Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 15:02 |
 
|
hohoho looks like Mr.Klipp was hijacked by the anti-ageing faction to make the new DivX rules possible :p 
However here is one of my famous brilliant rules suggestions:
-> Limit the amount of Star Player Points a single Player can get to a maximum of 176.
For Example:
Human Blitzer Level 1 Teamrating Impact (TI) = 09 Points.
Human Blitzer Level 7 Teamrating Impact (TI) = 44 Points.
What is this supposed to do?
Right now there are some flaws in the Teamrating Calculation Formula in order to represent the teams strength. I know this is a controversial issue, and I am NOT suggesting to convert Teamrating into "Teamstrength". However the Tweak I am suggesting makes sure that a team does no longer "pay" for Starplayer Points it cannot "use" (as skills).
Let me point out that i consider that extremely better "balanced" than the current rule. While most players are quite perfectly equipped with 3 to 5 skills, skills number 6 and 7 are most of the time "over the top" or like sugarcoating. So what i am trying to say is that you "pay" 20 team rating points (100/5 SPP) for fancy non essential skills before the player "peaks".
What I am most concerned about is the following situation.
Under the current rules, a team will be forced to retire their ONLY Super-Player with 10.000 SPP, even if he was part of the original roster, was killed and healed 100 times and scored 1000 touchdowns.
On the other Hand, a team with 16 Player who all have 31 SPP is far more Powerful, but rated way lower and still competitive in terms of Teamrating and Winnings.
Think about it. When you look at my example of the Human Team, a Team could "afford" 3 Level 7 "Legend" Blitzers at a cost of 132 Team Rating Points.
The change i am suggesting does not take away the "keep your Teamrating as low as possible" concept. It just balances the impact of starplayer points so that coaches will no longer be FORCED to retire their ONLY Level 7 Player because they basically use them.
I also think of the silly situation when coaches refuse to score to not burden a player with more SPP. Thats against the spirit of the game imho. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 15:43 |
|
Force - you have a lot of interesting suggestions. Why don't you post them on the TBB forum rather than here?
I'm not being mean, but the simple fact is we can debate this here for 3 pages and it won't do any good. But I think a debate about this topic on the TBB thread might carry more weight because it is seen by more "important" people.
However, along your train of thought. I would liek the coach to have the option to "peak" his player at any time. A "peaked" player no longer receives any SPPs. I think this would address some of your issues above. (Feel free to move this to the TBB forum)  |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
DoubleSkulls
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 15:44 |
|
A debate on this topic at TBB might just get ignored... Force is Toby in disguise. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Eucalyptus Bowl |
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 15:49 |
|
Toby is Jervis.
However, this is absolutely linked to the recently introduced DivX rules. And TBB is all talk while my suggestion is meant to be played here in DivX.
Mully, actually your suggestion is even better than mine in terms of what my generally intention of this suggestion is. But I am not sure if self-peaking might not be abused to achieve "perfect efficiency". |
|
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 15:50 |
|
As if anyone here really considers this ideas...
Just to point it out: It is wanted to retire those super players. If you like to keep them you have to pay. Easy call, easy go. And another Force suggestion for the trashcan... |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
Wol
Joined: Jan 08, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 15:58 |
|
I see the point but I think players should be able to reach more SPPs than 176. just to have a chance to beat Fro'de someday
But then, to reflect that the SPPs over 176 do not lead to more skills, one could limit the number of SPPs that this player participates to the team total.
In your words, it would mean limiting the Team Impact to 44, whatever the number of SPPs. |
|
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 16:04 |
|
Chicken.
Even I noticed that "it is wanted to retire those super players".
The issue is the following: what is supposed to be achieved by the introduction of a "team rating cap".
Thats what divX is all about. There is a fanfactor/winnings/teamrating relation you need to manage efficiently.
The question i am raising is:
Should a team with ONE player who has 1.000 Star Player Points be punished harder than a team that has 3 Players with 176 Star Player Points.
Because obviously the second Team is the "stronger" one but lower rated under the current system.
To proove that I get your point and your oppinion, of course there might be a skills combination that creates an totaly imbalanced player. But i simply dont agree that the solution for geting rid of such a player is forcing his coach to retire him.
That balance issue is subject to skills & traits rules.
In conclusion, i think if someone manages to level a player up to level 7, he should be allowed to actually play him, while on the other hand a limit to the number of such characters on a team should apply. Both things are gruanted with my suggestion. |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 17:57 |
|
| Force wrote: | | Toby is Jervis. |
Heh.
Ok, there seems to be one key thing missing in the interpretations, I believe. The proposals of capping SPPs (or just their impact on TR) seem to be aimed at allowing people to keep their legendary players without penalty. Am I understanding this correctly? People tell me how stupid and thick I am all the time, so don't hold back. I can take it.
