Hard TR Caps vs Negative Winnings+Freebooted Apoths

[ScottyBoneman]

Finally, it seems that the three (as I read it) possibilites we are looking at, LRB, BBRC, TBB, will all accomplish the final goal of TR capping and keeping runaway star teams under control, but the TBB system will do it more subtly and without guaranteed results. I could bring a 500 point team to my league championship, provided I got lucky and my players didn't get killed getting there.

I can guarantee that with the TBB system, if a team gets to TR 500, half of that rating will be it's negative treasury! Which means no apothecaries, ever again. Which means that if a player dies, the team will never be able to afford to replace him. The team will end up with 5 or 6 players and a TR of ~250. Every coach will have retired the team long before this, or taken steps to avoid getting in this position. Guaranteed...

Oh, I agree with you. It is extremely unlikely that I'd be able to build an uber-team under the negative-winnings rules. Even if I did, my oppos would get a ton of handicap rolls. But it could happen, if, for example, my oppos simply couldn't roll 4-6 on the sigurd die. The TR capping effect of the TBB package is better than that of the Aging system (I had a DE team where the first two 5-skill players had a single -1AV aging roll between the two of them) because it is an ongoing effect (no 'poth, for example), rather than a once in a while off-pitch effect.

My point was just that there are extreme situations where the TBB system could fail. Degenerate cases, if you will. A hard TR cap guarantees no degenerate cases. But then again, those degenerate cases really only exists in the minds of us degenerates, which brings me around to: that's why I think the TBB package is a great idea, worth bringing online, at least as experimental rules, potentially as core rules.

I must say, this is a concerning scenerio. Galak would you say that the negative cash being added to the TR is a integral part of the system and if so why?

[Darkson]

Briefly - TR cap - No,no no. As a UK, this idea just doesn't sit with me at all, as it's not used in our main sports. But basically, I have no problem with team x being better than team y, so if x can survive with a higher TR, then fine.

Leave it as it is - No. When our next league comes around (which will probably be open rather than scheduled), I've already decided to drop aging/wear 'n' tear/call it what you will. In a recent practice game we had a skaven coach fail his aging on all 3 of his GR, after the 2nd game (yes, he rolls lots of 1's). I just really dislike aging, in any form.

So that leaves the TBB/Negative winning package, and that's what I've voted for. I'm not saying it's perfect, and there may be parts of it that don't work right. But it needs playtesting, and I'm going to push for our group to use it.

[GalakStarscraper]

Galak, I thought you were planning to use NegWins in the MBBL next year? Just flicking through the settings in the new pbembb_tool2.4e, and noticed that box isn't ticked for MBBL (though it is for MBBL2).

I have one game left in this season of the MBBL to get finished that should start on Monday. After that yes, we will be using all 5 steps of "the package" in the MBBL to see what happens. When the MBBL2 starts up it will be doing the same ... however data from that league is a little difficult to relate to other leagues so at best its a thumb in the air view from the MBBL2 as it would relate to LRB leagues.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

I could bring a 500 point team to my league championship, provided I got lucky and my players didn't get killed getting there.

I must say, this is a concerning scenerio. Galak would you say that the negative cash being added to the TR is a integral part of the system and if so why?

Because pfooti comments don't statistically have a prayer.

First let's try to get to TR 500 from going never retiring or paying debt:

Let's take what we have right now okay ... aging ... aging by itself can produce a TR 500+ team:
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... eam_id=208

What would it take to do that with the 5 step program ....
Okay ... so let's say you have bad luck and your average gold roll was a 3 on average for winnings (even though the average would be 3.5). Okay then let's say that everyone in your league has FF of only 4 and you all rolls 3 for the gate for 24,000 gate.

Let's say your team always loses but you usally pull in 4 TR worth of SPP a game (ie 20 SPPs a game), and let's assume your players never get killed.

Now I think we can agree that's a pretty dismal scenario ... correct. Finally let assume that this all starts at TR 226 which will be the first game you lose money if the above is true: Your TR path would look like:

TR 226, 231, 236, 241, 246, 251, 257, 263, 269, 275, 281, 288, 295, 302

Now let's stop right there. Just to get to TR 302 from the first time you had negative winnings at TR 226 took you 14!!! games ... the whole time you had no apothecary at all. Does anyone really believe that in 14 games without an apothecary that someone didn't die. Also the team debt is not that horrible. The team is 250k in debt after these 14 games (ie debt only makes up 25 points of the 76 points of TR that the team went up which means that it would be pretty easy to trim the team back still and recover ... (this is where the forever downward spiral myth gets broken).

