Inducements

CrockmasterJr · Post by **CrockmasterJr** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:12 pm

I would like to see the underdog team being able to choose not to take any inducements, but instead have a certain amount of that money put into their treasury. This way there would be an incentive to play teams with a much higher team rating.

King-Nerd · Post by **King-Nerd** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:14 pm

CrockmasterJr wrote:I would like to see the underdog team being able to not take any inducements, but instead have a certain amount of that money put into their treasury. This way there would be an incentive to play teams with a much higher team rating.

I like that idea a lot. Simple and effective. Play and survive this game and I can buy a Troll, would be an incentive.

Quadrasonic · Post by **Quadrasonic** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:30 pm

King-Nerd wrote:
CrockmasterJr wrote:I would like to see the underdog team being able to not take any inducements, but instead have a certain amount of that money put into their treasury. This way there would be an incentive to play teams with a much higher team rating.
I like that idea a lot. Simple and effective. Play and survive this game and I can buy a Troll, would be an incentive.

It is probably what most coaches would elect to do, but it really does not make for a very fun game for either coach. It also would suddenly level the value of the teams, and as many have already stated, there would be little point in developing a team if someone else can just buy everything they want after a single game with you.

King-Nerd · Post by **King-Nerd** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:51 pm

Quadrasonic wrote:
King-Nerd wrote:
CrockmasterJr wrote:I would like to see the underdog team being able to not take any inducements, but instead have a certain amount of that money put into their treasury. This way there would be an incentive to play teams with a much higher team rating.
I like that idea a lot. Simple and effective. Play and survive this game and I can buy a Troll, would be an incentive.
It is probably what most coaches would elect to do, but it really does not make for a very fun game for either coach. It also would suddenly level the value of the teams, and as many have already stated, there would be little point in developing a team if someone else can just buy everything they want after a single game with you.

You can't buy skills just players. I don't think another player is much use if you have 13 already. The money would help you get to this point and have reserve cash in case of RIP's etc but not much else.

Evil Git · Post by **Evil Git** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:27 pm

or have it that you can only save up to half the amount of cash from the inducement. that way you're not going to see teams take on silly challenges just to help them buy their way out of trouble, and with them buying some inducements helps them actually compete slightly in the game making it fun for both parties. if the underdog won, you could think of it being a great giantkilling like in the fa cup where the lowly minnows manage to beat the high flying premiership teams now and again (and go down in history for doing so even if they get knocked out the cup in the next round)

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:41 pm

Half is too much. A fifth, maybe. How 'bout this?

Quick Investment: 100,000gc. The team illicitly takes some of its inducement cash and provides a short-term loan at an unfortunate interest rate (after all, Blood Bowl players double as excellent leg-breakers). This is technically illegal, but there's no penalty if the team returns the unspent inducement money quickly enough. When you collect winnings after the match, roll 1d3; the result is multiplied by 10,000gc to determine the profit you make (added to winnings) before you have to return the "unused" inducement money!

Or modify the cards in a more 3rd-editiony manner, so that you can easily get 1d6x10,000gc on a 100,000gc inducement (but not more than 1/3 or so chance; maybe 3 out of a suit of 13). Note that 1d3 is more than half as good as 1d6, so if you're going to have a 1d3 for 50k card, it should be kind of hard to get. 1d3 for 100k is fine for a flat-out purchase, but the uncontrollable nature of cards is such that you can make them better on an individual basis, as long as you can't predictably draw into a kind of card.

Ya know... that could be a solution for leagues with any mix of veteran teams and newcomers. If you mix long-term improvements (money, MVPs) with in-game benefits (see: the old Random Event deck), you can a) make both better without unbalancing the game, b) give new teams the benefit of a heightened improvement rate with no guarantee of any particular outcome.

CrockmasterJr · Post by **CrockmasterJr** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:33 am

I think the key is to make it good for both parties, so the underdog takes a bit of cash away from the game, but not so much that it unbalances the league. Personally I prefer the idea of a percentage of the difference going into the underdogs treasury, but I really like the fluff of the previous post.

Glad the idea is going down ok...(so far)

Cheers,