Negative Winnings rule .... revised

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:18 pm

The best team in blood bowl history is the reikland reavers, thats the team you are meant to be in awe of playing and they are tr 310ish

playing evos team doesn't get that feeling to me it just looks like a team of decrepid players cause he kept them all with their nigglers, just have to look at the record to see they havn't really done all that well considering their high tr

also there are no handicaps which you keep harping on about and if there were he would have lost every match he played at that rating, that doesn't sound like a legendary team to me

sure tr600 might sound impressive but the team doesn't do anything to light me up

Rogerg1979 · Post by **Rogerg1979** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:34 pm

From this thread... Players know about Evo's TR600+ team, as do most of FUMBBL. How many of them can say the same about the Reikland Reivers?

Yes they might be decrepit, and not get the results (7 losses since reaching 300 and 7 before that... in 117 games...) ... but when a Chaos team drew with them recently, people in the chat room went "Wow... well done!" If there is no big teams, there isn't that kind of respect.

Galak: Your giving me a bad rep!

VIRUS: A mysterious illness breaks out among the opposing team, knocking out the unhealthiest members of the bunch. Any opposing player with a niggling injury fails their niggling injury checks on a 1-3 instead of just 1.

ASSASSIN: Your team has hired an assassin to take out one of the other team’s top guns. Pick a player on the opposing team and make an Injury roll for him, counting any stunned results as KO. The opposing coach may use his Apothecary or Regenerate trait on the player, but an Apothecary used in such a fashion is not available for this match.

From Chet's Handicap table (By the way I DO like this table).

Isn't this what you are accusing me of wanting? Then I stand convicted. A High TR team is going to have niggles, and Virus will run rampant. Assassins killing people will drop TR.

If in the system that is being proposed, players get dropped all the time = less nigglers (probably high on the list to go) = Virus (an expensive handicap) less useful.

The hanicap table has to be balanced with what the players are going to do (Let me reiterate... I LIKE THIS TABLE!)

More teams in FUMBBL are breaching the TR300 mark but that is without a handicap table, so that figure would certainly slow if there was one.

(Lastly... I don't like being told "everybody else thinks its a good idea why dont you?" Lots of people think certain things, and other people think they are wrong thats the way of the world).

Gk.

[EDIT: Silly me]

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:48 pm

Rogerg1979 wrote:Galak: Your giving me a bad rep

No I've just come to realize that you don't think the system should have virtual walls in it. As a result, the whole concept of negative winnings doesn't make sense to you, because it doesn't fit how you want BB to work.

Since the game designers have made it very clear that they want a virtual wall and will make sure the game has one ... than our job is to make sure that wall is installed in a way that we can accept.

So what it comes down to is you can either choose to stand in front of the truck to stop it or set up detour signs to try to get it to a destination you can live with. I know for a fact that JJ and crew will not allow the game to produce teams significantly over TR 300 ... so that means I need to make sure I'm okay with the rules that get put in place.

(Lastly... I don't like being told "everybody else thinks its a good idea why dont you?"

Sorry if I did this. Let me rephrase it. Its still JJ's game ... a virtual wall around TR 300 is going to happen and it has enough support from the community that that is not going to change. So your stance of TR 600 is cool is wonderful and all, and in your own house league ... I'll be the first to say ... cool if your league likes it go for it ... but its just not realistic for where the game is definitely headed.

IE your suggestion that we don't need a negative winnings rule is based on a theory of team development that has the proverbial snowball's chance of becoming the way the game designers view the game.

Galak

Rogerg1979 · Post by **Rogerg1979** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 2:56 pm

I'll take a response of "Tough we don't care what you think" as meaning I've won the argument on points... heh.

ONLY JOKING... dont get annoyed.

I understand JJ and others want the virtual wall... what I want is a good reason other than "Because!"

My arguing IS against the virtual wall (mainly because I don't think the game needs it, and is better off without it). As I said on the FUMBBL boards, the game doesn't need a radical overhaul, just a couple of tweaks.

But... I'm still to hear a good reason FOR it... I've heard lots on HOW to implement it, but nothing FOR it. I'm posting reasons AGAINST it which is why I think I got the "because" response.

Other than JJ wanting this, WHY are these changes a good idea? Thats the argument I'm wanting to have... thats why this discussion's been a little off.

Gk.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:02 pm

I didn't say why don't you, i was answering your question about uber teams

I would also say that pretty much everyone has heard of reikland reavers, griff and zug (the stars on the team)

I bet all the 170 players who were at the blood bowl would have known about them and probably more people who were there and not even playing in the tournament, bet i bet a few would have heard of evo's anarchist team (this is the point anyway)

I also just looked up that match with the chaos team and i don't think its anything special getting a draw against a team 382 tr less than you when they have no handicaps, the chaos coach also (no offence) one of the best in the league and the teams record will also show that

I guess i just don't see whats so great about the Terrifying Anarchists of Naggaroth, but if a bit TR turns you on, fair enough ;]

I just see the team as an example of bad team management. Certainly no kudos there and I have beaten the team.

