Natural team rating maximum

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:38 pm

For me the major problem are the lopsided games that result when the TR is vastly different between teams. I've played rookie teams against 300 TR teams and wondered why I spent 2 hours on something that was so obviously going to end the way it did.

If you've ever started a team in a league that didn't reset much, you know what I'm talking about.

Assuming we stick with an open league format, the top end of team TR should be somewhere that a 100 TR team has some chance of beating (much less just surviving)

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:29 pm

Before we worry about the maximum TR shouldn't we define why we need a maximum. As I see it there are 4 schools of thought here:

1. Handicap: Rookie teams should not be overwhelmed by the top rated teams.

2. Fluff: The Reavers are TR 300ish, teams should be able to go this high

3. Team Development: It's fun to develop a team and have players gain skills.

4. Strategy & Fun: Games after a certain level become less strategic and so less interesting.

For my view a TR 100 team is never going to do well against anything over TR 150 but this is a bit low for a team to top out at so 1. should be dealt with by a more effective handicap table.

I would like to see teams top out at 250 ish personally with good playing meaning they can crawl up to Legendary Reavers status at 300 at absolute maximum. This would satisfy me on points 2 and 4 and persosonally would provide enough development for point 3 as well.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:37 pm

I see your point and agree with them fluff wise...

For me a great team should nearly always beat a rookie team (Man Utd vs. Kettering etc...)

To counter this use special play cards/desperate measures, and if in a league a points handicap difference (based on % diff in tr) - then a loss becomes a good result if its not by much...

HOWEVER: Teams may still have a lot of potential at 300. People shouldn't be stopped from exploring that...

Hence the need for the limit on team rating to be NATURAL - slow but still interesting development for a well established team...

I'd like Team ratings to slow right down at 300 and crawl or maybe level off....

But I'd still want the option of continuing to play them...

But we don't have an open format, and when we do, its handicapped...

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:43 pm

Well the levels we put in are just my own personal opinions of where the aging limits should be, I guess I'm about 50 points below you! After all thats what the poll is all about.

The main point I was making though is that we need to decide what we are trying to achieve with a limit before setting it.

Neoliminals post read to me like he was looking for a lower cap to solve some of the TR difference problems that I personally feel should be dealt with through handicaps.

Some of these objectives lead to different caps at different levels to satisfty them, ie. they are conflicting goals.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:44 pm

noodle wrote:For me a great team should nearly always beat a rookie team (Man Utd vs. Kettering etc...)

HOWEVER: Teams may still have a lot of potential at 300. People shouldn't be stopped from exploring that...

I see a contradiction here. On one hand you make a call to reality by saying that rookie teams get trounced by vets (Man Utd vs. Kettering). On the other hand you think teams should have the possibility of exploring their potential past 300 TR.

The counter arguement simply reverses these. There are no "300 TR" teams in reality that get better. The best teams don't get better... they only get worse or they maintain. And the matches like Man Utd vs. Kettering are horribly boring to watch. ( I can only imagine how boring they are to play).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:56 pm

as for low teams vs high teams

that happens every season in the english fa cup

i forgotton who it was arsenal played last season but it was a fun match to watch

sure arsenal romped hom i thin 4 or 5 to 1 but then the team they were playing i think knocked out another big team to get to play arsenal

every season a small team manages to beat one of the larger teams, and you sure get to know about it over here if you have any interest in football

in fact they can often be far more entertaining then large team vs large team

low teams should on the whole lose most of the time playing large teams, what i think is needed is a hancicap table where the lower coach can choose. The choices could be seperated in accelerated growth, survival and the posability of winning (or evening the odds)

new teams shouldn't be able to come right in and start winning against the big guns, after time they should be able to crawl up to a spot where they can compete

i mean the housten texans didn't exactly come into the NFL and set the world alight with their brilliance did they

with a system to level teams out around 250-300 (i tihnk negative winnings could work well to achieve this with the right winnings table)

and also a good handicap table to give a helping hand to new teams in the area each personal coach would like

if we can achieve those two points would that not satisfy everyone?

people who think the tr cap is too low can then simply ignore the capping rules, much like a lot of leagues don't use the current aging rules, though i don't think many leagues would use this option

last seasons champions league final was rather dull apart from the penalty shoot out at the end

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:45 pm

neoliminal wrote:The best teams don't get better... they only get worse or they maintain.

