Fixed League Inducements

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:41 am

OK, here's another:

Some of my old school coaches HATE Journeymen, and frankly, the only argument they have is "this isn't what I remember." They remember the days when elves were for geniuses and masochists, and they remember the days when handicaps would benefit the lower-value team in the long run, without evening the odds in the short run. Frankly, the latter bit is better for fixed formats, while it's very destructive in open formats. So I've been thinking about their concerns, and have come to the conclusion that fixed leagues would benefit from changes to the inducement rules.

Here's what I came up with:

1) TV includes Treasury, but not FF (using Free FF rules).
2) Money spent from Treasury is not added to opponent's inducements.
3) If you spend nothing but Treasury on a purchase, you get matching funds from the bank up to a total 50k per match.
4) Mercenaries are a bit more expensive: double TVA, rather than TVA+30k+net 30k with a skill.
5) Limit one Star.
6) No Journeymen, but if you can't field more than 11 players total after picking Inducements, then unskilled linos you select as Mercs are half price.*
7) To simulate the old Freebooter rule, Mercs are half price if you buy them with nothing but Treasury and matching funds.

You may induce an MVP for 100k, and you may induce +10k winnings for 100k each.
9) You may also induce a "side bet" where you get both dice instead of just the higher one if you win, for 100k. If you lose, the inducement is wasted.
10) Players not permanently listed on the roster CAN'T use TRRs.**

* I don't like this. If you can think of a better rule for JMs for people who don't like JMs, I'm all ears.

** This is because I'm using my option rules, which take Loner off BGs (using competition as discouragement rather than devaluation), and so I'm just going to dump Loner entirely.

WDYT?

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:44 am

Journeymen is probably the best rule introduced in LRB5. At least top 3. Sounds like your guys would rather just play 3rd ed ...

Jural · Post by **Jural** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:47 am

JM alternate rule- If your team is permanently reduced to less than 11 players (MNG players DO count,) you are allowed to buy a player from the 0-16 allotment at half price.

Sucks when you don't have 40k in the treasury and are an elf team, I suppose!

EDIT: The player would be permanently a part of your roster. I would also suggest allowing teams to go into debt to take this player- if the decision was made before hiring additional players.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:05 am

Allowing debt could work, assuming teams could only hire when reduced to less than 11 players, and all debt was retained.

AK_Dave · Post by **AK_Dave** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:36 am

I don't like the combo of #3 and #8, especially when #2 is taken into account. This list of rule changes stacks together very poorly and becomes a huge advantage for the better team.

I have a DE team, high TV, and I'm trying to manage my TV without giving away too much in inducements to my opponents. Well, here's how your rules stack up in MY favor to allow me to abuse the heck out of some weenie low-TV team in my league:
1. I have huge cash reserves, so I can pour money into the game for inducements. With #2, my opponent doesn't get "matching funds" for the money I spend. I spend 50K.
2. I get matching funds from the "bank" for the money I spend. I get 50K.
3. I dump all 100K into an extra MVP, on top of the 3-5 TDs that I'll score when I crush the underdog team.

Preparing for this game, I fire players from my team to drop my TV. Maybe I hire rookies. Maybe I field only 10 players. Fewer players means better odds of those MVPs going where I want them.

Got a limit on the MVPs? How about instead of spending cash (100K) to buy a reroll, I spend 50K on inducements to get 50K of matching funds and buy a spare reroll for that game only. Now I get the reroll, temporarily, without paying double cost, and it doesn't count for my TV. On games when I don't really need/want it, I don't take it and it doesn't count "against" me.

I fire my team down to a tight roster, spend cash as above, and take a couple spare Apothecaries to keep my guys safe so they can enjoy their extra MVPs at the end of the game. Who needs to bother collecting TDs when you get a boatload of MVPs?

What people fail to realize, I believe, is that while the underdog gets a wad of playmoney to spend on inducement the other team can spend cash from treasury on inducements as long as the coach doesn't mind that the underdog gets matching funds. The underdog cannot spend cash from treasury to boost inducements, because cash spent counts towards TV and therefore reduces inducements 1:1. But thats just the flipside of a coin that prevents the higher rated team from abusing the system.

Your above list of suggested changes, houserules, whatever, breaks the system.

#10 is redundant with the Loner rule. A JM Lino has Loner and already has a hard time using a TRR.

Now, I do remember the days when the handicaps would benefit the lower-value team in the long run. Especially the magic items. But also the "Lads Got Talent" card and a few others. They were coveted. Sometimes the cards were marked. Being the underdog meant you knew you would be abused, but hopefully the survivors would be a better team.

Now the inducement system means that the weaker team isn't necessarily going to grow or build any faster just for being weaker, but they'll get some bonuses to help level the playing field for this one game. It also means that Star Players are much more commonly fielded than before. If you know your team is likely an underdog, you probably already have a stable of 2-3 Stars that you like to bring when you can. Thats cool. Zara really gets around these days.

I don't see what is destructive about the LRB5 format.

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:03 am

@ Dave:

First, thanks for the input.