As for the handicap table its probably what almost everyone wants sorted out and a proper handicap table would probably destroy his team and almost certainly stop the silly large tr teams.

Its just in combination with the negative winnings rule should produce the sort of tr levels that the majority of the community and the game makers themselves want, for those few players that want to play uber teams there is nothing to stop their leagues house ruleing those rules out, or even going back and playing 3rd edition.

I don't intend to come accross as though your opinion doesn't count but shouldn't the rules work for the majority?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:09 pm

Rogerg1979 wrote: I understand JJ and others want the virtual wall... what I want is a good reason other than "Because!"

But... I'm still to hear a good reason FOR it... I've heard lots on HOW to implement it, but nothing FOR it. I'm posting reasons AGAINST it which is why I think I got the "because" response.

I already gave a reason why and you must have missed it, the large tr games are simply boring and come down to rolling double 1s the team that does that less will win.

This is beacuse they have so many skills that their team can score at will using their chosen method baring the double 1. Currently 2 teams playing each other around the 270 mark the game still has that element of tactics in it. I played a very good match like this last night which you can watch the replay on fumbbl for. If the teams had been much better then he would have won cause i wouldn't have been able to stop his orcs rolling down the pitch. His team would simply have too many skills for my defence to matter.

That simply is not what i consider a fun game, the game should be about tactics, stategy and good positioning which is what won me the game last night, not about which team has the most skills and doens't roll the most 1s

Rogerg1979 · Post by **Rogerg1979** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:12 pm

Grum: My comment was directed at Galak, not yourself...

shouldn't the rules work for the majority?

I still think adding rules for a very SMALL percentage of teams where the Handicap table would do as good a job, is silly.

My point with the Anarchists is that the majority of people on FUMBBL get a kick out of them, as I said earlier, that draw was met with a round of "well done"s. That simply isn't the case with the changes. Yes the handicap system MAY cripple them (Especially in the case of VIRUS) but they can still play, and people will still get a kick out of playing against them.

I agree a tweaked Handicap table is very much needed. But I think that will solve a lot of the problems and the money rule is adding little while giving something else to take into account.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:19 pm

Rogerg1979 wrote:I'll take a response of "Tough we don't care what you think" as meaning I've won the argument on points... heh.

I know you said just joking ... but this is definitley not what I said.

I care what you think ... What I was saying is you are bucking the tide and you are clearly in the minority of BB coaches. JJ and the rest of the BBRC have been clearly in favor of a virtual wall and as discussion on TBB has shown ... so do the coaches that vote here.
viewtopic.php?t=7898&start=0

But... I'm still to hear a good reason FOR it... I've heard lots on HOW to implement it, but nothing FOR it. I'm posting reasons AGAINST it which is why I think I got the "because" response.

Other than JJ wanting this, WHY are these changes a good idea? Thats the argument I'm wanting to have... thats why this discussion's been a little off.

Actually Grumble already gave you the reason for this. Because the majority of coaches do not consider games above TR 300 fun. I had a TR 300+ Vampire team ... some of the most BORING matches in my life were played with that team. I've played several games where my opponent and I just took turns scoring with our unstopable players.

Now you clearly don't see these high TR games as boring. But a majority of coaches do and the game developers do. So since the game is supposed to be fun ... if the majority agree that TR 300+ games are boring than rules are going to be put into place to prevent them to increase the fun level. House rules for leagues that disagree are then easily put into place by the minority to create the uber-leagues and teams you desire, but the majority does not. It really is just that basic I think.

Galak

Rogerg1979 · Post by **Rogerg1979** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:21 pm

tactics, stategy and good positioning

I agree, individual games should be about this. But that doesn't mean that these high TR games lose this and are boring.

Some people think 1 turners are boring, cages are boring, should we lose these?

Just as people will go to watch Real Madrid vs Man United to see real class and skill. High TR games are the same. Desperatly trying to defend yourself can be entertaining. The myth that 1/1 is the only way for these teams to fail is too abundant.

Skills cancel (Thinking dodge vs tackle, guard vs guard) and these games, need a high level of tactics, stategy and good positioning. Otherwise you would lose (and if both teams were as good as you say, games would be tied ALL the time.)

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:28 pm

Rogerg1979 wrote: I agree a tweaked Handicap table is very much needed. But I think that will solve a lot of the problems and the money rule is adding little while giving something else to take into account.

Only because you don't think a virtual wall is required. If I agreed with your base position I would agree that a negative cash rule adds little. But since I'm fundamental opposed to non-stop TR growth, the rule add a lot. Your belief of how the game should be run changes fundamentally how much value you see in the rule.

Rogerg1979 wrote:I agree, individual games should be about this. But that doesn't mean that these high TR games lose this and are boring.

