Fixing Journeymen II: the poll

[GalakStarscraper]

I don't see how the bank does much then. It just seems to force the team that needs to save for a rainy day to give away inducements.

Not true. It allows you to save 100k for a rainy day with no penalites. It then makes teams either spend the money on inducements for current games or to pay the penalty for gold hording.

That's what it does. In my own opinion that is a lot better than the total lack of penalty that JJ put into the game to horde all the gold you want with the CRP. There are a lot of folks that agree that the Bank is better than Petty Cash. That's why to use it.

Galak

[Rhyoth]

What I'm running into is that JMs take away all sense of urgency. Money problems mean nothing at all anymore, and cash-flow differential was a major balance element. Mercs are balanced about right, IMO; Journeymen, Stars and Wizards are too good. In a fixed-format league, it's almost like you're penalized for winning your games.

We don't like an invitational postseason: we want every team to be competitive right up to the end to avoid a late season string of forfeitures (damn voluntary activities). If you really want to win in the postseason, the way we have it structured, it almost seems like the best plan is never to spend any money at all, forfeit all your games by not trying, and go in with a winless record and lame seeding but an enormous underdog value so you can always induce a couple stars and whatever else you need to win the matches when they start to count. The way I see it, that's unsportsmanlike. In a game like this, perverse incentives are absolute killers, even if they're never applied. After one coach did this with some success, it pissed everyone else off. They don't do it themselves (and we voted that guy out), but if sportsmanship tells you not to do the optimal as a matter of course, the rules should be in agreement.

Judging from the outside, penalizing a coach, just because he won with an unconventionnal and risky tactic looks really unsportmanlike :
_ you could blame your league structure, for not rewarding enough a good season, or not being selective enough for the playoffs,
_ you could blame his opponents, for not being able to adapt themselves to his unorthodox coaching,
_ and lastly you may blame the rules for allowing such "abuse" (IMHO, even if inducements provide you some flexibility, as well as unique abilities, they are still overpriced and unreliable)

However, i don't see any reason to blame a coach taking advantages of the rules, in order to win.

To conclude, i'd say sportmanship as nothing to do in Blood Bowl anyway (i am talking about the game itself, not the behaviour of players around the table), and the fact that there is more thn one way to win just adds flavor to the game.

[funnyfingers]

I don't see how the bank does much then. It just seems to force the team that needs to save for a rainy day to give away inducements.

Not true. It allows you to save 100k for a rainy day with no penalites. It then makes teams either spend the money on inducements for current games or to pay the penalty for gold hording.

That's what it does. In my own opinion that is a lot better than the total lack of penalty that JJ put into the game to horde all the gold you want with the CRP. There are a lot of folks that agree that the Bank is better than Petty Cash. That's why to use it.

Galak

I just haven't really seen any problems with the hording of cash. I do see the hording of cash, but no problems with it. If you see a problem with gold, I'd say it is just a difference in winnings of LRB4 vs LRB5, being that you just earn a lot more gold in LRB5.

[mattgslater]

Judging from the outside, penalizing a coach, just because he won with an unconventionnal and risky tactic looks really unsportmanlike :

Oops. I didn't mean to imply that we kicked him out because he gamed the system in a way we didn't like. You're right; that would be unacceptable. He gamed the system in a way we didn't like, ok, but he was an absolute jerk who never bathed, picked fights, and got himself kicked out of all the hangouts. When he got himself (and nearly another coach) arrested for no good reason, we voted him out. Now he's gone and there's a general movement to prevent cheesing the system with inducements. Part of it is probably just that "there oughtta be a law" feeling when somebody cheeses you out and leaves a really bad taste in your mouth, even if the really bad taste and the cheesing are unrelated.

However, i don't see any reason to blame a coach taking advantages of the rules, in order to win.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Yeah. But if you have a problem with the rules, fix 'em after the season.

FWIW, I don't think he had enough success with it to validate the strategy. But what I think doesn't matter. If two of my coaches get it in their heads that losing is as good as winning,the whole league is in deep trouble. I don't think that'll happen off of this, but I want to be sure, and I want to do it in a way that's not too heavy-handed.

I think the Bank is actually a nice way to do this. If you're getting jacked up, you're probably spending your cash. I'm still a little leery on the 100k number, as it's so specifically elf-friendly. But something like that may resolve multiple objectives.

[Darkson]

If you manage to get into the play-offs with a losing record, or even a zero win record, I'd say there's something wrong with the post-game set-up of the league.

[mattgslater]

If you manage to get into the play-offs with a losing record, or even a zero win record, I'd say there's something wrong with the post-game set-up of the league.

Several reasons for this.

1) At any given time, I have eight or fewer coaches. I don't want a two-round tournament.

2) We're not all friends in real life, but it's fun to get everybody together for a big party at the end of the season, and a tournament is a good excuse... if you're invited.

