GW's Triple B League --- TBB WE NEED YOUR VOTES!!!

Robotorz · Post by **Robotorz** » Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:02 pm

I dont think that the BBB rules are such a complete bullshit. I like the part of loosing inj. affecting rolls and that goblins dont get +1 to inj. rolls when going down on a gfi (for example).

Only ruleset I totaly disagree is anything that has turn over potential as the old cards had. NO WAY since it will get house ruled away by every league that likes tactical BB.

I will play this weekend 3 or 4 games with this ruleset and then tell you what it does.

BTW the changes are not so drastic as you all think. Sigurds has no effect when there are no inj. modifing rolls since the chances are the same... so dont complain here since it aint makes sense...

Post by **Thadrin** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:17 am

Robotorz wrote: BTW the changes are not so drastic as you all think. Sigurds has no effect when there are no inj. modifing rolls since the chances are the same... so dont complain here since it aint makes sense...

No Mighty Blow = fewer casualties, sigurds or no sigurds.
Its very simple.
The changes ARE drastic, unneccessary and bah-roken.

campaigner · Post by **campaigner** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 10:43 am

GalakStarscraper wrote:
1) Advanced SPP table
2) No injury mods
3) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling ... however no more IGMEOY or Referee roll.
4) No more aging
5) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6) Piling On changed
7) New winnings table 15k bands
Negative winnings rules

1) I don't know if anyone has said that before (I must admit I have only read the first six pages or so) but if your players almost never get skills and TRs are peaked at 200 or so, very few players are gonna have skills at all, and forget about linemen ever getting more than block. for me, player development is what keeps me interested, so I'm against it.
2) I guess I could live with that
3) undecided. I rarely foul, so this would need playtesting by other players
4) YE-HES!
5) baaaah! just rework the handicap table, I don't want that many random events during the game, I just want want teams that get better with time and from whom you know what they can do.,
6) I think pile on needs change, so a "yes"
7) undecided... needs playtesting
8. if it keeps ageing from the game, well yes, although I think it would hit me hard

my 2 cts
campaigner

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 11:50 am

Galak i just want to say i think the Wildcard teams in general and mine definately would be gone immediately if these winnings tables are enacted in any mbbl2 league. Even the other teams in the other leagues all started their tr's too high to be worth it. Robots as well, i think people would still try them, but they wouldnt last.

Note i am not advocating not enacting them just for this reason, i just think certain net teams will have to be altered.

mrinprophet · Post by **mrinprophet** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:47 pm

sean newboy wrote: Note i am not advocating not enacting them just for this reason

So.. is that double-talk for you want them enacted?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:58 pm

sean newboy wrote:Galak i just want to say i think the Wildcard teams in general and mine definately would be gone immediately if these winnings tables are enacted in any mbbl2 league.

I don't know what is in the cards. Their is definitely a feeling in the BBRC that the winnings table needs bumped to less cash ... a feeling I don't share to be honest.

If you leave the tables as is and add the negative cash rules ... it would probably mean that a Wild Cards team would need to keep around more Nats. It would change the dynamic to be sure. Well the MBBL2 is about to change to allow you to really crank through the matches ... so we'll see what happens.

I WISH I had Christer's and Ski's abilities. I would love to run an MBBL2 version of FUMBBL ... that would be very cool.

Galak

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:20 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:I don't know what is in the cards. Their is definitely a feeling in the BBRC that the winnings table needs bumped to less cash ... a feeling I don't share to be honest.

I wont speak for the BBRC, but my feeling is (and has always been) that the amount of extra cash needed to be a SIN curve, with more money coming in for the rookie teams and less money for the teams above some agreed upon top level.

This would mean that injuries and death on the top teams would push the team's TR down and eventually push them to the point where they would afford players, but where rookie teams would almost always be able to replace killed players.

IMO, TR 100 teams should get from 70K to 120K (+6) for their first game. This insures that they are getting a replacement player right off the bat, even if they lose. The TR should then move fairly quickly through the lower levels to where you are getting -30K to 20K (-4) a game at the "top end". If the top end was 200TR, then you see where this is going. Above this point, it should quickly ramp up to -10K to - 70K (-7) a game which would ensure that no money was coming in for a team that strong.

Again, IMO, the reliance on FF rolls should be reduced, with much wider bands above 80,000 fans. This will decrease the amount of extra winnings that teams with high FF enjoy. From a game balance point of view, teams with abnormally high FF shouldn't be rewarded with heaps of extra money.

Post by **Thadrin** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:26 pm

I'd rather see the current winnings table with the possibility of a negative hitting the team's bank balance being tested rather than something completely new, such as the BBB are testing.

200 seems a bit low for the limit of struggling to break even though.

