Negative Winnings rule .... revised

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:53 pm

Well said galak i couldn't agree more.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:21 pm

No, but 250 teams could be more enjoyable to play at 300-350 because the players in those teams are better. That is what I think Rogerg is saying. There should be more 300 teams. The fact that one or two might get there is irrelevant. A fully developed 300+ team is more enjoyable to play than a 248 team.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:28 pm

forum opinion voted that 250-300 was the target

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:32 pm

I know. I listened to it as well, which is why in my League we have a TR cap of 300. Not wishing to start again a debate over a cap. I like this idea of negative winnings, when is it going up for discussion by the BBRC?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:31 pm

now ;]

we will find out what happened in the rules review in november

read the thread with longbomb 4 in general chat for more info

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:58 pm

NightDragon wrote:No, but 250 teams could be more enjoyable to play at 300-350 because the players in those teams are better. That is what I think Rogerg is saying. There should be more 300 teams. The fact that one or two might get there is irrelevant. A fully developed 300+ team is more enjoyable to play than a 248 team.

The question I would ask is this:

Which game is more enjoyable, 140TR vs. 250TR -or- 140TR vs. 300TR?

Xtreme · Post by **Xtreme** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:16 pm

Which game is more enjoyable, 140TR vs. 250TR -or- 140TR vs. 300TR?

I think the 140 vs 250. But at the same time I agreed that the incline from 250 to 300 should be very slow and hard, which I think this negative winning propesiton does very well.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:33 pm

Cheers for the link Boomshanker. As for the Neo question, the one against the 300 could be just as enjoyable if the rules for bonus SPP's and extra cards hadn't been discarded. The 300 team would probably still win, but the lower team would progress faster so both would still want to play each other.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:03 pm

Xtreme wrote:
Which game is more enjoyable, 140TR vs. 250TR -or- 140TR vs. 300TR?
I think the 140 vs 250. But at the same time I agreed that the incline from 250 to 300 should be very slow and hard, which I think this negative winning propesiton does very well.

I agree with every piece of what Xtreme said ... and NightDragon I really have no desire to return to the days of cards and bonus MVPs ... no thank you very much.

I also will restate that after a year for trying the current LRB 2.0 rules.

I still like this formula best for overall balance:

LRB 2.0 + this negative winnings rule + Milo's CHUBB table. I'd drop aging as it effects to many starting teams and adds a negative to the skill rolls which should be a fun time for coaches without this looming negative and I'd replace aging with Niggle rolls before each half and overtime to make them matter (which currently they don't). Based on a year of playtesting that is what I currently think is the ideal mix. Again this is just my opinion, but I've seen a lot of support for this overall mix from the online community.

Galak

Galak

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:45 pm

NightDragon wrote:Cheers for the link Boomshanker. As for the Neo question, the one against the 300 could be just as enjoyable if the rules for bonus SPP's and extra cards hadn't been discarded. The 300 team would probably still win, but the lower team would progress faster so both would still want to play each other.

As Galak notes, 300 point teams can work with the cards, but the cards aren't around anymore. In the current system, that game would be rather boring, IMO.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 2:51 am

Oh and one other thing. If you really want to tie up balance with a big bow for a system I'm pretty darn sure would work and be fun and bring out the most in team management and the big reason I even mention this was Neo's question about team's just trying to spiral TR.

Do this system:

1) Drop Aging
2) Change Niggle rolls to before each half and overtime for players in Reserves or KO (and after Regen rolls are made).
3) Use the Negative Winnings rule proposed here.
4) Drop the current handicap table and adopt Milo's CHUBB table
5) Change the Apothecary to being freebooted for 10k for a game

Neo was concerned that a team could just ignore the negative winnings and allow their team to spiral forever ... a little old fashioned beat down on the team will fix that. If Niggles are made on the half, the handicap table has a lot of bite, and because you have no money you cannot have an Apothecary ... I think teams will self adjust fairly quickly before the TR gets to high ...

Just a thought.

Galak

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:35 am

GalakStarscraper wrote:Neo was concerned that a team could just ignore the negative winnings and allow their team to spiral forever ... a little old fashioned beat down on the team will fix that.

This has always been one arguement against ageing, that normal attrition should be enough to deal with teams. The problem, as I've always pointed, is that some teams are particularly immune to normal attrition. Dwarves and Orcs, with their higher AV's, don't get pruned. In addition the developed teams take less casualties overall, meaning the real losers to this kinds of system are the rookie teams...and they don't need the pruning.

The only way I can see this working is if the most developed players are easier to hurt over time... for example if you lower AV for stars.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:38 am

Or have freebooting apoths... even Orcs & Dwarves will suffer if they can't afford an apoth for every game.

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:05 am

Or bring back dirty tackle for agility teams to hammer up the bashers

Circular_Logic · Post by **Circular_Logic** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:26 am

I opppose the neg. winning table because it will lead to the fact, that you will only play teams with a high FF if possible. Also the winning-roll will be the most important roll of the game, what I really dislike.
I think if you win, you should get at least 10k, if you don´t it should at least no loss of money.

Keeping up a team needs money and even dwarves die from time to time or get those -ST injuries. With the neg. winning table you cannot save up some money for this occurance and when the time comes, you won´t have any money to replace nigglers or died players and you will fall deep, because you have to play with less and less players, until you get the chance to make money and refill with rookies. So the loss of a good player cannot be compensated by good teammanagement. It just means the retirement of the whole team.
Another thing:
You have money, thus your TR is high and because of this you loose money. Sound completly irrational to me.

If you want a virtual wall make following rule:
The opponent of a Team with a TR higher than X, has the possibility to hire a "bounty hunter" for free. This guy is a Minotaur or a CW who is just out to kill the who is who of the bloodbowl scene. He will insist to be fielded and will go after the player with the most SPP of the opposing team that is reachable using the teams blitz if he isn´t next to an opponent. However, after he has caused a lasting injury (or kill??), which wasn´t cured by the apo, he leaves the pitch.
If he is rejected by the team, he attacks their highest rated players. Make a injuryroll +2 for this player.
Stats: 5/6/3/9 block tackle piling on, RSC, Claws Tentacles.