GW's Triple B League --- TBB WE NEED YOUR VOTES!!!

[Thadrin]

I read through the new idea -posts to refresh my memory.

Check them out here.
Original thread

Second thread

The fact remains:
The original intention of the no-inj mods etc. was a good one: less complexity etc. and it must've been real easy to sell that idea to the Fanatic for that reason. But it seems clear to me and many others that this simplicity doesn't come without a price. The price is a worse game.

Amount of stuns increases dramatically, while the ST skills are seriously downgraded (MB causes 31% less injuries under this system, while MB+POn is only about as good as the old MB alone!!!).

If you're interested, browse through the two threads above and notice that the main concerns about the suggestions of this kind have not been answered.

Ummm...can I just give an AMEN here?

I applaud Chet for coming out with such a radical idea for discussion...but its not something that we want.
If people DIDN'T come up with wacky ideas we'd never have any good ideas.
I read an article by one of the guys who designs Magic cards. He said that approximately 9 of 10 ideas they have for cards get junked at some stage of the process. This idea is one of the nine.

EDIT:

I reread the first half of the first thread. I actually LIKED this idea? What was I thinking?

[narkotic]

I read through the new idea -posts to I read an article by one of the guys who designs Magic cards. He said that approximately 9 of 10 ideas they have for cards get junked at some stage of the process. This idea is one of the nine.

But the playtesting and balancing staff and cycles at MtG are monstrous compared to BB/Fanatic. At MtG things like BB 4th ed. or the Ogre roster never could get even close to a preview print stage. And if the guys at wizard would try change core game mechanics as often as Fanatic tries with BB, the whole Magic game would be history. BB fans are much more forgiving and are ready to suffer for 5-6 years. Because of this two reasons (small playtesting cycle and the knowledge that BB fans will stick to the game) makes it even more possible that bad ideas and design gets official.

[Thadrin]

I just finished rereading pretty much ALL of those threads.
I think the only thing worth salvaging from the entire mess is the idea of +2 av/-1 ball for claw...and that wasn't part of the original idea, for the simple reason that I like things fine as they are, they give the right amount of STuns/KO/BH/SI/RIP, and my longbeards are getting SOME progression.

In short: I am going to need some pretty heavy convincing to see that the new rule ideas are an improvement on what we have at the moment.

[noodle]

Without reading the thread I have read the rules and have my own unbiased opinion...

They're all good EXCEPT

less skills. No roll at 6 spps

How dull.

Now it takes even longer for a team to get interesting - and thus players will drop out through lack of interest.

Other than that I like the rest of it - including the "running out of money". Of course in my league we will have an evil loans company too.... muahahahaha

However in general I wish they would LEAVE THE RULES ALONE!

If the rules are made official, I would adopt them, except the SPP chart.

[noodle]

Okay ... I've had time now to read through the whole thing.

With the following changes, I'd be okay with it:

1) Veteran teams are at TR 200
2) Keep the current winnings table (but add in the new rules for having negative winnings for a game).
3) Keep the current SPP table.

Make these 3 changes and I'd be interested in trying them out. Otherwise .. I have zero interest.

Galak

Wehay - And having read the thread..... I totally agree with Galak...

As for money - That is the BEST way of keeping TR down.

When a team reaches 300 TR say they don't (under the new table) get all that much money. I have also allowed people to BORROW money at varying (40%-100%) interest rates. In addition players can spend 50000 for 5 SPPs (on a 2+ and the player needs to miss a match, with an assistant coach).

I have also allowed teams to go into debt (i.e. -ve treasury), but the MUST pay off debts (even with a loan) before anything else.

The effects are two-fold

1) Team ratings are actually held down. If you take a loan out you will pay! (so far the loans co. has lent 130,000 gps in total and been paid back 200,000) And paying for training is expensive...

2) Veteran teams can get a player to 6 SPPs without playing him - effectively having a "reserve" player should a big star die. It allows them to avoid playing raw rookies in a vet. team - (Man Utd "rookies" are not division 3 material!)

I'll shut up now

Well nearly...

1) Advanced SPP table

NO

2) No injury mods

UNDECIDED (Ambivalent)

3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.

