Negative Winnings rule .... revised

[sean newboy]

Also keep in mind that despite thousands of teams, only 11 currently are TR 300+.

I think currently is the key word, with no handicap system that number will increase. How many of the other teams have not reached that point due to time as opposed to lack of skill/luck? Even tho the handicap table plays havoc with my current mbbl2 team (as well as others) i still think its necessary.

[Grumbledook]

its not the time or number of games its the fact the coaches ignored the niggles and didn't retire players, my teams could have been up there as well but i retired players when i saw fit to do so

of course the lack of a handicap table made it easier but i have been playing there for over a year now and i have only recall not even 5 teams that hit tr400

i don't even remember that many hitting 300

[Rogerg1979]

The answer to a lot of the questions seems to have been... "with a good Handicap system.... oh yeah and negative winnings..."

Is it then neccessary to have the negative winnings? My point is that with a good handicap system, teams will win less games, accumulate less money, suffer more casualties (less uber players on the field for example), have to SPEND more money, and may even never get to the stage where negative winnings becomes a problem (If your handicap table is done right).

My point then... Isn't the handicap the best means of TR managment (With the minimum of bookkeeping as well). It remains a simple answer without adding an extra phase in the post game. Personally I disagree with the negative earnings (not discussing that in this post), but a good Handicap table is a FAR more effective deterrent.

Gk.

P.S. Real Madrid have been suffering negative earnings for years (They are like £260M in debt), and they just went and bought Beckham... go figure.

[Grumbledook]

Rogerg, the thing with just using handicaps is what about those leagues where all the teams are big. If they are all large then they won't be using handicaps, so these teams will keep on growing.

Sure good handicaps work when you are using them but when it can be avoided then there has to be something else as well.

[GalakStarscraper]

It would be nice if a better handicap system was the only needed solution, but actually no a better handicap system will not fix it all by itself ... the MBBL2 has had a GOOD handicaping system for a long time now as I threw out the original handicap table for that league from the very beginning as I realized it was too week. In fact many of the coaches in the MBBL2 have complained that the handicap table is too strong.

By itself ... it is not having the effect you suggest it would. The negative winnings is needed to mix in with it to get the effect you suggest. This is based on a lot of playtesting in the MBBL2.

The other side of this ... for a handicap table by itself to have the effect you want it would have to be so strong as to actually favor the underdog winning in most cases .... this is definitely NOT what the handicap table should do.

Galak

[Rogerg1979]

I cant envisage a league where every team grows at the same rate, taking away the need for a handicap table.

A coach would have to be VERY careful in who they played (Like Elves only playing Elves in FUMBBL, but thats another thread), for this situation to happen.

I can't see it happening IRL. For one thing, he's quickly going to run out of opponents cos otherwise they will have lower TRs, get Handicaps and win games against him... and bring down his TR...

I really can't see that the Negative Money is needed all that much, a GOOD handicap system, that leads to lost games and dead players (Assassin anyone), WILL lead to problems for bigger teams without the stranglehold that Negative money places on them.

Gk.

[Rogerg1979]

Many of the Handicaps as they stand can make it easier for the worse team to win games... Virus and the Overconfident one (cant remember its real name... In the bag?).

My point about Hanicaps helping the TR drop is... for example an Undead team has to put out its worst 11 players, including 4 unskilled Skellies and unskilled Ghouls. The opposing player goes to town on the team, causes a few CAS, maybe a kill or two, and gets his TD. Now the better team has lost some players (Which it needs to replace) Driving down the TR, and the fact it may lose the game (They're 1 down after all) means less money to do so.

SAME SITUATION with a debt/negative money. There is no money to replace players, the team goes on a losing streak it can't get out of, money/replacing players...

The game becomes one of trying not to lose players and worrying about money, rather than having fun... If I really wanted to worry about that, I'd go play CM4 rather than Blood Bowl Online.

KISS is the way to go. Negative Money adds too much book keeping to the game and only serves to give more power to the number crunchers (No offense intended).

I'm not advocating a system that will cripple a team (though Virus could easily do that now), but one which is transparent to most players, and does it's job of making viable games, without turning us all into accountants.

Gk.

[GalakStarscraper]

I really can't see that the Negative Money is needed all that much, a GOOD handicap system, that leads to lost games and dead players (Assassin anyone), WILL lead to problems for bigger teams without the stranglehold that Negative money places on them.
Gk.

I will repeat ... the MBBL2 has had a GOOD handicap system for a long time, and its not enough by itself ... because just like Grumble said there are a lot of teams in the league with high TRs close enough to them so the handicap table never effects them at all. You said you cannot see this happening IRL ... well I have ... so trust me, it can happen IRL. Also having a handicap table result kill off my players in just lame. You might as well go back to forced retirement if you are going to kill off my players without being on the pitch.

And I have to restate part of your last post:

without the stranglehold that Negative money places on them.

As I've stated numerous times through this thread with data to back it up .. this very statement is a falsehood ... there is no stranglehold. That is pure overdramatic speech. At best its a nudge, and a nudge that is needed to build a coach's choice wall around the TR 250 to 300 mark.

Anyway ... the MBBL2 will be using the Negative Cash rule starting in December (I hope ... PHP modifications are underway to get the league going in its new format). ... we'll have some more fact based numbers then.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

KISS is the way to go. Negative Money adds too much book keeping to the game and only serves to give more power to the number crunchers (No offense intended).