The reason for rule #2 is rule #1. Otherwise Treasury would count twice. Essentially, the opponent gets matching funds whether you spend the money or not. This is intended as an F-U to teams in a position to hoard, forcing them to burn money quickly on extra players and TRRs.

Yes, rule #3 means that the overdog can, by dedicating 50k to the match, gain a 100k inducement. I can see how that would get problematic late in the season. The real objective is to simulate the Freebooter mechanics and allow teams to get cards. I could specify that matching funds are good for cards and mercs only....

Maybe you didn't read the footnote on #10. I want to take Loner out entirely. "Can you use TRRs?" is an either-or thing, and the first, last and only test for it is "are you printed permanently on the team roster?" I guess I could just take Loner off the Big Guy profiles (primary objective), but my coaches are going to be looking to nerf mercs/stars and this is a cheap bone to throw, which they will over-value.

The "level the playing field for this one game" effect is exactly what I'm looking to get away from. My objective is to penalize weak teams THIS WEEK more than 5th edition does, and at the END less than 5th does.

I agree that the JM rules are great. But if I'm going to maintain league cohesion, I a) have to keep them, and b) have to backdoor them through some other mechanic. Not what I'd want to do.

tchatter · Post by **tchatter** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:34 pm

I am confused by #8?

So I can spend 100k worth of inducements to get 10k at the end of the match?

What are you investing in the US Stock Market?

Loner off BG's??

Yeah, I'd say you guys really just want 3rd Edition.

AK_Dave · Post by **AK_Dave** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:27 pm

I understand that your need is to tweak the rules to keep things fair but at the same time keep your old fogies interested in playing.

mattgslater wrote:The "level the playing field for this one game" effect is exactly what I'm looking to get away from. My objective is to penalize weak teams THIS WEEK more than 5th edition does, and at the END less than 5th does.

What I don't understand is what the game mechanic problem is with the LRB5/6 rules as written. Penalize weak teams more or less than LRB5?

[rant]

Okay, I don't see weak teams as being penalized over and above what the TV-difference would show. If anything, I see low-TV teams as being "boosted" to be competetive with high-TV teams. Not necessarily equal, but competetive. My opinion: the rules WORK!

Now, roll back to 3ed or LRB4 and we find a league rule set where the underdog is pretty much guaranteed to lose. I mean, if you pull off a win with a 50TV difference then you've been Blessed by Nuffle and really should retire from the game at this point. Quit while you're on top, because it ain't happening again. But on the other hand, that huge TV difference will buy you a big stack of cards so you'll probably find some stuff with permenant benefit for your team. Do this enough, and you'll soon be on TV-parity with the teams that have dozens more games than you, and all will be happy. My opinion: those rules SUCK!

Here's the problem that I see, and where I basically disagree with your old grognards. I think they're full of themselves and living in the past. I think they want the days when experienced teams got to dominate and abuse weaker teams.

The problem with the older league rules is that lower-TV teams basically had to suck it up and run the gauntlet for several games before they could hope to do anything decent like score TDs. It was a culling period. If you could survive, keep your spirits up, and have fun getting kicked in the teeth, then you "passed your initiation". Starting a team in an existing league was a rite of passage. It was something to be endured. It was exactly the reason that we NEVER EVER (up here) rolled teams from one season to the next. We'd play a season of Blood Bowl, have a championship, and then retire the teams. It might be a YEAR before another season was started, with fresh teams. Perpetual leagues? Never happened. Nobody would want to bring a rookie team against a TV225 Undead or TV250 Wood Elf team, regardless of how much freebie crap they got just for showing up. You get 8 cards? Big whoopie, the game isn't fun!

What LRB5/6 league rules provide is that the underdog games will still be fun.

Of course, thats my definition of "fun". Someone else's "fun" might be "abusing weak teams". Fine, but in our game club we don't encourage "schoolyard bully" as a meta-strategy.

[/rant]

That off my chest, I think that I overlooked the combo of ALL of the rules while focussing on the combo potential of a FEW of the rules. I think that the changes appear balanced, but it will probably take a league season to test that out.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:47 pm

What AK_Dave just wrote was the whole reason Jervis started the Vault process in 2004.

Galak

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:45 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:What AK_Dave just wrote was the whole reason Jervis started the Vault process in 2004.

Galak

... but entirely misses the point of what mattgslater is trying to achieve.

Matt, I like some of the changes alot but some of the others could be tightened up a bit. I'll post more when I have time, alas I am just about to go out.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:53 pm

SillySod wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:What AK_Dave just wrote was the whole reason Jervis started the Vault process in 2004.

Galak
... but entirely misses the point of what mattgslater is trying to achieve.

Yes and No.

Look Matt is trying to come up with a way to have the essense of LRB 5.0 while still making his 3rd edition kill the newbie and destroy the elf/stunty teams players happy.

I'm not sure there is a way to do both.

So my reply wasn't saying that Matt should give up or that AK_Dave was right that Matt should tell his league to be less blood thirsty ... just that he has an uphill battle in front of him.

Galak

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:14 pm

I hear you, Galak.

