TR system revisited

[Mestari]

It's me again talking about the TR system

I didn't stop thinking about this thing after the last thread, and here's what I've been thinking lately:

Zombies system in the Oberwald supplement seemed nice, better than the current at least.

However, my new take is based on the concept of separating cost and value, and I promise you:
-Easier TR calculations AND
-A more comprehensible Team Roster Sheet AND
-A more accurate TR system!


Calculating TR with gold pieces is (for some people) a difficult job as they have to add up really big numbers and then divide by 10000. Then you have to count the SPP's and divide by five... needless exceptions if you ask me!
If we give everything in a team a certain points value, then you just have to add up those numbers - no divisions or multiplications required!

The points value for the players is to some extent based on the familiar concept from warhammer and the like (for example: Warriors 9pts (+1 hand weapons, +1 shields)).

So:

1.When you hire a player, you don't mark up how much he costed: that's really redundant information as its available from the team list. Instead you mark up the players points value. You still pay his normal price.
And the good part: the players point value does not necessarily have to be connected with his price! For example a dark elf lineman is certainly more than 7 points worth in a Chaos Pact team, whereas he's just linefodder in the Dark Elf team and perhaps worth the 7 points.
And this would complete my aim that even though every rookie team costs 1000k gold pieces, not everyone would start with a TR of 100. Needless to say, that because of the income mechanic of the game, the difference at this point shouldn't be too great in order to sustain team balance in the long run.

And naturally, the players point value changes as he gets skills and lowers when he gets injuries, just like in Zombies system. As a difference however, some skills should be worth more than one point. Perhaps so that traits and off-category skills are worth 2 points, and attribute increases depending on the player. "Jervis Player Cost Secret Formula" could be used also, but it could be too tiresome to use for most people, the reason why I went for a simple base points+skills&increases-injuries -system

Also, cheerleaders and assistant coaches are worth 1 point each, apothecary 5 points, and the rerolls are from 4-9 points, depending on the team (I think the current values are pretty good) - but for example for the Pact teams the TRR's should be worth even more, even though there's no point increasing the cost from there.

So all in all, the only place you'd have gold pieces mentioned in the team roster is the treasury! All other markings simply tell how many points of TR does it give.

Other things:
-Missing players point value is deducted from the TR for calculating the handicap
-Treasury is not counted It's just potential. If you want to somehow incorporate the safety it gives for the team, then just note beside the team rating that the teams financial situation is bad/good/excellent)
-Freebooted players are counted for their entire point value.
-Star players are also given points value that they add to the team for the game they're freebooted for. As some of them are available to many races, they should have different points values for different teams, depending on whether they fill up certain gaping holes in the teams lineup.


This is the concept. The point values have to be decided, but I wanted to know how you like the concept before I start devising long lists of point values...

This is simpler than the current system! It's also more accurate (to describe the teams ability to compete in the next game)! You gotta love it

[everyman]

I agree with several of your key points:

(1) Team rating should take into account the difference between cost and value. [Despite what the economists say!]

(2) Recording the original cost paid for a player is potentially redundent.

(3) A simple TR system is something to be appreciated.

I respectfully disagree with you on several other points:

(1) Tables listing the different "point values" for different types of players on different teams doesn't necessarily seem to be simpler.

(2) All starting teams should have the same TR. If this *isn't* the case, as you have proposed, and your newly devised TR system centers around "value" rather than cost, then this implies that starting teams don't start on equal footing.

(3) If the TR impact of a player and its cost are different, this isn't a good thing, this implies that the cost of the player is wrong!

In summary, I agree that we need to focus on the difference between the costs of players and their value to the team. This value should be reflected by the TR, but I don't believe the solution is to separate cost & value; I believe the solution is to bring the cost and value of players on to equal terms.

That's the first part of my argument. The second part of my argument addresses SPPs and their affect on TR. In my opinion, SPPs are merely a proxy for the relative value of the players on a team. However there is a margin of error here between the number of advancements for the players and the number of SPPs earned. TR scales linearly, while the actual effectiveness of the team is a step-function. As an extreme example, two teams both have 60 SPPs altogether. One team has 10 players each with 6 SPPs each (one advance on all 10 players). The second team has 9 players with 5 SPPs each and 1 player with 15 SPPs (one advance on only *one* of her ten players). Under the current system, these two teams could have the same TR but a significant difference in their effectiveness. One solution is to not tie TR to SPPs, but instead to the number of advances on a team. This does feel like it would solidly tie a team's value (aka "effectivess") to TR.

You can make a converse argument about NIs and stat downgrades due to ageing. But doing so undermines the whole purpose of the ageing system. If having a player age and pick up a NI actually devalues your TR you might not think of it as such a bad thing! In fact, if you tie TR to "value" perfectly, the effects of ageing have *no* net effect! The value lost by the ageing is offset perfectly by the effect on TR.

I'm not sure any of this is the Right Thing to do. As the system works right now, better coaches consider SPP distribution and when to drop ageing players carefully. If the system compensates for these inadequacies, we've nudered this particular level of coaching skill out of the game.

