Negative Winnings rule .... revised

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:57 pm

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

I'll bet good money that a downward spiral doesn't really exist without completely blatent team mismanagement.

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.

It took me a year to learn how to play Flings properly when I picked the team up 2 years ago despite years of BB play ... not everything in BB needs to have perfect comprehension overnight. And its not like a team will suddenly be 100k in debt ... its a very gradual thing.

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.

A cap isn't needed and would actually be ill advised as it would complicate the system and virtually guarantee that higher TR teams would ignore the rule completely.

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?

I'm not sure I understand the question here. Retiring a player doesn't pay off any of the debt. Retiring a player will assist you start making money on winnings rolls. Gold is the only way you can pay off the debt.

Galak

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:05 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
Munkey wrote:I had some concerns over the downward spiral but these seem to have been addressed very well by the system.
I'll bet good money that a downward spiral doesn't really exist without completely blatent team mismanagement.

Thats the impression I got from the previous posts, only testing will tell for sure I guess.

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.
It took me a year to learn how to play Flings properly when I picked the team up 2 years ago despite years of BB play ... not everything in BB needs to have perfect comprehension overnight. And its not like a team will suddenly be 100k in debt ... its a very gradual thing.

Fair enough and like I say i'm willing to give it a go now, just pointing out that players like this do exist. I'm playing devil's advocate really.

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.
A cap isn't needed and would actually be ill advised as it would complicate the system and virtually guarantee that higher TR teams would ignore the rule completely.

I wasn't really suggesting that a cap be used as the system is elegant as it is, just offering an option up for discussion.[/quote]

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?
I'm not sure I understand the question here. Retiring a player doesn't pay off any of the debt. Retiring a player will assist you start making money on winnings rolls. Gold is the only way you can pay off the debt.

Galak

[/quote]

Sorry didn't make this clear; this point was relating to my suggestion in the above paragraph of a loans cap. Another reason why a cap is not really a good idea.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:09 pm

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

I know that's what you said. My point was there is no rule that says you can, so you can't.

Selling them for cash was an additional suggestion to go along with negative winnings.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 pm

there is also no rule to say you can't so you can ;]

don't see why you shouldn't be able to make your team worse by dropping a reroll as opposed to retiring your best players, thats just not logical (was going to make a sexist joke here but refrained)

back on topic i wouldn't mind seeing this tested out on fumbbl

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:23 pm

Grumbledook wrote:back on topic i wouldn't mind seeing this tested out on fumbbl

One of the things I added to the Hot List is a person or small subset of the BBRC that approves experimental rule testing BEFORE anything is printed in the BB Mags.

See Christer would be willing to test this negative winnings rule in FUMBBL and has said so already. I'm willing to test it in the MBBL and MBBL2. The problem is ... it does no good to test the rule if the BBRC has zero interest in seeing the results. This is why every rule in the MBBL outside the LRB is approved by either Milo, Chet, JJ, or JKL before testing.

I agree Grumble ... this would be a good rule to test, but we need a BBRC member or 3 to pull the trigger and agree or its wasted effort.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:25 pm

Munkey wrote:just pointing out that players like this do exist. I'm playing devil's advocate really.

Ah understood ... now I need to get the MBBL2's last 2 rounds finished so I can get this rule added and start testing it out .... unlike the MBBL ... the MBBL2 does really worry about what is official or experimental.

Galak

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:29 pm

It will be experimental in Galaks MBBL2. I look forward to hearing the breakdown when the League season is over. Does sound good the more I read.

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:39 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:I agree Grumble ... this would be a good rule to test, but we need a BBRC member or 3 to pull the trigger and agree or its wasted effort.

or a consolidated rules resource for non-official-but-highly-used-and-refined house rules.... remember back in the old days... oberwald wasn't official, we all used and referenced it... the MP wasn't official, but almost everyone used it... they were consolidated, edited, widely disseminated sources for rules.... why can't we still be rebels? because there's a bbrc now? bullspit... if they're the new boss (same as the old boss) and we have something better, then we should be under no obligation to not use it, under no obligation not to archive and spread it, and under no obligation not to have a way to create a 'single-source house rules resource' again... in fact, i still think we really should...

sheep.

viva la revolution!

