New Handicap Suggestion

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:19 pm

I knew i had seen it before. The only reason i didn't accuse Milo of plagiarism is because i didn't remember who posted it, and it would have been stupid to accuse him of plagiarising his own work!

For the record, i think your system is way better than Milo's.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 1:40 am

Zombie how is his system better than Milo's? You brought up randomness as a problem but his is more random. YOu said you didn't like 3 tables but his has 5.

I can respect that you don't like Mio's system but if you are "dropping any support [you] had for it" then don't hang around and pick fights. Go drum up support for your own system.

High & Mighty · Post by **High & Mighty** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 2:46 am

The idea's had wings for a while. Who would have ever thought a good idea would be resurrected from BBC?
http://pub136.ezboard.com/fbloodbowlcen ... 2260.topic

http://pub136.ezboard.com/fbloodbowlcen ... 2271.topic

Even liked by that disagreeable Morg fellow...

:
http://pub136.ezboard.com/fbloodbowlcen ... c&index=28

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:02 am

That guy was a jerk and all he did was hate the BBRC.

He probably only said he liked it so that he could attack the BBRC somehow.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:13 am

Pariah wrote:Zombie how is his system better than Milo's? You brought up randomness as a problem but his is more random. YOu said you didn't like 3 tables but his has 5.

I can respect that you don't like Mio's system but if you are "dropping any support [you] had for it" then don't hang around and pick fights. Go drum up support for your own system.

By increasing the number of tables, you make it less random. The extreme would be to have a huge number of tables with just one item in each, which would amount to the same thing as my system.

Also, the fact that he uses a D8 (found in the box) for each table makes it more elegant.

I like his system better, but in all fairness, i don't really like either.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:34 am

Then why stay here and trash what others are working on. It's really quite rude. It's one thing to say you don't like it once, or to discusss the finished product but this thread has become a brainstorming thread and all you are doing is being problematic.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 5:12 am

Since when did it become a brainstorming session? Brainstorming means you throw out tons of ideas and can't discuss any of them. That's certainly not what i'm saying here. Some guy brings in another idea, i comment that i like it more than Milo's, and you start jumping all over me. What have you eaten today?

Balrog · Post by **Balrog** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 6:43 am

redlizard wrote:Funny, I brought up a very similar suggestion a few weeks ago and only got minimal (and negative at that) response. The suggestion I listed broke the handicap up into 5 tables at 10/20/30/40/50 points of TRD. Simply roll 1d8 on the table you like. If you get an 8, you "graduate" to the next higher table.

I must of missed your original post, but this table (and Milo's) are bpth fantastic ideas, way better then the current method.

-Balrog

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:21 am

Whatever, Zombie. You aren't being productive. Everyone is contributing positively and yu are just poo pooing all over everyone's ideas because they didn't like yours. But whatever, you have no concept of positiveity or rudeness.

At any rate, how is this idea sitting with the rest of the BBRC? I can't wait to test it. Talk to Galak and schmooze him into programming the PBeM software to test it!

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 8:01 am

Pariah wrote:Whatever, Zombie. You aren't being productive. Everyone is contributing positively and yu are just poo pooing all over everyone's ideas because they didn't like yours. But whatever, you have no concept of positiveity or rudeness.

The second statement is true, and the first one is completely false. The fact of the matter is that i don't care whether people like my idea or not, and there is less than zero chance that it will affect my reactions to the other systems proposed. Unlike you, i don't switch from normal mode to piss off mode as soon as someone says something i don't like. I much prefer reacting rationally to people's arguments. I used to think that Milo's system was better than the current one, until someone pointed out that it was more random than the current one. That was enough to change my mind and prefer the current system.

But i find it a little bit weird that you're telling me that i don't contribute, when i provided a complete system and a table with different points assigned to each event (which i must admit took a good 2 or 3 hours to make), while all you seem to have done so far in this thread is bitch at me.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 8:13 am

Actually I have tossed out a couple ideas but I don't feel I need to male a new table because I like the one Milo made. But like I said, "That's nice, Zombie. Now let the adults test something out."

I feel no need to make new tables and try to hijack a good idea. If you have nothing positive to say I'd like to get back to the topic...okay?

I'll have to keep asking this because Zombie wants to play his boring game and will bury my actual question in his BS.

Milo, what is the general feeling of the BBRC on your system? Do they like it or will you be doing a 3rd draft?

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:35 am

"My game", as you call it, simply consists of analysing the situation objectively and discussing it to arrive at a solution. I'm not trying to hijack anything, or make things go my way, or any other ridiculous self-centered objective you could think of. My goal is, and always has been, to get the best possible ruleset, and the one people would like the most.

I provided another alternative thinking it would make Milo's suggestion even more interesting, and appealing to coaches. It clearly didn't, and that's all right with me.

The intentions you always try to pin on me are so foreign to me that it's pretty funny most times. The only guess i could make is that you tend to think that way, and project the same thought pattern upon me. If you could just realize that my only objective on any BB board i've been part of was to arrive at the best possible ruleset, and that pushing for my own preferences, pissing people off, or any other intent you might imagine, is never part of the equation, we wouldn't need to have those needless and tiring discussions.

veron · Post by **veron** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 2:53 pm

Right, finally got around to check milo's system. Basically, I like it. There are many events I am not sure if they are on right table as others have mentioned too, but the basic idea is very good IMO.

I also think that certain randomness is not a bad thing. With zombie's suggestion I find it that it might sometimes be a very good idea for a lower TR team to challenge a higher team if he finds a good handicap-combo that he could use to the fullest. This also without a doubt results to picking certain opponents because you find that you get more value for certain handicap events against certain opponents (whatever the case may be).

But here's a suggestion that would lessen the randomnes somewhat in milo's idea. Make it possible to re-roll a handicap result, but for a price. These following prices come out of the blue, and are only to show what I mean by an example. Feel free to suggest different prices.

To reroll a result on Good Karma table: 5 points of Handicap
To reroll a result on DT & RE table: 10 points of Handicap
To reroll a result on DM table: 25 points of Handicap

You would probably always have to select the re-rolled event, or choose from the two rolled maybe (if the latter roll was even worse than the first one)? But you could never reroll an event more than once.

So for an example for 35 TDR: You roll once on DT&RE table (25pts). Now, you could take what you get and make another roll on GK table (10pts) OR re-roll the DT&RE table roll and hope for a better result (10pts).

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 6:08 pm

norev wrote:I also think that certain randomness is not a bad thing. With zombie's suggestion I find it that it might sometimes be a very good idea for a lower TR team to challenge a higher team if he finds a good handicap-combo that he could use to the fullest. This also without a doubt results to picking certain opponents because you find that you get more value for certain handicap events against certain opponents (whatever the case may be).

You would be EXPECTED to do that, and every game too! That's why the numbers just need to be high enough that even if you pick the best event available, you're still the underdog. Once the numbers are right, the only problem left would be for people who like randomness for the sake of randomness. Balance-wise, there wouldn't be a problem.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 6:15 pm

I think that the ability to pick a handicap at extreme TR differential is a key component to the current rules that needs to stay.

One of the reasons that people didn't seriously regard the FUMBBL Dark Elf team was that its opponents could have regularly picked Virus against it. The potential to do this is a powerful incentive to dump niggled players, and needs to stay as a mechanic in the game.