Not in football, the best teams can always go out and buy better players, so this isn't a good example to use.

neoliminal wrote:And the matches like Man Utd vs. Kettering are horribly boring to watch. ( I can only imagine how boring they are to play).

Well, can't comment on the playing side, but as a fan of the teams involved it's not boring, it's great.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:28 pm

For me the major problem are the lopsided games that result when the TR is vastly different between teams. I've played rookie teams against 300 TR teams and wondered why I spent 2 hours on something that was so obviously going to end the way it did.

I take it u think things have drastically changed since 3rd edition, when i beat an approx 250 tr delf team with a less than 150 tr lizzie team?

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:35 pm

You could also just run Leagues with promotion/relegation. That way everyone competes at their level. Set a TR max so the top division teams don't progress any further and before long all teams are similar.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:41 pm

True - league commissioners should sort this type of thing out

Last season the Phoenix Phantoms (293) lost to the Tree Huggers (167) in a special play card and snakeyes fiasco!

neoliminal> No in football the best teams just keep getting better an better and better...

By exploring potential beyond 300 TR - actually this might not mean an increase in TR with retirements, new blood etc... interesting point.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:13 pm

noodle wrote:neoliminal> No in football the best teams just keep getting better an better and better...

I don't know about soccer but in the NFL this is definitely not true. A few years ago the Dallas Cowboys were a powerhouse and now they are about as scarey as a catholic school girl team. Same goes for the 49ers, the Rams, the Falcons, etc.
Nobody stays on top forever anymore.

That said, I don't think it's any reason to alter Blood Bowl. Blood Bowl is not reality and coaches' attention spans take care of that, as far as I have seen. Most coaches eventually retire their powerhouse teams and start new ones. If you are going to punish those numerous coaches who do retire uber teams because of the the very few who don't, then you are going to get a huge backlash of P.O.'d coaches.

Like I think Galak said, where are these powerhouse teams? I don't see them. Hell my Dwarf team is pushing a TR of 200 and already it's looking old.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:32 pm

Everyone has a story about some low end team they played taking on a high end team and beating them. Heck, I have a couple stories like that myself. That's not the issue.

What I see as the problem are the 30 other games that got played where the rookie team was beaten in a boring game. I don't know about you, but when I sit down at a game of BB and the TR's are very lopsided (like TR 220 vs. TR 115), then I know it's going to be a very boring game no matter what side of the game I'm on.

The best games, IMO, are the ones where you can't tell who's going to win.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:34 pm

noodle wrote: neoliminal> No in football the best teams just keep getting better an better and better...

In American Football, it doesn't happen.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:12 pm

neoliminal wrote:I don't know about you, but when I sit down at a game of BB and the TR's are very lopsided (like TR 220 vs. TR 115), then I know it's going to be a very boring game no matter what side of the game I'm on.

Hey John ... we've had some games like that in the MBBL in Season 3. Using the 18 item handicap table ... those games were close; definitely not boring; and in one case already produced an upset.

I'd love to see the BBRC try on an experimental basis for a year until the 2004 RR, the 18 item handicap table with the Negative Cash rule and leave everything else alone.

Actually cancel that BB needs that 18 item table or Milo's Handicap table to become official in this review ... the Negative Cash rule would be a nice experimental rule.

Okay ... what I'm trying to say John is that in the MBBL a better handicap table is handling the TR differences. If the peak is around 250 as the FUMBBL data is showing ... we kick in a negative cash mod rule which will enforce that TR 250 even a little tighter. Than you aren't going to have too many matches between TR 100 and TR 250 and even those won't be full blow out because the improved handicap table will assist with leveling the field.

Seriously, I'm convinced based on the real evidence I've seen that the BB rules are there in the LRB ... and Dark Lord's poll shows that most folks at least here that take the time to vote on such things agree. The Hot List clarifications are the biggest desire now. The only thing in terms of game balance that I've seen positive voting on has been either the MBBL or CHUBB handicap table and the negative cash rule. Otherwise, I'm seeing a lot of feedback that you guys did good/great job with the balance of team growth to date. Heck even Dark Lord said that ... and that's like a bloody miracle.

Galak

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:03 pm

And as for sitting down to a lopsded match...that's the absolute beauty of the challenge system.
Don't like those matches? Don't accept the challenge?
As I said before, those are the official rules anyway.
You are suggesting a problem with a house rule format, not the LRB.

Talk Fantasy Football

Natural team rating maximum

What would you like to see as the top natural team rating?