I think what the BBB is guilty of is trying to do waaaaaay too much in a "sledgehammer to break eggs" sort of way.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:29 pm

ineed less money for higher teams should sort things out nicely

just need to agree what the high level should be, the poll on the other thread shows 250-300 being the most popular

rwould · Post by **rwould** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 2:46 pm

1. Advanced SPP table
No. Plain awful. favours teams that can score, and select who can score, far too much.

2. No injury mods
No, simply because the current system works imo. The changes for stunties I don't like either. Pretty much may as well give them -1AV.

3. Fouling Changes
No, again because the current system works well.

4. Aging
No. I like aging. It works. Would people be happier with a roll to see if their player gets signed by 'the big leagues'? No? But that would be more realistic.....

5. New H/Cap table
No. The handicap table may need changing, but not to this. There are better alternatives out there.

6. Piling On
No. With this option only Norse Blitzers will ever take PO. The skill becomes pretty poor for other players. Whatever the change that is made to PO it needs to keep it as a half-decent skill.

7. Winnings Table

and

8. Neg. Winnings

Need tailoring a bit, but I agree with the general principles. So No as they currently stand, but yes with the figures moving around a bit.

Richard

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:26 pm

I thought the 3rd ed handicap rules were excellent and should revert to them again. To go back the original Undead are a very powerful team. They always seem to perform one of the best and so I like the new Undead teams.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:33 pm

I'd agree that the original undead are a powerful team and I like the new undead teams with the exception of the GW edition of the werewolf.

8338 Razor Sharp Fangs is not something I want to see on the team. I would be much happier to see the revised edition on Galaks site to this. (was a bit disappointed not to see this version in BB Mag 9).

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:56 pm

neoliminal wrote:From a game balance point of view, teams with abnormally high FF shouldn't be rewarded with heaps of extra money.

Neo ... have you seen a high FF lately. Seriously, because I haven't. I'd be curious what the highest FF in the FUMBBL is. The -1 per 10 and the 1 and 6 rule is murder on FF these days. I think as long as you leave in those rules, you aren't going to see high FF ... but I will stand correct if folks have examples.

After talking to you and Chet I guess all this comes down to 2 things that are the fundamentals of the direction of Blood Bowl

1) What TR should be considered the stop point. Based on the current poll and past discussion ... I think the folks are saying TR 200 should take a while to get to but that TR 250 is possible if folks are willing to hang onto a team that might suffer. Seriously though, I think if you take the current winnings table and just add in the Bugman's rule for negative winnings you have the cap you want. I know the top TR teams in the MBBL2 are there only because they aren't losing money from when they make negative cash rolls.

2) How long should it take to develop a team. Chet commented that if thought that the fact that he could fill out his Amazon team in 9 games was too short. ... he preferred a timeline of 14 to 16 games in order to build a team up to 16 players. Now my only comment to this is that in my BB lifetime my 3 longest running teams have seen 18 games, 14 games, and 12 games. If the current ramp is 9 games to get to 16 players ... I'm okay with that. I don't think there are a ton of folks out there in the universe that play teams much past 12 games. So I'm not sure about a system that restricts cash and the timeline for what I believe to be the minority. Again the negative cash rule will slow down teams that rack up the games.

The FUMBBL league has moved to using Experimental rules (thank you Christer). That said I would love it if the BBRC could agree on a more impactful handicap table (still like the simplicity of Chet's MBBL one) and introduce the Negative Winnings rule as an experimental rule. This would allow Ski to program in a static handicap table into the JavaBowl tool along with the negative winnings rule and then we can see what the impact is. Leave in aging ... for all that I hate it I know from science class not to mess with too many variables at once.

But a more impactful handicap and the negative winnings rule both have endorsement from the majority here. It would be nice to see the impact of these online public approved changes before moving into no injury mods, tighter cash bands and such that do not have much fan approval.

Galak

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:15 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:Neo ... have you seen a high FF lately. Seriously, because I haven't. I'd be curious what the highest FF in the FUMBBL is. The -1 per 10 and the 1 and 6 rule is murder on FF these days. I think as long as you leave in those rules, you aren't going to see high FF ... but I will stand correct if folks have examples.

I know quite a few Fumbbl teams have over 20 Fan Factor...

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Fri Aug 22, 2003 4:25 pm

Personally I'd like to see TR 300 be the pinnacle or acheivement but so hard to acheive that only a very rare few would ever make it.

What I absolutely don't want is to have my teams play well and then suddenly bump their heads on an artificial feeling ceiling. That is not fun.
Teams should sputter and die and different levels depending on the success of the coach. I don't want to start a team knowing that when they reach X TR it's over. To me that's a "why bother" situation. If you know the outcome then why waste the time to play it out?

I think @200 should be the average age of team retirement, @250 should be the best and brightest and @300 should be the very rare few that become league legends.