Now the whole idea behind removing aging and instituting negative winnings and freebooting apothecaries was to find an alternate way to encourage player turnover, not to discourage player turnover.
| Force wrote: | | Should a team with ONE player who has 1.000 Star Player Points be punished harder than a team that has 3 Players with 176 Star Player Points. |
Under the current system, yes. If a player has 1000 SPPs*, then either:
a) the coach has gone to great lengths to ignore/avoid/disregard/risk the measures in place to encourage player turnover and clearly has not cycled in new players. That's what the system is designed to do.
OR
b) the measures in place to encourage player turnover haven't done enough to pressure the coach to rotate out this player.
What you're proposing is that the whole point of the system (ie: you have to pay if you want to keep on super-developed players) is negated. You can keep those players without incurring any 'additional' penalties.
*1,000 SPPs (7 skills) vs 3 x 176 SPPs (21 skills) sounds like a silly extreme, but it is possible, as proven by Frode and the Noble Anarchist of Hoeth, for example. If that just seems too silly to take into account, try scaling it down to a tenth, for example. Should team with a player with 100 SPPs be punished more than a team with 3 players with 18 SPPs each? Er... yeah! Granted the 100 SPP player only has 5 skills and the 3 18 SPP players have 6 total but that's the way it works.
ps. Oh yeah. There's still no 'forced' retirement. Just as with aging, you still have to actively decide whether or not you wish to retire a player when they run afoul of the anti-domination measures (be they aging or negative winnings). These are options. The entire idea is to pressure the coach to make decisions - usually tough ones - about keeping a star player. IIRC the original negative winnings/freebooted apothecary proposal on TBB was that if you didn't have enough cash to cover your negative winnings, an appropriate value's worth of TRRs and then players was automatically removed from your roster. That was forced retirement. It was pretty much universally despised because there was no option. Managing your TRR is optional, but there are penalties for not doing so. Anything that changes that (partcicularly before we even get to give it a fair try!) seems like a bad thing to me.
pps. So how long until I get flamed for this one? |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 18:28 |
|
I like to think of players getting spps past 176 and it increasing the team rating as something akin to a player continually demanding more money for his "god like" skills. Kinda like when you have a sallary cap in a real profesional sport, you can keep that superstar that wants 10 million a year but it's a huge draw on the teams resources. How much money a player demands is outside of a coaches control in real life and as such it should be outside of the coaches control to cap a players growth at a certain level. Besides how are you supposed to tell that catcher to stop getting expierienced when plays? |
_________________
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 18:34 |
|
It's a bit off topic but it does combine a number of ideas mentioned here. One other proposal for fixing aging that came up on TBB was keeping the aging roll but when a player failed it they were just capped rather than rolling for a nig/stat decrease. Basically some players only have so much potential. So, you could end up with a Wardancer who gets his first skill and then gets capped. You have a pretty good player who will no longer grow with your team. Do you ditch him early or keep him around (blodge, leap, strip ball is still a damn good player) and have his future replacement be that much further behind?
I liked it. Not particularly applicable here but certainly worthy of the General Chat category. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 18:43 |
|
| Quote: |
Now the whole idea behind removing aging and instituting negative winnings and freebooting apothecaries was to find an alternate way to encourage player turnover, not to discourage player turnover.
|
That wasn't my understanding. From the TBB threads, ageing and negative winnings are meant to cap TR growth, NOT player growth/turnover.
If you must turn over players to help manage your TR, then that is a side effect, but not the original goal. |
|
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 19:22 |
|
Exactly Mully.
The problem we are dealing is NOT to encourage player turnover or limit the number of games a player can play. That is soley a matter of which block was the last one the guy took in his career... (injuries)
The problem IS how do we limit the power of a TEAM and its PLAYERS.
As to the power of a player. It is limited by the number of possible star player rolls (7), its starting stats and the skill & trait rules. None of that belongs to teammanagement rulewise. For example pro was recently converted to a trait to balance Big Guys that took the most advantage out of it.
So the real concern is the maximum power a team can reach.
Why limit that?
1. To ensure long term motivation for that teams coach. Who wants to play a TR 1000 all Legend Team with auto win gurantee?
2. To make the game less complicated. Wehn everybody has all skills there are it takes 6 weeks to figure out a single turn.
3. To make the game more strategig. When the only thing that decides a match is who rolls 1+1 first, thats not really exiting anymore, is it?
So, when we all agree that we are talking about a way to cap teams at a certain Teamrating/Strength/Power level, then I think the way Teamrating is calculated and the way certain components of a team like the Star Player Points impact its rating must be discussed.
What I am suggesting is not to lessen the effect that powerful players handicap the teams developing speed. What i am suggesting is that you only have to pay for Starplayer Points that actually are represented in skills on your team. Pay means in terms of raising the teams rating.
