Talk Fantasy Football

I have noticed two interesting long term league problems:

1) Agile teams like elves run out of money, while bashier teams generally are flush with cash
2) On non-agile teams, the slow ag 1/2 players tend to not get many skills compared to the rest of their teams (BOBs, FGs, TGs, etc) leading to oddly distributed teams in leagues that you don't see in the fluff teams or tournaments.

The former is true I think because the agile teams will generally take more damage therefore needing to replace more players, whereas the latter is true because you can't score with those types of players with any regularity, and out of the box they don't have kill skills so the only way to skill them is with MVPs

I think I have a solution to both problems.

You can currently choose to reroll your winnings, if you win. This reroll option is worth, on the average a little less then 10k*.

I suggest that the winner get the option to reroll his MVP instead. Presumably having to choose to save the RR for one or the other BEFORE either roll is made.

Elves and the like will generally take the money RR whereas bash teams will generally take the MVP RR. So, a 12 player orc team, for example, will likely want its MVP on its BOBs. So this would increase those chances from 1/3 to 5/9 (if I did my math right).

So, with this small modification bash teams will average less income then agile teams, but bash teams will see a better skill distribution (no more Orcs with lvl5/6 BZs and THs with lvl 1/2 BoBs).

Thoughts?

This has been on my mind since one of my Necro team FGs went 33 games before reaching lvl2. I had plenty of cash, but the MVPs went elsewhere and my opponents were generally good enough to stop me from scoring with the FG even if they couldn't stop my from scoring in general (with the wights and ghouls mostly). Since he had no block and the rest of my team was was developed, I also didn't throw as many blocks with him.

* Presuming you do not reroll 4-6 rolls and do reroll 1-3 rolls. Avg roll without a reroll is 3.5, with a rr for 1-3 rolls it becomes 4.25

I doubt it will change the cash issue too much, but I've long been in favour of changes to the MVP system - roll two MVPs and choose one to get the SPP is my preferred option.

Perhaps the winner could be given the option to sacrifice the second MVP roll for d6 additional cash?

Play with the BBRC-playtested Bank rules.

Darkson wrote:Play with the BBRC-playtested Bank rules.

Link please...?

Well, yeah, I think those are valid issues.

Just allowing the player to choose who to give the MVP to would also be a simple fix, but of course, it would lead to other consequences as well. As I've understood it, there are more than zero or one leagues out there that use or have used this option and so I wonder what their experiences have been? It would be great to have stats on leagues using these rules vs stats who don't!

glowworm wrote:

Darkson wrote:Play with the BBRC-playtested Bank rules.

Link please...?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=36227&p=639815

Sounds like the increase in income is pretty negligible while bash teams will benefit greatly from getting skills on their slow players.

Coach Grievous wrote:Well, yeah, I think those are valid issues.

Just allowing the player to choose who to give the MVP to would also be a simple fix, but of course, it would lead to other consequences as well. As I've understood it, there are more than zero or one leagues out there that use or have used this option and so I wonder what their experiences have been? It would be great to have stats on leagues using these rules vs stats who don't!

We [ChriBBL in NZ] now use chosen MVP in both our leagues. One league is normally 15-20 games or so, then re-setting each year, the other is "perpetual", but in practice the average number of games per team is low (say 5-6 is common after 2 years).

Chosen MVP appears to suit us well. It leads to rapid development. If anything, I would suggest it favours low AG teams somewhat, as (say) 1 CAS + MVP leads to a simple first skill-up. Random MVP, on the other hand, somewhat favours the AG4 teams (MVP + PC). But on the whole, I would say that chosen MVP is a leveller, it allows the traditionally weaker teams to skill up more easily, and it also allows the less experienced (or less successful) coaches to stay in the hunt. With chosen MVP, the most obvious difference is that teams develop rapidly, and teams gain character more quickly.

We do not have any truly perpetual environments, so I cannot speak for these.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the insight.

