pokrjax
Joined: Dec 01, 2014
|
 Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 01:31 |
 
|
Has anyone mentioned the cool things that happen after seasons, like recovering from niggling injuries and dropping fan factor? Will we get those too? |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 01:36 |
|
I don't see how B contradicts A here thoralf. If the implementation of rules is bound to a greater degree by feasibility of implementation as well as unintended or unknown knock on effects of those rules in an environment outside the scope of those rules, is it such a far leap to think that perhaps, maybe, you're holding onto a shallow and hollow rhetorical point of "the rules say this!".
I mean, keep on banging that drum to work people up but surely, push comes to shove, Nuffle and 1:1 representation of rules are the ones to break themselves not Fumbbl. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 02:46 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | I agree with Thoralf. You need seasons of some sort to keep the best teams from being immortal.
Could be very long seasons... which is why I made the proposal I did. |
Huh?
Don't follow this logic at all. Are you concerned about PO being out?
Or do you just think that R and B are 'wrong' the way they are now? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 02:52 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | If the implementation of rules is bound to a greater degree by feasibility of implementation as well as unintended or unknown knock on effects of those rules in an environment outside the scope of those rules |
I love when you shovel your arguments all to the left side of your counterfactuals, mrt.
My point is simple. The ontological structure we have goes like this: Nuffle, Komissars, Leagues, Seasons.
(And friendlies, but that needs to wait until someone realize we're into footnotes of an exchange we already had.)
You can reinterpret these entities all you want. This is what we have.
Anyone who has insisted that we keep CPOMB because it was in the rulz has no business telling anyone about the Komissar Golden Rulz.
Or as a concern troll would rhetorically ask, why change and grow as a coach tactically when you can just change the rules to suite your style of game? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %30, %2017 - %16:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 02:58 |
|
| thoralf wrote: |
My point is simple. The ontological structure we have goes like this: Nuffle, Komissars, Leagues, Seasons.
|
Says you. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 04:03 |
|
| licker wrote: | | JackassRampant wrote: | I agree with Thoralf. You need seasons of some sort to keep the best teams from being immortal.
Could be very long seasons... which is why I made the proposal I did. |
Huh?
Don't follow this logic at all. Are you concerned about PO being out?
Or do you just think that R and B are 'wrong' the way they are now? |
The former. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 04:19 |
|
I think a lot more coaching careers have been ended by cpomb than other coaches teams being 'too good' |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 04:25 |
|
I also think Christer has expressed a desire to experiment with seasons in Ranked. Which is a major motivator to my proposal.
IF you're going to do it, make seasons long and let coaches end season early (maybe at any time, maybe at intervals).
And I think it would be a boon done that way. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
MrNomad
Joined: Mar 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 04:56 |
|
I don't know if this has been said or not...I really don't want to go through 64 pages of posts to find out. But the whole point of R was: To play how you want....pick the teams you want to play accept or not accept matches....enter tournies or not. But by implementing seasons you are going to take away from the players who want to play how they want too by forcing something that is actually not a league into a league rule set. That to me is wrong. Now if you would like to see how it effects leagues...let an established league who wishes to be a guinea pig for the new rule set actually play a few seasons under it instead of submitting all the player base that plays in B and R to said rules....which again...neither is a real league. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 06:32 |
|
You mean: so you read.
I'll take reading over special pleading and false dilemmas any time. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2017 - 10:32 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Tomay wrote: | | League needs seasons |
League will have seasons.  |
IF it is enabled by your league comish.
Majority of leagues on FUMBBL WILL NOT have season play enabled, IMHO.
 |
I'm most certainly using the Season rules in the League I run |
_________________
 |
|
Squiglet
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
|
| Posted:
Apr 01, 2017 - 15:56 |
|
I did some analysis on season lengths and their likely effect on teams of different races. Because I was work-avoiding it felt appropriate to write it up in the form of a psudo-academic paper (and so, potentially, is the Journal for Blood Bowl Studies born).
The full text can be found here.
The abstract reads as follows:
"We investigate the relationship between Season Length, Average Team Value and Re-buy Gold for a range of races in the Blackbox division. We observe that there exists a ‘sweet spot’ between 20-30 games where, for the majority of races, the re-buy gold available is approximately the same as the average TV of a team of that race. We show that for longer seasons the re-buy gold rapidly outpaces average TV improvement, which would lead to teams receiving too large pay offs at season end and potentially result in unbalanced games due to large inducement spending. Conversely we find that for seasons shorter than approximately 20 games many races have average TVs higher than the re-buy gold which could lead to the stymieing of team development. We argue that a season length of 25 games is the best fit season length for most teams and would allow largely un-hindered team building up to the end of the second season at 50 games."
Although the method used has significant flaws I hope it gives some useful results on which to base the discussion of appropriate season lengths in Blackbox (or Ranked).
We at the editorial team of the Journal for Blood Bowl Studies would welcome any further contributions to this area of study for publication in future issues. All submissions should be made in the first instance to Dr Squiglet. |
|
|
Jim_Fear
Joined: May 02, 2014
|
| Posted:
Apr 01, 2017 - 18:08 |
|
Well done, Squiglet. Or should we call you Doctor S? |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 02, 2017 - 09:48 |
|
| Squiglet wrote: | I did some analysis on season lengths and their likely effect on teams of different races. Because I was work-avoiding it felt appropriate to write it up in the form of a psudo-academic paper (and so, potentially, is the Journal for Blood Bowl Studies born).
The full text can be found here.
The abstract reads as follows:
"We investigate the relationship between Season Length, Average Team Value and Re-buy Gold for a range of races in the Blackbox division. We observe that there exists a ‘sweet spot’ between 20-30 games where, for the majority of races, the re-buy gold available is approximately the same as the average TV of a team of that race. We show that for longer seasons the re-buy gold rapidly outpaces average TV improvement, which would lead to teams receiving too large pay offs at season end and potentially result in unbalanced games due to large inducement spending. Conversely we find that for seasons shorter than approximately 20 games many races have average TVs higher than the re-buy gold which could lead to the stymieing of team development. We argue that a season length of 25 games is the best fit season length for most teams and would allow largely un-hindered team building up to the end of the second season at 50 games."
Although the method used has significant flaws I hope it gives some useful results on which to base the discussion of appropriate season lengths in Blackbox (or Ranked).
We at the editorial team of the Journal for Blood Bowl Studies would welcome any further contributions to this area of study for publication in future issues. All submissions should be made in the first instance to Dr Squiglet. |
There you go, ready for the next issue of the Journal of FUMBBL studies. |
_________________
|
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 02, 2017 - 09:54 |
|
Nice work. 
Is it true that the money not use to buy players, RRs and staff back goes into the team treasury? Never occurred to me, I though it was just "virtual" money, except for what you have in you treasury at the end of a season (that you can or can not use for rehiring).
I don't have a rulebook to check it myself and you are probably right - I was just surprised to read it.
I also didn't know about niggling injuries disappearing. What's that? |
_________________
.
 |
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
