Talk Fantasy Football

I see ongoing as far superior to one-time.

You get more money every match. While a one-time might give you more money that one time, on-going ensures you get more money every time.

A couple of on-going sponsorships could basically give you a rostered star player for free. While a one-time sponsorship would give you a rostered star player for 1-2 games only.

That said, of the games I've played since DZS2, no players I've played with nor me have ever gotten a single sponsorship (ongoing or one-time).

Your argument is simply false, you're not guaranteed to get sponsorship. In fact, it can be highly unlikely you ever get one.

Its not that easy to get the sponsorship.

Our league will never roster star players and most teams are around 10 Fan Factor, so its not very difficult to get a sponsorship.

Glamdryn wrote:Our league will never roster star players and most teams are around 10 Fan Factor, so its not very difficult to get a sponsorship.

You ask: "Why have ongoing sponsorships and not just take a one-time sponsorship each game?"

Ongoing sponsorships provide 10k-30k per game (avg 20k). One time sponsorships provide 10-60k (avg 35k) one time.

Therefore, if you have two ongoing sponsorships, you make 20-60k per game with an average of 40k. Furthermore, you can STILL roll other one-time sponsorships in future games.

Consider:

Team A - 1st game, ongoing (--); 2nd game, 2 ongoing (20k/20k); 3rd game, 2 ongoing & one time (75k/95k); 4th game, 2 ongoing & one time (75k/170k)

Team B - 1st game, one time (35k/35k); 2nd game, one time (35k/70k); 3rd game, one time (35k/105k); 4th game, one time (35k/140k)

The first number is the amount earned in that game, the second number is the cumulative total. As you can see, by the 4th game, the team who chose two ongoing sponsorships instead of one time sponsorships pulls in more money (nearly a full extra one time sponsorship.) This is factoring in that you do not receive funds from the ongoing sponsorship in the game you receive the sponsorship.

That's why you would take ongoing sponsorships instead of one-time sponsorships.

Milo, your breakdown has 2x Ongoing, which would double the risk of player MNGs. I think the risk/reward here is skewed in favor of one-time. Coaches in my league would rather have the influx 1d6 immediately with a one time risk than an ongoing risk for the 1d3. As most players, especially high TV teams are over 100k in value, it seems like a no brainer to never choose an ongoing sponsorship.

Also, it is unclear in the rules the timing of severing an ongoing sponsorship. It appears to be after you do the rolls, so if you had a MNG, could you cancel and get your MNG back?

Also looking back on your breakdown. 170k for 7 possible MNGs as opposed to 140k for 4 possible MNGs. I think this proves my point pretty effectively. 30k bonus for a possible 3 more MNGs? That seems like a bad deal.

Glamdryn wrote:Milo, your breakdown has 2x Ongoing, which would double the risk of player MNGs. I think the risk/reward here is skewed in favor of one-time. Coaches in my league would rather have the influx 1d6 immediately with a one time risk than an ongoing risk for the 1d3. As most players, especially high TV teams are over 100k in value, it seems like a no brainer to never choose an ongoing sponsorship.

Also, it is unclear in the rules the timing of severing an ongoing sponsorship. It appears to be after you do the rolls, so if you had a MNG, could you cancel and get your MNG back?

Also looking back on your breakdown. 170k for 7 possible MNGs as opposed to 140k for 4 possible MNGs. I think this proves my point pretty effectively. 30k bonus for a possible 3 more MNGs? That seems like a bad deal.

You're right, it does double the risk. And if you are particularly risk averse, I can understand favoring the one-time sponsorships. You say "Coaches in my league" and may be right -- but are you making the assertion that every coach is just like a coach in your league? You've already seen several people defending them here before my analysis, so presumably they would choose ongoing over one-time.

I stopped the example at the point where 2x ongoing sponsorships + one time sponsorships per game exceeded the income from one time sponsorships. But if you extend it, it will continue to show an advantage to the team that has ongoing sponsorships. Over, say, a 10 game season, two ongoing sponsorships would bring in roughly 340k at the cost of approximately 4 players lost over the same time. Compared to the benefit of JUST one-time sponsorships (350k, 2 players lost), it doesn't sound like a great deal, but it's guaranteed money and can be SUPPLEMENTED by further one-time sponsorships.

As someone else mentioned, rostering most stars will cost you between 50k and 60k per game in upkeep costs -- ongoing sponsorships are a good way to support that habit. Is it worth the chance of some gobbos going missing if they can afford to keep Ripper Bolgrot rostered? I'd say definitively that it would be. Deeproot for Halflings? (Not to mention that a couple of ongoing sponsorships will help keep new Halflings signing up for the roster every game.)

Again, you asked: "Why would you ever do ongoing instead of one time?", and I've answered that. Rules were not written SPECIFICALLY for your league, so you can't always assume that the rules are trash just because you and your meta wouldn't opt for them.

And I think the major sponsorships speak for themselves.

You can cancel a sponsorship right after checking to see if the sponsors are happy, but that doesn't get your MNG player back.

