licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 18:15 |
 
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
It is just some fluff thing. |
Without fluff there is no BloodBowl. Do not underestimate the power of the fluff! |
I agree with this to a degree.
But if you want to fluff the cash then you need to add more fluffy things to actually spend that cash on.
People will still choose how much fluff they personally want, but what the heck, not much you can do about that. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 18:24 |
|
I'm not sure we need to add anything to spend cash on (don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some brilliant ideas that would work out). What we need is that continually striving to build and spend is a game goal. There's nothing more heart-breaking than seeing possible legendary teams treading water as they're equally (or more) successful than teams that reach high TV.
We've never actually had it where you would say.......want 9 rerolls, none of us would do that competitively. Yet without handicapping 9 rerolls would be better than 4. It's difficult, team management is an interesting feature, but it shouldn't be getting in the way of dreaming of world domination due to the growth of your team.
That's my view. I appreciate I'm on my own with some of my views on this issue though. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 18:40 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | koadah wrote: |
It is just some fluff thing. |
Without fluff there is no BloodBowl. Do not underestimate the power of the fluff! |
But that particular fluff is weak. 
| harvestmouse wrote: | | I'm not sure we need to add anything to spend cash on (don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some brilliant ideas that would work out). What we need is that continually striving to build and spend is a game goal. |
You'll need to get rid of some of those CPOMBers then.
Either that or let everyone buy claws.
| harvestmouse wrote: | | There's nothing more heart-breaking than seeing possible legendary teams treading water as they're equally (or more) successful than teams that reach high TV. |
I guess you have not been watching the news. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 18:42 |
|
Well I think it just goes back to what the point of the open divisions are, or should be.
People play for lots of different reasons, but the leaderboard on FUMBBL is CR (for teams, you can also play to get individual players on various lists).
The thing is that I strongly doubt amount in bank has any relevance on actual win% for a team. So from that point of view, the bank is completely meaningless in terms of it's actual effect on any teams win rate.
The side effect is that teams with a huge bank don't face the same rebuild issues as teams with a lower bank, but again, unless we have some data to show that this actually matters in terms of win rate, so what?
I do agree that the open divisions would be 'better' (personal preference clearly) if there were some more unified goals for all coaches to participate in. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:16 |
|
| licker wrote: |
People play for lots of different reasons, |
Well yes, but also they think they play for a variety of reasons. The fluff was developed and a game around that. Without the integrity of the fluff it just becomes a competitive chess style game.
You could say one little bit doesn't make much difference. However at what point does it make a difference? At what point does it start looking artificial? I don't think the BBRC and some of the more modern contributors fully understand this. They say they do, but saying and doing aren't the same.
I'm not really talking about the bank here. It's again an artificial bandaid. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:21 |
|
| licker wrote: |
The thing is that I strongly doubt amount in bank has any relevance on actual win% for a team. So from that point of view, the bank is completely meaningless in terms of it's actual effect on any teams win rate. |
Having some cash to spend counts during majors.
Let's say I play HE in a major and vs my next opponent I'm 90 TV underdog, with a huge hoard of gold I could purchase 2 linelves in order to have more fodder or a Wizard rather than being forced to induce a card or 1 babe if I had not enough gold in the treasury.
In one match it may not be important, but in a series of several matches it matters.
| licker wrote: |
I do agree that the open divisions would be 'better' (personal preference clearly) if there were some more unified goals for all coaches to participate in. |
Absolutely, and the next step would be to make just one and only competitive MM division for all the users.
That way the matching criteria would be the same for everybody and there would be no cherrypicking.
Too often I see Ranked Legends that have way lower win rate and CR when they play in Black Box. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:31 |
|
It really is the BB version of Godwin's law. I see an Italian flag avatar, and it is inevitable the thread will become ClawPOMB, R v B or both. Often at the expense of actually reading what people say!
It's nice to have some certainty in a crazy world. |
Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %25, %2016 - %19:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:31 |
|
I get that HM, but like you, I have no answer as to what is too much and what isn't, that's still very subjective in my mind.
The notion of cash is purely meaningless to me at least, I pay it zero attention until someone who does care brings it up. However, I'm open to suggestions for moderating it, though I'd prefer fluff moderation compared to what I consider an artificial bank number.
There are a lot of ways to address this issue, though, outside of fluff, one would have to establish exactly how much of an issue it actually is.
BB2 actually does address it with stadium upgrades and such, though they have the bank rule to keep some sanity in terms of how poorly they implemented inducements. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:32 |
|
Full house! |
_________________
 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:40 |
|
| ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | | Full house! |
Or a straight flush! |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:42 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | licker wrote: |
People play for lots of different reasons, |
Well yes, but also they think they play for a variety of reasons. The fluff was developed and a game around that. Without the integrity of the fluff it just becomes a competitive chess style game.
You could say one little bit doesn't make much difference. However at what point does it make a difference? At what point does it start looking artificial? I don't think the BBRC and some of the more modern contributors fully understand this. They say they do, but saying and doing aren't the same.
I'm not really talking about the bank here. It's again an artificial bandaid. |
I think that it is you that does not get the fluff Mouse. The game is at least part sports parody.
Not every sports team is trying to be Manchester United. Cheating is part of the game. Trying to exploit the salary cap is part of the game. Pretty much everything is part of the game until you get caught breaking the rules.
Where does it say you cannot run with 11 players? this is just one of your dislikes. We all have our dislikes. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:44 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | licker wrote: |
The thing is that I strongly doubt amount in bank has any relevance on actual win% for a team. So from that point of view, the bank is completely meaningless in terms of it's actual effect on any teams win rate. |
Having some cash to spend counts during majors.
Let's say I play HE in a major and vs my next opponent I'm 90 TV underdog, with a huge hoard of gold I could purchase 2 linelves in order to have more fodder or a Wizard rather than being forced to induce a card or 1 babe if I had not enough gold in the treasury.
In one match it may not be important, but in a series of several matches it matters.
|
No, it only matters for tournaments, and there's no reason why the entry requirements for a tournament cannot demand some kind of 'bank' rule, or simply state in the rules for the tournament that no more than X cash can be spent during inducements, or during post/pre match periods. We live in a system where house ruling is the norm afterall.
Ok, it's a little more work for admins potentially, but meh, I kind of doubt it would be an issue, that is, since it doesn't appear to already be an issue, unless you can point to tournaments where anyone actually did this, and where anyone else actually cared that they did it. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:48 |
|
I though majors were tournaments, anyway I think it doesn't make difference.
My point was that having some cash gives a degree of freedom about choosing the inducements during a series of scheduled tournament matches, and being able to purchase fodder or a Wizard could increase the chance of winning a match. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 19:49 |
|
A tight Bank rule (say, 100k or 150k) would retire the Amateurs and force me to play "serious" teams.  The rest of my teams wouldn't notice, except for all the hours I'd have to spend ditching cash.
I do not understand the rationale for the Bank. I've had it explained to me over and over and I still don't get it. It doesn't affect the teams it purports to nerf (except to make them dump cash they weren't using anyway) and nerfs the teams that need the most help. Is it just aesthetic? You don't like seeing teams with an arbitrarily large treasury? Then drop the Bank rule and just set a maximum Treasury of 300k or something. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 20:00 |
|
as both I and Purplegoo eluded to, the only reason that 'bank rule' has hung around so long is because of 'political reasons' as he delicately put it.
or
because Galak whinges on about it so much and his little fan boys dote over him so much... as I put it without any tact.
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