Again ... this is your opinion .. but its not shared by the majority (see the poll I linked in my previous post). I'm sorry that's just the case ... most coaches don't like games above TR 300. You do and that's great and it doesn't say anything against you. BUT it IS a minority opinion and as such Grumble said it right ... shouldn't the rules be tailored to those that the majority think make the game more fun.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:33 pm

Rogerg1979 wrote:I still think adding rules for a very SMALL percentage of teams where the Handicap table would do as good a job, is silly.

emphasis mine above.

I will repeat again ... I have a league with higher TR teams and a very strong handicap table ... it does not do a good enough job on its own. You said you think ... I'm telling you I'm seeing it with my own eyes from over a year of commishing the league.

You keep mixing your arguments is what makes this difficult. You are trying to argue that a handicap table can solve everything by itself and are arguing that a virtual TR ceiling isn't needed at the same time. So if responses seem scattered its because you are alternating two entirely different arguments.

Galak

Rogerg1979 · Post by **Rogerg1979** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:33 pm

Galak: I realise I'm going to be on the losing side of this argument, because there is simply nothing I can say against "Almost everyone else agrees with me".

My points are:

1. Few Teams reach TR300+
2. That number will slow with a good handicap table (Such as Chet's)
3. Those that do should be cherished as GOOD teams.
4. Therefore (IMHO) the Virtual Wall isn't needed.

I understand you (and many others) disagree with me. I think though that teams such as the Reikland Raiders, (using FUMBBL as an example), Terrifying Anarchists, or the Grotty little w*nkers would never come about, and that saddens me. I don't want to see these teams disappear.

High TR games can be good sometimes. Lots of people say they are boring. But if the high TR team is neigh unbeatable, and someone does... wow... well done that guy! Thats the sort of feeling and reaction I want to see, and I think you'll lose that. So bring out that TR300+ Vampire team and prepare to defend your title... cos some snotty little upstart wants it... come on....

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:36 pm

well barring the excessive use of double 1s coaching mistakes and poor tactics yes they do end in draws.

How does an elf team stop a full on skilled up cage?

How does an orc team stop a fully skilled up elf passing play?

Basically you don't cause there are simply too many players and skills that can do their job and ignore the other team.

I don't mind the odd few players like that on a team thats what you get at tr 250-300 but full teams of them its even more dull than the weather in england ;]

The reikland reavers are the real madrid and manchester united of the blood bowl world, that level has been set to 300 andhas been since the game came about.

Now you might disagree with that but I don't know how you or your friends all play, maybe my tactics are different there are things like this that make a difference.

Though like galak said its going to happen so lets discuss ideas that we can live with, those who don't like them can feel free to ignore them in their leagues.

Rogerg1979 · Post by **Rogerg1979** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:41 pm

I'm trying to argure using your semantics, and thats screwing it up.

I DONT think there should be an artificial cealing (Virtual wall).

I DO think a handicap system solves a lot of Big teams versus small team problems (like the big team will walk all over the little team).

I want to see big teams... I want to see small teams taking them on.

I want 15 TR 300+ teams at the top of FUMBBL and the enjoyment of taking them on.

I DONT want 150 TR 200ish teams at the top of FUMBBL where teams at the top aren't special.

Thats the feel of the game for me (I know people disagree with me) and I really dont have any problems with it. Thats why I disagree with the changes (and people disagree with me).

I'm not going to post on this any more, cos it really is a case of we could argue until next year and no one would change their minds (Nothing I can do against "Almost everyone agrees with me").

I disagree with the changes cos you're changing some of the feel to me, nothing anyone can do about it. Topic closed.

Gk.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:48 pm

Rogerg1979 wrote:I understand you (and many others) disagree with me. I think though that teams such as the Reikland Raiders, (using FUMBBL as an example), Terrifying Anarchists, or the Grotty little w*nkers would never come about, and that saddens me. I don't want to see these teams disappear.

Here's the other side of the point that I think you miss.

You'll still be able to make the Reikland Reavers even with a strong handicap table and negative winnings.

This is an LRB translation of one of the 2nd edition stats for what was supposed to be one of the greatest BB teams of all time:
http://www.midgardbb.com/OtherTeams/Cha ... avers.html

However in order to get to Reaver status you will need to challenge on the best teams. I had one team in the MBBL2 (Falk's Crusaders) that even with a negative cash rule would have hit that TR 310 mark because he only played the best teams all the time. So handicaps were minimal and gates were always very high. Could he have kept his team at this high of a level ... I doubt that he could have for very much longer ... but he did reach Reaver status which SHOULD be the pinnacle.

Also I have 2 teams in the MBBL2 that already have that legend status that when coaches play them and survives to tie or win everyone says GREAT job ... well played. And they are TR 253 and TR 248. You don't need TR 500 to 600 teams to have this awe level you desire for a legendary team. You just need good coaches with well designed and balanced teams. Again I think Grumble already said this before .... I'm merely reinforcing it.

Galak