UNDECIDED (Ambivalent)

4) No more aging

YES

5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR Y

YES

6) Piling On changed

YES

7) New winnings table 15k bands

NO (Its TOO harsh - should be a geometric TR progression...)

Negative winnings rules

YES

[Mestari]

It's a pity, now that the rules were going to the right direction (secret weapons, promising new handicap tables, etc.) that such a step backwards seems imminent.

As I said in those two threads: injury modifiers are not added complexity. They are an important feature that allows strength players to cause more injuries without increasing the amount of armour breaks out of proportion.

[plasmoid]

A vote, and a few points.
To open up: I'm with the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" crowd, meaning that I've voted no to some rules that look OK, because so did the rules that they're supposed to be replacing.
I mean, don't change the rules that everyone has learned, unless you need to.

1) SPP
NO!

2) No injury mods + av mod stacking
Looks ok. So did the old rules. Vote: No.

3) New fouling
Looks ok. So did the old rules. Vote: No.

4) No more aging
Yes. Oh how I hate ageing.

5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR.
No. Fix the old table instead - making the results more equally powerful.

6) Piling On changed
Yes.

7) New winnings table 15k bands
Noooo. Way too harsh.

Negative winnings rules
Yes. Harsh - but is OK now that ageing is gone.

A few extra comments:
5) I like the idea of 2 tables. We actually do that in my league. You can either roll on a "team improvement" table or a "try to win" table. Helps new/weak teams catch up with the others.

6) It needs a change, but the reroll isn't really my favourite. I'd rather have a lower modifier, but still use it after the AV roll. (I'm with +3 for ST4+ players, and +2 for evryone else).

7+8) I do foresee a problem here. I run a pretty big league, and naturally some coaches are just worse than the others. Still, they like playing. But they often lose, and often end up with low FF.
When the other teams start to grow, these coaches will be isolated, because nobody wants to play against these low FF teams, since this will produce an insufficient gate.
I don't like that.
(BTW, we play a 50 match season here).

Martin [/i]

[Chris]

1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
Negative winnings rules


1) No. Wheres the fun?
2) Sort of like it. I've never liked sigurds, but that was mainly because it stopped the game being so bloody. Plus it only means one injury roll, and you get the thrill of a double 6 meaning dead, dead, dead.
It does mean teams like woodies will kill people less, and teams that can stack mods to the roll keep the same level of damage. It makes for a faster game to, with more armour breaks, and does polorise hitting and soft teams more. Edging towards voting yes, couldn't say anything with playing with it for a bit. It does make the game a bit simpler.
3) Back to the straight 1/6 chance of going off, but no with no team re-roll? So less chance of going, but more chance of failing, especially on the high armour str guys that you don't want to see get back up?
Pus no ref models needed now?
Don't like it, but I think the current system needs a tweak with when the ref is watching you stunties and big guys only getting caught on a 5+ (check out new concepts forum for reasoning). Currently I vote no for the change.
4) Yo! Never liked aging anyway, implied BB players could die of natural causes
5) Like the idea, needs more work though. The idea of vet teams having their own problems, while new teams have nothing to lose, is good. I think though currently their needs to be a bit more to covince a rooky team to take on a vet. Perhaps a chance to get something permanant out of the game like a free lineman, or the old +1AV magic helmet. using their table i think a tr 100 team vs a tr 150 team should have 1 card from the 1st table, 2 from the second, and the tr 150 team have 1 from the third.
6) Good, nice change, more useful for low str players, and means mummies would no longer take it.
7&8) I've never liked the fact cash in the bank increases your teams TR. Even more so if you have negative winnings. If you ever start losing re-rolls, you will never get them back, and they cost double what they are worth. And you can't restructure your team either. Sacking players means you have a hole in your roster, but if you get enough cash to replace them you get negatives again.
I think a 250 team that wins a game with a reasonably large gate - say an average result from a total FF of 16-18 for both teams - should never lose money, ie a max neg modifier of -2. Also, I wouldn't want cash to count towars their TR.
But back to the actual vote.
7) No too harsh. Would consider yes if was less harsh, and cash in your treasury did not count towards your TR. Alternatively, how about a set of rules covering stocks and bond invsting in the fantasy world
Needs modification. Lose re-roll or lose Star player (as defined by rating on SP table) and replace with rookie.

