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

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:49 am

Grumbledook wrote:whats your point about the small leagues dark lord, i know they are different entities

I think that the BBRC's main testing grounds...at least the ones they always point at...are large, even huge, leagues. I think this is a really bad place to test rules. Especially rules dealing with team progression and team balance. The whole dynamic changes in a small league. A powerhouse and dominating team in a small challeneg league of 10 teams could mean a 150 point Undead team but in a league of 50 teams that play scheduled games based on TR match ups he's a pussy cat.

Grumbledook wrote:your comment about 40-50 games to retirement is fine confuses me

are you saying teams shouldn't play past this point?

No, it was a comment on Neo's chart.
The topic is what is the optimal TR for a team to reach. Neo's chart showed that after 9 games (DD's team only went 9 games apparently) most team are at TR 150. Then at the end of the chart (30 games) they hadn't reached what most people thought should be the highest TR reachable. So I extrapolated the chart out to 40 or 50 games (which is a little less than a 300 TR and what I think should be the absolute highest peak reachable) This is where I think maintaining the TR shoud become extremely difficult. And the team should slowly start to sputter and reset.

Grumbledook wrote:what if you want to carry on playing the team for ever, thats certainly what i plan to do with my teams

or have i misunderstood your post?

I think you misunderstood. Like I said, I most definitely do not want forced retirement. I just think that forcing a TR ceiling is just as bad. The rules should allow for a rare few teams to reach that 300 mark but that maintaining team should be a real challenge and I think 40 or 50 games is a decent number of games played to reach that point.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:01 am

Dark Lord pointed out the problem in our league...

In our TT league, my Orcs are the "powerhouse" team with 16 games. Most teams are sitting around 7-9, a few at 12 or so. I generally play every game I play with at least three handicaps against me. Yet my TR continues to go up. (Mostly because of winnings...my FF is obscene.)

This also brings up that the handicap table sucks...I've had four handicaps against me once and none of them did anything; heck any game where there's been two or more handicaps against me I've won anyway. One is still close enough to be unguessable.

I'd like to see teams cap at around 300, they'll go up and they'll go down at that point, but it's pretty much unmaintable unless you're pulling in massive crowds with 30 FF or whatnot. I have a Chaos team at slightly less than TR300 and they're 6 RRs, most players have three skills, 16 players, etc etc.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:24 am

GalakStarscraper wrote:
neoliminal wrote:If the fumbbl statistics are to be believed, the after 9 game most teams have just crested 150 TR.

After 12 games 168
After 14 games 175
After 16 games 182
After 18 games 188
After 20 games 194
After 22 games 195
After 24 games 205
After 26 games 208
After 28 games 215
After 30 games 222...

Seeing a pattern yet?

Yeah I do John ... and I think it convenient that you choose to stop showing your stats just before the vast majority of FUMBBL teams STALL OUT at TR 250. Statistics lie if used to show what you want my friend.

"just before?"

It's 40 games before you start to see that pattern. How many people do you know that have played at team that long?

The only convenient part was that I got tired of typing past 20 games, where the number of teams is dramatically smaller. That's 35 teams our of thousands for 30 games.

Statistics may lie, but the numbers don't.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:29 am

Dark Lord wrote:What is wrong with that?
I think 40 or 50 games to retirement is fine.

The problem is that most people don't keep teams that long. Have you played a team to 40 games? I don't personally know anyone who has.

Another thing that I think the BBRC has a huge problem seeing is the difference between a league of 50 or 60 teams and a league of 12 teams.
FUMBBL is not an accurate representative of a normal table top league and neither is the MBBL.

That would probably be why the majority of the BBRC run local leagues of less than 20 teams.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:41 am

neoliminal wrote:Statistics may lie, but the numbers don't.

Neo ... this will sound stupid, but your post said see a trend ... sooooooo I assumed since this was a very vague and generic question that you were using that data to show that TR climbs forever with the current system (something you've maintained before in discussion).

That's why I said it was convenient that you stopped where you did since soon after that TR basically stalls out at 250 in FUMBBL with a very few exceptions. So my response was appropriate to what I assumed was your point.

I think I completely misunderstood whatever it was you were trying to show with the FUMBBL data. So what was the point of the FUMBBL data from your eyes?

Galak

Galak

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:31 am

I never said I went 9 games to reach 250 Dark Lord, I said that seemen highly improbable. Neo, I have played with the same teams. If I want to start a new one I paint a new one and not use my old figs.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 9:42 am

Hi Galak and John,
There are 36 coaches in my league.
All of them play 40+ games in a season.

Then again, we hate ageing with a vengeance, and have our own measueres to stunt team power instead.

No real relevance to the issue I'm afraid, just thought I'd mention that coaches like us do exist.
Martin

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:07 pm

Well said!

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 12:59 pm

The problem is that most people don't keep teams that long. Have you played a team to 40 games? I don't personally know anyone who has.

If u ever get to South Bend Indiana, look up Galaks old league. I came from there and had 1 lizzy team with over 100 games (416 or 424 tr), another lizzy team with over 50 games. During that whole period there were at least 3 teams that were in the league before and i believe still after, not sure how many games total, although those teams were basically only played in "Legends" games nowadays. I was in that league for several years playing 3 games a friday nite for most of it, wasnt hard to rack up games, i was trying to win the cup. Im embarressed to say the best i could do was pull a buffalo.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:15 pm

sean newboy wrote:the best i could do was pull a buffalo.

...which means?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:19 pm

Buffalo Bills football team went to the Superbowl 3 times in a row, never once winning, most american football fans consider that embarressing.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:26 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:I think I completely misunderstood whatever it was you were trying to show with the FUMBBL data. So what was the point of the FUMBBL data from your eyes?

My point was that teams do just continue to rise. The vast majority of teams never see 30 games.

If you want to look at what happen on FUMBBL after 40 games when the number appear to rise and fall, that's what I would want to happen after 10 games.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:40 pm

neoliminal wrote:It's 40 games before you start to see that pattern. How many people do you know that have played at team that long?

Right here, and in tabletop no less. Our league wants the ability to play the same team until the coach wants to play something else. If the team is going to be around for 100 games, then the rules should support this. I thought that was the point of LRB aging.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:41 pm

yer 10 games is a bit short term isn't it

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:42 pm

sean newboy wrote:Buffalo Bills football team went to the Superbowl 3 times in a row, never once winning, most american football fans consider that embarressing.

Wasn't it 4 times in a row? They lost to the Giants, the Redskins and Dallas twice?