59 coaches online • Server time: 17:49
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post is multiple block wo...goto Post NBFL Season 19 mrt12...goto Post Advice on a new team
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Zlefin



Joined: Apr 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 30, 2016 - 20:16 Reply with quote Back to top

I was thinking about the issue of minmaxing/tv management; and how I enjoy teams being fuller.
So I was pondering having a bench discount, so that bench players don't contribute as much to tv as regular players.
But I don't have a good sense of how much that discount should be; and of how it should vary based on team type. Certainly some teams can benefit a lot more from a bench than others, but finding a good rule to cover that isn't so easy.
I considered something like -10k for first bench guy, -20k for 2nd, etc. minimum of 10k or 20k. Simple, but I'm not sure it provides optimum fairness. In particular it changes a lot based on how cheap the linemen are; cheap linos would become near free quite easily.

% reductions might be better, but that means values don't tidy up well.
Modifying the discount based on team armor would differentiate some based on how much the team benefits from a bench, but adds more complication, and i'm not sure how it affects team balance.

So I'm wondering about people's thoughts on what would be good.
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 30, 2016 - 20:24 Reply with quote Back to top

What about the total TV of the first (most expensive) 12 players, plus some percentage of TV for the rest?

_________________
What is Nuffle's tree? Risk its trunk, space the branches. Touchdowns are its fruit.
What is Nuffle's lawn? Inches, squares, and Tackle Zones; reddened blades of grass.
DarthPhysicist



Joined: Jun 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jul 30, 2016 - 21:21 Reply with quote Back to top

But having a bit of insurance SHOULD count against your TV. Its not like those players don't come in handy as you lose players in the game.

_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Jul 30, 2016 - 21:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Or sign up for the waitlist for DLE. No money issue, no inducement, no minmaxin, full house roster. (link in the signature.)

_________________
Image
"This is turning into the best thing on FUMBBL" - Seventyone
"THIS LEAGUE IS AWESOME!!!!" - Kummo
"Last league i would leave." - SpecialOne
Zlefin



Joined: Apr 14, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 30, 2016 - 21:58 Reply with quote Back to top

dle is too complicated Razz
Darth -> you seem to be missing the point; the quesotin isn't whether it counts against your tv, but how much it should count against your tv.
jackass -> %'s a possibility, but one of the key questions is which %? in order to actually use it I'd need a number, and I don't have a sense of what that number should be; and how should that number vary based on the player's position? (i.e. 13th vs 16th)
it also will lead to things not orunding into nice 10k increments; though that may be an acceptable sacrifice.
Wreckage



Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 30, 2016 - 22:07 Reply with quote Back to top

Simply deduct half value from the 12th most expensive player onward. (Will be usually all rookies. -20k for zombies, 25k for humans and 35k for high elves and dwarves..)

Will encourage full rosters, make the game less dependent on dice and cpomb will turn from an op combo into a decent tactical choice.
morehouse



Joined: Sep 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 00:23 Reply with quote Back to top

I think a way to do this effectively would be to have a "deactivate" feature on players. So for example if I want to have a Chaos Dwarf team with 16 players, but say I draw an elf team in a tournament with 11 on the roster, I could deactivate a few guys since I don't think I will need them in that game. They don't play and don't count against team value in that game but are still on the roster for the next one.
Roland



Joined: May 12, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 00:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Play in any league.
There you'll see 16 men teams.
At least the bashy ones.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 00:49 Reply with quote Back to top

morehouse wrote:
I think a way to do this effectively would be to have a "deactivate" feature on players. So for example if I want to have a Chaos Dwarf team with 16 players, but say I draw an elf team in a tournament with 11 on the roster, I could deactivate a few guys since I don't think I will need them in that game. They don't play and don't count against team value in that game but are still on the roster for the next one.


This is an interesting concept. Isn't this giving teams that can maintain a larger roster a bonus though? If the elf team is legitimately (and elves should legitimately) struggling for numbers, they now have a CD team that can tailor itself to play them. I like the idea though. It would certainly promote larger rosters.

