| Poll |
| Is trading in divX worth trying? |
| Yes, this is worth experimenting with. |
|
57% |
[ 82 ] |
| No, it would never work. |
|
42% |
[ 61 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 143 |
|
dinaturz
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 10:43 |
 
|
| poi66 wrote: |
Why can´t we sell players for the half price like we buy them, with imaginary money? To create a team you get an imaginary million to spend. Later you are sick of a player for what reason ever, you dump him for half of the price, get some imaginary money and the player disappears in a black hole. |
because actually when you are sick of a player you retire him/her.
If (s)he joins the coach team, it's llike you sold him/her for 10k... 
marco |
_________________
Not only am I redundant and superfluous, but I also tend to use more words than necessary. |
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 13:09 |
|
ok... how about this to act as a deterrent to cheating. there could be an element of risk involved... when a trade is arranged there could be a dice roll made by the site and if you rolled a 1 (or 2) the the result could mean that the transaction went through the players agent but the agent and player take the money and go on permanent holiday never to return!!!
Result: the team that is buying would lose the money that they were going to spend on the player and the selling team lose the player due to retirement.
This could be cool when used in conjunction with Colin's idea on page 2 of this topic for player values |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 14:43 |
|
Players would NOT be sold to a communal pool, Grod. Disregard my support of MixX's suggestion earlier in this thread - on reflection, it's a bad idea. That would be so wide open to abuse that it would be unworkable. Trading is not intended to be an all-purpose replacement for retiring, but that is what it would be if you sold to a communal pool. Trading should only be allowable between two willing coaches. |
|
|
Loof
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 14:56 |
|
If you are against new rules why areant you playing 1st or second edition?
Simple they where broken in alot of way... testing new things is the only way to improve the game. And atleast I dont think blood bowl is perfect yet (and probably never will be).
And actualt "the game of fantasy football" is an old blood bowl slogan if i dont recal wrong =)
EDIT: this was intended for all teh adamant naysayers on the first page not the ones that are interested in the idea but worried about abuse |
|
|
poi66
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:02 |
|
| Quote: |
because actually when you are sick of a player you retire him/her.
If (s)he joins the coach team, it's llike you sold him/her for 10k...
|
I am aware of the rulebook, thx...
but this is something that bothered me since I know the game; what is in my book now ten years or so... |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:06 |
|
my suggestion wasn't meant as a way to get rid of unwanted players, therefore the suggestion that a player couldn't be sold if below starting value. But I don't really care, I doubt I'd be using trading alot anyway, none of my teams have financial problems as it is, so.. |
|
|
Deacon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 15:24 |
|
Why?
So the reason for having Trading is help teams with negative winnings, but isn't the whole purpose of negative winnings to slow down or halt team development,as a replacement for Ageing.
So you put up for sale your star player, whose going to buy him? The new, low TR team with loads of money who then suddenly has a higher TR and a SPP-hog player who becomes a target for all his opponents, or the higher ranked 'uber-team' who then develops a cash problem.
The concept of negative winnings surely is to allow force better team management - nigglers removed, teams consisting over a few star players rather than a squad of them. Coaches must look to play teams with a higher Fan Factor to ensure positive winnings, and most teams with high FF tend to be winning teams.
Let the best play the best..and an end to the mauling of opponents with low Team Rating for SPP alone. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 16:33 |
|
*Grumbledook gives Deacon a gold star |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 20:00 |
|
We'll have to agree to disagree for now. However, in a month or two when negative winnings have had a chance to be tested, I'll raise it again. |
|
|
Bully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 20:40 |
|
why don't implent it only for the tourny divison for now ? (gives the chance to test it out, without interfering with the divX divison) |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 20:51 |
|
| Deacon wrote: | | So you put up for sale your star player, whose going to buy him? The new, low TR team with loads of money who then suddenly has a higher TR |
This was something that came up in my discussions with m0nty, and was the reason for the hike in 'Agent's Fee' from 20% to 25% - we always intended that trading players would never increase a team's TR (buying or selling), and with 20%, some players would actually increase the buying team's TR. An alternate means of valuation may be needed, or some additional modification to the calculation.
I actually like brownrob's idea of something going wrong with the transaction, though no team would risk blowing 300k if that was the case. Maybe some other lesser random event might take place, or a few different outcomes could occur?
The idea of risk is certainly is an idea that stays true to the spirit (and fluff) of Blood Bowl - Never forget Nik Three-Horn, who bankrupted the original NFL!
Here's one suggestion:
When a team attempts to buy a player and the selling team agrees, roll a d6; on a 1, roll again and consult a table:
1 or 2) Disenchantment: The player becomes disillusioned by all the haggling over the trade, and retires. The player leaves his current team, does not become an Assistant Coach, and neither team loses or gains money.
3) Dodgy Agent: The player's agent pulls a fast one, and runs off with the money intended for the selling team, as well as his own cut. The selling team gets nothing for the player. The buying team still pays the full amount
4) Signing On Fee: The player demands an additional payment from the buying team of d6x10k, or he will stay with his present team. The buying team may either accept, or refuse and lose the chance to sign that player for a period (this one is tricky, relying on some sort of transfer window system)
5) Fan Revolt: The fans of the selling team are angry at the loss of one of their favourite players. The selling team loses d3 FF.
6) Player Revolt: The established players of the buying team are upset at the arrival of an outsider, and threaten to leave. All players of 51 SPPs or more leave the team on a d6 roll of 1-3.
Disclaimer: This is only a first-draft suggestion; it is in no way balanced, and would cause the coders headaches, but would probably be closer to the kind of rules GW would have for trading - they like their d6 tables 
A note to the naysayers: your objections have been heard and noted, and the weaknesses in the current suggested system still need attention, that is true. Perhaps a new thread is in order, for developing the transfer system, as opposed to arguing for or against it? I think this one has run it's course; it would be a shame if it turned into a shouting match. |
Last edited by Colin on %b %11, %2004 - %17:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 01:46 |
|
surely the aim of the game is to play with and develop a team of players... that's sort of lost when you can just buy an uber player.As far as I'm aware this is the reason Star Players became freeboot only. because every team would just buy an uber power machine!
If we want to experiment with trading. Why not freeboot players? If your team is low on cash you can freeboot your star player to another team (for half his str cost or soomething). then the player misses the next game you play. If the player sustains any injuries while playing in the other match... tough! then if the player freebooted had more than 50spp when he was freebooted roll a dice on a 1 or 2 he decides that the freebooting life is for him and permanantly leaves the team! |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
orgak
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 02:00 |
|
If it's good enough for George Steinbrenner, then it's good enough for me. Buy away! |
|
|
McCloud
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 05:46 |
|
As has been previously stated, go to http://www.olbbl.com if you want to play in a league that allows trading of players.
They also use cards though too, and they are a fairly 3rd edition based League.
Go there and play away!!! |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 28, 2004 - 09:15 |
|
I have looked at the OLBBL system, and it is flawed in many ways. I prefer the system we've devised even though, like Colin, I think it needs more work. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
