| Poll |
| What monetary system would you prefer in LRB6? |
| Petty Cash (according to rules) |
|
42% |
[ 54 ] |
| Banking System (vetoed by Jervis but liked by everyone else) |
|
25% |
[ 32 ] |
| Banking System but with 200k (less ristrictivy and still fulllfills the purpose) |
|
12% |
[ 16 ] |
| Banking System but with 300k {it's ensurance policy, coaches shouldn't be punished for planning ahead but there should be a limit at some point.) |
|
3% |
[ 4 ] |
| Banking System but with 50k (every sign of saving must be punished and just a few TV difference for so much isn't enough) |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Money should fully count to TV! |
|
1% |
[ 2 ] |
| Implement the whole LRB4 monetary system! It's obviously better then having this discussion! |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| Pie! |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
| It's just so incredibly pie. No words, just pie. |
|
9% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 126 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
 Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 19:42 |
 
|
| maysrill wrote: | | Flat Entry for majors. |
I thought you were smarter than that 
Please would someone, anyone explain how flat entry solves petty cash abuse. All it does is give you brittle teams and slanted majors - the worst of both worlds. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 20:05 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | I thought you were smarter than that
|
It's ok. I fool a lot of people just by being able to use proper grammar and punctuation.
Basically, I favor team bloat. I like big powerful teams and think they're cool. If they want to stockpile 500k gold and the rules allow it (i.e. they didn't rig games or anything to get that way) I'm fine with it.
Give me a TV3500 team and an apothecary that works 100% once per game, and I'd be happy.
I threw out the Flat Entry idea since the only real solid argument I hear against stockpiling is the effect on majors. If I play a FFB-Ranked game against a guy with 300k in his sock drawer or a guy who's flat broke, if the team on the field it the same, I don't care. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 20:29 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | | If I play a FFB-Ranked game against a guy with 300k in his sock drawer or a guy who's flat broke, if the team on the field it the same, I don't care. |
This is sort of what I'm thinking. I'm still scratching my head about what sort of advantage on the field you get from having cash under the mattress. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 20:45 |
|
Hm... looking at the votes I see that the breakpoint is at 300 GP... almost noone is in favor of a 300 GP bank rule, but assuming that people in favor of such a rule would have rather a 300 gp limit then none, they would go slightly over the 50% there....
however this thread proofs pretty much that there is no clear majority in favor of that rule....
personally I think accumulating money can very well bring an advantage. As has been pointed out a good team needs to be in balance. However, a coach with no money has much less options to keep the team balanced then a player with money has...
I 'll make a simple example that everyone should be able to understand:
If the amount of players in the team drops below 11 they can be filled up with journeyman. Journeymen have the loner skill, wich makes them worse then normal rookies.
If the coach has money, he can buy a rookie for the same amount of TV, having a team with one less negatrait.
Also I notice that there is a wide believe the inducements would perfectly remove the disadvantage of the weaker coach, but I don't believe that'S true nor do I believe it can be intended like that. That would nullify the point in teambuilding at all.
Inducements tend to be more diverse but have a much higher price then the maintenance of a team demands, therefore I'd expect a increasing difference between stronger and weaker teams... correct me if I'm wrong... |
|
|
GalakStarscraper
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 20:58 |
|
Inducements were only meant to allow the underdog team to win 35% of his games. That was the design goal ... so yes inducements are meant to be sub-optimal for the amount of inducement cash needed to get them compared to having actual TV of your team. |
|
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 21:00 |
|
Hi,
as i know, petty cash is the phase before actually calculating the TV for each team. You take petty cash from your own bank. Bank doesn't count for TV, petty cash does count for TV (as it is the phase afterwards). These are the rules we play after since several tabletop seasons. Everyone of us would tell, that the rules work great.
In a time, where stars and other inducements have to be paid very painful, if you buy them from the own money, that really is not a problem. If a team has about 1.5 mio cash in the bank and doesn't get inducements (because that is, what petty cash is all about -> yout don't get inducements and buy your own), then the other team still gets the petty cash you invest to their own inducements (perhaps they simply buy the same star). Try to get 1 mio in bank and have more than 200 TV. If you really achieve it, then you for sure have ... no real advantage of it.
