Long term balance effect desired?

[GalakStarscraper]

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.

Right there is the bigger thing for me. We'll see the MBBL2 is now getting into full swing using the full package and we have some pretty high TR teams running:

http://www.midgardbb.com/MBBL2/index.ph ... g&dir=DESC

Later this week a TR 255 and TR 266 will be joining so I'll try to give updates as I can with what is happening to these teams.

So we'll watch that TR 300 mark and see what happens. The coaches are adapting pretty quickly to the 10k freebooted apothecaries ... well other than Nazgit who has forgotten to keep 10k back or hire the guy twice ...

Galak

[Joemanji]

3 times

[Mestari]

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.

But that pretty much eliminates choice from there, and that's where the problem lies, IMO.

To let ones treasury be on minus is a punishment already, especially if they then cannot protect their star players with the apothecary!

To additionally punish them with a higher TR is completely useless and only goes to make the game hardly enjoyable for those who for some reason do not want to manage their teams. They are being punished enough already by negative treasuries and freebooted apothecaries, believe me! The TR += abs(treasury) simply forces everyone to manage their team in a pretty uniform fashion. I say let those who want to manage their teams bad do so, they are already being punished for that - no need to force them to manage their teams in another fashion by making the punishments too obvious.

[Circular_Logic]

IMO a freebooted apo is not a good way to go, simply because lots of players will forget to freeboot the apo. Then why don´t you just decrease the winnings by 10k??
If a coach ignores negative treasury, his team will slide into oblivision rather sooner than later. Even with an apo, you usually get an injury a game and your team will degrade every game, because you cannot replace a single player.
As for counting towards TR:
I see the reason, but you don´t need both.. freebooted apo AND neg. winning increasing the TR.

[Tim]

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.

But that pretty much eliminates choice from there, and that's where the problem lies, IMO.

To let ones treasury be on minus is a punishment already, especially if they then cannot protect their star players with the apothecary!

...

I'd like to second that. Besides all my (remaining) hair standing up considering a dept adding to my Team/Company value (Enron couldn't have made it better ), i think this would be a bit too much for the start. How about testing it with dept = +0 TR first and if this prooves to be not restrictive enough we could easily add the ABS(dept) = +TR.

You also need to consider that there's a couple of teams that would not suffer from a freebooted apo (Undead, Necromantic, Rotters, partly Vampire).

If you would want to protect starting teams (i agree that keeping 10k in the treasury at team creation is easier than spending a full 50k for an Apo), it would be easy to add a rule that the NAF is paying for the freebooted apothecary until a TR of 150 (to give a number). This would allow teams to grow to a certain level without caring about team mangement, but then it kicks in slowly. It would also help to lower the impact of a first unlucky game, some team's can't ever recover from.

[GalakStarscraper]

the point of the debt counting towards TR is to increase the handicaps against the team.

The goal was simple guys ... really it was:

Manage your TR. If you choose not to manage your TR here is what will happen:

You won't have an apothecary. Your TR will be bumped which will give your opponent's more handicaps to make them more effective against you.

Sooooo ... if you go in debt, the goal was that your opponent would retire players from your team for you. Plain and simple ... a return to on pitch attrition.

Now since we are only talking about TR over 250 ... I not sure the gloom and doom starting to be expressed makes sense. And to Tim's comment on Undead having advantages ... I've shown the math already ... the freebooted apothecary is basically a null cost. The reduction in TR puts you in lower brackets which make back the 10k so after 15 games ... the Undead and you are basically at the same spot still, so there is no reason to have extended periods of free apoths.

And Mestari ... I don't think it will be uniform management. I really don't feel that it would have that effect at all.

Galak

[Tim]

If dept counts into TR, it is technically possible (not propable though) to end up with a team with 10 players and still a TR of 300+. You can run into situation where the only solution is to retire the complete team, and this not just by mismanagement, but also by bad luck. A couple of unlucky 1s on the FF and winning rolls in a row and you are in DEEP trouble.

I really wonder that you don't see the possible downward spiral of dept -> no apo -> players go niggling, mng and FF goes down -> less player to play with -> can't retire those that count to TR because you desperatly need them -> losing games -> more dept -> ...
Maybe i'm more sensitive because i managed a Skaven team up to TR 430 for quite some time in 3rd Ed. and know that it's even a hard job with the old rules.

Additionally this poses a big danger for high TR teams to play lower ones, esp. teams with a low FF. Low gate gives them almost instant neg. winnings. This will cause a big problem for smaller heterogenous leagues with a set schedule.

And adding dept as positive value to TR feels just as wrong as adding MNG players and positive treasury. We do it, but many people feel that it's wrong. If you want to move more to team management, maybe it would be good to determine between Team Rating (= On pitch power) for handicap purpose and Team Value for management purpose.

I say start small and use dept=0. It's not as harsh and less dangerous. If it doesn't work to get people to manage their teams (i can't believe this because noone wants to play a high TR game without an apo), you can always add the dept=TR.

If you stay with the dept=TR, I'd ask you to deduct my vote from the second option and add it to the first one. (Yes i care that much about this topic)

[Sixpack595]

I think negative debt should count as 0 TR.

[NightDragon]

I just loathe ageing and think the negative concept is such a huge leap forward. Ageing has got to go.

[Skummy]

I'm looking forward to seeing the effects of negative winnings in Divx on fumbbl. In particular, I'd like to see how a team like Khemri handles it. I think it's just possible for them to save up around 200k after they buy all their positional players, and then not care about their team rating, as they can replace and don't have to worry too much about an apoth.

[Smeborg]

I dislike Ageing, and think there must be a better way of balancing things (by bringing back a little blood into Blood Bowl).

The winnings and FF tables are already complicated enough.

Both ideas seem unnecessarily complicated to me, and smell of "work-around" rather than design fix.

Nasty things happening off the pitch will, I think, tend to deter newbies (oh look, my first skill advance has come with a -1ST). The same could be said of each layer of complexity that we add to a cleanly designed game.

Just my tuppence worth.

Cheers

[Mestari]

And Mestari ... I don't think it will be uniform management. I really don't feel that it would have that effect at all.

Tim makes good points there and I don't need to repeat them.

Making negative treasury count as positive TR is a pendulum change IMO. Better first go to neg = 0TR, as that certainly doesn't have the possibility of the downward spiral, existence of which you refuse to acknowledge. Then, if it seems too weak which I doubt, it could be changed.

If the team is already prone to go on minus, it's hard enough for them to get it back to plus, without every 10K of debt making it even harder. We want to keep the game fun even for those people and not force them to overmanage just to remove their debt.

Negative treasury affecting TR will become a very disliked rule. Without that, this rule would probably be a lot more liked than the aging system.

[Grumbledook]

if thats the case then testing will show that to be the case

i don't believe it will there are 2 leagues already testing it online you could make a team in to prove it

put your money where your mouth is ;]

[boondog]

Freebooted Apos? Please don`t.

[NightDragon]

Why not? They are not expensive.