Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
 Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 18:20 |
 
|
Yeah. I added a few conclusions and my personal view to the post above - just was a bit slow with the editing. 
Taking a look at my more successful Quintessential Dwarves (also Ranked):
They'd have had 1530k (TDs: 125k, CAS: 205k) + Treasury for their first rebuy after 20 games. That one would have been easy. But again, only for the first seasons, since they would have build from where they are now afterwards.
Would be interesting to do this math for older teams for a couple of (virtual) seasons. |
_________________
.
 |
|
neubau
Joined: Nov 12, 2016
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 18:21 |
|
Not only that Rabe, imagine Brumbas or Baruk want to retire and you have to pay more for them each time a season is over. |
_________________
 |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 18:25 |
|
Yeah, I know. It would have been impossible. I added that during my edit of the longer post. The three old players I kept had over 400 games players in total.
Building and keeping such players seems unlikely with seasons (Elves still can, I guess, but Dwarves...).
Now, I added 10 more games (assuming a season of 30 games) and ended up with 1610k + Treasury. Seems not so bad, taking into account the really bad performance by the Monsters during those 30 games. |
_________________
.
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 18:42 |
|
| Rabe wrote: |
Would be interesting to do this math for older teams for a couple of (virtual) seasons. |
Well you can do it with a few assumptions, but essentially you're simply going to have a lower actual TV available as you choose to keep various stars on the team, and it just grows the more seasons you play.
Now, I don't think this really matters much at all since most teams will never get to 20 games, let alone 40 or 60, so they simply never encounter this mechanic in a meaningful way.
Which brings back the original question of why bother with it at all if all it does is destroy the ability for certain teams (no matter how small the % is) to exist.
Seasons will make the Monsters and the Bucs and the Charioteers and the WMDs and the ... all 'just like any other team'.
Now there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it removes some of the fun from these leagues, because those teams all have fans outside of just their coaches  |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 18:48 |
|
I'd like seasons to be semi-optional. Maybe if you could end your season at any time, but never have to end your season unless you click the button. Or, alternately, very long seasons (50 games?) with the option to end season after any match. I think in Ranked, seasons should (mostly? entirely? IDC) be a mechanism to keep coaches from having to retire teams, and if anybody gets trimmed it should be largely because they want to trim up. Or maybe 'cuz they got wrecked early in a season and think that it's better to get a cash infusion than to keep some bloaty players. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 19:07 |
|
| licker wrote: | Seasons will make the Monsters and the Bucs and the Charioteers and the WMDs and the ... all 'just like any other team'.
Now there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it removes some of the fun from these leagues, because those teams all have fans outside of just their coaches |
I disagree, at least for some teams. The Monsters were always meant to be more about the team than the players, and as long as they keep true to their style, seasons don't hurt them much - even though (as I stated before) they won't be able to build up some of the more unique players anymore.
The Bucs cycled through the team frequently anyway, at least I remember Pain stating it somewhere.
I think all the teams you mentioned are particularly famous for their names, their fluff, their (coaches') playstyle, the noise they make. I don't think that'll change due to Seasons.
In contrary, I see some really strong points for seasons from a fluff perspective all of a sudden... but I'll get into that later, maybe with a blog entry.
Some other fluffy/themed teams will probably be hurt more though. |
_________________
.
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 19:28 |
|
| Rabe wrote: | | licker wrote: | Seasons will make the Monsters and the Bucs and the Charioteers and the WMDs and the ... all 'just like any other team'.
Now there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it removes some of the fun from these leagues, because those teams all have fans outside of just their coaches |
I disagree, at least for some teams. The Monsters were always meant to be more about the team than the players, and as long as they keep true to their style, seasons don't hurt them much - even though (as I stated before) they won't be able to build up some of the more unique players anymore.
The Bucs cycled through the team frequently anyway, at least I remember Pain stating it somewhere.