Flat entry is a thing, that results out of stars like Morg and Count cost less than 100k. Now those stars cost more than 400k AND your opponent gets the same advantage and gains those 400k you invest, too. I think, the inducement system is one of the best i've seen so far - and it works great.
This poll for me doesn't make sense at all.
Greets,
gan |
|
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 22:08 |
|
@Galak:
Inducements may be too expensive for the things you get (apo for 100k instead of 50k and so on), but don't forget that you can choose the inducement you need to play a certain team in a certain situation. If you play a dwarf team with lots of MB, you may invest the 200k in apos, while playing against other teams you would buy cards instead. That is a great thing!
Although inducements are expensive and this is the natural way to balance it. A good player with a good sense for neccessary inducements has always a chance to win the match and that is exactly what inducements should be about. |
|
|
Wakslo
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 23:11 |
|
There are arguments about the banking rule which is in some rules but not others being considered a house rule. However you stand on that issue, fine. No need to post here because we have pages and pages of feelings in the forums on it already. I find it funny that you included options to use this rule, but house rule it by changing the amounts. So some how a house rule on top of a maybe house rule becomes a real rule.
Unless of course the bank rule says you can choose the amount that doesn't count towards TV. But I don't know because my copy of the rules doesn't include the bank portion |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 21, 2010 - 23:42 |
|
Technically this discussion is all house rule. In the CRB they have a entire section on optional rules for leagues. The Core rules that dicate how the game is played, move players, block, the nuts and bolts of game mechanics. But the league rules are all flexiable and changeable per the rule book.
Coaches dont like house rules because they are not written in a book and thus new coaches will get caught off guard if fumbbl started to impliment some of these suggested changes or made our own. As with all house rules if the group stays together for a long time these house hold rules are not questioned anymore and just accepted. Only when the new guy shows up does the discussion start again.
My point: All the rules that effect league play are by design optional and changeable. There are suggestions from the design team on how they felt it should be handled but every league can change what they want. Just dont mess with the core mechanics of the game.
So the throwing around of the rule books when it comes to League rules is mute, per the rule book.
Fumbbl obviously follows the recommended league rules because the community is way to large to impliment optional rules. Of course we can discuss optional rules and which way is better but Christer has never seemed to go off the beaten path when it comes to rules that would be considered "house". It would cause to much grief and be anti fun and not productive at all. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 22, 2010 - 00:03 |
|
Just trying again to make the point clear for those that are still puzzled (it's spread on several threads, it can be hard to keep track):
If money doesn't count for TV (petty cash rule) you can goldfarm
Goldfarm millions (2-3) if you want
If you do, spiraling expenses won't be a problem for a long time
Meaning you can build a very high TV team and keep it healthy and balanced
And then join a tournament
As inducements are not meant to be optimal, you get an advantage over lower TV teams
All this takes a lot of metagaming effort
I think the bank is better, but I'm not sure about what I'd like better for Fumbbl
And some people enjoy metagaming for monster teams, but imho a team is not really impresive if you use a shortcut to build it. |
|
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 22, 2010 - 10:02 |
|
Hi,
that is "true". You could gain, let's say 3 mio (and still have a working team, that not just consists of Journeymen), then buy a strong team which leaves you about 2 mio. Of course you have to spend all the money at the latest point, because how would you gain so much money with a team of 250+? The expenses are so high, that you will never achieve your missing 2 mio.
So, you have this 2 mio and a team with a TV of 300+. OK at this point - why? Easy: 1 mio of your TV has no skills, no games and your opponent might not have TV 300, but gains inducements for the players you have in your team, that just idle around - skillless. After having TV300 the amount of 2 mio will reduce significantly during the upcoming matches.
Because your team has a high TV and because some players do not have gained any experience and because of a calculation that says, that 35% should be the probability on winning for underdog team with (a lot) inducements, the probability of winning this match is quite higher than 35% - for the underdog of course. So even with your 2 mio, you might lose the first match at a high percentage (which for me is 25%+).
Don't worry about it, because the cash you have in your bank will, when your are going to use it, help your opponent as it does help you.
Greets,
gan |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
