XZCion
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
|
 Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 08:18 |
 
|
So, as some of you are aware, I'm a fan of the bank rules that were tested by the community for the BBRC during the creation of LRB5 and 6 that were thrown out and replaced by the petty cash rules that are in the CRP.
For those unaware, the bank rules allow you put up to 100k gold into the 'bank' that is not counted towards your TV, and the rest of your treasury is counted in your TV, and is available automatically to purchase inducements with at the start of any match.
And for balance, the petty cash rules do not count any of your treasury into TV, but at the start of a match each team can transfer money from their treasury into petty cash, at which point it is added to TV for that game and can be used to buy inducements.
While, in my perfect world, fumbbl would use the bank rules as default (also, the ffb client would be finished and bug free) I can understand that while bank is LRB6, it's petty cash that is in CRP, and CRP are the official rules.
So, the first question to Christer is: How much lobbying is required to have LRB6 bank rules implemented as the site standard?
And the second question to Kalimar and Christer: Is it feasible to implement the bank rules and the petty cash rules in parallel, so league commissioners have a choice to run LRB6 or CRP in their leagues? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 09:02 |
|
I once remember BigC saying something in chat along these lines (so it isn't a direct quote);
FUMBBL will run FFB as LRB6, as the BBRC intended, before GW got their hands on it and produced CRP.
My understanding is that there aren't many differences; this may be one that tests the theory. Personally, I'm a bit meh either way on this one, but you might well get what you want. |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 09:19 |
|
First, to avoid further confusion: There is no LRB6 and there have never been one. There was a testing ruleset which were supposed to be named LRB6 when it was released and people faulty talked about this as the real LRB6. When that ruleset was evaluated, it was renamed to the CRP upon releasing.
Personally, i like the bank-rules. I liked them back in PBBL and thought it bad that they were not included in LRB5, there have also been other things in the testing rulesets during the years which i have liked, but those rules have all been just that. Testing rulesets.
The goal of ffb have been to be as close to the rules as possible and by including one houserule, you would soon have people begging for the next. Like getting the eye back, or 50k bribes for underworld and so on. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 09:51 |
|
I don't think anyone's suggesting house rules are a good idea. FUMBBL always sticks to a ruleset as much as it can.
I was under the impression 6 was signed, sealed, delivered (and indeed produced in hard copy by that Hammerblow chap) and GW then fiddled with it before release and then called it CRP. I thought it was mainly cosmetic (Norse Werewolves, yuck) myself, and wasn't aware of this bank thing. I think it's a red herring to suggest 6 'never existed'? If anything, from that semi-quote, BigC seems convinced? And if I trust anyone to know his stuff...
You could even argue that the rules in the box are current (what are they - LRB3? Can't remember) if you want to be really pedantic about it, the way the text in CRP is worded.  |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 10:59 |
|
Purple, i think you are talking about the first CRP that was released which was a hasty work. However the second CRP, the one currently linked at the GW-site was fixed by the BBRC so it was indeed as what they had decided should be the final ruleset, except some naming and the pictures.
LRB6 was a working name that it expected to have when being released, it is like noone talks about the differences between the Nintendo "revolution" and the Nintendo Wii, you never even hear anyone talking about the Wii as the "revolution".
The petty cash rule was decided by Jervis himself, he put in his veto on the bank rule which is the reason they are not in the final rules. |
|
|
XZCion
Joined: Jul 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 11:04 |
|
Lakrillo, you are right. PBBL had bank and it was vetoed by Jervis without a vote. Since excess spare cash no longer contributed to TV, the petty cash system was put in place so that spare cash could not spent on inducements without some form of penalty to your TV for that game.
I agree that bank is a house rule that is not in the CRP and that is why I do not really expect it to be the fumbbl standard. It's a bit of fun to ask though :]
Since we are still in development of the new League pages and client, the ffb client will be recieving information about a teams treasury already and there is hopefully work still to be done on the teams page to implement journeymen closer to the rules, now seems the appropriate time to find out if implementing the bank is an option that might be entertained.
Perhaps adding other house rules, such as per team inducement costs, is something that should be discussed now so it can be included in custom league settings, instead of hardwired into the client for gobbo and fling teams only?
Certainly, Christer and Kalimar could just say no, and that would be the end of it. On the other hand, this may be a springboard for other ideas they may have to add flexibility into the fumbbl/client interface so that it is not limited by hard coded assumptions.