I think though you have to look at what exactly is the problem stopping players using larger rosters. These are:

1. TV matching making and handicapping.
2. No incentive to grow.
3. Spiralling Expenses.

TV match making and handicapping is the main cause of teams playing light, not wishing to give up any wasted TV to an opponent. With there being no difference in prestige from winning at 1100TV compared to 1900TV teams are likely to 'tread water' or 'sweet spot' at a TV that is successful.

1. To combat this, you need to be less reliant on TV. In reality the League format works better. This is because teams are not matched by TV; in a divisional situation they're matched by success. Handicapping should also have a success penalty. Not as stifling as TV++, but certainly affecting your recent results.

2. However there has to be an incentive to take on harder and harder matches. So the competitive divisions (in my mind) should be tiered to a degree. As teams move up, they receives badges, rewards, prestige. Fighting to move forward and progress by winning and growing until they are at the very top. Right now there is no incentive to grow in Ranked or Box, unless you're preparing for Majors.

3. Spiralling Expenses also has a negative effect on team growth, therefore promoting smaller rosters, trying to stay under the cap. Personally, I'd like to see it removed altogether. At best being less effective. I personally really can't see why the LRB4 money system was changed (just make FF9-FF0). Possibly an aging system of some sort, far more subtle than LRB4 or Cyanide's answer though would be needed.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 00:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Wreckage wrote:
Simply deduct half value from the 12th most expensive player onward. (Will be usually all rookies. -20k for zombies, 25k for humans and 35k for high elves and dwarves..)


This favours expensive rosters too much.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 01:49 Reply with quote Back to top

This is really sort of pointless.

The teams that would benefit most are also the teams who would struggle the most to maintain a bench.

How happy would the bash/foul teams to be get a TV break on their extras?

How would the elf/skaven teams feel about running at 11 or less anyway?
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 02:03 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:
This is really sort of pointless.

The teams that would benefit most are also the teams who would struggle the most to maintain a bench.

How happy would the bash/foul teams to be get a TV break on their extras?

How would the elf/skaven teams feel about running at 11 or less anyway?


Seriously, you'll never solve the problem of elven benches having less marginal utility than a zombie even at discount rates. I ran my helfs up to 2400ish TV with a bench and was no better off with a deep bench to do it, as fun as that run was.
Wreckage



Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 02:33 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:
Wreckage wrote:
Simply deduct half value from the 12th most expensive player onward. (Will be usually all rookies. -20k for zombies, 25k for humans and 35k for high elves and dwarves..)


This favours expensive rosters too much.


I wouldn't say 'favor', rather evaluates their TV more accurately. But yeah.
DarthPhysicist



Joined: Jun 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 02:48 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:
This is really sort of pointless.

The teams that would benefit most are also the teams who would struggle the most to maintain a bench.

How happy would the bash/foul teams to be get a TV break on their extras?

How would the elf/skaven teams feel about running at 11 or less anyway?


This was what I was getting at as well. I'm not really sure it would solve the problem it was designed to. Dorfs, Chaos and Orcs would suddenly have nice full benches that they got a discount for. Teams like elves and norse who would like to have a bench due to glass-jaw syndrome, would find themselves still struggling to add bench members. Applied evenly, it would be a wash and probably do nothing. AV 7 is still AV 7.
Grod



Joined: Sep 30, 2003

Post   Posted: Jul 31, 2016 - 03:06 Reply with quote Back to top

In Lrb 4 and prior, it was common to maintain large benches. It is only with the latest inducement system that 11 player rosters were seen as more ideal.

The main reason seems to be that inducements are now quite powerful. Inflating your TV with a bench gives opponents the equivalent TV to spend on targeted inducements. It is easy to argue that if a human team with an extra 50K lineman on the bench gives his elf opponent a free babe, the elf opponent has probably got an advantage.

Perhaps the answer is to dial down some of the inducements? Babes and wizards, for example, could be made more expensive? Complicated rules are generally not the best way to fix balance issues.

_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.

Oscar Wilde
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
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits