Negative Winnings rule .... revised

[Grumbledook]

there aren't many teams on fumbbl with a ff over 20

highest i think i have gotten any of my teams too was 18 but that didn't last long and they tend to level out at 14/15

[Joemanji]

there aren't many teams on fumbbl with a ff over 20

highest i think i have gotten any of my teams too was 18 but that didn't last long and they tend to level out at 14/15

I'm not saying that it is a problem that is likely to crop up all the time. But it does exist. If the breakthrough point was FF 50, then we could safely ignore the issue, as noone ever gets that. But FF 20 is a possibilty.

I still like Galak's system - don't get me wrong! Just wanted to point this out. The effects of a system punishing high TR should be exponential as TR grows. The effects of this system currently describe a bell curve. So it punishes teams with TR 250 more than teams with TR 400.

I don't want to rubish the whole idea, but rather just bring this to your attention.

1) An FF of 20 comes with an automatic -2 to your FF roll.
2) A good handicap table is still going to cause havoc for higher TR teams.

Like I said ... for me its a package deal ... one that I think will work.

That sounds good enough! Is there a copy of your handicap table handy on the web?

10k freebooted apothecaries for a game instead of buying one permantently

Wow, pretty major change. Have you tried that one out before? I'll be interested to see how that works.

[Grumbledook]

if it does turn out that its not effective enough against high ff teams then you can simple add the -1 for every 10 ff to the winnings roll as well as the ff roll

though this is the sort of thing testing would show up if its needed or not

[NightDragon]

Some very good posts Nazgit, but like the Dook says, its not the new idea that's wrong, it will just need ironing out.

[Munkey]

The MBBL2 has agreed to try the following mix for Season 4:
1) Revised Negative winnings
2) No aging
3) Niggle rolls on the half
4) 10k freebooted apothecaries for a game instead of buying one permantently
5) Our current stronger handicap table to be kept over the LRB 2.0 one
6) Piling On Before the AV roll
7) Rule of 1 and 6 on FF ditched

Galak

I realise the above is for the MBBL2 but this is what I'd like to see:

1) Yes

2) I still like aging, it's not so much the team management as much as it stops teams from getting stale by forcing a bit of player turnover.

3) I like this idea, it means niggles are no worse overall but more likely to have an effect in a game than before.

4) The more I think about this the more I like it, it changes a one off bloat addition to the team into a tax (like wizards now but more useful).

This should put a stop to game one deaths for expensive teams and will also allow a bit of strategic planning for the higher AV teams facing an easy game.

5) We've been playing with Chet's handicap table and it's a big improvement, i'm quite happy with this.

6) Something has to be done about PO, still thats all in the works

7) I like the rule of 1 & 6 on FF, I know it's not popular but it's there for a reason and up until 10 FF the table usually provides more ups than downs.

1 in 6 provides a way of keeping good teams lower when they need to be capped and also provides some help for the less able coaches who otherwise face a steady slide down to FF 1.

[Grumbledook]

galak was on about them for the game not just his league

you practically agree as well but with chets handicap table that i not seen

and well i also agree but i think thats been expressed ;]

[Joemanji]

Some very good posts Nazgit, but like the Dook says, its not the new idea that's wrong, it will just need ironing out.

I agree that the idea needs testing to see if it really works. Just thought I had spotted a crease early!

Fingers crossed! Shame it won't be tested time for this years BBRC list thingamejob.

[DG_Slider]

I like a lot of Galak's ideas. I haven't heard about the piling on before the AV though. Anyone know the details fo that? As for the negative winnings, I like the idea. I'm just curious if they should still keep the ageing or not.

As for the niggling injury per half... Does this mean that one a '1', the player just misses the half without apothecary intervention, or does it mean that if a '1' turns up during either half the player is out for the game? Bottom line is f I roll a '1' before the first half, is that player out for the game or just until halftime when I can check again?

[Darkson]

PO used to be rolled beofre the AV roll, so you always went prone, even if the dice turned upyou didn't need it. Many people think going back to this rule would sort out the problems with PO.

The roll niggle per half means that if a player fails for the 1st half, they miss the game, while if they fail the 2nd half roll, they'll just miss the 2nd half. So the chances of a Niggled player missing at least the 2nd half are 11/36, or almost 1 in 3.