Okay so based on that I think everyone can see that even with below average luck that you are not going to run into a situation where you spiral into debt so quickly that you don't have time to recover or are forced into bankruptcy and team disbanding.

Now on my next post let's try to get to TR 500 with above average luck.

Galak

[Dangermouse]

First time poster, long time reader. There more I read of what Galak has to say the more I think he has his finger on the pulse. Is bloodbowl your job or do you never sleep?

[neoliminal]

Can you make the choice I offered on the other page, Galak?

[GalakStarscraper]

Can you make the choice I offered on the other page, Galak?

John ... I'd love to if I had a clue what you where talking about ... do you mean this:

Imagine this line is the length of a teams existence. Each dash a game.

Team 1 (2 games):
|--|

Team 2 (16 games):
|----------------|

Team 3 (25 games):
|-------------------------|

Team 4 (50 games):
|--------------------------------------------------|

Obviously with our current handicap system, games between teams 1 and team 4 suck. Even games between team 1 and team 2 suck, IMO. So clearly I agree that the handicap system needs revamping. This year we weren't making any changes that dramatic, but we *are* testing new handicap systems to help resolve this.

So if we take this poll at face value, we can assume that if we want to have a top end for teams strength, that it could start hitting around either Team 2 or Team 3. Let's take Team 2 for a moment. If that was the case then Team 3 and Team 4 might have the breaks put on them around the 16th game and stay at that level (strength wise) after that:

* = breaks applied, teams top out here.

Team 3 (25 games):
|---------------*---------|

Team 4 (50 games):
|---------------*----------------------------------|

After that point they, both teams would roughly be the same level. This would be good, because then the coach for Team 4 could just keep playing for as long as he liked.

The other reason this is good is because is because the Team 3 and Team 2 would be roughly equal too, and any handicap system that worked for Team 1 and Team 2 would work for Teams 3 and 4. Yay!

At least that's my goal.

Because if that's what you mean ... ... I honestly cannot add that to the poll. This post by you was a theory ... but a theory with no explaination of how it would be excuted. An idea is great ... a plan is better ... black and white text is where its at though.

The only concrete post I saw from you so far was your comment about capping. I cannot add the above concept to a poll because its just that a concept. How is it fair to compare printed rules changes to a concept.

If I've missed your rules suggestion let me know, but I don't think I've missed any detailed plan of how you would like to see the actual rules change to accomplish balance.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

Argh ... my post on above average luck got eaten by TBB ... oh well.

Let me just summarize it. With really high gates and great winnings rolls you could avoid negative winnings, but if we see this as an issue than I think the winnings table just needs extended another 4 categories for 301-325, 326-350, 351-375, and 376-400.

My thoughts are this ... a team making it to these level would be for a short term length to say the least, but I do see where it might be possible to need to extend the table 3 more categories to the right for winnings.

As for above average luck ... 75,000 gates and always rolling 4s on winnings and 4 TR points from SPPs.

At TR 280, you start earning no money for games ... you'll play 7 more games before you hit TR 304. After that you'll start getting 10k of debt. It would take you 10 more games without an apothecary most likely to get break TR 354 (assuming the max TR band stayed 301+ for winnings).

So the odds of reaching and/or exceeding TR 300 are a long shot at best. You can pretty much forget that TR 500+ team that FUMBBL created.

Remember also the extra Niggles rolls and the better handicap table are only going to make even this lucky coach's road to TR 300 very very difficult.

The Reikland Reavers when translated come out to be TR 310. See I tried to accomplish several things with "the package".

1 - I tried to help the crowd that said new coaches have trouble entering established leagues. The 10k freebooted apothecary rules actually HELP a rookie team start stronger and stay in better shape when entering an established league.

2 - The more onpitch attrition crowd. By linking negative winnings to freebooted apothecaries the crowd that wants more blood on the pitch will have a lot better shot at ripping the head off their opponent's star players and there won't be a 2+ roll to save him.

3 - The leave short term leagues alone crowd. Negative Winnings only kicks in at TR 225 usually at its soonest point and since the package removes aging, this means the short term league loses these negative long term balance rules. The better handicap table, freebooted apothecary, and strong niggle rules are all things that many coaches have argued are good changes even for short term leagues, so the purely negative stuff gets removed from the short term leagues as requested.