3) We have a secondary "graduate" league, where the best teams duke it out. You don't have to win the championship, but you have to place in the top three. Having a larger postseason pool makes this battle more exciting.

4) Late-season games between eliminated teams have this feeling of meaninglessness. If the two teams are both going on, then even if they can't affect their seeding they have SPP and health to think about.

5) The one worst coach is just a really popular guy. We beat him over and over, he's usually a good sport about it, he never stops fighting, and and though he usually loses he sometimes makes it hard. He's a great stalking horse for newbies. How in heck can I not invite him to the tournament?

Look, I'm not into defending my motives to people I'm not accountable to: I'd defend my motives to my league if they hadn't put me up to this. I'm looking for practical advice given a set of assumptions. If the assumptions don't make sense, it's because I don't think you'd care to hear the particulars; take 'em as givens. We're looking for something that's right for us, and in this context that means making a small tweak that discourages people from taking Journeymen unless they're desperate. So help me with that end, if you like.

[Rhyoth]

I had the feeling didn't knew the whole picture, but i couldn't help intervening ... sorry for that

Now, regarding your playoffs structure, it feels like you're not rewarding enough a good regular season : here is a few tricks if you want to fix that :
a) give a free special card to top teams (which value depends of the rank obtained in the regular season), at least for the first round
b) halve money received for inducements during playoffs (or double inducements prices)
c) as Darkson said, ban some inducements from playoffs


EDIT : i may be wrong, but i have the feeling the exasperation caused by JM in your league is just a symptom of an underneath problem, and curing a symptom is always less efficient than curing the disease...

[mattgslater]

I have my reservations about the Bank. The 100k threshold looks like it would hit the 70k TRR teams more than anyone else, and that's not at all what I want (quite the contrary; the cheese teams all pay 50k). Increasing the threshold to 150k kind of works, but then it becomes rather toothless.

I have a few variants popping into my head that might get closer to what I'm looking for.

A) Cap the bank at 2x TRR cost, instead of 100k.

B) If you have any Journeymen and your Treasury equals or exceeds 70k after resolving Petty Cash, add the difference to your TV.

C) Add +30k TV for each full 50k in Treasury. Then replace Petty Cash with "you may spend league handicap fund or Treasury on an inducement, but you may not spend money from both sources on the same inducement. You may not spend more than half your Treasury this way."
Treasury 0-40k: +0 TV
50k-90k: +30k TV
100k-140k: +60k TV
150k-190k: +90k TV
etc.

As for the playoffs, how about this?
* Star Players are not allowed in the postseason tournament; they may be induced, but all Star Players get the Secret Weapon ability. Star Players who had Secret Weapon already now have it twice, and may only be retained after the first drive through the use of two Bribes. (This is because we've found SWs to be fun but not game-breaking, and while we're really getting annoyed with the awesomeness of SP big guys, we don't want to do away with them entirely).
* In the tournament, each team gets to induce a Wizard for free in the first round.
* In the Final Four, there are no inducements or Journeymen. Players do not miss Final Four matches.

[GalakStarscraper]

I have my reservations about the Bank. The 100k threshold looks like it would hit the 70k TRR teams more than anyone else, and that's not at all what I want

You are incorrect on this because even the 70k TRR teams save the 100k and then make enough gold normally on their next game to purchase the re-roll. Net effect is that they never gave up inducements for saving up for a re-roll. And seriously even if they do give up inducement money saving for a re-roll ... its 30k MAX ... not game changing.

Just don't understand messing with a rule that had a year of playtesting and was deemed successful by the playtesters and the 4 player coaches of the BBRC.

For the play-offs ... the rulebook already says that Mercs and Star Players won't play in Play-off games (that a rule not an optional rule in the book) ... I guess I don't see why that is not good enough even after reading more about your league in this thread.

Galak

[mattgslater]

For the play-offs ... the rulebook already says that Mercs and Star Players won't play in Play-off games (that a rule not an optional rule in the book) ... I guess I don't see why that is not good enough even after reading more about your league in this thread.

Ah. I didn't see that.

[GalakStarscraper]

For the play-offs ... the rulebook already says that Mercs and Star Players won't play in Play-off games (that a rule not an optional rule in the book) ... I guess I don't see why that is not good enough even after reading more about your league in this thread.

Ah. I didn't see that.

For a second there I was not sure if your comment meant you could not see it or just saw it ... which made my (oh no did JJ delete something he should not have meter go off for LRB 6.0 to CRP). Fortunately yes it is still in there. Page 30 (by the page numbers at the bottom) of the CRP and its even bolded. Whew!

Galak

[mattgslater]

Thanks! It looks like we've probably got a majority who want to try the Bank. I'll let you know how it went in six months or so.