So, I stand by my original post :]
Thoughts? |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 11:10 |
|
I don't think we're disagreeing to any great extent - Lakrillo - the joys of circular interweb communication.
I suppose it depends what you read into C's intentions. Gut feel is that we'll do what we always do and stick to the rules as published; but there is that LRB6 semi-quote. Only one man can answer! |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 19:38 |
|
Actually, why does petty cash add to your TV value? As far as I can see, the advantage you could gain from it may only last for one game. After that you'll be broke again, and have to save up like crazy to get another special spending spree again.
I'm guessing it didn't turn out that way in testing? |
|
|
Sinnyil
Joined: Jul 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 20:26 |
|
It adds to the team value...because its increasing the value of your team over what is it calculated at normally. I know that's kind of circular but it makes sense when you think about it.
Money doesn't normally count towards TV in LRB5/CRP. But if you spend money to make your team better, even temporarily, now its counting. Does that make sense? |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 22:09 |
|
It make sense, but it seems kind of pointless. Say your opponent has a better TV than you, and you add 100k of your treasury to get better inducements. Your opponent then gets 100k of inducements as well. It just doesn't seem like a good gaming system to me. |
_________________
  |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 22:26 |
|
Ahm no, you don't give your opponent those 100k. You lose the same amount that your transfer.
Lets assume Team A has a TV of 1.5m, Team B has a TV of 1m.
The sequence goes like this:
(1) Higher TV team decides if and how much it wants to transfer from treasury to petty cash. This amount is added to the TV. (Let's say, Team A doesn't want to transfer).
(2) Lower TV team decides if and how much it wants to transfer. This amount is added to the TV.(Let's say in case (1) Team B takes 100k, in case (2) Team B takes 600k).
(3) Lower TV team gets inducements in the value of the TV difference. (In our case (1), Team B would get 400k inducement money. With the 100k petty cash it sums up to exactly the same difference as if they had not transfered any. In our case (2) Team A is now the lower TV team and would get 100k for inducements.)
So, if you as the lower team transfer less than the TV difference - you simply burn money for no effect. If you transfer more than the TV difference, you can spend more, but your opponent will now get inducement money. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 22:37 |
|
RedDevilCG| Quote: | | Actually, why does petty cash add to your TV value? |
The designer's intent has been said to use inducements to put the individual matches nearly even odds. If I remember correctly, Galak has described, that BBRC's informal target was that a matches win probabilities would be less than 2:1 to the overdog when regarding other things than the playing coaches' BB-skills. It is up to debate, how well they succeeded in making this reality, but at least the inducements level the playing field quite much.
Therefore Petty Cash increases TV so that the underdog gets more inducements and is not pushed down more by the overdogs purhaces. My personal gut feeling is, that about 150k of Petty Cash / Inducements gives a team of about 100k TV worth of power when compared to a "trim team build" with good skill and player choices. There are however also differing opinions on this matter, so the reader is advised to form their own opinion about the matter.
***
Bank rules were not in the latest version of LRB6. I have understood that CRP is the latest LRB6 with much scissor and eraser use to the core fluff, images and other potential IP-stuff that was cut away in a last minute operation. The latest version that is floating in internet does not contain the bank rule. I am still under the impression that Galak has recommended the bank rule as a good house rule in TFF. |
|
|
justagigolo
Joined: Sep 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 02, 2010 - 22:45 |
|
A system like this would be more beneficial towards the races that rely on inducements to succeed. Of course this is only in the world where inducement prices like bribes are half price for goblins for example. In this case, as a goblin coach it may be helpful to kick in 50 or 100k towards bribes before the match if you are facing an equal value team. If the goblins get half priced bribes, then they essentially would only be giving their opponent a bw babe in exchange for a bribe to keep the chainsaw running a bit longer. If the bribe prices don't change per race, well then its value is a bit harder to justify. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 04:54 |
|
I guess I'm just thinking why bother having money at all except to replace players if it gives you no tactical choices when it comes to one game purchases. Just get rid of money all together, or let us use it freely without punishment. |
|
|
Sinnyil
Joined: Jul 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 05:28 |
|
So...you're a Yankees fan?
(Sorry for the American baseball joke. I don't even like baseball) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
