Negative Winnings rule .... revised

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:10 pm

I could go with this Galak, but I would have a slight concern over inexperienced coaches falling in to a slide. Now I know you are going to say that it won't affect new teams, but that is not my point. It took me years to develop the tactics I have now, and it will take a long while for newbies to understand fully the implications of what you suggest. It is certainly better than ageing, but I have nagging doubts. I understand you don't want a TR cap, and I understand your arguments, but even in this system do you not eventually have to cut players or have I not understood it fully?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:11 pm

I fully support this idea.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:22 pm

you will never have to cut players out but eventually you will run the team into so much debt that they can't recover when the team started to get beat up

this actually happens in real life with football teams that spend out on great players and then win nothing and end up in lots of debt, amuses me when they do that, can't buy trophies ;]

of course if you want to avoid this you will have to retire players volentarilly to prevent if from happening, though i can't see how thats a problem as surely you would do the same thing in your league if you use a set tr cap

this is a way more fun way of doing it, the more i think about this idea the more i like it, though you would have to expand the winnings table by tr band a few more to make sure teams that do ignore it will get into a world of sh1t

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:26 pm

I am of the same mind as the rest of you, I like this way of using negative winnings compared to the BBB rules (was going to suggest something like it myself, but this is fine).

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:38 pm

I am not anti it at all. Think its very clever as usual from Galak. I would play the system happily.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:15 pm

Grumbledook wrote:you will never have to cut players out but eventually you will run the team into so much debt that they can't recover when the team started to get beat up

Actually a really high TR team will self manage. ... your TR will continue to rise eventually you have DL's Ogre kill off a star or two and your TR will drop enough that you'll start to earn money to pay off the debt. If you encounter more deaths before the debt is paid off it will actually probably only speed your recovery. Remember at TR 200, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have negative winnings in the long term ... so to say that the team will never recover with this statement is an overstatement. Once the team gets under TR 200 it will have to start to recover. ... ie there is no perpetual downward spiral at all to this system. This is why the system doesn't have any interest or such ... because A) that keeps it simple and B) interest would cause the downward spiral that everyone fears.

though i can't see how thats a problem as surely you would do the same thing in your league if you use a set tr cap

And a hard TR cap is in a way a forced retirement ... this is a voluntary system that encourages team management more.

this is a way more fun way of doing it, the more i think about this idea the more i like it, though you would have to expand the winnings table by tr band a few more to make sure teams that do ignore it will get into a world of sh1t

I'm not convinced you need to expand the TR bands to have the system work, Grumble.

Again going to the math. In order for a TR 301+ team to not lose money over the long term they will need to average a total of FF of 29 for their gate rolls (because they need average gates of 101). With the -1 FF penalty on TR per 10, keeping high FF is more of problem then it used to be. A bad gate roll is just going to decimate a TR 301+ teams gold. IE they could get into serious debt pretty quickly ... (a darn good thing because remember we don't want TR 300 to last very long at all).

Add in a meaningful handicap system and a TR 301 team is going to continue to grow but without any fall back if they lose a player or more. But really are we going to cry tears for TR 300+ teams. I'm not. I'd like to see what the system does without messing with the TR band table first. If the really big teams still grow then it would be an easy enough thing to add on.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:27 pm

DeputyDawg wrote:I could go with this Galak, but I would have a slight concern over inexperienced coaches falling in to a slide

Okay let me try to address this ... might repeat myself.

Up to TR 200, it is mathematically impossible to loss money over the long term. So DD, is a player who gets his team over TR 200, an inexperienced coach? If you say, no ... then we are fine ... if you think you can have a TR 201+ team and still be inexperienced ... okay next step.

The only way to fall into a slide is to never retire anyone ... if your league has a TR cap ... then at some point the coach is forced to retire folks right ... same thing here. At some point, the player is going to say ... wow I'm 100k in debt ... DD ... any suggestions on what I should do? ... you'll answer ... "yeah retire those 2 double niggled players on your roster to get your TR down."

The thing to remember with this system is the TR 200 point. The vast majority of TBB agreed that TR 200 was when we'd like to see the brakes kick out to start slowing team growth ... well this system starts kicking in the breaks at TR 201 as that's the first point that its mathematically possible to lose more money than you make over the long haul ... (and even there we are talking always losing and having gate rolls of 20k or less). The reason this is so important is that no matter how much in debt a team gets once their TR goes back under 200, they'll start to recover (its a mathematically certainty). Thus you get the wax and wane that we keep being told is desired in BB without forcing retirements or loss of rerolls.

Also keep in mind that paying off a debt actually LOWER TR.
Example:
TR 201 team with a 50k debt loses a game with only getting the MVP for SPPs. Gate was 64k and he rolls a 5 for winnings which with the -1 penalty gives him 40k for the game.
If his treasury had been 0k, he would now be at TR 206 (201+1+4).
But by being required to use the 40k for debt re-payment his TR is 198 (201+1-4).

This is the other reason that a downward spiral is a bit of myth with the system ... once you get your TR to a point where you start making money again on gold rolls, you'll actually speed up your recovery as your TR actually lowers while you pay off your debt. In the above example, the team is now in the next lowest band of TR and will now get an extra +10 from the next game which should pay off the remaining 10k of his debt.

Galak

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:29 pm

can't argue with that, if this gets made experimental we could test if for a year in divx on fumbbl

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:33 pm

Initially, I quite like...

Dark Lord (retired) · Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:51 pm

Deathwing wrote:Initially, I quite like...

large muscley men?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:53 pm

hehe i was going to post something along those lines but not as rude :p

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:39 am

Galak - I think that it much neater method than losing TRR/players. I would say that an example that -40k adds 4 to TR is worthwhile because someone is bound to think that it takes 4 off your TR.

Grumbledook wrote:i find it hard that people ever thought you couldn't choose to remove rerolls or coaching staff whenever you wanted

I've never played that you could - because there is nothing in the rulebook to say you can.

However I'd be quite happy to see a rule where you can sell them off for 1/2 price or something.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:21 am

Well done Galak!

We already use negative winnings with the rule that you MUST pay off this before buying anything (you'd think that was obvious but some people

)

We don't count winnings to treasury anyway but I agree you should add to Team rating....

We also use loans... Which means one of my teams still has a treasury of -40,000gps because I keep getting robbed

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:09 pm

ian i said just remove them to drop tr not sell them off to get cash ;]

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:43 pm

This is definately better than the original suggestion, i'd be willing to give this a shot as an experimental rule to see how it pans out.

I had some concerns over the downward spiral but these seem to have been addressed very well by the system.

One thing I would say is that I know some experienced coaches who have teams over 200TR but who still might not grasp the potential effect of ignoring this in the long term.

One way to limit the damage may be to cap the negative treasury at say 60,000 gps but this does add additional complexity to a currently elegant solution.

In addition what happens when a player breaches the cap, is the debt wiped out by a player/re-roll being retired or does it remain?