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:48 pm

Lucien Swift wrote:we have something better, then we should be under no obligation to not use it

Which is why I'll be adding as a house rule to my league regardless to see how it flys.

See Lucien, the problem with my MBBL league is it is specifically set up as an experimental rules testing ground for the BBRC. So I don't really make the rules for that league. Best I can do there is say ... "hey [insert BBRC name here] this rules has gotten really positive feedback do you authorize its testing." This keeps the league "legtimate" from a test ground standpoint.

However the MBBL2 is all about what I think is fun ... that's why it has 83 different races to play, tons of new skills, no aging ... etc. That league is my attempt to make the game very different and fun while still maintaining balance. Since I ditched aging, I acknowledge that the league needs a different system to cap constantly increasing team growth ... I think this will work.

Galak

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:41 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
Grumbledook wrote:back on topic i wouldn't mind seeing this tested out on fumbbl
One of the things I added to the Hot List is a person or small subset of the BBRC that approves experimental rule testing BEFORE anything is printed in the BB Mags.

Good idea, be nice to have some preliminary testing done before the rule goes into print so the BBRC can guage the reaction to the rules and apply some tweaks before they are printed in the BB Mag.

Now I just need to find some time to sign up to one of the online leagues and contribute a little testing of my own...

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:22 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote: However the MBBL2 is all about what I think is fun ...

aye, but there are things we have all come up with since the illuminati came to be which many have thought were great and yet didn't make it into their sacred rites... and are all being lost to obscurity in house rules docs and newbies to the web community aren't getting to see them.... i'd love to see you or someone else with such an unrivalled commitment collect all of these things and archive them in a single source of non-official refined rules... perhaps something even as complicated as "unofficial bloodbowl rules committee" that took these little gems, talked them up amongst themselves to refine them if need be and judge overall worthiness, and then placed them into a public forum on a website... not a team looking to make one rulebook for the game, but a team gathering the myriad of good rules and keeping them visible...

but then, the ubbrc would probably become just as much of a barrier as the bbrc and then someone would start the uubbrc and so on and so forth...

especially if i was around...

call me che...

Xtreme · Post by **Xtreme** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:25 pm

Lucien Swift wrote: viva la revolution!

I'm with you!

I think Indigo's House rule collection on the NAF site may be a good start to archiving some of the great stuff we have seen.

Asperon Thorn · Post by **Asperon Thorn** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:11 pm

I am going to be very interested in the play testing of this

But on further thought, I do have another concern. Ageing, as it is, has the advantage of effecting players on a broad level. Eventually that Star player will need to retire. The concern is with this Negative winnings table, there is nothing to encourage retirement of that STR 7 mummy, ogre or Mino. Or that crazy one turner. If you administer your team, winnings, rerolls, etc. correctly, once you get one of those indestructable, league dominating players, What is to stop it?

Asperon Thorn

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:27 pm

well aging isn't full proof against them either but fair enough point and if fumbbl tests it aging should still be used as well

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:30 pm

Lucien Swift wrote:
GalakStarscraper wrote:I agree Grumble ... this would be a good rule to test, but we need a BBRC member or 3 to pull the trigger and agree or its wasted effort.
or a consolidated rules resource for non-official-but-highly-used-and-refined house rules.... remember back in the old days... oberwald wasn't official, we all used and referenced it... the MP wasn't official, but almost everyone used it... they were consolidated, edited, widely disseminated sources for rules.... why can't we still be rebels? because there's a bbrc now? bullspit... if they're the new boss (same as the old boss) and we have something better, then we should be under no obligation to not use it, under no obligation not to archive and spread it, and under no obligation not to have a way to create a 'single-source house rules resource' again... in fact, i still think we really should...

sheep.

viva la revolution!

I agree.