38 coaches online • Server time: 16:32
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
swilhelm73



Joined: Oct 06, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 02, 2004 - 21:29 Reply with quote Back to top

Force wrote:

Finally, some kind of reset would be nice. I mean i would like to see the way tems developed when started under the new rules. Maybe add a date of creation to the teams rosters?



Date of creation on the team page? Fine. Reset? No way. Why should someone's perhaps rather old divX team be removed/reset just because there has been a rule modification?
cataphract



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 00:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Mnemon wrote:


Which brings me right to the second thing I don't like about the rules - it introduces less flexibility to the coaches and requires every team to be coached alike. I simply don't like that. The Anarchists certainly lost a number of matches due to their ageing injuries, especially since handicaps where introduced, and Evo _does_ have enough money to replace those injured players ... but why force him? Who is hurt by the fact that a team that is coached like that exists? That is the beauty of the open system ... if you don't like to play teams at a TR rating beyond 250 don't. Nobody forces you to, and you can restrain and retire all the players you would like to retire on your own team. Why _force_ people to follow these standards you have yourself, if _they_ might _enjoy_ playing teams beyond that point? The playerbase here is by far large enough to allow people to choose whichever playing style suits you (and again, I just don't see it as a problem in Tabletop). I love playing with stunty teams, other people like the challenge of having to deal with a team that has a different configuration of players each match ... just let them.


I disagree.. negative winings is a game element... if you are unable to sustain a high enough fan factor you can't maintain such high spp players. No one forces you to retire them however... if you want to keep them and run yourself into debt you can!

I have an elf catcher... played three games gets 16spp and rolls snake eyes on his second aging roll and gets -mv. THAT situation was forced on me! it wasn't due to my bad play or poor team managment (quite the opposite actually)... i didn't get a chance to use an apoth... It was inevitable and unfair.

Aging ws supposed to effect high TR teams and curb them, yet here is my TR 120 elf team being curbed! Meanwhile my TR 200 necromantic team has never failed an aging roll. it's a poor system that dosn't acomplish what it sets out to do. Neg winnigs will only effect high TR teams!

Negative winnings dosn't FORCE you to do anything... it adds another element of team managment, "keep that TR down or that FF up" or suffer the consequence. Don't just suffer the consequences because the dice tell you to.

_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity"
Colin



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 03, 2004 - 01:41 Reply with quote Back to top

All I will say is - I got to roll for my 51 SPP HE thrower recently, and was beginning to stress about clicking the 'Skill' tab next to him, when it hit me...no aging, of course! I've never had such pleasure clicking that tab before - it really did feel good, and made me want to carry on, building up the team; not allowing TR to spiral out of control is something I much prefer to the fear of aging, any day.

On a side note, I see Grum went ahead and restored Hypnotic Gaze to it's former glory - I can't say I'm complaining - how many rampant Vampire teams have I ever seen? Not many.

_________________
Join The Cult of Tzeentch, mutate randomly! | Hug a newb! Join the Faculty of Academy Instructors!
Icedman



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 24, 2004 - 13:28 Reply with quote Back to top

Cataphract wrote:

Mnemon wrote:

Which brings me right to the second thing I don't like about the rules - it introduces less flexibility to the coaches and requires every team to be coached alike. I simply don't like that. The Anarchists certainly lost a number of matches due to their ageing injuries, especially since handicaps where introduced, and Evo _does_ have enough money to replace those injured players ... but why force him? Who is hurt by the fact that a team that is coached like that exists? That is the beauty of the open system ... if you don't like to play teams at a TR rating beyond 250 don't. Nobody forces you to, and you can restrain and retire all the players you would like to retire on your own team. Why _force_ people to follow these standards you have yourself, if _they_ might _enjoy_ playing teams beyond that point? The playerbase here is by far large enough to allow people to choose whichever playing style suits you (and again, I just don't see it as a problem in Tabletop). I love playing with stunty teams, other people like the challenge of having to deal with a team that has a different configuration of players each match ... just let them.