4 - The majority of BB Coaches said BB is most enjoyable between TR 200 and 300 as a max out point. By kicking in around TR 225 and making it very difficult to reach TR 300, the system tries to corral teams within the band that coaches said they'd like to play inside. Also keeping in mind that the Reavers were only TR 310 ... the system really tries to target keeping teams no higher than this by picking a system that for a TR 300 team with normal rolls will create debt barring very high gate rolls (gates of 81 to 100k will average 5k of debt per a match on average at TR 300+). IE the system brakes start to kick in around TR 225 ... we start throwing out anchors at TR 300 if you get there.

5 - Finally, the more I listen to most coaches the message I've heard quite often is let me decide the fate of my team. Don't just say at the end of this game this player gains an artificial niggle. Don't force me to retire 2 players right now or I cannot play my next game because my TR is over a cap. Give me the freedom to coach my team my way and risk the consequences of the system if I push my luck.

I started this thread to hear why the package doesn't work ... why these 5 goals it tries to wrap up in one rules package are not good things or not acoomplished. I've heard some of this and I've gotten a few good thoughts from the discussion. But I'm still not really understand the no votes altogether. I have gotten two points so far:

1) In a challenge league, you might avoid low FF teams.
My response: A good point, but if you are playing in a challenge league that doesn't record a loss to the player's record as required by the LRB page. 47, then you have house ruled the challenge rules which is why your league is running into this problem.
2) If you get really lucky with your FF rolls, you could get an FF that allows you to not be affected by the negative modifiers.
My response: I agree that in theory this could happen ... I'm not sure it would or that it would matter for long if the handicap table was improved. If it was found to be a hole, extending the winnings table 3 twenty-five point TR brackets to the right would very likely take care of this completely.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

First time poster, long time reader. There more I read of what Galak has to say the more I think he has his finger on the pulse. Is bloodbowl your job or do you never sleep?

thank you Dangermouse ... I'll take more first posts like that anyday ...

And sleep is overrated ... as a wise man once said in his signature:

"Can't sleep, clowns will eat me."

Galak

[ScottyBoneman]

I could bring a 500 point team to my league championship, provided I got lucky and my players didn't get killed getting there.

I must say, this is a concerning scenerio. Galak would you say that the negative cash being added to the TR is a integral part of the system and if so why?

Because pfooti comments don't statistically have a prayer.

First let's try to get to TR 500 from going never retiring or paying debt.....
Galak

Great stuff, but you didn't exactly answer the question.

I am less interested in the simple doomsday then the overall idea of the spiral. I could see a problem where a player gets their TR up by have better then average luck in their cash- good luck in rolls, fans and winning streak that gets them higher in to the band without feeling the pinch. Then the losing streak starts and they do not react quick enough- possibly due to increasing debt but no deaths. Then the lack of apoth replacement players starts to hit harder (again SIs over Deaths would make this worse) and the team is both forced with stripping TR while not fielding 11. At this point they might no longer even be in the negative band anymore, but they are not making the cash to get out under the debt fast enough.

When a team can't get an Apoth or replace any players because of their debt that will create a drag. The TR for negative cash assumes that that drag will not be enough and they need a harder incentive to reverse the trend- perhaps this might be something to look at in playtesting.

Don't get me wrong, this is a package with 5 elements that in varying degrees interact with each other and this is the one single potential problem, and that would be both unlikely and for the most part self-inflicted- at that is all I have seen looking at it from all which ways.

[GalakStarscraper]

Just as a footnote ... I've seen some folks comment on that revised handicap table. when I look at the CHUBB table I see a scaled handicapping system and THAT really appeals to me. However, the CHUBB table to be honest has just too many rolls on it and too much dead weight like the present handicap table. The idea is wonderful ... just needs some KISS applied to it. So if you KISSED the CHUBB handicap table you'd get a new handicap table that looked like this (and this is what I would like to see as Step 2 in the plan:

In fact if the CHUBB rules worked like this I'd be pretty happy:

===============================================

Calculate the difference between the two team ratings. That difference is the underdog’s Handicap Points. They may spend the points on any of the following tables at the start of the match. Each table is a D6 roll and any roll of a previous rolled handicap should be rerolled on the same table.

