33 coaches online • Server time: 09:29
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Should I fire -MAx2 ...goto Post NBFL Expansion Draft...goto Post Replays
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Should a larger TV team be able to choose to buy lots of inducements, unopposed by a smaller, poorer team?
Yes always - it's in the new rules
53%
 53%  [ 36 ]
No never - it's unsporting and unfair, a poorly written aspect of the new rules
31%
 31%  [ 21 ]
Yes but only in tournaments, or some other condition (please explain)
14%
 14%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 67


pythrr



Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Post   Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 21:36 Reply with quote Back to top

WITH FROG SPELLS?

_________________
Image
Image
Arktoris



Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Post   Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 22:10 Reply with quote Back to top

it depends.

If you have 200,000 in your treasury because you've been holding back buying players and rerolls, then yeah...it's a bit douche. Spend your money and complete your team, cheese monkey.

But if you have 16 on your roster, adequate rerolls etc, then no. You earned that money fair and square and you should enjoy the fruits of your efforts. After all, what else are you going to spend it on? If you don't, it'll just evaporate via expensive mistakes.

Go ahead and buy stuff. It's not your fault your opponent hasn't worked as hard as you did to get to your level of achievement. If he doesn't like it, he should have played more games to build and equalize you.

_________________
Hail to Berserker Eric! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Norscan Warrior!
iena



Joined: Sep 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 22:31 Reply with quote Back to top

heard a rumor,
the rule was misspelled and nobody wanted that way...
but everybody "there" missed to say it into the "errata" and other books thereafter.

just a rumor
DrDeath



Joined: Mar 27, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 22:42 Reply with quote Back to top

Well that's cleared up that then XD Lots of valid points and a really even split, does seem a real grey area. I like the NAF ruling - thanks for sharing that Jeguan - think that is a very sensible resolution. But as I understand it inducements don't work like that on Fumbbl. For example if 1340 humans play 1200 orcs and the humans decide to spend 100 gold, the orcs do not get 240 gold for inducements?

If something like that isn't applied I find it confusing, find myself nodding to arguments on both sides. Would be interested to hear what Christer or some of the admins think so we have an official opinion. Then at least we won't have coaches feeling like 'suckers' for doing something they felt was only sporting.

Some coaches have said in essence 'if an opponent outspends you one game it doesn't matter because you can just save up and do it the next'. This is the one argument I really don't agree with, because it will be far from balanced. For example old teams vs new ones (eg in Box as ArrestedDevelopment pointed out), or bash vs agility. Easy for bash sides to save up a good stack of cash as they rarely need to replace players; try that with an agility Av7 side or stunties - it will be a rarity!
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 21, 2018 - 23:04 Reply with quote Back to top

But if they're getting rid of PO and re-introducing the Wiz (yes, Pythrr, with frog spells; good ones), they need to do something for heavy teams, and being able to splash as favorites fits the bill nicely.

_________________
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.
garyt1



Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 05:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I don’t blame my opponent if he is higher tv and also buys inducements but it is a rules flaw. It’s like an extra punishment for losing players as you lose chances to induce as you spend your cash replenishing the team. For example you may be saving for a replacement blitzer while an opposing healthy team buys extra stuff. Not unsporting though and I don't think people should criticize someone doing it.

_________________
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
DrDeath



Joined: Mar 27, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 11:00 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree with that Gary, it shouldn't be about blame here. Both viewpoints are understandable, trouble is sportsmanship can be subjective. Some coaches clearly feel strongly about it - have seen one or two coach homepages which effectively say 'I will never spend as overdog and don't expect you to do that either'. Others will just say even though the new inducement rules are daft, they are the rules and that's that, even if they can create unfair matching. Also a valid stance.

If any blame is due, it should be to GW for landing us with such a poorly considered and written ruleset. Dreadful game design imo, especially after so many versions which worked fine with inducements. It obviously strongly divides players, that's the one thing you don't want to happen in any game and can only be put down as a failure of the latest ruleset.
Guardikai



Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 12:41 Reply with quote Back to top

Wasn’t there official confirmation that fumbbl was following the wrong interpretation (which was also my own because of how badly worded the new rules were) of inducements and that overdog spend should give that amount to underdog?
almic85



Joined: May 25, 2009

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 13:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Guardikai wrote:
Wasn’t there official confirmation that fumbbl was following the wrong interpretation (which was also my own because of how badly worded the new rules were) of inducements and that overdog spend should give that amount to underdog?