I think all the teams you mentioned are particularly famous for their names, their fluff, their (coaches') playstyle, the noise they make. I don't think that'll change due to Seasons.
In contrary, I see some really strong points for seasons from a fluff perspective all of a sudden... but I'll get into that later, maybe with a blog entry.
Some other fluffy/themed teams will probably be hurt more though. |
It's part of why I would love a brand new division instead of forcing a square peg into a round hole. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 19:34 |
|
How about 60 games per season? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 19:39 |
|
That would probably grant ~2200k even for a bad team like the Monsters. Not much of a point implementing Seasons like that - assuming one wants them to create some new dynamics.
If we only wanted to have it, without much impact (except on teams very high in TV and/or on players probably not staying forever), it seems like a good number. |
_________________
.
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 19:46 |
|
You'd still need to retire your Legends after a while, Rabe. Which seems to be the main point of seasons.
How about 40 games per season? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %28, %2017 - %19:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Lyracian
Joined: Oct 29, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 19:48 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | It's part of why I would love a brand new division instead of forcing a square peg into a round hole. |
That would get me vote (if we had one). I would love to see how the season rules work on a team after 5-6 seasons.
| Rabe wrote: | rebuy the team:
1000k (base)
+200k (for 20 games)
+55k (for 11 TDs)
+130k (for 26 CAS)
= 1.385k + Treasury for about 1600k
|
This party comes back to what TV people want to play at? In our table top league 2/3 of the players start a new team each season.
Part of the rehire cost forces teams to have lots of rookie players. Having a single Legendry Star go from costing 150k to 250k after 5 seasons and then 270k after 6 is likely to be affordable but several one skill Lineman going from 70k to 130k after 3 season would get them all fired.
The new MVP rule and re-hire cost makes me want to focus on building 2-4 Star players and have the rest of the team as one skill players. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 20:12 |
|
Some data on teams with forced retirement after four-five very short seasons, without EM and the new MVPs. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 20:15 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | I'd like seasons to be semi-optional. Maybe if you could end your season at any time, but never have to end your season unless you click the button. Or, alternately, very long seasons (50 games?) with the option to end season after any match. I think in Ranked, seasons should (mostly? entirely? IDC) be a mechanism to keep coaches from having to retire teams, and if anybody gets trimmed it should be largely because they want to trim up. Or maybe 'cuz they got wrecked early in a season and think that it's better to get a cash infusion than to keep some bloaty players. |
Actually, if you left it up to a coach decide their season length alone, that might be the ticket. If you want to forgo seasons that's up to you, if you want to rebuild a team after getting smashed down, call it a season. Leave it up to the coach to decide. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 20:15 |
|
| Rabe wrote: | | licker wrote: | Seasons will make the Monsters and the Bucs and the Charioteers and the WMDs and the ... all 'just like any other team'.
Now there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it removes some of the fun from these leagues, because those teams all have fans outside of just their coaches |
I disagree, at least for some teams. The Monsters were always meant to be more about the team than the players, and as long as they keep true to their style, seasons don't hurt them much - even though (as I stated before) they won't be able to build up some of the more unique players anymore.
The Bucs cycled through the team frequently anyway, at least I remember Pain stating it somewhere.
I think all the teams you mentioned are particularly famous for their names, their fluff, their (coaches') playstyle, the noise they make. I don't think that'll change due to Seasons. |
Well it will and it won't. Seasons (depending on length) will force these teams to lower TVs and force them to retire legendary players (among others). That makes them 'the same' simply from the TV stand point and the team construction stand point. PS won't be using all those beat to hell linemen for example 
| Rabe wrote: |
In contrary, I see some really strong points for seasons from a fluff perspective all of a sudden... but I'll get into that later, maybe with a blog entry. |
This matters to you, and zero other people Ok zero is clearly an exaggeration, but yeah, it's closer to zero than most people probably think. Hell, just look at the average number of games any team actually plays. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 20:16 |
|
How about 42 games per season? |
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