Good Karma - 10 point table:
1 - EXTRA TRAINING: Your team has worked long and hard all week for this opponent. You may take an extra Team Re-roll to use for this match only.
2 - INTENSIVE TRAINING: One player is really psyched for this week’s match, and has been working very hard preparing for it. Pick a player on your team. He may take one extra skill to use for this match only, just as if he had rolled a New Skill result on the Star Player Table.
3 - PALMED COIN: You automatically win the coin toss to start the game.
4 - TEAM ANTHEM: Add +D6 to your Fan Factor for this game only.
5 - EGGHEAD CONVENTION: A local inventor’s guild is sponsoring a convention in the city today. Several of the attendees are big fans of your team, and are willing to assist your team in today’s match in exchange for getting to watch the game from the sidelines. With their aid, your team will automatically win any Brilliant Coaching results on the Kickoff Table.
6 - THAT BABE’S GOT TALENT! Your team visits the local tavern the night before the game. One of the exotic dancers displays her, umm, ‘talents,’ and your players leave her a generous tip. She and a few friends decide to hang out with your team for the day. You automatically win any Cheering Fans results on the Kickoff Table.

Random Events and Dirty Tricks - 25 point table
1 - MAGIC SPONGE: Your team has received a free magic sponge from the College of Wizards when they heard about this upcoming match. You may use the Magic Sponge once this game just like an Apothecary (even if your team normally doesn't have access to an apothecary).
2 - BAD HABITS: The opposing team loses D3 re-rolls for this match only.
3 - SMELLING SALTS: You make all rolls to move a player from the Knocked Out box to the Reserves box on a roll of 2 or better for this match.
4 - DUH, WHERE AM I?: One player (your choice) on the opposing team has been out all night on a bender, and isn’t really ready for the game. The Really Stupid rule that applies to Trolls applies to the player for this match only.
5 - IRON MAN: One player on your team (your choice) is determined to play hard for the whole game, no matter what the cost – in fact, he refuses to get injured! If an opposing player beats his Armour roll, he is only Stunned.
6 - BUZZING! One of your players (your choice) has gone heavy on the coffee in anticipation of today’s game. For this match only he gains the Jump Up trait and the Frenzy trait.

Desperate Measure - 50 point table
1 - APPEARANCE FEE: The player on the opposing team with the most Star Player points has decided that he needs to be paid money to take the field against ‘those bums.’ Roll 2D6 and multiply the result by 5,000. The result is the number of gold pieces the player must receive before he will take the field. If he isn’t paid, he’ll sit in the Dugout, refusing to come out until his fee is met or the game ends! The opposing coach may choose to pay the appearance any time after the start of the match if he wishes.
2 - I AM THE GREATEST! The two players with the most SPPs on the opposing team refuse to be on the pitch at the same time for this match only. Only one may be set up on the field at the start of each drive.
3 - MORLEY’S REVENGE: The opposing team’s drinks have been spiked with a powerful laxative. D3 randomly selected opposing players have drunk the spiked drink, and must roll a D6 before every kick-off. On a roll of 1-3 they are otherwise engaged and may not take part in this drive. On a roll of 4-6 they may be set up normally.
4 - DOOM and GLOOM: Due to some cunningly planted rumors and smear campaigns, the opposing team comes into the game with some serious morale issues. Roll a D6 for each re-roll the opposing team has; for each result other than 6, the opposing team loses a re-roll for the match.
5 - HEY, YOU!: You spot a talented (if crazy) fan in the stands, and he agrees to play for your team. The fan has MA6, ST4, AG3, AV7, and the Frenzy trait. The player leaves your team when the match ends. Note that you may add a 17th player to your team with this result.
6 - IN THE BAG! The opposing team is feeling cocky about their chances of winning this match. They can only field the 11 worst available players on their team, based on SPPs (in case of ties, the team with the lower TR picks which is unable to play). This restriction stops for the rest of the match as soon as your team takes the lead.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

and for the most part self-inflicted

That's probably the most important. So you are crusing along doing really well .. but didn't save any cash ... (remember in this new system, a good coach might keep 20k back as his team gets better for a rainy day) ... and BAM ... you hit a lousy gate game with a winning roll of 1 for your TR 276 team ... assuming you had zero cash in the bank (shame on you) ... you are now 50k in debt.