[Moonsong]

I love it already!
Need a hand to calculate points values?

Moonsong

[Mestari]

(1) Tables listing the different "point values" for different types of players on different teams doesn't necessarily seem to be simpler.

But there's only a limited number of players available - namely the players that are on the team list. So we only need to add one column called points value to the team lists. Very simple IMO.
And to the Star Players you just add the point value next to the race where you list what races he's allowed to play for.

(2) All starting teams should have the same TR. If this *isn't* the case, as you have proposed, and your newly devised TR system centers around "value" rather than cost, then this implies that starting teams don't start on equal footing.

Well compare TR100 dwarves to TR100 halflings. Equal footing? No. And apparently that is the intention. However I feel that this should be reflected in the TR and the halflings should get some handicap.
Fact is that teams are not equal, and we should try to acknowledge that fact in the TR system.

(3) If the TR impact of a player and its cost are different, this isn't a good thing, this implies that the cost of the player is wrong!

Disagree. In most cases cost should be =value, but we should be open to other interpretations too. TRR are an excellent example, and so are possible allied players that fill in holes in the teams capabilities! For example, there's no point making the players in chaos pact teams immensely expensive, but the elves for example are certainly worth more than 7 points as they bring the team AG4 and a great ball-handling ability.

Ni's and stat downgrades should lower TR. The player gets worse and that should be accounted for.

My system did not include SPP's in the calculations at all - only the skill/stat increases are accounted for because they're the only thing that has effect.
Even though it hurts the good coaches that manage to evenly distribute their skills compared to those who stack all the spp's on one player and thus removes one way of separating wise coaches from the less wise ones, I don't think that's too big a problem.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Well compare TR100 dwarves to TR100 halflings. Equal footing? No. And apparently that is the intention. However I feel that this should be reflected in the TR and the halflings should get some handicap.

How are the halflings not equal to dwarfs? Halflings can start with 16 players, 2 of which are big guys, 9 FF, and 4 rerolls and still have 30K left in the bank! Granted the players suck but how many players can you start a 9 FF, 4 reroll dwarf team with? 10 at most so it's not even leagal.
Every starting team is perfectly capable of beating any other starting team and therefore should have the same TR.
A system based on what you believe are better players is highly subjective and not a fair system. You obviously have a low opinion of halflings and goblins and will surely rate them lower than what I or someone else would think they are worth.
Also if a players VALUE is not connected to his cost then what is it connected to? The idea is laughable. The current prices fairly represent the player value. As for mixed race values, I think the whole idea is repugnant anyway so I don't think I'll comment on different player values for playing on differnent teams.

You have not told us what the values will be based on. Also please let us know how this system will be easier when we will have to calculate the value for each player every game. I think I'd rather not recalculate 16 players every game, thank you.

[Mestari]

Ok here goes:

The player point cost changes (I'm doing the changes first because it's easier)

This is a really simple sketch - IMO start from the basic idea and then refine it if need be...

Now. I pulled the following numbers from my hat, and they're only the starting point. They should be discussed!!!

New skills and traits
a new skill = +1point
a new trait/mutation = +2points
a new off-category skill = +2points

Also, to signify the fact that gained skill combos can make the player more valuable:
New skill/trait/mut/oc-skill = +('amount of gained skills' - 1) points
(so you get extra 1 point for your second skill, extra two points for your third skill et cetera.

statistic changes
This works both ways so if the player loses a point, then deduce the appropriate amount of points
ST = +/- 3 points per point of ST up to ST6
ST->7 = +5 points
ST->8 = +7 points
MA= +/- 1 point per point of MA
AV= +/- 1 point per point of AV
AG1<->2 = +/- 0 points
AG2<->3 = +/- 1 point
AG = otherwise +/- 2 points per point of AG

I didn't mark niggling injuries in there. And that's on purpose. After some thinking I came into the conclusion that it's reasonable to keep it this way. Mainly because it makes retiring the nigglers more appealing, as you can basicly lose the players worth if he niggles, because handicap is counted before the niggling injury rolls...

Now, some certain skills might need to be worth more, or there could be certain combos that trigger an extra point to the players worth. Also, discussing whether the extreme ends of the statistic changes need some additional factors is something to think about - I already added that for strengths 7 and 8 you get a hefty bonus and that for the low-end agility changes the value is not changed much. These things are up for discussion.

That would be the system for calculating players value when he gains skills or loses statistics.


Then to the teams:

The beginning point for most teams is just to make the players exactly worth what they are now, resulting in a TR100 starting value. However, there are the two teams that should start with a lower rating, namely goblins and halflings. Also, zombies and skeletons are not worth their price, so we'll let the undead some room for toning their initial team rating down.
So my suggestion would be at first that only the following four players are changed, all others are kept at their current value (divide by 10.000).

Skeletons = worth 2 points
Zombies = worth 2 points
Halflings = worth 2 points
Goblins = worth 3 points in goblin teams
Goblins = worth 5 (maybe even 6?) points in orc teams

Any other players who'd need some changes in the value?

I don't discuss the Pact teams here, but in those teams the values really need some fudging...