Since when did 3-4 become bookkeeping that only number crunchers could handle?

And by the way ... the negative winnigs rule is KISS. Add and subtract .. no other special rules ... no multiplication or division. Treat negative totals as positives. If THAT math is bookkeeping than real accountants would qualify as brain surgeons and rocket scientists. Heck the SPP / 5 to get TR is significantly more difficult than this rule.

Galak

[Rogerg1979]

I think I missed my own point...

Putting everything I want to say in a better way...

WHY do we need to restrict the massive teams? If they got to that level, other people can get to that level. If you want to play against a rookie team, why not make a rookie team. Having an uber team is fun. Playing with an uber team is fun. Getting completely obliterated by an uber team is not (Which is where the handicaps come in).

Why do we need to restrict them? Evo's TR600+ team still gets a game and people still get results against them...

Answers on a postcard...

Gk.

[GalakStarscraper]

Why do we need to restrict them? Evo's TR600+ team still gets a game and people still get results against them...

Answers on a postcard...

Gk.

Postcard answer. Because that's not what the majority coaching community OR the developers of the game want.

JJ's goal since the LRB 1.0 was to make a game where a team could play forever without being retired and have the TR flux between 200 and 300 in that lifetime with 300 being viewed as a virtual wall point by the vast majority of players and the game designers. Mixed in with this was to develop a method that TR 300 could play TR 150 teams without the TR 150 having to be retired after the match.

After several years of working towards this goal ... I think we have pretty much reached it with this package:
Current LRB 2.0 rules + CHUBB handicap table + Negative winnings rule.

I'd lay down some decent cash that it would work and work well.

Galak

[Rogerg1979]

a method that TR 300 could play TR 150 teams without the TR 150 having to be retired after the match.

Thats called a handicap table isn't it?

a team could play forever without being retired

This can happen already... but it will with negative money rules because you're being FORCED to either retire the team, or retire good players(Without the fall back of an apoth idea) leading to the disallusionment of the player and the retirement of the team.

TR flux between 200 and 300 in that lifetime with 300 being viewed as a virtual wall point

OK, but why. Why between 200 and 300? It was pointed out earlier that of the thousands of FUMBBL teams only something like 11 teams are over TR 300. Do we really need to introduce a special rule to sort out >0.01% of teams?

[Grumbledook]

OK, but why. Why between 200 and 300? It was pointed out earlier that of the thousands of FUMBBL teams only something like 11 teams are over TR 300. Do we really need to introduce a special rule to sort out >0.01% of teams?

because thats what the majority of the community and what JJ wants the game to be like, it was always intended to be this way just the rules didn't support it

besides when you get over tr300 and the teams are climbing the matches are boring cause the team who loses is the one who rolls the most double 1s

if both teams have players up to the eyes in skills they never fail a play, you can't stop them cause their players are too well equiped and the only way to stop them is waiting for them to roll double 1, thats not what i call fun

[Rogerg1979]

But you are taking away the fun from the people who want to take on Evo's Anarchists for the Kudos...

Big teams are special things. They are legends in the leagues they are in. People talk about them, want to be them, want to emulate them, want to beat them.

By denying the SMALL amount of teams that get to that level (Really, less than 1%... all this over leass than 1%!!!), you are taking something magical away from team building. Whats the point in trying to make a REALLY good player... you're only going to have to get rid of him in a bit...

I say leave the big teams in... it gives the little people something to aim for.

[EDIT: sp]

[GalakStarscraper]

a method that TR 300 could play TR 150 teams without the TR 150 having to be retired after the match.

Thats called a handicap table isn't it?

Smart-*ss ... yes it is called a handicap table. However the one we currently have doesn't do the job which is exactly what I was trying to say .. BB needs a WORKING handicap table.

This can happen already... but it will with negative money rules because you're being FORCED to either retire the team, or retire good players(Without the fall back of an apoth idea) leading to the disallusionment of the player and the retirement of the team.

You don't get to play both side of the argument. You want a handicap table that strongly nails players with effects like Virus and Assassin which wipes out players, but don't want coaches to have to manage their teams growth vs income. And you definitely do not have to retire your good players with negative winnings ... but if you are encouraged to retire a 29 SPP Wood Elf Lineman with 2 Niggles to keep your TR managed a little better or if you have to spend your cash rather than hording it ... I see no problems with this at all. No one said you had to retire your stars and become disallusioned. You want to disallusion me. Kill off my star player with an Assassin handicap roll.

OK, but why. Why between 200 and 300? It was pointed out earlier that of the thousands of FUMBBL teams only something like 11 teams are over TR 300. Do we really need to introduce a special rule to sort out >0.01% of teams?

(Really, less than 1%... all this over leass than 1%!!!)

Yes ... because its not 0.01% or less than 1% ... I just went and check the FUMBBL data ... 15 teams out of the 281 that have played 30 games or more have broken the TR 300 mark. That's 5% and its growing. Just in the time of this thread 4 additional teams broke the TR 300 mark in FUMBBL. So yes, this type of rule is needed. Heck Rogerg1979, even Christer who see the FUMBBL data all the time thinks this is a good rule add to the game.

Galak