Inducements

[Darkson]

Bonus MVPs - perhaps, perhaps not - I can see the plus points to it, but I can also see the downsides (random bonus MVPs might allow players to skill up faster than is 2natural" within their roster - for example, Saurus).

We used a 3-tier handicap table, that you "brought" rolls on, depending on the TV difference (see, we used TV in a LRB 4-based rules-set!). At the higher levels, there were things such as extra Apos, limiting the opposing team to inflicting BH only, and (stolen from the MBBL2) Kid Gloves, which meant the worse a player could do was KO a opposing player (used to really annoy the Claw, RSC, Piling on CW ).

Our handiap table was more about kkeeping the underdogs healthy, than allowing them to win. then, when they did pull off a big win, it was down to the coaching skills (and luck), rather than either rolling a great set of handicaps (LRB 1-4) or having access to (better) beardy, over-powered piece of cheese (LRB5).

[skritter]

Hell Man, this game is WAR. And one sided stories have been the stuff of legends. David and Goliath etc. I can't have anymore fun than being the underdog with the smallest of chances of pulling off the win. AND THEN PULLING IT OFF.
Woo hoot what a thrill. And then even if you don't win the game, it's about winning the little battles.

This isn't chess, and only about the single game. Its the long hall. It a little bit about the win, a little bit more about development, and a whole lot about creating a legend. And achieving it all, against the odds, only makes it more sweet.

Chill have fun. Win, lose or draw.

[DoubleSkulls]

The target was about 0.250 record (i.e. win 1 game in 4 - with no draws) would be the worst record you would get with even coaching ability regardless of TV difference for tier 1 teams. This is the balance that Jervis is referring to in the designer notes - not a perfect balance for every game - and if you read them in full you can see he is talking about balancing leagues & progression - not individual matches.

Personally I've got no interest in trying to make inducements balance games to target 50-50. The point of inducements is to ensure that a league can accomodate new teams playing against established teams without it being a one sided slaughter (normally the case with earlier LRBs). The inducements are biased towards extra players - and keeping them on the pitch longer - because we felt that was the best way to ensure that teams just didn't get mauled when playing up. Sacrifical players (journeymen & mercs), stars to distract your opponent's efforts etc.

One key aspect is the affect of balancing on the developed team. If all games are 50-50 then what would be the point in developing a team and investing time, creativity etc into it? Hence we didn't adopt suggestions along those lines because that is not the point of inducements.

Also I really dislike accellerated development to teams to compensate. Balancing factors ought to only affect the game being played - because everything else distorts league mechanics and encourgaes coaches to play negatively (i.e. protecting the team just to get the reward at the end). This was, IMO, a bad mechanic in 3rd ed and we are better off without it.

Its also worth pointing out that at any TV level some teams are better than others. Zons are a classic example of a strong starter, but weak later, whilst Chaos and most elven teams are the other way around. The design team are perfectly comfortable with this.

[King-Nerd]

I submit to your greater understanding of the history game and the direction in which it is heading.

If in the future you could stop Star's and Merc's winning the MVP, that would be great. It's hard enough closing that TR gap without leaking SPP due to things you really have to use to be competitive'ish.

[Aliboon]

Also I really dislike accellerated development to teams to compensate. Balancing factors ought to only affect the game being played - because everything else distorts league mechanics and encourgaes coaches to play negatively (i.e. protecting the team just to get the reward at the end). This was, IMO, a bad mechanic in 3rd ed and we are better off without it.

Mmm, I can see your point there, but think it could only really apply to extra MVPs being handed out (and even then personally I don't see it as that bad a thing, it's a risk/reward trade off, which should make for more balanced teams in the future, thus reducing the need for inducements and (eventually) making for more balanced games). If you got extra SPPs for CASs and TDs then you would have an extra incentive to go for them and this shouldn't distort how you play the game (although I can see how extra points for comps would).

My main problem at the moment is that with the current (non-house rule) rulebook is that the extra Stars and mercs can hinder team development by a) getting the MVP and b) getting the SPPs for actions that they have the better skills to undertake, so do the actions and get the SPPs. You can't do much about b), but a) is easy enough to sort out.

The inducement system does work well, but I'd have thought that it's self-evident that ideally teams would be well balanced naturally, so that inducements are needed less to have a balanced game. This isn't the case with say 'flings or gobbos who need the inducements to be more competetive, but for most teams I reckon it is.

[Darkson]

I personally believe "losing" MVPs (and other SPPs) on non-rostered players is the price you should pay for using "free" players.
If you don't want to lose the MVPs, then don't induce the players.

[Aliboon]

Well I do like the "fluff" of Stars being able to get the MVP and agree with you up to a certain point. But as a game mechanic it does hinder the development of underdog teams, which I think is a "bad".

