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

[GalakStarscraper]

8) 31 Yes / 11 Undecided / 117 No

My only comment on this one. I wonder how many of these got it wrong in their understanding.

There are have been a lot of votes on the TBB forum for this topic where the vote on #8 for the person was: NO, I really like this idea but with the winnings table shown in the Bugman's rules its too harsh.

Those were actually Yes votes. As Grumble pointed out, a number of folks could not mentally seperate the current cash table with this rule from using it with Bugman's when they voted.

A lot of folks also have shown from comments that they believe that this will hit low TR teams which mathematically it cannot if you have any fan factor at all. It doesn't kick in until after TR 200 for virtually all teams.

Christer .... could you do me one favor .... run one more Poll on #8 with the question phrased like this:

In an effort to slow team rating growth over TR 200 and especially over TR 250, would you support the following rule in conjuction with the current LRB 2.0 winnings table:
"If you roll a negative result then the costs of running a team have spiralled out of profit – you must pay the amount rolled out of your treasury. If a team cannot pay then they must lose a re-roll. If they have no re-rolls they lose a player (they can’t afford his wages anymore). The player they lose is the coach’s choice."

Its just that in every one of the 8 results from the polls on FUMBBL the percentages match up to the TBB poll to date except for question #8 .... which makes me wonder if folks actually understood the question. Without the discussion around it. The comments made on TBB to date really show that this one is the most confusing of the 8 questions as to its impact and effect.

I can to date only think of 3 times in the MBBL2 where a team has received negative winnings from a gold roll ... and those teams are TR 250+. Anyway ... thanks for those numbers Christer ... they are appreciated.

Galak

[christer]

Christer .... could you do me one favor .... run one more Poll on #8 with the question phrased like this:

No problem.. You'll have the results in a day or two.

-- Christer

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Actually that would make me change my vote to no.

Rerolls are hard enough to come by later on. That way, not only would you be running low on cash but losing rerolls and players too?
Yuk.

How about you give them the option to fire coaching staff to make up the debt first? Or let them have -number in their treasury?

[GalakStarscraper]

DL .... what the heck are you talking about ... my post was just a copy and paste from the BBB rules rephrased so its clear that it for the LRB 2.0.

Any team with proper management is very rarely going to have a negative cash roll ... ah forget it.

Galak

[Thadrin]

Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes

2 ) No injury mods change

2_ Yes

Just let me check...is this a vote for no change or a vote for No injury mods? slightly ambiguous wording there...and it seems VERY strange to me that an Ogre player would support the change when it nerfs that team more than any other.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

DL .... what the heck are you talking about ... my post was just a copy and paste from the BBB rules rephrased so its clear that it for the LRB 2.0.

Why exactly would I have read those? You summed up in this thread what the votes were for. I don't have the time or the concern to worry about every bonehead idea the BBRC comes up with anymore.

Any team with proper management is very rarely going to have a negative cash roll ... ah forget it.

Galak

Rarely schmarely. It's still going to happen. So what happens when this team is punished by negative cash? You punish them more by removing a reroll. WHAT?! Less cash, then less rerolls, and then less cash to replace the reroll and so on and so forth until...blah
A reroll, that costs most teams as much as a big guy to replace is taken away and they have very little hope of recovery at that point. So what will happen? The team will deteriorate...what I don't want.
And what several other have said they don't want.
I'd like something that allows teams to peak and remain peaked, NOT SLOW DEATH.

So, change my vote please and don't try to tell me I am mistaken.

[Grumbledook]

um you lose a reroll and your tr goes down
lower tr means more money

if you are wrried about losing a rr cause of negative winnings you just make a coach decision to sack someone to keep the tr down

its not really a hard thing to do is it

my skaven at tr 270 now and ff 13/14 have only recorded 0 winnings once not sure if it was negative or just 0 but its not going to happen a lot unless your tr gets really high and thats the reason its there in the first place, so whats the problem

[Dark Lord (retired)]

So if you come up -10K, you lose a reroll that costs 120K to replace and your TR drops 6 points.

A whole 6 points? Whoop de doo! I bet that's enough to make a huge differnence on the money scale! Why I'm sure the 120,000gps to get that reroll back are just around the corner and no more negatives will befall the team before they make it up.
If they are in an area of the winnings table with negative numbers who big could their winnings possibly be? Not very much I'm guessing. And what if they are in that area of the table by a large margin? Will dropping 6 or 8 TR points really help? Probably not. I can see a situation where a team could lose all of it rerolls in a short amount of time.
That could not only be devastating but it would annoy the crap out of me.

It's the same old B.S. "Hey, Congrats, you coached a successful team. Now they suck. Please try again!"
No thanks.

