dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
 Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 09:34 |
 
|
| SpecialOne wrote: | | could we be looking at a new breed of min/max teams with the new MVP, and that combined with seasons? |
I'm not sure. There will be new strategies, certainly, particularly given the added cost Wants to Retire will add to the "max" part of the team. Wants to Retire will mean having a constant cycling of those star players as the best ones become to expensive to keep (either not worth it or unable to redraft a full roster with them).
Could be people will stack SPP up to as close to their next skill thresholds (e.g. at 15, 30, 50 SPP) before they have to redraft, for example, in order to minimise redrafting costs and improve level-up odds ASAP in the next season, for example.
Like I said, it'll be interesting.
ArrestedDevelopment - yeah, min work for max rewards is their model so far. They have been better with this version than with BB1 (not a high bar, I'l agree!), and some of the things they have planned are surprisingly interesting and community-friendly. As always I've advocated options to them, pointing them in the direction of FUMBBL's ruleset options as an example of how league management should be done. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 09:45 |
|
Well the fun bit of "wants to retire" is that you only pay that cost at the re-draft. So that player actually ends up costing less "real" TV than he does gold to re-draft... which means you can effectively drop your TV keeping him.
But that's seasons spec, we're talking strictly EM here  |
_________________
 |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 10:10 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | But that's seasons spec, we're talking strictly EM here |
Fair enough.
Personally I like EM: it encourages spending (on linemen or on inducements, whichever you prefer), allows some reserve cash, and allows you to keep more money if you are willing to risk the bad results (risk/reward being one of the principles of BB).
The downside is it "forces" you to spend the money frivolously if you don't want to keep it or spend it on something with in-game effect. I see that as minor, personally.
An ability to raise (or lower!) the thresholds for modifiers would be useful for some leagues which prefer the ability to amass cash - instead of 290k being the "sweet spot" it would be nice to be able to have that at 390k, 490k or even 990k, for example. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 10:26 |
|
I mean it does depend how you see things - I've already seen a few people quite put off at eg. Low tv amazons (who were the overdogs) inducing helmut vs Dark Elves.
In that situation you're almost directly affecting the cash management of your opponent: is he willing to match your investment in the game, or does he simply let things fall as they may and see if he can ride it out?
I'm undecided as to whether that extra little dance is anything to fret tears about, and there's definitely an argument as to perhaps Elves needing to see a saw or bribe (from DP-laden regen) every few games to keep them honest.
But really for me the "issue" in a perpetual division is simple: there's no over-arching environs that dictates a player needs to do anything other than win the game at hand. And thus given the rules of the arena, many will feel if you feel you need to induce to win, you induce, especially if you know the guy on the other end of it gets nothing and perhaps can't even throw in for a babe. Others won't be playing by the "one game" rules, and thus may feel this is unfair, unbalanced or simply untenable.
In short, it's pretty much destined to end in a tantrum somewhere.
As for EM levels for leagues - Christer is already setting up a system/options to manage EM and the levels in [L]. |
_________________
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 11:30 |
|
Seems to me the whole point of removing petty cash and bringing in EM is to encourage people to use their gold to buy inducements, otherwise they'll just lose it. It's just going to be part of the game now that teams will sometimes induce a babe/bribe, which their opponent won't have any compensation for.
I think removal of petty cash might play into the hands of Gobbos and Flings, with their cheap bribes/chef. Also, Undead/Khemri will be more dangerous with fouling, if they induce a bribe occasionally. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 11:36 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
But really for me the "issue" in a perpetual division is simple: there's no over-arching environs that dictates a player needs to do anything other than win the game at hand. And thus given the rules of the arena, many will feel if you feel you need to induce to win, you induce, especially if you know the guy on the other end of it gets nothing and perhaps can't even throw in for a babe. Others won't be playing by the "one game" rules, and thus may feel this is unfair, unbalanced or simply untenable.
In short, it's pretty much destined to end in a tantrum somewhere.
[L]. |
To me, this is only an issue for BlackBox. In ranked you can check out the other team and see how much cash on hand before you choose to accept the match. If you don't have money to spend you don't need to play someone who does. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 11:49 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | Seems to me the whole point of removing petty cash and bringing in EM is to encourage people to use their gold to buy inducements[...] |
or players |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 11:56 |
|
| Roland wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | Seems to me the whole point of removing petty cash and bringing in EM is to encourage people to use their gold to buy inducements[...] |
or players |
I agree that the primary usage for gold is still going to be replacing players (when needed), but otherwise, if a team doesn't need replacements and is sitting on a 200k+ treasury, there will be a strong incentive to buy an inducement.
