Negative Winnings rule .... revised

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:36 am

I don't know where the myth that Dwarfs and Orcs don't suffer injuries came from...my team will be missing their Star Runner and my best Longbeard (SF, Guard) in my game tonight...and thats only at TRR around 200 (That bloody Minotaur I've mentioned before....hes up to around 70 spp now).

Dwarf and Orc teams suffer fewer casualties, but they also gain skills at a crawl - it all balances out in the end, especially seeing as the Dwarfs most likely to gain SPPs - Runners and Slayers - are also the most vulnerable, not being any tougher than a human Lineman.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:23 am

circular you seem to have missed the point about team mangement

this rule will make team management more important, if your team starts getting really big so that they don't make any money, then you retire a player (perfectly fine good fit uninjured one) to take your tr down

thats what team mangement is about, losing one player doesn't mean you have to retire the team

eventually the team will get to a point where they keep losing a lot of players and their tr drops to a point where they start getting money again, sure they will be really beaten up and have to repay the debt they made (much like a lot of real life football teams are atm) but this is all something the coach can avoid by managing their tr, something you should do anyway cause of handicaps and winnings under the current rules to be honest.

This rule will then simple add a penalty to those coaches who don't manage their tr. Also for the record the rate at you will lose money and get into debt with this is a slow rate on average.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:56 pm

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

Which is what I said Ian ... but it appears Neo thinks that even without an apothecary that Orcs and Dwarves are immune to injury since he made his rebutal to a quote of mine dealing with moving the apothecary to a freeboot.

Also Grumble has it all right in a nutshell. The Triple B and Chet's NFL have negative winnings rules that FORCE you to immediately retire a player, remove asst. coaches or cheerleaders, fire your apothecary, or drop team rerolls in an amount equal to or greater than the amount you went negative. All I did was simplify the rule AND make it the coach's decision (I hate being forced, I like to make my own decisions ... thank you very much). As Dark Lord and I said early on ... if I would have a treasury of -20k right before I made playoffs where even runner up I would be winning 100k ... I'm going to be pretty p*ssed off if I need to drop a reroll or player right before I know I'm coming into cash that would easily cover the debt.

Also earlier on the thread I showed how the rule doesn't kick in until TR 250 and has a virtual wall around TR 300 which is what we keep hearing coaches want in the game.

Galak

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:24 pm

wouldn't a maximum "in the red" level be a goo idea? say 100k THEN things start getting forced (Big Vinnie starts sending the boys around etc.)?

This would make the team management aspect work in light of Galak's example of the "I can't pay now, but I'll be getting a bonus soon" team, and any team finding themselves in danger of forced retirements at vital points would only have themselves to blame for not taking care of the problem at an earlier point in time.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:42 pm

How about lose a TRR once your debt is equal to the cost of TRR?

So Orcs 50k in debt are fine, 60k - they lose a reroll and the debt.

If you've no TRR left, then its the cost of your cheapest player (so an Orc team with a goblin and no TRR loses him if it goes 40k in debt).

Basically it gives you control over small debts, but once it gets big you are compelled to manage it. A bit more complex to word than the normal rule - but it does address Galak's 10k in the red before the play off issue.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:56 pm

sucks for amazons and dwarfs that :p

i rather just leave it as its written if you don't do something about it your soon gonna have problems

or if you do set a limit it should be fixed across all teams imho but i don't really see a need for it

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 2:43 pm

All I'm going to say is this. I'm positive the system will work without any forced component or any extra wordiness to the rule ... especially if you move the Apothecary to a 10k freeboot (but even without this I bet it would work, but I'm serious convinced that without being able to use the Apothecary the whole package would be great.)

I'm adding the 10k freeboot Apothecary rule to the PBeM tool. Seriously considering moving the MBBL2 to this whole package. Refund all apothecary money spent to date, and then allow you to freeboot an Apothecary for 10k per a level (ie you could freeboot a Level 5 for 50k).

Anyway ... you don't need an endcap rule. The system will work without it. Even looking at the FUMBBL data eventually players need replaced. Milo's CHUBB table would even further make it difficult to scale forever.

I really looked over a ton of MBBL and FUMBBL data for hours when I was thinking of this Negative Winnings rule. I'm pretty darn sure it would work without any other fancy extras.

Galak

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:30 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote: 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

Galak

I really like these but with minor reservations

1) Definitely
2) Not sure about this- my heart tells me any player that was playing through the pain in the first will be there for the end and any player that is ready later should have been playing through the pain earlier. Hockey fan bias maybe. I do recognise that balance is more important then fluff.

3) Definitely
4) Definitely
5) Not sure about this one either. I do understand where you are going with this one, but have to point out that this is a 2-band penalty. It hurts the higher TR teams in the way its designed to but might also create an advantage for mid-range teams over starting ones.

