Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[Joemanji]

This thread is bringing out the lurkers - I've spotted a lot of first time posters.... Cool

As people have pointed out before, the Reikland Reavers and Chaos All-Stars are some of the most successful teams in BB history. With TRs of about 300-350. This is the range that legends fall into. We can argue over exactly what TR they are, but as soon as I see TR 550 teams, I know something has gone very wrong...

At the end of the day though, there will be some kind of TR-capping device in the LRB. JJ has made this very clear. Perhaps we can effect what device is used, but we will never be able to get rid of it completely.

If you and your league plan to ignore this device and play your teams on to infinity, that's cool. Nice to hear a different point of view. But wouldn't you rather ignore a device that works really well for the people who do use it?

Quite a few people are saying no to this system because they don't want ANY kind of TR-capping. But that isn't what this thread is about. Rather, if some people are going to use TR-capping, what should they use?

Someone made a good point before. Can't remember who, sorry. Sports teams do not continue to get better ad infinatum. They may stay at the top for a long time (e.g. Man Utd), or they may get worse (e.g. Liverpool). But the Man Utd team that won the league a decade ago is roughly the same level as the team that won it last year.

I know some people will bring the whole realism in a fantasy environment argument up again. But the BB world does obey 90% of the laws of realism. Gravity, the laws of physical motion etc. do apply most of the time.

[Ivesy_boy]

If you're worried that people aren't going to notice they're in trouble, surely there will be someone in the league who will be able to figure it out, or who has read about it here, and hint to the coach that the should try to cut down his TR. Even if there isn't, after 1 team goes under, everyone will sit up and take notice, and it probably wont happen again.

[neoliminal]

You are misquoting me ... I said I would hate being forced to make the choice right before the championship.

I have a lot of choices:
1) Drop a team reroll. But I'm Khemri so those rerolls are kinda important to ball handling and doing this RIGHT BEFORE the championship would s*ck.
2) Retire both rookie skeletons and grab the 2 Assistant Coaches. But this means playing the championship with only 12 players and with 3 players with Niggles ... there are 42% odds I'll only be playing with 11 players for the championship.
3) I could retire either my Leader or my +1 ST niggled skeleton. However these are both pretty key to my team for a championship match so that would really bite also.

But John ... you are completely missing my point. WHY do I have to be FORCED to make that decision. The Negative Winnings package would allow that person to incur debt, not retire anyone, play the championship, and then after the big game, retire some folks.

If I understand you correctly, you would rather have a system that would have not forced you to make this decision.

In otherwords, you would simply not have been able to buy those two rookie skeletons, because negative winnings would have removed that money from your treasury before you could have bought them.

In a soft system like you are proposing, you have to start putting the breaks on sooner to ensure a top end. If you were shooting for a top end of 225 (the assumption you gave in your example), then you would have certainly been getting less money at this point. Anyone who got over 225 in you a Salary Cap system would have had less money in your system to ensure they didn't get too high.

So it appears that instead of a hard choice right before a championship, you would have prefered no choice.

[Grumbledook]

think you misread, the system starts to kick in at 225 not setting 225 as the top end thats far too low and popular opinion shows 250-300 should be the top end

thats what this system should acheive and hopefully testing will back that up

[neoliminal]

think you misread, the system starts to kick in at 225 not setting 225 as the top end thats far too low and popular opinion shows 250-300 should be the top end

thats what this system should acheive and hopefully testing will back that up

I think you misread.

Galak and I were discussing a Salary Cap system where no team could be above 225 and his system, which if it was to achieve the same goal, would require hindering teams well before this point.

The level was set hypothetically to prove his point with his team. I'm just using that hypothetical to explain my point. My suggestion would not be to set the Salary Cap at 225.

[Grumbledook]

he only set it at 225 in that example because of the example roster he was using

he wasn't talking about this system working working for 225

that was merely there as an example on what he and others myself included don't like about a hard set tr cap

now unless i have fallen out the tree i am suregalak will agree that was the case

i can't see this whole thread making any sense otherwise ;]

[Dinaturz]

Honestly I think all this discussion about limiting teams growth is ill.

I appreciated the ageing rule as a smart way to avoid overpowered teams, but I hate the concept of blocking the team growth, just becaue in a league those teams would kill the championship itself...

If you think those team should not play aganist rookies, simply don't let them in...

Or create a League for Star Teams only.