Whaddya think?

[Grumbledook]

if it aint broke...don't fix?

[Snew]

How are the halflings not equal to dwarfs?

Colesterol! Halflings will clog your arteries in a second. Dwarves, on the other hand, are a low-fat source of protein. At least that's what I hear from the Troll on my Orc team.

[Geggster]

Sorry, did someone say simple?

The TR as it stands now is by far the simplest form of calculating it. You don't need to be an Einstein to divide one figure by 1000 (most coaches already ignore the '000s column of the cost of teams) and another figure by 5.

Sure with a really complicated system you might get a slightly more accurate number but as any calculation represents only an INDICATION of the strength of the team (rather than a perfect science), why bother.

Keep the TR as it is.

[sean newboy]

i thot u divided by 10,000?

[Ghost of Pariah]

Mestari-
What will the point value start at? If you base the points off the price of the player then your system is doing nothing but making the whole thing more complex for nearly the same result.
Granted, the current system doesn't take reductions and niggles into account (but that's the point) and if you look real close at how your system works...I skill roll - 1 point of TR I think you'll see that the current system does that too. 6 spp's/5 = 1 point of TR. It actually does what you are suggesting and then some.

Your system doesn't accomplish anything but complexity.

[Mestari]

Halflings&goblins:
No, I do not under-estimate them and I'm perfectly aware that they are capable of beating any other starting team. But far less so than the other starting teams. Claiming that if a team is capable of beating another team then they should have the same TR is laughable. Think before you press submit.

This system would practically drop the halfling&goblin TR limit by 14 points, which IMO is reasonable. Surely you are not claiming that this would suddenly make them league-winners?

Whether this is easier. Yes, I still claim that this is a simpler and easier than the current system. All TR points should be clearly visible in the team roster, and calculations are simple:
-TR recalculation: add up the player points, FF,TR,apo,ACoach and Cheerleader points and there you go.
-Player value calculation: according to the change, change the player value accordingly. Simple calculus with at most 2-digit numbers shouldn't be too hard for you. And you only have to do it when a player changes, so the overall amount of calculations is reduced just like in Zombies TR system in the Oberwald supplement.

Grumbledook: To many people it is pretty evident that the TR system could use some improvement. Feel free to ignore this thread if you don't want to participate in discussing how to do this.

[Mestari]

Your system doesn't accomplish anything but complexity.

Try to look it the otherway round:

If we already had a system like my suggested version, and then you were suggested to go to what we know have as the official one, how would it look like then?
TR would be constantly changing because you get SPP's in every game, the points are hidden in different places - as gold pieces in one place and as SPP's in the other.

I know it's not an enormous change. And that's the way I like it. I mentioned it sometimes in the summer, but IMO when doing rules changes like this that refine an existing system:
we should avoid the pendulum movement around the "perfect" rules set - go from one extreme to the other, then back, and back until we finally set on the value, but instead we should make smaller changes and slow our pendulum down so that when we feel no more changes are necessary, we have landed on the right rules set.

But still, it's a necessary change to make the TR system a bit better. I'm not claiming this is the end of discussion, best-system-there-is -solution. But I'm saying that this is better than the current system. Definitely.

[christer]

Ok.. I'm diving in to this discussion. This post has the potential to turn into rambling.. Don't say I haven't warned you.

First off I want to state that I think it's a good idea to rework the rating system. If you ask me, the optimal team rating algorithm should result in a situation where equal rated teams win 50% of the games each (assuming even coaching skills), no matter what race they are.

This is clearly not the case in the current team rating system (ie, gobbos & flings). Also, it gets skewered for high rated teams with few players available for the game (lots of miss next game injuries or lots of deaths).

To calculate this value, you could do something like what Mestari is suggesting, although I do not agree on the part where you ignore the nigglers. A player with niggling injuries should have the points value multiplied with (5/6)^n, where n is the number of niggling injuries. And yes, this would quickly become complicated to calculate. But that could be left to a computer program.

Now, I'm not suggesting that every blood bowl player must have a computer to calculate handicaps, which is why I would want to have an additional number, call it potential if you want, which would be much like the current team rating system and include things such as treasury and "miss next game" players. The current team rating system would work just fine actually.

I can see the fairness of giving players in "tight spots" an advantage against a player who is able to replace a player or two should anything happen. The thing you need to realize is that the "potential" based rating systems are not optimal for short tourney settings. It's better suited for long-term playing as team potential has little to no bearing over a few number of games.

Ok, enough from me for now.

-- Christer

[Dangerous Dave]

Well I like the current TR system. Sure in a one off match it doesn't give each team a "fair" TR.... however I say it does better than that. Since anyone playing a team with a TR greater than 100 is playing in a League, the Coach always has a choice to sack a player with 3 niggles, spend that 150k sitting in the kitty etc etc. Sure a blitzer who rolls double 6 on a skill roll is a lot better than a blitzer who rolls a 3 and 4.... but that's one player and one skill.

TR is all about control. Keep it low by sacking players and spending the cash and you have a better chance - hoard the cash and lose.

It sounds good to me.



Dave