Negative Winnings rule .... revised

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:49 pm

yes galak already said that indigo

i can understand the 1st skill aging is the biggest bugbear with the aging rules you only have to say first skill is exempt

2nd skill should be included though as some players (dwarfs) only need guard and mightyblow to be fully effective (or stand firm on a couple)

sure the other thing is that it happens when you get a skill but like galak mentioned this is half of one half of the other not a majority one way or another

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:10 pm

Grumble if you and I were on the RC I think we could agree on giving #2 through #5 a shot as experimental for a year (I'd be willing to conceed point #1 as leagues can house rule it out and the system should still work fine). This would let Ski get all four things programmed into the JavaBowl tool. We'd need Christer to section off so we could see JUST the data from the games using this mix, but I bet it would work. I'm pretty confident a couple 1,000 FUMBBL games would prove this system works just fine. For now we wait and see what the current 7 RC members think.

Oh and Indigo .. yes, 10k for freeboot/50k for tournaments. I think the following 3 things in Blood Bowl should have official dual (ie league vs tournament) costs: Apothecaries, Wizards, Star Players.

Galak

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:11 pm

i'd happily sit on the RC if they were to expand it, not like i got anything else to do, i spend most of the day arguing about rules either on here or the chat room already

shouldn't be hard for christer to filter out just experimental stuff (seeing as it will all be in one division it would take seconds to do) and then just add a filter for all games after a certain date (the date they are implemented)

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:44 pm

You can't be serious that you would have negative winnings and aging?!!! Now the negative winnings you have had me won over for a while, but both! Talk about overkill. I know you said if it was a case of having it or not, but if people can't see that negative winnings are much fairer and more enjoyable......

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:51 pm

i'm totally serious

i find aging fun

i also think it serves a purpose in that the game isn't overflowing with powerful characters negative winnings will encourage some player turnover but there will be a lot more highly developed untouched one turners and other such players

i don't see how both is overkill while i can see that you may not like aging

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:57 pm

NightDragon wrote:You can't be serious that you would have negative winnings and aging?!!! Now the negative winnings you have had me won over for a while, but both! Talk about overkill. I know you said if it was a case of having it or not, but if people can't see that negative winnings are much fairer and more enjoyable......

NightDragon ... my league that I make the rules for will never have aging again. My comment was that if it made or broken the entire package, I'd conceed the point. But personally I have no desire to leave aging in BB and neither did either of my leagues.

Galak

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:05 pm

How about increasing the SPP's needed to gain a level to slow down player development??

0-5 = 0
6-15 = 1
16-40 = 2
41-75 = 3
76-125 = 4
126-175 = 5
176-249 = 6
250+ = 7

It still allows players to get one or two skills easily enough, then it will hopefully slow the players down a bit

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:35 am

Ithilkir,

They tried this in the Triple B league and the coach's really didn't like it.

I've been playing BB for too long. I used to get 3 skills at 26 SPPs. 31 now seems like forever. Up it to a higher number and I'll seriosly lose interest in player development ... one of the most fun parts of the game.

Galak

Cervidal · Post by **Cervidal** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:29 am

Forget 31. Just try getting to 16 with some of those stubborn positions! Saurus, Black Orcs, most Dwarves, and Khemri all have a helluva time getting anyone a second skill, let alone a third.

Combining aging with negative winnings would be just fine with me. To be honest, I'm still not seeing enough player turnover in any league situation I've personally witnessed. The march from 100-200 is still too quick and there's really not much to keep a team from getting up to 250 with minimal effort.

Circular_Logic · Post by **Circular_Logic** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:08 am

Grumbledook wrote: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.

I´m not sure, if I have missed the point about teammanagement. As a coach your goal should be to get your team as good as possible in the given circumstances. I see the need for capping teams getting godlike, but most teams, being sturdy enough to survive that long, take much longer to get there.
So from a management-view, I would rarely ever retire a healthy player and I don´t like rules, forcing me to do so. So I say, that it´s shit, if you loose money, despite winning games. A winner should always get at least 10k. A draw could be no money at all as the worst case.
Or simply exclude money from the teamrating, because I don´t see, y you loose money, because you have money.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:30 pm

Circular_Logic wrote:if you loose money, despite winning games. A winner should always get at least 10k.

This happens in real life all the time. I know many a football team that has won a game where the gate didn't come close to paying for the team's salary and expenses. Yeah, it sucks ... but it is very real.

Galak

Circular_Logic · Post by **Circular_Logic** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:37 pm

That´s why we play a game and not a sport-management-simulation

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:29 pm

Circular_Logic wrote:That´s why we play a game and not a sport-management-simulation

Which raises an interesting point. I know I want to and I know many others want to play both a game and a sports-management-simulation. I definitely know that what the BBRC under JJ's direction intends for the game. I think you hit the point that those folks who just want to play the game ... things like aging, negative winnings, etc, will never be a desired effect because they "detract" from what is perceived by those coaches as the fun of the game.

Its an interesting sidenote. How you approach the game effects very much how you view the current trends.

Galak

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:52 pm

I've seen Blood Bowl leagues that expanded the rules to something like "FIFA Manager" PC games ... you could buy infrastructure, larger stadiums (each stadium had a limited capacity), several stadium enhancements like luxury locker rooms, hot dog stands, or security fences with limited gaming effects, etc, etc ...

My opinion on that is ... if i want that i play a FIFA manager PC game. It might be an interesting addition, but it makes things very hard to balance and teams usually get bigger and bigger in TR by adding these kind of rules (who wants to own a superdome, but have a mediocre TR200 team play in it?)

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:54 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
Circular_Logic wrote:if you loose money, despite winning games. A winner should always get at least 10k.
This happens in real life all the time. I know many a football team that has won a game where the gate didn't come close to paying for the team's salary and expenses. Yeah, it sucks ... but it is very real.

Galak

The Ottawa Senators won the Presdient's Trophy (most wins) and came within a goal of the Stanley Cup final while in bankruptcy protection. It definitley happens.

(and GO SENS GO!)