So, on a more metaphysical level, here is my solution:

1) Fixed league format, so all teams will have played the same number of games. This allows for more money to be distributed, reducing the impact of the extra bloodiness.
2) Extra "challenge round" for low-ranking teams at midseason, to boost stragglers, plus a "preseason" to give newbies a little time to build and allow them to reset. Related -- the postseason will be open to all comers: the regular season is played for seeding And it's not always top-to-bottom Swiss: look up my season rules thread.
3) More liberal SPP awards for casualties, to encourage fouls-of-opportunity without encouraging dirty players or dirty overall strategy. Better Apothecary.
4) Treasury adds to TV in order to penalize success and force people to s... or get off the pot o' gold.
5) Shift in emphasis on handicap: instead of leveling the field (which it still would... a bit), handicap should help level the journey ahead. It's not such a big deal that you're F'ed this week: your real job is to build SPP, keep guys alive and look ahead to the playoffs.

AK_Dave · Post by **AK_Dave** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:20 pm

I think the fixed league format addresses a lot of this already. You're less likely to have big TV disparities in a single fixed 10-15 game season.

I prefer a fixed league format, with either scheduled games or just a scheduled league night where people are matched up that night. But a fixed format doesn't work for every group of players. Around here, we have a hard time getting people to commit to a fixed format but there are plenty enough people to have a loose league if nobody minds that some people will inevitably play a lot more than others.

You can address some of the TV disparity through league rules.

One example is tier ratings. The SE levels are an easy way to do this. Tier-0 is everyone under TV175, and the tiers go up from there. Your league rule might be that teams are automatically retired (temporarily) when they hit the next tier (start a new team at TV100, do it all over again). Or are limited in the number of games they can play down. There is a huge difference between TV122 and TV172, but the underdog knows that this is probably the last game that the better team is going to be playing for a while and will soon be graduated to the next tier. Or they'll fire players to keep playing. Or they'll pray that some gutsy underdog wants to "challenge up" (can't challenge down, but can challenge up).

Perpetual leagues can benefit from tiers. You might put a salary cap (TV cap) in place at the start of the season, or just tiers alone may drive coaches to nestle into a particular tier level.

Our league is an open format, but we restrict teams from playing the same team more than twice in a row. Then you have to play someone else. If we used tiers, two teams in the 175 bracket could play each other twice, and then neither would play another game until a 3rd team hit that bracket. Then they could play each other, but nobody else. Coaches would be encouraged to start new teams and/or keep the TV low.

I like TV being a measure of on-field potential. Cash has no on-field potential. Cash doesn't score TDs or cause casualties. I don't see a problem in cash hording. It is a tool of TV management.

I think you'd be better off working within the framework of the existing rules and simply tweaking your league with TV tiers (just use the SE brackets).

If the SE brackets leave too big of a gap at the low end, put another line at TV150. Perhaps another at TV125.

Tier rules for open-format league:
Teams are assigned to bracket based on SE chart according to TV at step 12.
Example: TV 175 = SE+10.
Add bracket for TV <125. Call it SE-10.
Teams may only challenge other teams of the same or ONE higher bracket.
Example: TV 175 is SE+10. May not challenge rookie team that is TV100 in bracket SE-10. May be challenged by any team in SE0 (TV125-174).
Teams may not play same opponent more than twice in a row, regardless of TV/SE.

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:46 pm

I've played that way and liked it, and will be incorporating elements of it.

In a nutshell, here's what I'm doing. 8 coaches.

1) Split all teams into two divisions of four teams: an Agility division and a Bash division. Effort will be made to pair newer coaches up in one or both divs, and it's ok if a new bash coach goes into Agility to account for this.

2) 3-game preseason. Record doesn't count. Then reset at 1.1M, with the ability to hire up to 3 players off your preseason roster at TVA.

3) 10-11-game reg season over 11 weeks. Weeks 2, 5, 8, 10 are cross-division (so each bash team plays each agility team once). Weeks 1, 3, 4 are divisional.

4) After week 5, calculate division rankings. 3 and 4 in each division then play a bowl game (Iron Bowl or Mercury Bowl, respectively) in week 6, while 1 and 2 have a bye. Then division matches are set for weeks 7, 9 and 11, by record after week 5.

5) After week 11, recalculate ranking again, and each coach plays their opposite in the other division (1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc) for playoffs in a series of bowl games (Golden, Silver, Copper and Leaden bowls).

6) In the playoffs, the top 4 teams after bowls (winners of 1-3, loser of 1) face-off for a bye, while bottom four teams (winner of 4, losers of 2-4) face off in an elimination round. By design no two teams can possibly play each other twice in a row. Eliminated teams play the Slag Bowl, while other non-bye teams play the wildcard. Wildcard winners face off against bye teams in the semifinal, while losers play the Brass Bowl. Semifinal winners play the final, while semifinal losers play the Bronze Bowl.

AK_Dave · Post by **AK_Dave** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:05 am

Honestly, I think that if you have a tightly managed fixed-format league that you don't need to houserule anything because inducements will be minimal.