I am not sure this is an intended result but suspect this would be the case.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:42 pm

ScottyBoneman wrote:It hurts the higher TR teams in the way its designed to but might also create an advantage for mid-range teams over starting ones.

Why would that be? Initially you've got an immediate boost because for the 1st 4/5 games you are better off (and have an apoth for the 1st game by keeping 10k back).

After that, unless you've been very unlucky, you ought to be pulling in more money each game than mid range teams (winnings increase more slowly than TR).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:46 pm

I still think aging should be in cause i like it and i know others do as well and it does a job well

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:55 pm

ianwilliams wrote:Why would that be? Initially you've got an immediate boost because for the 1st 4/5 games you are better off (and have an apoth for the 1st game by keeping 10k back).

After that, unless you've been very unlucky, you ought to be pulling in more money each game than mid range teams (winnings increase more slowly than TR).

You are absolutely correct about not having to make that 50K investment in creation or the first couple of games. That would do a lot to mitigate the 10K/game drag on cash.

Mid-range teams have less demand on their cash, doing more maintaining then adding but as you point out starting teams basically don't lose anything until their 6th game, and can essentially be like paying off the Apoth in installments before that.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:11 pm

the midrange teams would have spent more overall on a apoth which they would normally have spent on more players or rerolls by that time, so it doesn't benefit them over any other team at a different stage of team development

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:16 pm

ScottyBoneman wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote: 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
I really like these but with minor reservations
1) Definitely
2) Not sure about this- my heart tells me any player that was playing through the pain in the first will be there for the end and any player that is ready later should have been playing through the pain earlier. Hockey fan bias maybe. I do recognise that balance is more important then fluff.

I understand your real world example, but its more of a game balance driver. I also think of it more as I was feeling good this morning coach, but after sitting during the half time ... all those old pains come back with a vengence. I've got a shoulder that I've dislocated 4 times and a knee once. Some days I can work just fine ... but if I stop to eat lunch ... there are some days when I get up from the table, I'm finished for the day as these 2 old injuries say no more. This is a rule we've been playing with for the full season of the MBBL2 already.

3) Definitely
4) Definitely
5) Not sure about this one either. I do understand where you are going with this one, but have to point out that this is a 2-band penalty. It hurts the higher TR teams in the way its designed to but might also create an advantage for mid-range teams over starting ones.

I am not sure this is an intended result but suspect this would be the case.

A lot of rookie teams don't buy an apothecary starting (especially Elves). At 10k, this would make it very easy for starting teams to start an apothecary and avoid the early game death toll that can happen (like more poor PBeMBBL Lizards that lost 2 Skinks in my TR 100 opening game without an Apoth). Also cash is a lot more plentiful early on ... rookie teams would always have the ability to drop the 10k to get an apoth ... as you go up it will get more difficult and it will become again another interesting facet of team managment. So I'm not sure I see the mid band advantage for teams with this rule.

Also it would be like ... 10k to freeboot or 50k to purchase for tournaments. Just like wizards are 50k to freeboot and 150 to purchase. I think Stars are going to a similar dual costing for league and tournament play with this review (if they get time to discuss it). I know JJ liked the idea.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:26 pm

On Aging.

This is one of those points that if it made or breaked the argument for Negative Winnings ... I'd keep Aging in the rules.

The reason I want to drop it is because I've been the victim too often of skill 1 and 2 aging while using the rules. The MBBL and the MBBL2 majority voted to remove aging from my leagues. The recent TBB + FUMBBL poll we did on aging showed 50% support it and 50% want it gone (ie no mandate either way with 100s of coaches voting). So I don't care either way. I don't like the dredd it causes me for skills rolls and my leagues don't like it, but seriously if I was on the BBRC and it came down to this in the Rules Review discussion:"

"Tom, we'll propose experimental rules in BB Mag for points #2 through #5 of this suggestion, but we want to keep #1 in the game (ie Aging)"

I'd be typing ... fine by me ... as fast as I could reply.

I'd also be willing to agree to this:
"Tom, we only like points #3 through #5 of your plan" ... that's fine too. The Niggle on the half is a retirement driver since every coach I've talked to says Niggles don't matter. But if you have Aging with freebooted Apothecaries, I'd be willing to conceed that you might not need the Niggle rule.

Based on the feedback I've heard from TBB coaches and my own 2 leagues plus reviewing the data from my own leagues and FUMBBL, the 5 points I listed are just the ones that I think would work best. But I'd be willing to conceed points if it meant getting the key points made experimental. Like I said though ... still think these 5 together would make a more enjoyable BB.

Galak

Indigo · Post by **Indigo** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:34 pm

Granted I've not read through all the pages of this yet (I started at the beginning and am working through) but if we're making apoths freebooters only, how much would they cost for tournaments? I know this issue is obviously only relevant for leagues, but I'm assuming Apoths would still be 50k for tourneys...?