This is your hard wake up call. .... if this happened to me ... what I would do is this. I'd probably retire one midrange player immediately and/or drop a reroll to get my TR back under control. Next game, my TR should hopefully be back in line ... yeah I might lose an extra player from not having an apothecary ... but apoths only save one player a game so not having one is not like you lost the ability to save 2 or more players that get nailed that game anyway.

If you choose to completely ignore that hard wake up call ... your fate will be self inflicted. One of the biggest things I pointed out to folks is that once you start making gold on your gold rolls, you'll pay off your debt at double TR killing pace. IE 50k in gold winnings paying off 50k in debt drops your TR in effect 10 points.

If you ignore the system ... yeah ... it can burn you ... in a way that's supposed to be the point really.

The most debt you could possible earn in one game is 70k. But let's be real here. Most teams hover around TR 8 to 12 ... if their opponent's do the same that means their gates are 16 to 24 dice ... at 3.5 a piece that's 56 to 84k in fans ... which mean in the norm a TR 300+ team could get a max of 50k in debt from a single game.

My point here is simple ... a good coach is probably going to have a small kitty set aside to help deal with this problem. As a result ... odds are that they'll get hit with their first negative winnings roll and pay it out of their treasury ... maybe even their first two negative winnings rolls. IE ... a normal coach will have plenty of time to make the changes to the roster that his team is showing him he needs to make.

IF he CHOOSES (and remember I love coach's having the right to choose) to not make these cuts ... than the carnage on the pitch will do it for him.

This rule will never "sneak up" on any coach to be honest ... its such a gradual system that only the most stubborn of coaches would deliver themselves into a system that might be described a spiral ... however even at that point the coach can make some roster cuts and get back in the black.

The situation you describe is what happens when I don't make any cuts at all ever .... my reply is ... yeah you run the risk of destroying your team ... but then any coach who pays no attention to his team's health should run that risk ... right?

Galak

[martynq]

I've just voted for the TBB-package... this is all provided that it is shown to work appropriately and without being annoying. Hopefully the playtesting will show this...

Martyn

[zodo]

To start, I'd like to say I've been playing in Tom's MBBL leagues for a
couple years now, and have thoroughly enjoyed them. It's amazing the amount of effort he puts forth for this game, and I applaud that effort.

I have withheld voting on this subject for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't like any of the choices.

I seem to be one of a very rare number that found little wrong with 3rd Edition Blood Bowl, and liked little tweaks like Sigurd's roll, but for the most part saw no need to change any of it.

Needless to say, the past couple years of rules changes have been harrowing.

My local gang of Blood Bowlers has been through a number of leagues. They would go for a while, then peter out, much to my frustration, because I really like running a team in the long term. I want to see the teams develop ad infinitum. The major stumbling block is that the players in the leagues did not have the attention span I do when it comes to maintaining their rosters and progressing through the ranks. As a result, people kept leaving, or making new teams when they got bored with the old ones, so most of the coaches had rookie teams. Meanwhile, I kept on chugging along with my team, getting better and better. My best team had a team rating of 306, and it was impossible to win a tournament, because I would always have to face some rate 107 weenie team, with a fistful of handicap cards. Those teams did get a huge bonus with the additional MVPs, and would very quickly grow in TR until they were closer to the upper tiers.

A previous league we were in tried the TR cap idea. We set the cap at TR 200, and provided a mechanism to try to maintain that cap: you could peak any of your players at the end of a season, so that they would not improve. If you wanted to retire one of them, they went to a roster of Star Players that could be bought by new teams. An interesting idea, and a neat way to make some unique new Star Players, but the league ended up stagnating, with the top team having 15 peaked players on it.

Personally, I do not see why some game mechanic is necessary to hinder a team's growth. The original handicapping system was pretty good for that. What's more, when you have those nasty, high SPP players, they tend to get inducted into the Order of the Concentric Circle. Bounties do a wonderful job of helping this particular process. (but that's just a house rule)

So after this rambling, what about my analysis of the topic at hand? TR caps? Not all that great if you are interested in the long term. People end up having to sacrifice their best players, essentially throwing away their progress so that those who are slower can catch up. In the end, everyone is eventually the same TR up at the top of the cap, barring some misfortune like I suffered in the current MBBL2 season (had two expensive players killed in two consecutive games, to the tune of about 30 TR).

