Inducing MVPs and FAME

[mattgslater]

Objective: To come up with a couple of inducements that provide long-term value for underdogs, but to make sure each inducement has some in-game benefit. We've been using rules for induced cash and MVPs, and they're getting mixed reviews. We have periodic tournaments, and want the teams that fall behind to get some help catching up.

So what's +1 FAME worth? I mean, it's worth 10k winnings, an AC, a CL, about 1/18 stun per kickoff (1/6 x # of players x 1/36 for a Pitch Invasion), and 1/108 of a thrown/not thrown rock per kickoff, right? Is that worth 200k? 150k?

And for the induced MVP, we've found it's a tad overpriced at 200k but we don't want to make it cheaper. Can we get away with keeping it at 200k and putting it (and any attendant improvement roll) at the beginning of the match rather than the end? Should we make it a player of choice, or should it be random like a normal MVP? We let coaches re-roll the first MVP result: should we do this for the inducement as well?

[mattgslater]

Got no response, rewrote, bumping.

[Grumbledook]

don't think many people check this second tbh

i don't do it very often

inducing fame isn't a big deal voted 200k for +1

mvp is another matter, deffo should be random if you do it which is what i voted, though i'm not yet convinced as it can skew team development compared to ones that advance normally. is this a problem, is it not a problem, dunno!

would you let a team buy an extra mvp if they have loads of cash too as you can with all other inducements

bit of a can of worms that one ;]

[mattgslater]

would you let a team buy an extra mvp if they have loads of cash too as you can with all other inducements

bit of a can of worms that one ;]

Ah. Hadn't thought of that. My format has an easy fix for this, though: I can restrict it to teams playing in the "basic league" which is only up to 12-16 games. 200k Treasury represents almost 4 wins or about 5 losses, plus one game after the SE threshold. In the first 16 games, 200k is a lot of money, even for a cheap team.

But even in this short format, Stunties and other inducement-heavy teams can do it....

Hmm. I could make this inducement come at the expense of one of the team's accumulated matches for the month? Then you'd only be able to abuse it for your secondary teams. I'd have to give out victory points (accumulated to qualify for postseason seeding; you 4-7, depending on whether you win, lose, tie or lose in OT) with it if I did that, to keep the team from inducing its way out of the tournament. Fluff-wise, I don't like the idea of giving induced victory points.

Another way around it would be just to rule that no team could hire these inducements from Petty Cash?

[Smurf]

I don't like random MVP... it can allow for easy skill ups and the only thing a player may have done is won MVP for bench sitting then thrown a ball.

FAME isn't a big deal IMO. The value is lost on teams that have to pay expenses anyway.

[mattgslater]

I don't like random MVP... it can allow for easy skill ups and the only thing a player may have done is won MVP for bench sitting then thrown a ball.

I'm not sure I understand what you're recommending here. I kind of get what you're saying, but the MVP is critical to game balance. If all you got was credit for TDs and Cas and Comps, only elves would be competitive in leagues. Or are you saying that MVPs should be chosen by the coach? Or are you saying that induced MVPs are okay only if chosen by the coach?

FAME isn't a big deal IMO. The value is lost on teams that have to pay expenses anyway.

Yeah, I can't imagine that any team would take this once they're paying Spiraling Expenses, but given the format, SE and 200k underdog just never go hand-in-hand, so it's moot.

[Grumbledook]

I don't like random MVP... it can allow for easy skill ups and the only thing a player may have done is won MVP for bench sitting then thrown a ball.

FAME isn't a big deal IMO. The value is lost on teams that have to pay expenses anyway.

It can allow? As opposed to does allow for assigned MVPs?

[Darkson]

D and H for me.

[mattgslater]

D and H for me.

Great. Can I get an explanation? Is there something conceptually problematic with this idea?

[Darkson]

Inducements are designed to (partially) level the playing field for the upcoming game - they are not meant to provide long-term boosts to teams.
Iirc both ideas were in, and quickly rejected during the Vault.