I guess it will obviously benefit the 'solid' teams more, i.e. the ones who have always found it easier to build up a cash pile. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 12:15 |
|
Isn't EM by itself a different thing to the lack of a petty cash phase? I do agree that lack of said phase is less than ideal when it comes to making matches more even on the pitch, but that's not an EM issue, is it? |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 12:41 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Isn't EM by itself a different thing to the lack of a petty cash phase? I do agree that lack of said phase is less than ideal when it comes to making matches more even on the pitch, but that's not an EM issue, is it? |
They are separate, yes - you could have one without the other. Although, it seems pretty clear that if you are going to remove petty cash then you need to somehow limit how much of a treasury teams can build up, which I assume is why expensive mistakes was brought in.
Removing petty cash seems to be quite a strange decision to me - I'm not quite sure what the intention was there. It's like, they want teams to be able to use their surplus cash to affect the game, but not too much .. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
cdwat
Joined: Oct 29, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 12:47 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | Removing petty cash seems to be quite a strange decision to me - I'm not quite sure what the intention was there. It's like, they want teams to be able to use their surplus cash to affect the game, but not too much .. |
My hypothesis is that they wanted to simplify the inducement calculation (and re-calculation) process. |
_________________
Proud member of the SWL HEROES
Bio template here. |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 12:48 |
|
So basically, the people who wrote the new rules had no idea why inducements were added to the game in the first place?
Which is what it sounded like to me since the beginning. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 13:41 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | They are separate, yes - you could have one without the other. Although, it seems pretty clear that if you are going to remove petty cash then you need to somehow limit how much of a treasury teams can build up, which I assume is why expensive mistakes was brought in.
Removing petty cash seems to be quite a strange decision to me - I'm not quite sure what the intention was there. It's like, they want teams to be able to use their surplus cash to affect the game, but not too much .. |
Ok, I thought of that differently. I'm not sure the primary aim was to remove Petty Cash at all, I think it was limiting teambuilding in perpetual leagues. The Season system combined with EM limits the amount of cash you have available to redraft, which would achieve that goal but leaves you with a need to spend the money somehow.
I suspect PC was removed to allow people to spend in-game the excess cash they have over the amount they intend to keep without a back-and-forth of "who has what TV now?" which PC could potentially create. I think they either didn't really think it through or thought that people would trim on a per-match basis, limiting spending to ~100k per match. There are certainly better ways of doing it if that was the goal. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 14:37 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | So basically, the people who wrote the new rules had no idea why inducements were added to the game in the first place?
Which is what it sounded like to me since the beginning. |
Sir, are you delusional?
Inducements where brought into Blood Bowl in second edition for the sole purpose of Mayhem, destruction and fun!!!!
They where not brought into Blood Bowl as some mechanic to some how even out matches...give the underdog a chance.
Some how, as time went along, the snowflakes out there convinced every one that inducements should be pure, good and make matches even.
I applaud the visionary who came up with this insane plan of his, buy inducements with no equal value given in return, that has reverted Blood Bowl back to the days when it was fun, chaotic, insane, uneven matches, you don't like it fine!!!! Go cry in the corner as I induce Griff and Zug playing your fling team that is 400TV lower than me!!!!
REJOICE ALL YOU OLD MEN OUT THERE!!!! We finally got back our bastardized version of Blood Bowl we grew up with in the late 80's. When nothing was fair, scoreboard did not matter. The only thing that mattered was when the final whistle blew we looked over at your CAS box and smiled as your team was stacked up deep in it.
  |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 14:53 |
|
| Kondor wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
But really for me the "issue" in a perpetual division is simple: there's no over-arching environs that dictates a player needs to do anything other than win the game at hand. And thus given the rules of the arena, many will feel if you feel you need to induce to win, you induce, especially if you know the guy on the other end of it gets nothing and perhaps can't even throw in for a babe. Others won't be playing by the "one game" rules, and thus may feel this is unfair, unbalanced or simply untenable.
In short, it's pretty much destined to end in a tantrum somewhere.
[L]. |
To me, this is only an issue for BlackBox. In ranked you can check out the other team and see how much cash on hand before you choose to accept the match. If you don't have money to spend you don't need to play someone who does. |
It's still an issue for ranked as it encourages more picking so possibly less games played overall. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
|
|
| |
NBFL Season 32: The ...
Search