In my opinion, all this "let's change the rule to make them better" fever will destroy the game itself.

marco

[gken1]

bah...blood bowl works fine now with aging.

not all players are super stars...get over it.

[BlanchPrez]

Here's what I see happening here.

- JJ has decreed that there will be TR capping.

- Most people agree that, if there has to be a cap, it should be around 250 to 300.

Now, currently, the cap is set by using the aging system, which does what it set out to do. Now, the people that dislike this system do so because its tied to SPP's, and thus tied to player advancement.

So, some feel another system is in order. In this thread, there are two systems that have been proposed (other than keeping or modifying aging).

- A hard TR cap

- The TBB system (a soft TR cap)

Now, both systems accomplish the same thing (limiting teams to within a specific TR range). Both force a coach to make changes to his team after reaching a specific TR. The difference is in how they do this.

A Hard TR cap leaves no choice in the hands of a coach once that cap has been reached. It's a rock cealing, and you cannot advance past it, period. True, if you find yourself heading there, you can cut things before hand. But if you suddenly find your self at or past that point, you now have no choice but to trim back your team to become compatable with the rules. And in this case, it most likely has to be a drastic cut so as not only to be under the cap, but to make sure your next game doesn't put you back over it.

The Soft TR Cap (TBB system) is more organic. It allows a coach a chance to make changes to his team after the line has been crossed, but he suffers for doing so. It's a risk vs. reward system that at least give the illusion of more choice to the coach. It's downsides are that it's more complex than the Hard TR cap, and requires making changes to existing, balanced and well liked rules.

Given these two options, I would much rather have the Soft Cap. With a soft cap, if I go over the limit, I'm still okay to keep playing my team if I choose, though there is a penality for doing so. In a hard TR cap, I have no choice but to cut my team at the point my team crosses the limit, and get nothing good out of it at all.

Chris

[GalakStarscraper]

think you misread, the system starts to kick in at 225 not setting 225 as the top end thats far too low and popular opinion shows 250-300 should be the top end

thats what this system should acheive and hopefully testing will back that up

I think you misread.

Actually John ... Grumble was right ... you and I are not having the same conversation to be honest.

I've never been talking about a working hard cap system ever. I was trying to play your game as you requested to show you why I cannot stand a hard cap system.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

BlanchPrez hit the summary of this topic on the head ... I would not change a single word he said.

Galak

[Grumbledook]

well the aging system doesn't exactly work there are quite a lot of teams on fumbbl who have silly high team ratings

and dinaturz its not totally about the large teams playing the lower teams, its about putting some sort of limit on the team growth to encourage player turnover and what i think will make the game more interesting

Actually John ... Grumble was right ...

I never get tired of hearing that ;]

[Dinaturz]

well the aging system doesn't exactly work there are quite a lot of teams on fumbbl who have silly high team ratings

and dinaturz its not totally about the large teams playing the lower teams, its about putting some sort of limit on the team growth to encourage player turnover and what i think will make the game more interesting

OK, I can understand the point, and in fact I do.
Encouraging player turnover is a way to give new life to a team and that's why I like the aging idea, but I still consider not useful for the enjoyment of the game to force coaches to limit and cut their teams.

Sure, the aging system has to be toned for such TR levels, but it doesn't work for all the high rate teams, so if some coach likes to see his(her) team becoming stronger and stronger, why should *a thundering voice from above* frustrate this.

An hypervitaminic team will have problems to find opponents by itself and at last it will play against similar monsters only (unless of unfair coaches, of course...).

Such a system (I mean setting a cap - no matter if hard or soft) will simply took a part of the fun out of the game.

This part is purely psycological, the transfer of coache's own frustrations into an overpowered being, but it is an important part.

To make more clear my point, think of a D&D Character.
It's like you start saying "Ok, you could be from level 1 to 20, but, starting from level 10, you have to drop more and more of your equipment/skills/spells and so on"...

marco

[mikeyc222]

Dinaturz, as has been said to me on many, many occasions, if you don't like it, ignore it.

[Grumbledook]

cause jervis said so ;]

and do you not think its silly for teams to dwarf the legendary reikland reavers and chaos all stars?

and like i have said before the more and more skills you get on players the less and less it comes down to tactics and down to luck who wins

and well tr250 isn't exactly low now is it

and the D&D example doesn't really work, its a case of when you get level 20 thats it and you basically then stay at level 20, you find new magic weapons or whatever but you have to give up your other ones cause there is only so much stuff you can carry

thats what the system is trying to acomplish