[Chris]

Oh, and rather than worrying about how to stop players becoming stars, I'd like to see more thought into how to kill them.
Events for rooky teams vs new ones like throw a rock at player with most SPP's would be nice. kill those players, don't hobble those teams!

[Chris]

>>>>>>>>>>
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll. I don't like this one either...someone is down on the pitch you should get a bonus to hurt them...it makes sense to me. No.
>>>>>>>>

You do. He can't hit back.

[Chris]

Oh, and as for actually following the format of the vote.
And I must say most people seem quite conservative. I think the ideas behind the rules suggestions, cut down on the dice rolls, make it easier to pick up, make it more fun (the old cards) while reducing the chance of your team being annililated by an experienced one, are good. they can only increase the appeal of the game, which is something I want to see.

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1) Advanced SPP table
No - detracts from fun
2) No injury mods change
Undecided - will widen the gap between teams, but make the blood flow less.
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
No. Fouling will be more common. Don't like it, as i have a load of refs can't appriciate the sentiment though of making it a single dice roll.
4) No more aging
Yes ot No, depends on whether combined with more deaths. Any system that reduces death needs aging.
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
Almost Yes, needs work.
6) Piling On changed to AV reroll
Yes.
7) New winnings table 15k bands
Undecided.
8 ) Negative winnings rules
Needs work.

[Grumbledook]

Unless I am mistaken the only rolls that have been removed are the aging rolls (hardly a big deal), the igmeoy and siguards

but now they have added a piling on reroll, I don't think those changes make any significant decrease in the amount of dice rolls, or in simplicity

I hated the cards along with others and didn't think they were fun, sure some people do each to their own.

I think there are better methods for bringing new teams in to play against established ones. You just need a table where the lower coach can pick one result from it. Then you can have something like "for this match the lower rated team can't suffer any injuries worse than badly hurt" or something that lets them have both teams winnings and then leave it to the coach to decide whats the best way to get his team to catch up, this is more simple than rolling for handicaps/random stuff, I believe milos handicap tables work in a similar vein.

I have already said my peice on the negative winnings so i won't repeat myself here.

[mrinprophet]

Funny... the other day is complaining that there were no philosophical discussions on the topic and Lucien noted that is was because there weren't any radical ideas of late.

1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
Negative winnings rules

Galak

1.) NO
2.) First thought is no... but still undecided.
3.) I like IGMEOY and +1. Makes sense, and makes fouling tactical.
4.) I'm ok with aging. Might be able to be lessened if negative winnings are included.
5.) I recall really liking Milo's table. I would prefer that.
6.) Fine, but I'll miss that fact that a big old black orc jumping up and down on me hurts more than a gobbo.
7.) Undecided.... but would be fine with if playtesting shows its ok.
8.) Yes...but would like to see results of playtesting. I like the fact that I might have to cut a few guys due to a salary cap of sorts.

[Lucien Swift]

1) Advanced SPP table

definitely not.

2) No injury mods change

i'm still in favor of this... and i don't agree that it favors teh agility teams... yes, this alone will not result in as many injuries as before, but what you need to realize is that this was one portion of a larger combination of rules that was proposed... no mods was not proposed in a vacuum.... there were major changes to the injury/armor skills, there was a lifting of the prohibition against armor/injury rerolls, there was a change to fouling to make it harder to get ejected, etc... the rule was proposed to streamline the system and introduce consistent application of the rules, and concessions were made on the other side to keep the impact of damage roughly similar. it would have been differently applied, but the stats bore out that roughly the same number of injuries would occur. did bbb impliment this rule set correctly? hell no. would i vote for the version presented here? hell no. is the "big idea" still a good idea? hell yes.

3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.

only in combination with a no-mod injury system.

4) No more aging

aging we need, but not the system we have.

5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR

i hate the handicap concept in general.

6) Piling On changed to AV reroll

only in combination with a redesign of all of the damage skills as a part of the big idea system, and likely not this version...