I disagree.. negative winings is a game element... if you are unable to sustain a high enough fan factor you can't maintain such high spp players. No one forces you to retire them however... if you want to keep them and run yourself into debt you can!

I have an elf catcher... played three games gets 16spp and rolls snake eyes on his second aging roll and gets -mv. THAT situation was forced on me! it wasn't due to my bad play or poor team managment (quite the opposite actually)... i didn't get a chance to use an apoth... It was inevitable and unfair.

Aging ws supposed to effect high TR teams and curb them, yet here is my TR 120 elf team being curbed! Meanwhile my TR 200 necromantic team has never failed an aging roll. it's a poor system that dosn't acomplish what it sets out to do. Neg winnigs will only effect high TR teams!

Negative winnings dosn't FORCE you to do anything... it adds another element of team managment, "keep that TR down or that FF up" or suffer the consequence. Don't just suffer the consequences because the dice tell you to.


The only hiccup i see in this argument Cata is that negative winnings are dependent on luck as well; as your FF is determined by a dice roll, its not really possible to be certain of "keeping your FF up" but instead is more a case of "well i'll do all i can on the pitch and hope that i don't roll a 1". As an example, my (very old) DivX Necro team has a FF of 2, not because they failed to win games or cause CAS, but because they got a run of 1's on the FF dice roll. This, to me, feels like suffering the consequences because the dice told me to...

I do agree with you on the TR-management aspect of your argument though Smile
Unxerxes



Joined: Dec 31, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 24, 2004 - 15:10 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree with the fact that your FF is equally randomly decided as aging was (well, not exactly the same but you get my drift). Therefor I'm for a system where the winning team will have a much smaller chance of a FF-1 and the losing team a smaller chance of FF+1 (eg.: you win, roll FF, 1, 2nd roll, 1 again, FF-1 (other Results on first roll result in usual FF in/decrease). That way, you just need to win and you only got a 1/36 chance of having a FF-decrease on the roll. Can still happen of course but I don't think it could happen in streaks as I have seen it here (have seen teams who lost 4 FF on 4 games despite winning/scoring/cassing)) Maybe they could also make it harder for the losing team to gain FF (double six for example) and keep the current FF-roll-system for ties only.

_________________
We're all merely specks of dust awaiting the eternal Hoover
Barash



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 24, 2004 - 15:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Lucky FF is very important, as only playing high FF opponents.
it's the drawback of this system probably. Ageing is luck driven, FF increase as well, so I'm neutral about this change so far.

I have a dwarf team with a 9/1/2 record with 17 FF (started at FF9), they will be fine.
An other team of mine with a 11/0/2 record has FF 9 now (also started at FF9), they will be in trouble in the long run if they will not pick-up the needed fans soon.

_________________
Barash
Grumbledook



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 24, 2004 - 15:51 Reply with quote Back to top

if you perform well in most games your ff on the whole will go up if you lose a lot on the whole it will go down, I can't really see how its that random

the only change to this would be to make it a roll on 2d6 and double the mods but make double 1 down and double 6 up but tbh i don't see the need
Chickenbrain



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 24, 2004 - 16:24 Reply with quote Back to top

It can go down on each ff roll, but also it can go up on each. One big point is that only higher skilled coaches will reach higher ff on average. Only thing i see is Mnemons point. This system (combined with handicap !!) forces you to retire players and make special team management. A niggler rolling again at halftime doubles his chances to be out for one half at least...

_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams.
Mully



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 28, 2004 - 05:41 Reply with quote Back to top

Quote:

if you perform well in most games your ff on the whole will go up if you lose a lot on the whole it will go down, I can't really see how its that random


Grumble - this is not true - you must remember the other modifier of -1 for ff of 10 or more and -2 for ff of 20 or more. Basically the ff table was written in an effort to bring you back to 10. Without a revision, the new negative earnings will hit many teams despite their win loss record.

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&team_id=34110

There is my current faction team - record of 22-8-7 - started with 9 ff and now have 11. Now tell me how my "bad coaching" would lead me to have a team that "cannot be supported by its fan factor".

Plus with a good record and comparatively low ff, this team would get dodged like a bullet in open play.

_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic