BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 19:57 |
 
|
| Force wrote: | | ...I am merly suggesting to limit the handicap a team can suffer from a SINGLE player. |
But what you're advocating potentially applies to EVERY SINGLE player and that has to be taken into account.
| Force wrote: | | ...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. |
Yeah. Exactly.
| Force wrote: | 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! |
Maybe it kills the fun in your opinion but it doesn't have to! It just forces you to make sacrifices if you want to keep him.
| Force wrote: | | 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. |
And the idea behind all this was a way to encourage Team Management. Dumping all your SPPs onto 2 players is not the standard 'good' way of managing your team. It should be an option, sure. And it is. You just have to make sacrifices to keep them - just as a well-rounded team has to make sacrifices to keep their players in shape (such as not having a single Legendary player, for example).
| Force wrote: | 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. |
There's still nothing preventing anyone from keeping their star players! Nothing! It is - as it should be - difficult and there are tradeoffs. You can't just choose to reward one style of play (your own in this case) at the expense of everyone else, though. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 20:44 |
|
Well, the funny thing is, I agree with everything you say.
Only exception for me is that in my oppinion +35 TR Points for the SPP of a single player is enough. A limit to the maximum handicap one single player can add.
Still everything you say applies!
For example, my 76 SPP Star suffers a niggle, it would be wise to retire him instead of continue to use him letting him inflate the TR for another 100 SPP/5 just to get a silly skill like dunno, sprint.
I realise the mechanics you pointed out, and I like them.
But i think you have to admitt that my suggestion does not turn things upside down and suddenly create a situation where it is easy and recomended to keep multiple Legend players on your roster. but it would at least result in a status quo for coaches who want to use one or two super-players and not make them even harder to maintain with every touchdown they score ABOVE 176.
So bottom line 35 Handicap / Teamrating Points per player from SPP is enough.
To give in more into what you are saying, the situation you fear will most likely occur if coaches were allowed to auto-peak. Then nobody would "carry arround" more TR than he absolutely needs to be sucessful.
With my proposal Legends cost like 44 TR points and bring 2 aditional skills you never use while "costing" 20 (100/5) points more than a 76 SPP superstar.
I dont consider it a good strategy to build up Legends under whatever ruleset to be perfectly clear - its just that normally reaching that level with a player is so rare that you are so bond to that guy that he deserves a better fate than uninjured retirement... |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 20:59 |
|
| Force wrote: | | Well, the funny thing is, I agree with everything you say. |
That's not funny. It's SCARY!
... and I still disagree that it's enough of a handicap. It's still a single enormously powerful player on (presumably) an enormously powerful team and I feel that capping it would 'undo' the entire concept once a team got up to that level. I feel it fails to take the extreme cases sufficiently into account. You can still keep them but it's gotta hurt somehow. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
SparkingConduit
Joined: Oct 28, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2004 - 22:42 |
|
God, why don't we all just LEAVE it? |
_________________
<belgin>need a makeup game
<belgin>with a team in the same perdickament
THIS is why you shouldn't try to spell some words as they sound... |
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 00:03 |
|
Well seeing as I am in charge I can safely say this isn't anything I will have in DivX so it 100% isn't going to happen
The TR system works fantastically well, if you don't like it then thats cause you aren't controlling your team rating well enough and if you aren't doing that then well you just suck at that side of the game.
the fact is the rules are to introduce player turnover, a cycle nature where the older better players get past their sell buy date and need retiring. Then you bring up new fresh talent to replace them with. The fact you think that a coach is better off to retire one player at legend status cause every extra SPP gained bloats TR for no additional gain. Well thats kinda the whole point and idea. Its there for a reason and it works. It is not going to be changed unless it does in the rulebook and I hope that dark day shall never arrive.
and thats all i have to say about that |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 00:10 |
|
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 01:18 |
|
@ Grumbledook
I try to give an example.
Assuming the maximum amount of collectable SPP is 176.
Human Team A has 1 Level 7 Blitzer and 3 Level 1 Blitzers. The Team Rating Impact of these 4 Players is 71 Points.
Human Team B has 3 Level 7 Blitzers and 1 Level 1 Blitzer. The Team Rating Impact of these 4 Players is 141 Points.
That says that Team B will get problems because its Team Rating is too high. It should retire one of the Level 7 Players.
It also says that Team B is way more powerful than team A.
Now, without a Limit for SPP.
Human Team A has 1 Level 7 Blitzer with 528 SPP and 3 Level 1 Blitzers. The Team Rating Impact of these 4 Players is 141 Points.
Human Team B has 3 Level 7 Blitzers with 176 SPP each, and 1 Level 1 Blitzer. The Team Rating Impact of these 4 Players is 141 Points as well!
That says that both teams need to retire players, resulting in team A loosing their only top gun, while team B looses just one of its 3 top players.
But at the same time the team rating indicates that both teams are equally powerful, and that is obviously totally flawed.