So I suppose my preferred solution would be something along the lines of doubling SPPs for TDs and CASs, if the underdog was 50 (?) TV below, but still under 150 (?) TV overall. Those numbers would maybe need adjusting, but would give a boost to rookie teams and be an incentive for them to play better teams, without (hopefully) messing too much other stuff up.

[Meradanis]

If in the future you could stop Star's and Merc's winning the MVP, that would be great. It's hard enough closing that TR gap without leaking SPP due to things you really have to use to be competitive'ish.

There are optional rules in the LRB 5 regarding the MVP. Our league uses this one: "At the end of the match, one randomly selected player eligible to play during this match that was not induced and has not been removed from the team by death by the end of the match is awarded a Most Valuable Player award."
I think it works out pretty good, because there's always some award of having played the game, even if you've been outbashed.

As for filling the gap between rookie and experienced teams: I think the Star Player Point Table does the work. More experienced teams need much more Star Player points to gain additional skills. And those extra skills are never as good as the first ones (Block, Guard, Dodge, Mighty Blow).

[Tarp]

My experince from the last 2 seasons in http://www.arosbb.dk is that inducements does, not completly but still, even out the playing field a lot, its just about knowing witch to use and how and when to use them. But as a rule of thumb stars are often the way to go, one "regular" starplayer and one with a secret weapon can realy ruin your opponents day
So just think all! the options you get with the inducements through an it should be possible to come up with the combo to make the game winnable

[mattgslater]

Ooh. How about this?

Favorable Coverage: 100,000gp. You hire a well-known scribe to write an article praising your team's athletic prowess and singling out one of your players as an unsung hero, a legend in the making or a true star player, as appropriate. Gain an extra random MVP at the beginning of the match, selecting from among players attending the match, not counting journeymen, mercenaries or star players. If a player gains enough SPP this way to gain an improvement roll, make the roll and selection immediately.

[bouncergriim]

our league allows an underdog to purchase a merc after a game (complete with star player points earned and even a skill (if you paided the extra for it)). This discourages Star Players and helps an underdog develop more quickly. You pay full price for the player in question and can only buy them after inducing them.

IT could be abused by some to get str4 players with block more quickly. But it is designed to help new teams become competitive with advanced teams more quickly.

[DoubleSkulls]

Mmm, I can see your point there, but think it could only really apply to extra MVPs being handed out (and even then personally I don't see it as that bad a thing, it's a risk/reward trade off, which should make for more balanced teams in the future, thus reducing the need for inducements and (eventually) making for more balanced games). If you got extra SPPs for CASs and TDs then you would have an extra incentive to go for them and this shouldn't distort how you play the game (although I can see how extra points for comps would).

The problem is that you are assuming that the league has a set of developed teams and then a smaller number of new teams joining. Under those circumstances bringing the weaker teams "up to speed" helps to ensure that games being played are between "even" teams and inducements aren't necessary.

However what about a league with few developed teams and lots of new teams? You can easily end up with a situation where it is better to play the biggest match ups first - to get the accelerated growth - so that you are now the overdog against the other new teams.

Getting MVPs (or other randomly allocated SPPs) distorts team progression too - its better for teams that rely on MVPs to skill up some players (BOBs, Saurus etc) over teams that can distribute SPPs more evenly (e.g. Elves).

Giving additional SPPs for current actions (I assume you mean giving 3 SPPs for a cas or something?) would work better - but has additional complexity & tracking that isn't in line with the main design goals.

Finally the main point about inducements is to make the differences in team development less significant - so playing up or down ought to be less signficant now than under previous versions of the rules - so the compensation argument gets weaker because you aren't playing such one sided games anymore.

[Super Nashwan]

i like the idea of the underdog being given equal chances. the alternative is run-away leaders. if inducements grant +1/3 chance then they're still behind. and team ACE wins again, and gets better still, so wins the next game too. crap league. giving at least equal chances keeps the coaches that don't do so well a fighting chance and therefore keeps them interested.
so if you're the best player in the league then you're rewarded with your own customised team that you've nurtured. if you're one of the weaker players you still enjoy a fair game each and every time.
to put it another way, if you're the best player, you're not pissing people off and having people avoid you, you're having to re-affirm your superiority.

[Darkson]

Ooh. How about this?

Favorable Coverage: 100,000gp. You hire a well-known scribe to write an article praising your team's athletic prowess and singling out one of your players as an unsung hero, a legend in the making or a true star player, as appropriate. Gain an extra random MVP at the beginning of the match, selecting from among players attending the match, not counting journeymen, mercenaries or star players. If a player gains enough SPP this way to gain an improvement roll, make the roll and selection immediately.

Problem with that as an inducement is that it screws the TV difference, especially if the player gets a skill.

[mattgslater]

Problem with that as an inducement is that it screws the TV difference, especially if the player gets a skill.

How? I don't see what you mean, Darkson. Inducements are handled after handicap is calculated, so by the time the TV change occurs, TV difference shouldn't be an issue. It matters in the next match, but by then TV will have already changed anyway, so that won't make a difference either.