Aging? In my almost, but not quite humble opinion, the single worst idea ever proposed related to Blood Bowl. Not only do you have to worry about tripping and getting hurt when the dice betray you (and they WILL betray you), as well as the other teams coming after you with their heavy hitters (and there is no such thing as impenetrable armor. Get enough goblins jumping up and down on that ogre, and eventually he'll get hurt), but you also start suffering negative effects just because you've either A) been really good at what you do, or B) have managed to survive for a few games. It's been said once already, but it bears repeating, If I wanted realism, why would I be playing a game with elves, orcs and undead?

Negative Winnings? Not that bad an idea, but I don't see how this would go toward letting a team keep playing forever. It's essentially another form of TR cap, but it's based on luck, instead of number crunching. Especially combined with the fact that FF gets maxed out by the penalty imposed (-1 for every 10 FF), this really doesn't seem to be geared toward long term play, but rather putting a max on the league, so that the slower people can catch up. If the FF penalty was taken away, and teams were allowed to keep going higher and higher with FF, then I might see it as possibly plausible. Personally, I like the FF penalty, though without it, when a smaller team meets that juggernaut, they walk away with an incredibly fat purse.

Freebooting Apothecary? This one leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Tom has said that it is better for starting teams... I counter that it may be better, but only for the first game. After that, they need to make sure that they are setting aside 10K for their Apothecary, which means that their growth is being slowed. For some teams that have expensive players, and are not that great in the early goings, like an Elf team in a Bash-heavy league (I speak from personal experience in this respect), this will be a greater hinderance than it would be for a Dwarf team, which comes with several skills already, and tougher armor which will reduce the occurrence of those injuries. I haven't seen this in play, so I can't really give any definitive opinion on this, but I don't think that it will work all that well.

Changed Handicap tables? I really don't have much opinion on this... They've been mucked around with so much that I really don't know what's going on with them. I kind of liked them they way they originally were, and didn't really see anything broken with them.

To sum up this long and rambling post (sorry for that), To have a long lasting league, with long lasting teams, you need to have players that will stick around long enough for that to occur. The trouble arises when new players show up late in the league. A seeding system to place teams of similar strengths against each other is the best way to keep the little guys from getting too horribly stomped at first. Give significant benefits to guys who have low TR when they engage in a game against someone with high TR, whether or not they win or lose, as this will help them quickly get up to the higher levels.

Most importantly, and this is the main reason I declined to vote, Don't penalize the teams because they're successful!!! If another team is better, GREAT! Let the handicapping system take care of the different between the team ratings. Attrition will happen naturally to the best teams, because the dice hate us all. If a team is lucky enough to survive to TR 500, what's wrong with that?

The entire purpose that I've seen for all these systems, Aging, EXP system, this new proposal by Tom, is to hold back the teams that are good, so that they don't benefit from their success, and let the slower gimpier teams catch up. I don't think that's fun. When I have a good team, and I'm on top of the pack, I want to stay there. If someone rises up and knocks me off my perch, then I'll just have to fight harder to get back up there. If I'm in the middle or hind end of the pack, then I strive harder to get to the front once more.

Simply put, reward success, don't punish it.

-Zodo, CI

[noodle]

Zodo - Our league is very much like yours. However with nothing to hold the best teams back - after a while they get bored up there in their ivory towers...

Here's a breakdown of this years superleague:

TR 370 - 65 games or so
TR 295 - 54 games
TR 270 - 40 games or so
TR 240 - 40 games or so
TR 233 - 30 games or so
TR 210 - 20+ games
TR 200 - 20 ish games
TR 180 - 15 games

My point?

Well - the 370 team is an anomaly. We ALREADY use negative winnings, a form of peaking etc... However 1) The team was developed mostly under 3rd edition and 2) Its STILL very good...

Even with all the negative factors - good players with good strategies will get rewarded for success! - Higher FF - Higher winnings etc...

Analysis shows that with our league rules teams will have a tough time exceeding TR 400 after hundreds of games...


THIS IS GOOD.


We had an old 3rd edition league - we had a top team rating of 650+ - I had to increase squad size to 22 and introduce a bucket load of extra rules and options to keep it interesting.

We've done that - and THAT wasn't realistic (I know - bad word) - real teams get good, then either stay good or get worse. They don't often go off into infinity...

However my love of game character and in game effects - and team economics means I like Galak's rules, but don't like arbitrary ageing.

Still think Peaking has a role. After all not EVERYONE keeps getting better, only the few...