tend to have a large majority of skilled players and one or two big stars. A loss of a 70K 2 or 3 skill DE lineman on a 350 TR team is not as big of a hit as 2 or 3 skill throw-ra on a Khemri team at 250 TR. And just because of the amount time and luck it will take to get those skills back but also because of the potential of the player. A rookie elf with AG 4 and ST 3 is capable of doing quite a bit no matter what the level of his opposition but an AG 2 Throw-ra is a different matter.

[GalakStarscraper]

As DL said ... look at FUMBBL ... the Regeneration teams have very few entries in the upper TR points. The loss of 2 Wights is just going to reinforce this.

Galak

[Darkson]

It's going to come down to coaches preference.

Do they want a team built around a core of players with 3-4 skills each, or do they want a team with a couple of superstars (6-7 skills) and journeyman players?

I'm really looking forward to testing this in MBBL, and maybe REBBL?

[Chris]

Well, the change I would like to see if the following 9on a seperate thread for discussion, I'm just posting here in answer to the vote option I picked).

Every team have its chance of buying an apothacary as normal.
50k and you can ignore a niggle, or roll to ignore an on pitch injury _except_ a death.

That requires more than a cold sponge on the nadgers. Dark magics must be employed - these of course can be purchased. 10k will get your apoth a magic scroll of potentcy guarrentied at least for 90 minutes. When a death occures the apoth has the option to read the incantations and try and resurect the fallen player. If they choose to do so the only obsticle is the magicians hand writing, distracting fan chants, players with toothaches and cheerleaders. A 2+ roll is required as normal.

This can be employed as well as an apoths regular ability, but both cannot be used in the same turn (he goes a bit light headed after the soul sucking words have been spoken or frequently doesn't notice injuries on field whilst cleaning the pliers from the last one).

Perhaps allow more than one be bought?

This incidentally might be neat for tourneys like Spike which object to general wizardry.

[Grumbledook]

tbh i can't really see a need for that chris

and it will still slow down the player turnover rather than encourage it cause you got the standard apoth there for any SI that cause a stat decrease so its kinda counter productive to the aims of the system

[Chris]

Well yes, less SI's probably, which dovetails in with worse niggles. I think you would have higher team attrition with this, as buying the scroll every match? And anyway I'm playing amazons next what do I need a scroll for......

Means the odd death in a game is now no longer ignored. I think death would be a lot worse, as it would be a bit of a gamble to protect against it.

[Gutripper]

Ok, having read all the posts and given them time to settle just wanted to throw my opinion out there.

My understanding is that JJ wants someone to be able to play a team forever in a league setting while keeping the TR in a playable range. To do this the BBRC is looking at adding a hard cap on TR...if Im wrong on this let me know!

To me adding an artifical TR cap suggests the core BB rules are flawed. By flawed I mean the current rule set should be designed to self regulate TR, which it currently doesnt. If these rules were designed correctly TR should fluxuate around a certain TR range without going higher or adding in an artifical cap. To me, and again this is my opinion, adding a hard cap is easy way out. It is a bandaid...it achieves the purpose but doesnt address the root cause of the problem.

The current methods for naturally regulating TR are already built into the system...niggling injuries (along with retirement), death and aging. Unfortunately in the name of a "kinder gentler" BB these are not as effective as they use to be (well...maybe not aging...I have never thought aging was good for anything )

What is the solution? Not sure but here are some thoughts:

1) Let my TR be detemined on the pitch...please dont force me to retire a player, fire a coach or a hottie Orc cheerleader (hubba hubba!) to meet a TR cap...let my player die an honorable death on the pitch (taking a few elves with him in the process I hope ).

2) If bringing the blood back into BB isnt going to happen then I would like to see the TBB idea playtested. It addresses aging, has a target TR range instead of one hard set number, and finally it leaves the decision on how to get my TR back down to me...I can either retire them ahead of time...or watch them get slaughtered on the pitch if I choose to ignore the warning signs. With the hard cap I can only start retiring/firing folks.

Anyway that how I see it...sorry for the long post.
-Gutripper

[Ivesy_boy]

Well i think this thread is about alternative ideas to a hard cap, the negative winings and freebooted apo's are designed to do the same role, to keep teams around the tr310 range, without forcing players to fire players.