As for it happening only when it's "really high" your results don't match what Galak said. Didn't he say it wouldn't happen until 200-250? Well if you are 270 it should have happened more than never.
If it hits teams around TR 275-300 or 300+ and brings them back down to @250 then fine but if it hits them at 200 and causes a B.S. chain reaction that practically forces player and team retirement then NO WAY!

And as I have yet to see a huge problem with 300 TR teams I think this is a stupid and dangerous rule, that isn't needed.

[noodle]

I like the idea but it kicks in too quick...

If you end up with -ve money, say -20,000, why not run with a debt? Footie teams do it all the time...

A player lost should net you 1/2 their original cost which is comparable to freebooting (but obviously skills etc are not counted)

And a loans facility...

I like the financial side of BB - this "loose a reroll" is a bit of a cop out....

Still, its better than no negative winnings....

Possible problems:

1) A reluctance to play anyone with a low FF.
2) Bad players will be much worse off, widening the gap between good and bad (Well OK they should get better but some play "for the fun of it")

Thats what I'd like to see ironed out. - Why can't we have a proper system which deals with teams running out of money?

Look at Leeds united!!!!

[Grumbledook]

well thats the only team i have at the moment over that limit

and like i said if you are worried about losing rerolls then maybe you should be looking to retire one of the star players as your team can no longer accomodate him

its not to also say that you will get a negative result every match and you will probably have some stashed money in the treasury

[Dark Lord (retired)]

well thats the only team i have at the moment over that limit

Then it's not very effective in your experience right?

and like i said if you are worried about losing rerolls then maybe you should be looking to retire one of the star players as your team can no longer accomodate him

And like I said, Forced retirement suck big fat pimpley ass! I built my stars through hard work and loads of fun. So for my success I have to stop playing them? Why build them up at all?
No thanks, take that crap some place else.
How about this? When you have been at your job for awhile and making a decent living through raises and promotions...YOUR FIRED! Thanks for all your hard work!!!

its not to also say that you will get a negative result every match and you will probably have some stashed money in the treasury

How on Earth will you have money in your treasury? If I understand correctly the money will slowly dwindle down to negative numbers. I would assume that means that if you win a lot of games and earn a lot of money soon you'll be giving it right back.

Why hand out the damn cash at all, if I have to keep 120K in my treasurey (inflating my TR!!!!!!!!!!) to fix the damage that having that high TR causes?

Retarded.

Still my vote is no.

[Indigo]

When you have been at your job for awhile and making a decent living through raises and promotions...YOUR FIRED! Thanks for all your hard work!!!

It's not exactly a fair comparison between real life and a game where the point is to improve balance...

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Are the high TR teams out of balance?

Where are they? At the start of the LRB stuff 300+ was considered an uber team. Where are the 300+ teams?



It's not needed. They are fixing what isn't broken.

[Grumbledook]

the player if they are infalting your tr loads are probably old, old players retire and young ones come in

you don't have to retire the star you could retire other players instead, another reason to get rid of that niggler or whatever

i don't see it as forced retirement its more like penalising coaches who don't manage their tr which i see as a large part of league play

guess there is just a fundamental difference of opinion there and we will just have to agree to disagree ;]

[Dark Lord (retired)]

You aren't reading what i wrote.

You said that to counter it (and to manage your TR troubles) you should keep gold in your treasury to buy back the rerolls.

I asked where this money would come from and why keeping up to 160K in your treasury would be a good idea in this system.
Like I said, you are gonna end up giving the money back that you earned. Or keeping it around to cure the problems that keeping it around causes. That is just stupid.


As for retirement.
I don't know how you play the game but I like to develop back ups and multi-roll players. I don't base my teams around 1 or 2 stars. That's a definite weakness in my eyes. (When I play those teams I target the star and watch them panic)
You're also forgetting that when you retire a player, YOU NEED TO BUY THEM BACK!!! Where does this cash come from? You are acting as if dropping a TR by 7 points is immediately going to put you back to earning 60K a game. It won't. If you are at the end of the spectrum and losing money on the table, what is 8 or 10 TR points going to do? Drop you back one band? So you might get a 0 win next time? What about a team who loses cash 2 or 3 games in row and then spends a game or 2 winning nothing or 10 or 20K?
Retirement, weakens your team if you can't immediately repurchase the player. Strategy? What strategy? Oh I am FORCED to retire this player so that next game I have the strategic option to play with out him! HOORAY!
So, this system doesn't open up any strategy. It closes some down.
It forces coaches to manage the team a certain way. Just because it happens to be the way you manage your team already, you think it's good for all. It's not.