I cannot imagine anybody not to understand the problem here.
So Grumbledook, as Mully sayd, the Goal of the "soft teamrating cap" is not to automatically cause player turnover but to limit the growth of a team, and player turnover is a more than wecome side-effect of that.
Lets look at the real world. How many players become Legends without picking up at least one niggling injury? As soon as that happens, the player will be verry likely to be retired.
But it is lame to try hard not to score SPP (and Touchdowns) with a player, just to prevent him from inflating teamrating any more and thus become an annoyance.
I really think that wehn someone manages to level up a player thus far, that lucky bastard deserves to field that player until the opposition beats the crap out of him. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 01:31 |
|
First off do you not think its a bit well erm silly to have 3 blitzers with 1 skill and then another single player with 528spp? I know it was an extreme example but play in the real world with the rest of us for a while please ;]
See I totally disagree. A 7 skill player is very powerful on the pitch. You should have to pay the extra premium to use them and have to weigh up the costs against keeping them to their usefulness. It also means there will be less of them floating about, legends shouldn't be rampaging about on every team.
Also you are misguided in that TR shows how powerful a team is. It shows their expeience more than anything. Also if you are keeping a player on the team with 528 then that is just bad coaching imho. It adds an incentive to retire him, thus keeping the TR cap down as well as player turnover.
Mully was only half right when saying the goal was a soft tr cap, its also to encourage the turnover of players on a long term league so that the teams have to keep continuously building players up replacing old with new.
If a player gets to a stage where you don't want to get him any more SPP i would take that as an indication that he has out grown and outlived his worth on the team and then is at a point where you can think about retirement. Blood bowl is a tough game and at the highest level its even harder.
There is nothing saying you can't carry on playing a 7 skill legend, but they shouldn't stop getting SPP. Why do you think againg was more harsh at the higher end of the scale? To encourage the retirement of the higher SPP players to bring new ones in, thats why. Intorducing your suggestion would just reintroduce one of the flaws in the aging system that the goal is to eliminate.
Thats why your idea won't be seeing light of day in DivX unless the BBRC go mad and implement it. |
|
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 02:03 |
|
Well this is partly a fluff/groove issue.
If you have a verry old team with lets say 100+ games. Then almost everybody will have been dead or retired from the original roster.
If however a player survived all of the campaign it should be realistically possible to keep him. And in my oppinion right now its just plain bad team management to do so right now.
Grum I think the gap between our positions can easily close a little. I dont want to see teams that can easily afford 5 Legends and still earn money.
The barrier of TR 300 gets mentioned quite often. That roughly translates into 16 players and a total of 700 SPP distributed over the team. On average thats 43 SPP per player. I am lobbying for a system that basically limits the maximum resources, but leave it up to the coaches to choose to distribute them all round all over the team or focus on a few key players.
Right now there is no _competitive_ alternative to retiring a > 176 SPP player.
In essence you should be able to have one or two of these guys on a near TR barrier team. |
|
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 02:36 |
|
| Force wrote: | Right now there is no _competitive_ alternative to retiring a > 176 SPP player.
In essence you should be able to have one or two of these guys on a near TR barrier team. |
Untrue, if he is one of 5 players alive on your team, he can still win you games, and in essence still get you an extra 10K on your earnings, and a +1 on the FF roll, which allows you a better chance of making money for the next one. In reality he is the team, and retiring him would be bad, yet arguably he could be the reason you got there in the first place.
Now if he is one of 16 players left on your team, you probably should retire him, UNLESS you have managed to not only build that guy up, but win your games by such a margin as to have the 50 FF needed to support him and the rest of your team, in which case you still do have a competitive alternative to retiring him.
But as far as I am concerned you should never have a player that has made it to 176 spp's, as that just increases your TR more than they are worth. Let alone, two or three. And I support any system that encourages thier turnover. The last thing I want to see is some Claw, RSC, 6 Str Chaos Warrior, that has peaked, his reign of terror should and will end. He will, as he should, get old and die, or retire. (or rot, depending on thier 'living' status)
Aspeorn Thorn |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 04:42 |
|
You guys are arguing with Force?
 |
|
|
whitey
Joined: Sep 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 06:09 |
|
Just one example i haven't seen here, are you saying that a team with 3 blitzers with 1000spp each shouldn't cop more of a penaly than a team with 3 176spp blitzers? |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 11:37 |
|
thats pretty much the crux of his arguement as i see it |
|
|
Clementus
Joined: Oct 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 12:10 |
|
Im still voting on the capping when you fail an aging roll. Seems to be a good concept and has the fluff to it. Not fond of the whole no aging, Ive seen too many one turners after two turns who now have no way of stopping them reaching 176 ssp with ease. then yey got another one, wont age, just score. I expect most wont understand that babble but hopefully some will. |
_________________
Warlord Clementus (of the Black Hand Tribe)
Monkey of the Moot!
Flings Rule! |
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2004 - 12:16 |
|
And its proven again...  |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