[mattgslater]

Hmm. I understand that thinking. And yet....

We have a core conceit going on, that runs like this. You're allowed to play 14 games in the regular season. After the season, there is a tournament. Everybody gets into the tournament, regardless of record.

So regular-season record doesn't matter much. You can only play so many games, to keep those with the most free time from just always ruling the roost. So the trick is in playing all your games, or failing that, getting up on the curve in the games you will play. Inducements that help you win now are not much help at all, unless they get you SPP too.

This fits our sensibilities, and is non-negotiable. It arises from the grotesque coaching disparities that we have to cope with. Read: I win almost all of my games, but I have a couple other pretty solid coaches too, and a couple of rank amateurs who everybody likes and we don't want to leave them feeling sour. If I want to play BB, and I want harmony amongst my friends, I have to take all the sting out of losing until the tournament comes up and it's all over just like that. Induced improvements solve this problem going both ways. If you're falling behind, induce a boost. If you need to tie one hand behind your back and don't want to offend the guy across the table, grab a plausible long-term investment with little/no immediate impact, and he'll never be the wiser. By contrast, if you hire 3 Bribes but no SWs and you never foul, everybody knows what you did.

(I also have horrid memories of playing back in the '90s, when every single coach quit the league immediately after being eliminated from postseason contention, so I see an open postseason as an imperative in any case.)

What I'm looking to do is help those teams that aren't caught-up enough to reasonably play all their games get buff in anticipation of the tournament. Smart coaches in this format just laugh off a loss without major injuries like nothing happened, because it didn't. But a game with no development, or a game not played with no ability to make up for it, that's a catastrophe.

[Smurf]

I don't like random MVP... it can allow for easy skill ups and the only thing a player may have done is won MVP for bench sitting then thrown a ball.

I'm not sure I understand what you're recommending here. I kind of get what you're saying, but the MVP is critical to game balance. If all you got was credit for TDs and Cas and Comps, only elves would be competitive in leagues. Or are you saying that MVPs should be chosen by the coach? Or are you saying that induced MVPs are okay only if chosen by the coach?

I think I said this before but we nominate players for MVP. Prowess is what wins the day, a truly dedicated player. But not just because they do want they are supposed to do, it has to be more.

1. Skaven lino - los, K'od, los, K'od, los, K'od, los, K'od... it was funny dedicated player.
2. DE lino - was always there, getting in the way, even caused a pass to fail...
3. Wardancer - mocked the Norse, was blitzed, sidestepped into an Ulfwerner, was blocked twice, sidestepped into the blitzer - who promptly double skulled.
4. Orc thrower, dodge through 2 tackle zones, out of a tackle zone, followed by 2 GFIs and scored... danced like an elf
5. Thrall - decided to win the game, picked up the ball from a tackle zone, dodged out and scored.
6. WE Catcher, passblocking leap. followed by the blitz move leap attack against a thrower (both wardancers went over too)... Catcher got the ball.

We usually line up about 2-4 players and the opponent nominates the MVP and vice versa.

Sometimes it is a straight forward affair... shadowing player that prevents a TD.

[Grumbledook]

That allows easier skill ups than random MVPs though which is why you said you don't like those...

[mattgslater]

I think there's something to be said for assigning MVPs.

We used to do this: Your opponent nominates three of your players, two of whom have to be slated to attend the next match. Then you nominate three different players from your roster. Line the players up, and roll 1d6, counting from your left.

But now we just give a free re-roll on MVP. Less work, similar result.

What I'm really asking is this: "Does a random, pre-match MVP merit 200k in inducements? If not, should it be assigned?"

[Podfrey]

Inducements were designed to help reduce the in-game imbalance between two teams, so I don't see any justification for allowing MVP additions. As for FAME, are you suggesting that the less famous team (or indeed any team who can afford it) is capable of going out and "buying" some more temporary fans?