Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

pfooti · Post by **pfooti** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:35 pm

I like upping the niggle bite. While rolling at each half makes them lose more turns on average, neo's suggestion for each drive makes some sense also. They're a lot less reliable. The core of the niggle problem now is that once they're there, you can count on them, so having them potentially miss every drive sure means you can't base your offense around them. I posted some other ideas to the poll thread that neo started.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 6:06 am

Just a reminder as I think some of us have forgotten ... when JJ first formed the BBRC in 2000 ... he published in a newsletter his mission for the BBRC:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to develop a system where teams reach a certain level and then start to ‘plateau’, sometimes getting a bit better, and sometimes a bit worse – just like real sports teams in fact! – but in general remaining at a fairly steady team rating. I also wanted to make sure experienced teams at this level were not so much better than a starting team that the starters simply didn’t stand a chance in a match.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the driving force behind rules like "the package" discussed on this thread. What the best way to reach JJ's goal for the game that he set back in 2000. Just thought some historical quoting might be appropriate here. Any person on the BBRC or who joins it knows this is the goal. The true test (IMO) is fullfilling the goal in a way that works but leaves the short term leagues mostly untouched (or at least as much as possible untouched) without hard capping the system.

Galak

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:33 pm

I think the goal is good and the system proposed in this thread seems the best way to achieve it but having played some games at both ends of the scale recently I'm beginning to think it's in the lower team ratings that there is more of a problem.

I just played a very close game against a Lizard team about 35 points above my 170 rated Orcs. No real problem and I would be happy to play with this difference again.

On a lower rated team in the 100-125 range I would stand no chance against a team that much bigger even with the Chubb League handicap table.

We seem to be well on top of the plateauing issue and this works well, but rookie teams develop so quickly that a team can become much more competitive than a rival team with just a few extra games.

I'm not sure how to solve this problem but it does present a significant barrier to entry for new teams attempting to enter existing leagues.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:07 pm

i dunno about that starting rosters against teams 25ish tr higher aren't that uneven depending on the race

usually that extra tr is made up in odd spp and not actually extra skills, they may have an extra rookie player sitting on the bench or maybe one player with a couple of extra skills but that makes him a target and they might be scarred of losing him so don't use the player to full effect

i usually play higher rated teams on fumbbl without a handicap table anyway its more of a challenge and a better learning experience

i have faith in this system working fine without any problems unless you have a problem with limiting teams tr and like the 600 tr teams but thats a problem with the goal of the system not the actual system

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 4:08 pm

I like the idea that a team can still get to whatever tr he wants. Yeah he's gonna have a ton of niggles when he gets there but that's his choice. installing an artificial cap/hard cap is bad. It won't even effect most people but why take away from a player's desire to create that superteam. Ageing works---Yeah alot of people complain about the niggle on first roll...but i'm sure it's right in line with the odds. Plus like someone said niggles only cost you about 2.7/turns a game. .....hardly much at all. It's more mental than anything.

I just see this as another huge change to the game that will cause even more disgust in the community. We should stick to minor tweaks to the game from this point!

I agree with galak's bb focus on the following: Wild Animal, Take Root, OFAB, new handicap table and maybe gobbo secret weapons...but i'd rather see secret weapons rules that work.

But the game mechanics should remain unchanged. We have a good set of core rules right now that WORK!

ken

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 4:11 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:Its got decent support in some way or another ... 35% against ... with 60% in favor of some or all.

Galak

you can make numbers show what u want but you can also say : 45% agree and 55% don't.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:27 am

gken1 wrote:We have a good set of core rules right now that WORK!

ken

Not for capping long term team growth, Ken. There is zero way you can look at FUMBBL and agree that the system works to be honest.

Galak

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:42 am

i just don't like caps. And when u do look at those teams that are in the top tR they are loaded with niggled players. plus with a handicap they take when playing it's a joke. the thing in fumbbl is there is no handicap so teams can continue to play whatever and whoever. other than that fumbbl works fine...which is the point. I doubt you can really even put most leagues in the fumbbl category. I really doubt you'll find a table top league where one team has played 100+ games like fumbbl which is what it takes to get the TR that high. I don't think we should take away the fun of a power gamer that puts in the time to play that many games.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:27 pm

So GKen,

Your point of contention would be this:

With just the Niggles on half and a better handicap table, the system would work?

I'm not sure I disagree with that statement if you left in aging.

However, if I get rid of aging, I think you need the neg win+freeboot apoth.

So if I was happy with aging, I think you'd find that we agree ... make Niggles count and put in a decent handicap system and you'd have a pretty good working system.

However I really not happy with the effect that aging has on short term leagues, but unlike others I don't feel that the answer it s remove the 1st aging roll or anything like that.

So in summary ... I agree with you Ken ... what I think we disagree on is this part: whether aging OR neg win+freeboot apoths are better for leagues in the long run. With either system Niggles counting more and a better handicap table are things that I'm seeing a lot of support for, so I guess it comes down to that argument.

Okay ... let's try one more poll than to help me see which is more preferred and get this in prespective for myself.

Galak

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:41 pm

I just don't see you being able to get a free booted apoth through the bbrc. It's just too big a change to the game. so without this I think it's a moot point.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:31 pm

aging was a bigger change and the handoff rule and the traits

if it achieves what jervis has planned for the game then i can't see why it wouldn't go through

and galak is part of the bbrc so thats 1/7 of the way to getting 4/7 only take another 3 to agree and i know where some of them live ;]

DG_Slider · Post by **DG_Slider** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:47 pm

Galak,
We have a small league and use Negative Winnings, Niggling checks at both halfs, Milo's Handicap Table, no Ageing, but left Apothecaries at 50K. So far everything is working pretty smooth. Not sure what the advantage is to freebooting the apoths, other then to remove more money which we may see as an issue soon (only second season league).

DG_Slider · Post by **DG_Slider** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:47 pm

Galak,
We have a small league and use Negative Winnings, Niggling checks at both halfs, Milo's Handicap Table, no Ageing, but left Apothecaries at 50K. So far everything is working pretty smooth. Not sure what the advantage is to freebooting the apoths, other then to remove more money which we may see as an issue soon (only second season league).

Blood Bowl Commish · Post by **Blood Bowl Commish** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:09 pm

Thank you for taking the time to set this all up, so here is my opinion and reasoning for votign the way i am...

I am for the TBB package with the following change:

Leave the apothecary on the roster for 50,000 no freebooting

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:24 pm

I dunno... It's been fine the last four years or so and no-ones been complaining about it until the Bugmans test rules came out, so why the sudden need to change?

Talk Fantasy Football

Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

To encourage long term league balance which would you rather see tested?