What if Cyanide did to BloodBowl what GW did to Warhammer?

[Darkson]

You can put away as much money as you like, it just means anything over the bank limit counts towards TV.

[koadah]

It is horrible enough as it is. If you are not able to put a little cash by it would be even worse.

Sorry, I don't understand that last phrase (and the first is no explanation for "why?", so all you say is "it's bad or really bad"). "If you are not able to put a little cash by it would be even worse."

I did say that I was talking specifically about the Fumbbl Black Box. If it works well in other leagues then fine use it.


Once you pass around 1500TV you have around a 40% chance a drawing a CPOMB monstrosity. Without some money behind you that gets old pretty quickly. Even with some money behind you it still gets old pretty quickly.

Would the bank help? Apart from orcs & dwarves the CPOMBers take the fewest casualties. So I am assuming that they would need less money and find it easier to survive.
Would the Bank reduce their ability to maintain high TV? Probably. Along with everyone else's. But would that be a good thing? I don't think many people would want more CPOMBers at lower TV. Being able to keep your TV down to play in a more diverse environment is one of the few tactics that keeps the Box alive.

Would the CPOMBers be crippled? I doubt it. People tend to play in such a way that their stars are protected and it is the grunts that die. If money was tighter I would expect more teams with 1-4 CPOMBers and a load of journeymen.

I don't think that the league would survive. I think that it would die as it did under LRB4.

[dode74]

The above post suggests to me that the problem is with the structure of (and perhaps the expectations of the people in) Box.

[koadah]

The above post suggests to me that the problem is with the structure of (and perhaps the expectations of the people in) Box.

There are a number of problems with the box but I still wouldn't implement the Bank in my leagues.

Cash helps keep teams alive and competitive and keeps coaches playing. I would rather only limit the the bigger teams/players e.g. aging on later skills.
I don't want something that sends teams into a downward spiral.

[dode74]

Cash helps keep teams alive and competitive and keeps coaches playing.

You keep saying that, but I wonder how the dynamic would be if nobody had the cash to maintain those huge teams, i.e. are some teams dying because other teams have piles of cash relative to them and all looks lost because of that?

[plasmoid]

Hi Koadah,
serious question: If the Box is that deadly, then how often do people stockpile more than 150K-200K anyway.
Sounds like that would be impossible in the first place.
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Koadah,
one more thing:

Scrubs & Stars are important because of the CPOMBers.

On the flip side - CPOMBers are Stars and Scrubs!
Making it less attractive ought to make it harder for the CPOMBers.

...but you know me. I know CPOMB needs nerf either way.
Cheers
Martin

[harvestmouse]

Hi Koadah,
serious question: If the Box is that deadly, then how often do people stockpile more than 150K-200K anyway.
Sounds like that would be impossible in the first place.
Cheers
Martin

Box is bash heavy over a certain TV. As Matt said, often teams camp below that TV, and then they can stock pile cash. This also has other benefits. You can avoid SE altogether and you can keep your team at the ideal value for them to win games.

I think the most successful coaches are doing this and with extremely high win percentages.

[dode74]

you can keep your team at the ideal value for them to win games

Isn't that part of the meta anyway? And if the problem is min-maxing for that TV then isn't that a problem with the matching criteria?

[harvestmouse]

Well depends on the team and the coach. Some stay to artificially stock pile cash, some stay to win games that aren't really even. Depends on the coach and the team I guess.

Changing SE would help with one, changing the match making formula would help with the other.

[dode74]

The bank would help with stockpiling, too, by forcing a TV penalty on stockpiling. Personally I think that's a better option than changing SE, but I think it's down to preference.

I do agree that a matching formula change would be beneficial. Thing is, the only way it can be done now is by fiat. Cyanide or Christer would have to simply present it as a "this is what we are doing" event. You'd know better than I but that doesn't seem too much like Christer's style; for Cyanide we will probably only find out when BB2 releases.

[harvestmouse]

I'm not convinced by the bank rule. I don't know, I'd like to see the bank in action, but my hunch is it wouldn't work. By that I mean it probably would work quite well for some of the heavies, and worse for the light expensive teams. I really don't see the harm in raising SE, which would help. I think I preferred LRB 4 winnings formula, but that wasn't perfect either.

[dode74]

Given treasury counted towards TR in LRB4, and that the only real difference is that the first 150k doesn't count under the Bank rule, I'm curious as to what you think won't work.

I liked the fluffiness of the LRB4 formula, but it was a bit more complex than the SE system. Not exactly rocket surgery, but still...

[Darkson]

By that I mean it probably would work quite well for some of the heavies, and worse for the light expensive teams.

The light expensive teams, which (supposedly) don't have a lot of money anyway, are uneffected.
The heavy teams, that are the main culprits for having excess cash, either have to spend the money or give away inducements each game.

Why do you think that doesn't work?

[harvestmouse]

Well as I said, I think it probably would work well for the heavier teams, I really think it would. It'd also work fine on the low av but cheap teams. However the light/expensive teams it will restrict, as they may have money at certain points. So you can no longer save for a rainy day and they do come. I think you'd see more coaches becoming frustrated with the light/expensive teams and fewer older teams from this bracket and more retirements.

As I said, I'd like to see it in action first before I make a definitive judgement. There's a lot of subtle effects it'd have on different systems, so we'd need to see how those would play out. So, would I like to see it used in a big league/division? Most certainly, yes.