Long term balance effect desired?

[Sixpack595]

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

I'm thinking more along the lines of losing a player or two. If I start with a low FF and 11 players then get railed my first few games I'll be in a bad spot. I just don't want to see younger teams needing to choose between filling a roster back up and choosing an Apo. Even starting with a moderate FF, a couple losses and a low FF opponant a newer team can get 0 winnings. Heck, you can win big and lose FF. I know this isn't going to be common, but as in Galak's post, the unusual does come up. I'm not refering to TR 100 teams, but the ones with 4 or 5 games in.


Edit: I think the point I'm trying to make is that it hurts teams on a downward slide, or clawing their way up. At higher TRs I have a big treasury to rotate out high TR players as needed, but when building you start choosing what to buy and you gamble...blitzer now or big guy next game?...this is another risk you'll take. Apo now, and wait till next game to add a reserve? As for it helping new teams with more positionals, keep in mind that everyone got that. That TR 175 team just has a few more SPPs on his Black Orc now. And it really won't help if it means that extra Woodie catcher you bought gets killed by your game 1 opponant's extra Blitzer he bought! Yea I know its alot of IFs, but it will screw some people that don't need any more screwing. Maybe not as much or as bad as ageing, but it will happen. I'll take this over Ageing any day.

Maybe the LRB and BBRC should leave the long term balance to the leagues.

[[France Bloodbowl] ZeBoss]

In fact it's hard to vote on this poll as the ageing works well for long term league and he can be justified in the background of the players.

For short term league I agree that this is not a good system.

But as I am only playing and offering to my players long term leagues I think it's a good system

[Grumbledook]

sixpack it won't hurt teams on the slide

as you get lower tr its easier to get money in and like galak has shown the negative winnings isn't going to affect hardly any teams at least until tr 250 and even then it won't be that common

as for starting with low ff and maxing out on position players that happens under the current rules, its the risk you take starting your team like that

besides the freebooted apoth will give that method of starting a team a leg up over the first few games as they will have more money over the first 4 games and could then potentially save a higher costing player than they would otherwise

also with teams rotating players cause niggles will actually be a pain teams shouldn't have a large pot of money stored up at high tr (not that i ever seem to have under the current rules but then i rotate players anyway)

i don't know if you read the stats and stuff galak posted about when these sort of things kick in but the effects are minimal and I can't believe in any circumstances it will cause massive damage as it only really kicks in over tr 250

if you would care to expand your example using some proper numbers and stats then maybe we could see that it is indeed a problem but as galak has explained this doesn't appear to be the case at all

and for the record if any of that came across as me having a go i didn't mean it in that way, if anything we want problems exposed so we can work a fix ;]

[Fraggel-Chris]

How would it be with Ageing after a specific number of games? In our league it works well and you doesn´t smash the dice if your first to guys who step up to the next level get aged. Why can´t lineman age with the same odds?

[Furelli]

I have to say that while I like the Neg Wins + FreeBoot Apoc idea and can see its meant effects the system I always liked was the EXP system based upon games played as discussed a few months back on this very forum.

On another note fewer rolls is always better in any game (I know the EXP system doesn't do this but I STILL like it as it fulfils the aims of the aging system) and as such I reckon -1 per niggle is the way to go on Niggling Injuries.

Furelli.

[gken1]

with negative winnings team will have to take a high ff to stay viable. All though it's not a good idea, people can't take 1 ff and hope to stay in the game over a long period of time.

[GalakStarscraper]

with negative winnings team will have to take a high ff to stay viable. All though it's not a good idea, people can't take 1 ff and hope to stay in the game over a long period of time.

Depends ... talked to a Dark Elf coach that always starts his teams with FF 2. He's very good and usually has the +3 bonus to FF at the end of the game and losses very very rarely. Which means that 67% of the time his FF increases and 17% it decreases. Which means in 16 games he gets to FF 10 which is fine by him (net efffect of .5 FF gain per a game).

So the more correct answer Ken is that if you want to take a low starting FF, you better be a D*MN good coach or yes you will have trouble.

Galak

[Grumbledook]

low ff coaches normally end up in trouble anyway

and all it will do is limit the ultimate growth of the team and tbh a team with low ff doesn't deserve to be legendary :p

[Sixpack595]

Unfortunately you can loose FF no matter how good you are. If you win 2-0 and get 2 casulties and still have a 17% chance of loosing FF things can get ugly real quick. Add in a couple losses, and it gets worse.

[Grumbledook]

you can also gain ff no matter how bad you are either

[begbie]

I voted for negative winnings and freebooted apothecary.

Why? To be honest getting new skills for your players is one of my favourite moments when i'm playing with long term teams. The ageing rule puts such a downer on the experience Surely in-match injuries and 2 rolls for a niggle are enough of a worry when developing players.

[Mestari]

If the negative winnings and apothecaries is the way we are heading, I would prefer to see one thing: negative treasury counts as 0 points of TR.

Re-stating my standpoint from another thread: good team management shouldn't be something that is stuffed down the throats of the coaches - negative winnings in itself is enough to definitely make it advantageous to manage your team, especially in conjunction with the freebooted apothecaries.
If someone refuses to manage his team, that will have a clear, negative effect on his team. But with the negative treasury counting as positive TR that effect becomes too clear IMO.

[Grumbledook]

negative winnings is hardly ever going to occur and its going to be very hard to get a negative treasury unless you have a very high team rating but even then the winnings table tops out at 301 so its hardly going to make much difference

i think it should be left as adding on imho

[Mestari]

I have to agree that it definitely doesn't make that much of a difference.
However, I would still like that better.

[Joemanji]

Negative treasury has to count towards TR. The system is designed to make life difficult for teams with TR 250 and over. If a team gets to TR 350+, the system should hammer them. This is where it matters that neg. treasury counts. You are in debt, this pushes your TR up so that you continue to lose money. This is only really likely to happen at very, very high TRs, but still, it is necessary.

Also it makes sense. Debt tends to spiral out of control - loan sharks knocking down the door, interest soaring.

But perhaps most importantly, it gives coaches a reason not to get into debt. A reason to trim their TR so this doesn't happen, which is what the system is all about.