Nope. There is nothing official in any FAQ that changes the rules from those written in death zone season 1.

I believe there was a comment on facebook from either the community team or one of the current games designers, but anyone that plays games should know that answers on facebook don't actually count.

EDIT: I say nope as I am assuming that FUMBBL doesn't give the extra cash to the underdog as I have never actalaly spent cash as the overdog.

_________________
SWL the place to be.

If you're interested join the Fringe
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 13:56 Reply with quote Back to top

You are right almic 85. The client doesn't give extra cash to the underdog if the overdog spends cash.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 14:16 Reply with quote Back to top

I see nothing wrong with the new rule. Spending money on inducements is just another way of improving your team, it's no different than rolling +ST, buying a Wardancer or having a lot of Guard. It's not really to overpowered either since inducements are generally weaker than TV and since the effect only lasts for one game.


Last edited by Tricktickler on Apr 22, 2018 - 14:22; edited 1 time in total
Nachtogen



Joined: Jan 03, 2004

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 14:20 Reply with quote Back to top

Speaking as an admin, I'd say all is fair within the rules. (and also, client has to be up to date with these, so I mean the current fumbbl rules)

As a coach my opinion is a bit different though. I think overinducing in random games is lame, really lame. And then I don't mean a babe. I don't mind if someone buys a babe in a B or R game. Even an apo is ok in some cases. But don't go hiring Morg on me in a random game. To come to the point, that's just bad sportsmanship. Everything more than that 50k is lame. And in most cases, if you have a fair game, even that 50k might be too much.

If you have so much cash to spend, then enroll in a tourney, there are enough brawls on a regular basis. In tourneys everything is fair imo. You can hire whatever.

_________________
Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 14:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Tricktickler wrote:
I see nothing wrong with the new rule. Spending money on inducements is just another way of improving your team, it's no different than rolling +ST, buying a Wardancer or having a lot of Guard. It's not really to overpowered either since inducements are generally weaker than TV and since the effect only lasts for one game.

The difference between having +ST, a Wardancer or lot of Guards and inducements is that the cash-bought inducements are not calculated BEFORE the game by the matchmaking formula/scheduler (unlike the +ST, Wardancers, Guards), and this may create an unbalanced match-up.
Also, some teams (generally the bash ones) don't need to replace players as often as low armour teams, it's not due to superior coaching skill, but just to inherent roster differences.
About the effect lasting for one game: well, the fact that something happens only from time to time doesn't make it acceptable or better.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
JackassRampant



Joined: Feb 26, 2011

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 14:38 Reply with quote Back to top

Hmmm. See, for me, since money is use-it-or-lose-it now, every time I get close to 200k I either buy something, or splash a little. And if I got nothing to buy, that means I'll induce something. Usually I go for Bribes, cuz they fit my foul-heavy style nicely without being game-breaking. Sometimes, if a Bribe is counter-indicated by the matchup, I'll take a Dirty Trick or maybe two. This gives me an edge if I can keep the amount of damage I take down, so it's a buff for high-AV heavies, I suppose, and a buff for coaches who do a good job mitigating Cas sustained. Do high-AV heavies need a buff? At middle and high TV I'd argue that Dorfs are weak-ish and Orcs are average, so I don't see it as a huge problem, but others may disagree.

Is my personal strategy "kosher" in the current environment? I don't see why not. But I can see that big splashers can interfere quite a bit in games. How much splashing counts as "big" though? For some, it's a saw. For some it's Hthark. Do we as a community wanna draw a line somewhere? Or do we wanna let Expensive Mistakes do that for us? After all, if you're inducing a 120k saw and a bribe, you're eating heavily into your treasury, and can only do that every once in awhile. But as MattDakka says, an intermittent issue is still an issue.

_________________
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.
Kondor



Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Post   Posted: Apr 22, 2018 - 15:03 Reply with quote Back to top

My thoughts are that the overdog should choose how much money he is going to add into the pot. Then the underdog gets the difference in TV plus the amount of cash the over just spent. Finally, if he wants to sweeten the pot with even more cash, the overdog gets that much more cash to spend too.
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