7) New winnings table 15k bands

dunno, but i don't know that i really care either

Negative winnings rules

no, they encourage people to quit the game.


in the end, i just don't see the bbb rules as giving us a better game. what we have right now is probably the best game we've had in a long time, and while there are rules and concepts out there that could improve the game, these implimentations are not going to do that... some of what they are proposing has some merit.... the events split between rookie and veteran teams is a good idea... but the specific outcomes that exist on those tables i think are poorly designed... the no-mod rules are good for the game, but not the way they have impimented the neccessary rules around that idea that support the concept... reducing winnings to cap real team growth in the 200's is a good idea, but rules that destroy veteran teams and drive players away from the game are not... in the end, if this were a local league, we would find this an amusingly misguided house rules document... but it's not, it's jervis's rules, and thus it is an amusingly misguided playtest for potential future versions of the game.

really, it's probably time to just stop messing with the core of the game... yes, i believe the 'big idea' is a great thing that would improve the game, as a theoretical exercise, but i don't know that i would actually like to see it adopted because it would mean shaking the game to its core, and like i said before, the game is pretty good right now... sure, the rles are inconsistently applied, but they have been tweaked to a state of effectiveness, at least as they are applied on-the-field... sure there are little things that can be fiddled with and potentiually improved, but the fear i have is that game designers, being game designers, will just keep pulling the rug out from under us every two years because they can... and that's not a good thing.... really, for better or for worse, the era of sweeping, dramatic changes needs to come to a close in order to avoid alienating and annoying the game's fanbase... settle on something and then just tweak that subset of the rules until it is the best game that it can be... and accept that there are things out there that could be better, but that having the best game you can have is something to be proud of and move on...

in fact, if the rules do continue to change, i forsee, and may even go so far as to lead, a movement among the online community to create our own splinter faction rules committee and lrb based upon just that design philosophy.... take the best rules, make them great, then don't Duck with them...

maybe we should do that sooner than later...

[Sputnik]

so, I finally had a look at the new rules...

1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
Negative winnings rules

1) NO! Some teams have to rely on getting (new) skills. Think of Chaos, where your guys come with no skills at all. How shall these players ever get competitive if they won't get many skills any more? On the other hand, Dwarfs would get a nice edge here....definetly NO! And further, development is part of the fun and makes teams of the same race different!

2) NO! hehe, on one hand no nigglings, no stat decreases. I don't have to think about using my apo any more. Just a miss or directly dead! Nice! On the other hand less guys get off the pitch. How am I supposed to win against Woodies with a strength team if they stay there all game? Definetly not that good ...

3) YES. I like that one. Maybe then some people will stop trying to kill your team via fouling...

4) YES! never liked aging anyway. Especially in combination with 1) this could otherwise end in a desaster or some frustrated BB players lured into an alcohol problem at bugman's...which might be the idea of this rule package Buy the game, buy the teams, buy the paint, enjoy the game, AND buy lots of beer at bugman's to drink away your frustrations...

5) but NOT like this! Well, the handicap table has to be changed. But these tables make things worse. If your TR is 160, you might be lucky on the table and your FF goes up by one for this half (55-56) or might go down permanently (31-32)! Or someone gets a really stupid trait (21-22) permanently. Where is the handicap against your opponent? It's more like a general handicap of your team when playing at bugmans (more beer, anyone?) and you will have to get new players more often because a thrower with really stupid holding on to the ball is not worth much...

6) probably YES! It has to be changed somehow, and I could live with that. Of course, there are other change possibilities I could live with as well...

7) Undecided! On it's own I could live with the general idea, but I might want to discuss at whic point the neg. modifiers come in.

NO! Did someone think anbout this before writing that? Now, some teams need more money (for example because of expensive players) than others. And, if looked at in combination with other things like a dropping ff, this won't work at all. And hey, if a team has to sell a TRR, this is highly unbalancing. Chaos has to pay a lot for a rr AND the players don't get skills (see 1), and Amazons will only have to pay half of that! Think of elf teams and compare them to humans. By design, 16 elfs with all positional players cost a lot more than the humans, thus they have a higher TR. Either you have to avoid 16 players with certain teams, you have to get rid of your linos or be lucky with your winnings...


Sputnik