Negative Winnings rule .... revised

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:28 pm

Oh aye, I know. But take Malthors CD's... 610k in the bank and he's had 4 games of 0 winnings, even then I don't think the would have a huge impact on the treasury.

Even as negative winnings take effect on the team, it will naturally reduce the team rating through the loss of cash until it steadies out and profit starts coming in again, and all the time players are building up SPP's.

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:29 pm

Of course, I am forgetting (on purpose.. honest!) that there would be a different winnings table.. *cough*

Even so, how would this affect existing teams with huge treasuries?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:13 pm

Ithilkir wrote:Oh aye, I know. But take Malthors CD's... 610k in the bank and he's had 4 games of 0 winnings, even then I don't think the would have a huge impact on the treasury.

Even as negative winnings take effect on the team, it will naturally reduce the team rating through the loss of cash until it steadies out and profit starts coming in again, and all the time players are building up SPP's.

Since you brought up Malthor's CDs ... let's grab just that team and really run it through the paces shall we:

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... am_id=7105

Currently they have 100k in the bank ... (have no idea where you got the 610k number unless I don't know how to read FUMBBL data).

The team is a 15 man Chaos Dwarf team with TR 304. Assuming rolls of 3 for cash. The total effect of the system is that he would have played with 14 guys for his last two games instead of 15 as he would not have had enough cash to buy the Hobgoblin that he bought 2 games ago.

Two games ago he was at 40k for cash, he would have been at 0k instead.
Then his game before he made 30k, not enough to buy the Hobgoblin.
Last game he made 70k which would have got him the Hobgoblin. He'd have 60k in the bank right now instead of 100k.

His TR would be 300 instead of 304.

Would a 14 man roster have made a difference could have ... don't think it would have. The thing that is really throwing off the math here is the FUMBBL's TR 600 team with its TR 25. Those 2 games results in an extra 60k of income to the team. Now I believe that a team like that could not exist with the CHUBB handicap table and the negative winnings rule. So if we remove the two games from the last 11 against them. ... now we have a much different picture.

If those games are treated as gates of 95k, now the team doesn't have enough money to buy either the Chaos Dwarf or the Hobgoblin it bought 2 games ago. Now it comes into his 3rd game with 0k, at the end of the game he now only has 10k. Not Enough to purchase the Hobgoblin or the Chaos Dwarf he previous purchased. So now he players his last two games with only 13 players. A nice 70k winnings from his last game would enable him to get back to his 15 players, but he know has 0k in treasury. His TR is 294 instead of 304.

I think the biggest thing this drives home for me is that normal player attrition and this negative winnings rule really does put a upper TR barrier around the 300 mark. You could exceed it but only at great risk to your team.

Now 9 of his 11 games also should have resulted in handicap rolls. Several more than one and 2 a Milo CHUBB table Desperate Measure result. The effect this would have had on further attrition to his team due to lack of resources is impossible to calculate.

Galak

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:18 pm

This one

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... m_id=17495

manusate · Post by **manusate** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:46 pm

This is the most interesting thread in quite a while. Good work Galak. This could be a real improvement to the game.

Manu

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:51 pm

Ithilkir wrote:This one

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... m_id=17495

I have a different answer for that team. He's carrying 61 points of TR in cash. You know why he does this. Because FUMBBL has no handicap table so it means butkiss to do so. His last game he was 69 point TR leader. That's a Desperate Measure and Good Karma roll on Milo's handicap table.

He's also only suffered 11 SI and 4 Deaths in his 30 games. AV 7 Hobbos normally break a little easier.

The FUMBBL data is great information. But you have to factor in the handicap table not being there as part of the effect it has on the league results.

Galak

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:57 pm

of course there could be a handicaps that wipe a teams treasury (assuming its posative)

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:16 pm

Ithilkir wrote:Take this TABLE and look at the winnings. Now there may be negative winnings, but there are lots of teams with over 300k in the bank, a couple of negative winning games won't affect the treasury that much...

No offense Ithilkir ... but before you post data like that ... please look it over.

Little things like the 760k in the bank Halfling team with only 3 players or the 3 Stunties teams with 500k a piece but only 1 game played between the 3 of them, don't really help this type of data withstand the eye of anaysis.

So that was about 1 in 3 of the teams on this page. The other 2/3rds I agree with Grumble.

1) those teams never had the effect of a negative winnings rule.

2) Those teams were never effected by handicaps which actually increase player attrition. (if you are missing your best players its a heck of a lot easier to get beat on).

In my LRB league we've played 14 games at have teams now just going over TR 200. Handicap tables have made a very big deal in this league. In fact most leagues would tell you that with a handicap table TR 250 is really difficult to get past.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:16 pm

manusate wrote:This is the most interesting thread in quite a while. Good work Galak. This could be a real improvement to the game.

Manu

From you Manu, that's a real compliment (especially since you rarely post anymore). Thank you.

Galak

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:28 pm

The more Fumbbl data i see, the less i miss playing in it.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:32 pm

and why is that sean?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:34 pm

Too many super teams with tons of money and beardy players, i like a bit more down to earth teams.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:47 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:I think upper TR management is a package deal.

...

With the negative winnings rule a team will only be able to ignore the rule if: Attrition is lower, handicaps don't matter, niggles don't have threat or punch

Galak

With the negative cash rule the implications in cash terms will not kick in until players start to need replacing.

The way to enforce this more thouroughly in the short term is through a much needed revision to the handicap system ... ie. make that extra TR baggage count.

Whatever else I don't think we can accuse Galak of not having thought this one through. Good work and thanks.

I would just like to say I would prefer to keep aging in this system as it will encourage player turnover (and provide niggles) to the higer AV teams and make them feel the bite of a lack of cash earlier.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:03 pm

goes to show how much you know then sean its not at all like that :p

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:14 pm

sean newboy wrote:Too many super teams with tons of money and beardy players, i like a bit more down to earth teams.

Sean, its the effect of not having a handicap table. Also keep in mind that despite thousands of teams, only 11 currently are TR 300+.

The vast majority of FUMBBL teams are not beardy. Its just the lack of a handicap table has allowed certain teams to come into being that I'm pretty sure would not have with one.

The negative winnings rule would help control this and would help keep the break point more near 250 than up around 300.

Munkey wrote:I would just like to say I would prefer to keep aging in this system as it will encourage player turnover (and provide niggles) to the higer AV teams and make them feel the bite of a lack of cash earlier.

As I said, given its now reached 50/50 acceptance by the online community. I really have no objections to leaving aging in Blood Bowl. I agree that if aging is left in than a negative winnings rule and Milo's CHUBB handicap table is all that BB needs to have a great team management package that is 100% coach's choice (ie zero forced decisions).

Galak