That is why I think that "self peaking" would be too abusive, but freezing the Teamrating Impact at 176 SPP would improve the current DivX ruleset. |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 19:27 |
|
| Mully wrote: | That wasn't my understanding. From the TBB threads, ageing and negative winnings are meant to cap TR growth, NOT player growth/turnover.
If you must turn over players to help manage your TR, then that is a side effect, but not the original goal. |
I agree with the first part of this (that the idea is to create a soft cap for Team Rating) but I believe that player turnover is the means by which this is intended to take effect. Rather than a side-effect, it's the essential part of the equation.
Team Rating is based off of the cost of your players and staff and the SPPs accumulated by those players. How could your TR stay level if you keep all your players and they continue to increase in SPPs?
Negative winnings may keep your treasury down but that's a relatively small portion of your TR. The bulk of a highly developed team's TR stems from SPPs on their players.
Using a team of my own as an example 123 of their 199 TR comes from the combined cost of all the players, staff, rerolls and treasury. That means that 76 TR comes from the 383 SPPs they've accumulated. If you include the base cost of the players in that (810k), it means that 157 of their 199 TR comes solely from the players.
In order to keep my overall TR down, I have to address the 157 points from players. The remaining 42 points from treasury, rrs, and staff is pretty trivial. How do I keep my TR even when my player cost will increase from SPPs every time I play? By removing one or more players, which then are likely to be replaced by rookie players who only have to add their base cost - which happens to be significantly less than their base cost + SPPs in the case of developed players. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 19:47 |
|
You are correct BadMrMojo.
But what I am suggesting is not turning this effect/law/system updside down.
I am merly suggesting to limit the handicap a team can suffer from a SINGLE player. As in my example a Rookie Human Blitzer costs 9 Points of TR, a Legend 44. By retiering the LEgend and replacing him with a rookie, I am able to reduce the handicap by 35 points. This will be especially attractive if the player has suffered niggling injuries as well.
But lets assume I managed to build a "perfect" player like my man Michael Jace, without any injuries. Why should the handicap I suffer from using this player increase with every touchdown the guy makes.
That kills the fun of having a Legend!
Again the human blitzer. Having 2 Legend blitzers means 88 Teamrating Points, and at the same time we are talking about TR 300 beeing close to impossible to teach as a goal for the system. That basically says that 1/3 of my availiable TR Points are used by only 2 Players.
So, realistically, there will be no big change in the way people manage their teams and turn over injured or bad skilled players. but when someone manages to get 1 or 2 champions, he will have a fair chance of keeping them on his roster until they finally break on the field.
Remember we are talking only about > 176 SPP Players here. |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 19:48 |
|
| Force wrote: | ...The problem we are dealing is NOT to encourage player turnover or limit the number of games a player can play.
... The problem IS how do we limit the power of a TEAM and its PLAYERS.
|
see my previous post on how the players are what determines the power of a team.
| Force wrote: | | 1. To ensure long term motivation for that teams coach. Who wants to play a TR 1000 all Legend Team with auto win gurantee? |
Right on. Yeah.
| Quote: | | 2. To make the game less complicated. Wehn everybody has all skills there are it takes 6 weeks to figure out a single turn. |
Eh. Not quite with you there. There's always the option of playing low TR teams instead. There should be the option of playing high TR teams if that's what people want to do. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be measures to make it difficult to get a high TR team - on the contrary, that's what I'm advocating here - BUT it should be possible, if that's how someone wants to play. #2 is not a valid argument to cap player 'cost' (in TR terms) at all, IMHO.
| Quote: | | 3. To make the game more strategig. When the only thing that decides a match is who rolls 1+1 first, thats not really exiting anymore, is it? |
Right, see #2. And then add to it that your proposed idea makes it easier for people to maintain 7 skill players. That's the antithesis of what you're arguing here.
| Force wrote: | So, when we all agree that we are talking about a way to cap teams at a certain Teamrating/Strength/Power level, then I think the way Teamrating is calculated and the way certain components of a team like the Star Player Points impact its rating must be discussed.
What I am suggesting is not to lessen the effect that powerful players handicap the teams developing speed. What i am suggesting is that you only have to pay for Starplayer Points that actually are represented in skills on your team. Pay means in terms of raising the teams rating.
That is why I think that "self peaking" would be too abusive, but freezing the Teamrating Impact at 176 SPP would improve the current DivX ruleset. |
But in practice, your proposal would encourage people to keep their massive SPP-laden stars which have increased their TR and their teams overall strength. Not only do they inflate the power of the team, they essentially ARE the power of the team. This proposed capping of SPPs means that the team gets all the upsides (ie: playing with their massively powerful star players) and doesn't have to pay for it (ie: worsening income rolls and greater handicaps).
It doesn't cap anyone - it does just the opposite. Capping SPPs at 176 would just define away the TR increase and not actually change the way the team plays at all - which is the real reason for controlling the TR. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
|
|
| |
[L] OBBA Smack Talk ...
Search