I've thought about introducing it to our league which has 12-14 games a year, random fixtures, with often several old teams continuing, so lots of games for us in total. If there is a primary problem rearing it's head currently, it is the older bash teams just pulverizing especially starting teams. I wonder if chosen MVP would actually help with that, because a) MVP wouldn't go to players suffering from career ending injuries and b) as you say, teams get character quickly, allowing a rookie team to develop some actual skills faster. This would of course be balanced against the effect it has on teams with longer careers, which is still a question mark. My intuition does seem to say that the effect is more marked at the beginning, but it might be ignoring some obvious-in-hindsight trends that might pop up.

Chosen MVP leads to better spread development, so it may help a little with the bully problem in your league. Chosen MVP also gives the unsung heroes (Linemen and their ilk) a chance to shine. Personally I find this more interesting than a league where the positional players get all the skill-ups.

All the best.

I think the proposed solution would help bash teams more than the agile teams and I question if that is really the problem in long term leagues. If the elf type teams tend to opt for rerolling the money as you conclude, then the new rule will not help them very often. The bash teams, at least after a bit of development, have minimal need for extra cash, so really won't be any worse off for this new opportunity to improve the players that they most need to improve.

Furthermore, the proposal benefits teams that are winning. While conceptually its nice to provide a bonus to the side that wins, its safe to say a team that wins regularly is doing fine under the existing rules. Losing teams also tend to take more injuries than winning teams. I think the real problem is when teams are chronically losing because either a)they can't afford to buy the players they need or b)their blockers are notably inferior relative to their teams TV. The second problem still tends to sort itself out over time as the blockers are generally resilient enough to survive over time, but the first one can be a real problem that time does not solve.

I do think the issue you bring up is real, I just doubt it solves the problem.

You could steal an idea from Dreadball and allow teams to sell dead players on the meat market and injured ones to slavers.

(maybe a bit gruesome)

Overhamsteren wrote:You could steal an idea from Dreadball and allow teams to sell dead players on the meat market and injured ones to slavers.

(maybe a bit gruesome)

I already get players from other teams.......it's called Nurgles rot!

....and there's free zombies out there for certain teams as well.......

I've observed that the problem is in how TV adds up for skills, and in how powerful multi-category access (especially GSM) is in a perpetual environment. I think the big losers are the previous edition's perpetual kings: Orcs and Dorfs. But it's hard on elves too. It's hard on Humans and other midrange non-Claw teams too in a limited-access format like the open perpetual tabletop leagues that the game is ostensibly designed around, but not in a big giant TV-matching environment like the online open leagues (R/B/FOL/etc), as they just float around the middle values and it's all happy.

I say this because I bristle at the idea that most of the format-driven perversities of CRP are a consequence of unintended format use. Not only has BB always been a game of different leagues with different cultures and different values and skill choices and strategies in different places (distinctions that are often much more sharp than the line between FOL/Ranked and the league format laid out in the LRB, I might add), but the format perversities don't by any stretch spare the "default" league structure by comparison to the popular variants.

What I think should be done:
TV: Add +10k for each skill beyond the second.
Mutations: Always +30k, regardless of access.
Winnings and Expenses: Buff up both by a net 30k or so, possibly by adding a bonus for gate and more SE categories at lower TVs. Then, apply Spiraling Expenses against final TV for a ready team (so you can drain your own Treasury, or SE will do it for you, rather than SE pre-empting your calls). This makes it easier to pick up MVP Journeymen or replace lost positionals.
Other: A buff to fouling might help spread the grief around.

I can't resist this comment, but then won't read responses as I have no interest in a debate on the matter as its done and dusted and the new rules have been in for many years. However, "in the good old days" TR was calculated by the total SPP's divided by 5 + TV. To ensure all teams competed equally all that was needed was a TR Cap (probably 250-300). Teams at this level were generally even in abilities depending on stat increases and in my experience it was all great. Then came the new format of calculating TV (skills cost + treasury) and spiralling expenses and it all became a bit too complicated/time consuming (even if more realistic). Old fuddy duddies like me stick to the older ways, but not the earliest editions, and with a Cap have no complaints. League winners have varied from DE, Orc, Undead, Human and Lizards with WE's and Skaven coming mighty close.
As Matt pointed out there are variations in each league around the world and its all about having fun and enjoying the game. This works for our league so its the variation we use or stick to.