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

Post by **Thadrin** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:20 pm

Yep. They lost to the Giants on the infamous "Wide right" kick that made Scott Norwood the most famous kicker in history.

Its still better than my Dwarf team and their Steelers-style third place every damn season.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:31 pm

Skummy wrote:
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.

I'm appearantly not making much sense.

What I'm saying is that most teams never reach their peak currently, and I'd like to see teams peak earlier and allow teams to continue to play for as long as the coach wants (going a little up and down around that peak).

So for example, a team should be able to play about a seaons worth of games growing (about 10 games) where they reach a peak. After that peak the coach is balancing various factors to keep the team in peak shape and maintaining a balance of rookies, up-and-coming player and stars on the team. If the team plays 40 games, then 30 of those games would be near the highest level the team can attain. If they play 100 games, then 90 of those games should be around that peak level.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 3:52 pm

neoliminal wrote:
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.

Okay, here's where I am getting foggy...

The vast majority (at least in this forum) like teams to top out at around 250 and don't want to see very many 300 TR teams. Teams don't reach TR 250 until about 40 games and most people don't play games that long...is this what you are saying?

If so, what is the problem? It looks like the system works...and my poll shows that a lot of people around here agree. Leave it alone.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:13 pm

I really think 10 games is much to soon for a team to be peaking, I agree with others, I'd like to see a team get to TR250-300 before leveling out, and if that takes 40 games, fine. If you want to re-set every 10 games you can, and if you want to play the same team for 100+ games, you can.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:23 pm

Agreed my DE team reached a peak of 427TR. I set a limit of 300, cut loads of players, but the team still stays, same name and colours. Had them since 1st ed.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:45 pm

Cool.

In our league nearly everyone has played a team past 40 games...

The most is... Hmm... 18+5+6+7+4+7+10+9+9+8

It peaked at 600 TR

All I wished was that it DID peak. In 3rd ed they never levelled off. With the current system I think they will. (Retirements and deaths depending)

Although I'd set the natural maximum at 350-400, thats because only very few get close to this now...Only two in our league

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:35 pm

I'll post a poll and find out the average most teams stick around for.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:10 pm

That poll is kind of skewed anyway. I mean you didn't even give an option for 40+ or 50+ you put what your FUNBBL data showed as 250 TR teams as the top and then when right to "never retired".

What I asked was: Most people want 250 to be the top TR and you say that it takes 40 games to get there. So if most people retire teams before that (what you said) why are we messing with the system? Boomshanka! It works!

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:15 pm

Dark Lord wrote:That poll is kind of skewed anyway. I mean you didn't even give an option for 40+ or 50+ you put what your FUNBBL data showed as 250 TR teams as the top and then when right to "never retired".

What I asked was: Most people want 250 to be the top TR and you say that it takes 40 games to get there. So if most people retire teams before that (what you said) why are we messing with the system? Boomshanka! It works!

There's a limit to the number of items in the poll. I put the values I thought would most likely reflect where people are retiring based on the data from fumble.

What I want is a system where teams level out BEFORE they get retired.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:21 pm

Why?

If they aren't hitting the point that people call over powered then why nerf them?

Making teams suck is not fun, most people accept it a necessary to curb power teams but if the power teams are gone then the curbing doesn't need to be there. You are just going to annoy coaches.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:24 pm

neoliminal wrote:
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.

Are you saying that you want teams to begin to level off at TR 150 (after about 9 games per this thread)?

I'm about to get there with my new team now and they're only just hitting their stride. I could live with a TR 200 level (would prefer 250), 150 seems a little low to me.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:31 pm

Agreed, I've a DE team that's reached 155 after 5 games. So in a 10 game league my team would sit still for 5 games? No thanks.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:57 pm

I'm interested in seeing rookie 100TR teams play games that are interesting with whatever the top level teams end up being. Right now you get a decent percentage of wins as the rookie team vs. 170-200 TR teams. Above that you start to really see a slide.

So that means, to me, that you either need a better handicap system or you need to cap lower.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:03 pm

That tells me that rookie teams should be challenging 250 point teams.
Seems a no brainer to me.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:03 pm

neoliminal wrote:So that means, to me, that you either need a better handicap system or you need to cap lower.

Option A please ... thank you ... how much will that be?

Galak