Milo wrote: As someone else mentioned, rostering most stars will cost you between 50k and 60k per game in upkeep costs -- ongoing sponsorships are a good way to support that habit. Is it worth the chance of some gobbos going missing if they can afford to keep Ripper Bolgrot rostered? I'd say definitively that it would be. Deeproot for Halflings? (Not to mention that a couple of ongoing sponsorships will help keep new Halflings signing up for the roster every game.)

Ripper could be the random MNG?

Also, I am not saying that these rules are specifically bad for my league, I am saying they are specifically bad for all leagues... One-Time is just a clearly better choice then Ongoing. If Ongoing was immediate 1d6, then an ongoing 1d3, then that would fix my problems with it.

As I understand it, ongoing is kept when redrafting. You could loose some FF in the redraft

Ongoing is still there even if your team loose FF either thru losing a game or losing it to redraft.

All teams wont win there matches and suddenly your FF is dropping.

Ongoing is a safe choice with a touch of risky bizz.

Well all coaches do whats 'best' for them - just as when you build your team.

stashman wrote:As I understand it, ongoing is kept when redrafting. You could loose some FF in the redraft

Ongoing is still there even if your team loose FF either thru losing a game or losing it to redraft.

All teams wont win there matches and suddenly your FF is dropping.

Ongoing is a safe choice with a touch of risky bizz.

Well all coaches do whats 'best' for them - just as when you build your team.

Yep, ongoing is kept until you drop it. It stays with you even if a run of bad luck causes your FF to decrease or you get kicked out of a residency, or in the next season if you sack a load of players, or anything.

It's horses for courses.

Ongoing/one-off preference also depends on your team. A good team with high FF and lots of skilled players might prefer one-offs when they need money. Average-bad teams with lots of fodder are much better off with ongoing (as pointed out by Milo):

1) there might not be many chances to get another sponsorship (low FF, low winning rate)
2) you can stack them to roster a star player and have a good chance of just missing an unskilled goblin, or whatever.

So, in a sense, this might also be a buff to stunties.

Hadn't thought of the benefit for stunties before.

If I ever get sponsorships (been no where close so far), it will be ongoing every time. It just seems far better to have that permanent cash flow.

Baxx wrote:Hadn't thought of the benefit for stunties before.

I like it fits the fluff. Incompetent teams (like the Underworld creepers or the lowdown rats) are supposed to be fan favorites but that would never show in the rules, as FF will be crap for these teams. However, having these teams "being chosen" by several sponsors only makes sense if their matches are seen/followed a lot... even if people just watch them to see them being crushed (Fame/higher fan factor for the other, more successful opponent team)

Obviously ongoing will have more MNG than one-time for the same pay off.
The first question is how reliable it is to get a sponsorship.
The second question is how much the coach needs the money versus how much the MNG could hurt.

If I can get a sponsorship on a near rookie team, I'll take the ongoing. I don't have any players that I have built my team around and I want money to build (players/RR). This team probably won't roll well enough to get another sponsorship for a while. Yes, it will have more MNG, but those are less valuable than the money the team gets.

When a team is able to get sponsorships sometimes, but still needs money, I would take the one-time.

With a well developed WE team (that could regularly get sponsors) with wardancers I depend on I wouldn't take either ongoing or one-time.

Glamdryn wrote:One-Time is just a clearly better choice then Ongoing.

It's only clearly better money per MNG, but that is not always the only consideration.

Glamdryn wrote:

Milo wrote: As someone else mentioned, rostering most stars will cost you between 50k and 60k per game in upkeep costs -- ongoing sponsorships are a good way to support that habit. Is it worth the chance of some gobbos going missing if they can afford to keep Ripper Bolgrot rostered? I'd say definitively that it would be. Deeproot for Halflings? (Not to mention that a couple of ongoing sponsorships will help keep new Halflings signing up for the roster every game.)

Ripper could be the random MNG?

Yes, although the odds of losing Ripper on a 12-man team is 0.013% (0.16 to miss a player x 0.08 for it to be Ripper) -- only about 1 in 100 games. I think that's a small risk to accept and the odds would be even lower on a full 16 player team.

Glamdryn wrote:Also, I am not saying that these rules are specifically bad for my league, I am saying they are specifically bad for all leagues... One-Time is just a clearly better choice then Ongoing. If Ongoing was immediate 1d6, then an ongoing 1d3, then that would fix my problems with it.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I've cited facts to explain situations when it would be better but you have not been persuaded by my arguments. However, many other coaches have voiced support for Ongoing Sponsorships, so I think you are in the minority for finding them "specifically bad for all leagues".

stashman wrote:As I understand it, ongoing is kept when redrafting. You could loose some FF in the redraft

Ongoing is still there even if your team loose FF either thru losing a game or losing it to redraft.

Why, you could even consider ongoing sponsorships a reason to stick with a high FF team despite injuries having reset your roster back to start, giving you a reason to hang onto your Chaos Dwarf team with 38 wins.