Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
 Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 21:02 |
 
|
We all know that spiraling expenses are not entirely satisfying. Sweet spot teams (whether they are actual minmax or not, if they sweet spot at anything less than 1900 TV they qualify) can accumulate enormous troves of money. Low AV teams die too fast and never get money, and then when they hit SE, they can't afford to replace anything ever, so any damage causes major problems to the team. Heavy armour teams accumulate a chunk of change, hit SE, lose positionals, and then take forever to skill those new players, so it doesn't matter that SE exists.
There are various other problems, and opinions, and I don't pretend to be an expert on the entire situation (and this banking thing that supposedly exists? It still confuses me, and I don't like it.)
The one main issue I don't like is that it further discourages high TV play on teams that already don't like high TV play. Leading to more sweet spotting, and in extreme cases minmaxing.
So I want to throw out an idea, and just hear responses.
I am NOT expecting this to get implemented. I don't want to hear anything more about sweetspotting and minmaxing EXCEPT as directly pertaining to this idea.
The idea:
Have SE based on players, rather than the team. Stars cost 5k per game (0k if 5k isn't allowed  ). Super stars cost 10k. Legends cost 20k. Regardless of TEAM TV, there would never be SE associated with your team. So if you run with 16 players and none of them are stars or higher, then, even if you had 8 re-rolls, you would still have 0 spiraling expenses.
Edit:
As an example, my Legendary Infestations, a 152 game old Nurgle box team, has a treasury of some 3.5 million. They have paid 210,000 gold in spiraling expenses throughout those 152 games. However, with my proposed change, they would have paid over 5 MILLION gold in spiraling expenses, leaving them with almost 2 million gold of debt. This means some 12 to 15 positional players would never have been rehired, meaning some of their good players simply would never have existed. The entire playstyle of the team would be forced to change under my proposal.
I've got lots of my own opinions on how this would affect the game, but let's hear some others, and I'll see if I can't answer any immediate problems that come up. |
Last edited by Nelphine on %b %18, %2013 - %05:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 21:06 |
|
I like it Nelphine and have thought pretty similar.
I guess if you don't make enough winnings then the stars begrudgingly continue to play anyway. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 21:15 |
|
Yes to clarify; even if your treasury is 0, and you don't make enough in that game, you wouldn't lose players due to not having enough money for them. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 22:05 |
|
to be honest, i think they suck.
i like big teams, and I can not lie. |
_________________
 |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 22:32 |
|
Spiraling expenses is a crappy rule; get rid of it completely. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 22:32 |
|
But this does promote large teams, doesn't it? Which ever I'd definitely be interested to see this tested. |
Last edited by harvestmouse on %b %16, %2013 - %23:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 22:34 |
|
Q: can we turn SE off in leagues now? |
_________________
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 - 23:46 |
|
I think it's a nice idea. Would be great to see it tested. |
|
|
neoliminal
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 00:13 |
|
There's a reason for spiraling expenses. The game starts to break down at very high levels of play. If everyone is a Star, then no one is... to misquote The Invincibles.
It would be nice, however to create a salary cap for leagues that wanted it. |
_________________
*
<BBRC>retired</BBRC><NAF>founder, 1st, 2nd Presidents</NAF><BB-Developers>retired</BB-Developers><Game-Developer>active</Game-Developer> |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 00:28 |
|
Would this not have a similar effect as that though at very high levels of play? After all, if everyone is a Star then you're getting hit for 80k at 5k per star per game... |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 00:47 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Would this not have a similar effect as that though at very high levels of play? After all, if everyone is a Star then you're getting hit for 80k at 5k per star per game... |
Damn straight. 16 players at >51spp!!! |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
at least this thread deals with the real actual problem of CRP.
I have been cassandra on this issue. The real problem with CRP is flat costs for skill stacks. We went from steep cost gain to flat cost, we needed a compromise position.
This ties it to SE and introduces some cost for skill stacking, which might semi solve both problems. I'd love to see it tested, but it would need MASS testing, and i dont see that happenning. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 05:53 |
|
First: thanks for moving this to the appropriate forum, my bad.
Second: We can ad hoc a test on this though. We take any team with more than a million gold, and we check out their past players and check out their spiralling expenses. A good example would be my own Legendary Infestation. I'm currently running with 3 legends (albeit all 3 have permanent injuries, SOMEONE KILL MY NIGGLED PEST), and I have almost 4 million gold saved up. I try to sweet spot around 1700 TV, which results in no spiraling expenses.
If we consider how long I've had my legends, we could guess at how much money I would have given my proposed change, and see if it actually would make any difference at all to my play style.
We can then go and look at a team on the other end, probably a wood elf or dark elf team, that is living around 2000 tv and has no money, and see how much money they would have had if my proposed changes were put through. If anyone knows of a bankrupt high tv elf team with few stars, let me know. For now, I'll start analyzing Legendary Infestation.
After these two quick studies, we would be able to see if it would make any obvious differences. If it does, then I can go and try to find someone with uber script knowledge to see if they can set up something to quickly do it for several hundred teams. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 05:57 |
|
Examining Legendary Infestation:
First, in my 152 games, if there was no spiraling expenses, I would have had 210,000 more gold, as that is how much I have spent on spiraling expenses.
More info to be edited in:
I have had 5 players who have died or been retired who reached stardom (all 5 reached superstardom, 1 of them reached legend.) I have 5 players who currently are stars or higher. - this is only so that I know how large a scope of work I have ahead of me and is not really relevant to anyone reading this.
Masakat Alamat became a star against Azagdar Miners, game #35. He then became a superstar against 6xS4 = Fun Galore, game #49. He died in game #76 against Zorn Uzkil Anvils after missing one game previously.
Therefore, under my system he would have cost me 70k as a star and 250k as a super star, total: 320k.
Sapiga Uzraksts: Star vs Tentacle Reap, game #33. Superstar vs Angels of Abaddon, #48. Retired in game #68 vs Syconpaths, without ever missing a game.
Cost: 75k + 200k = 275k
Sapiga Legenda: Star vs Chaotic Wok #47, Superstar vs Rash #64, died vs Freelance Lawnmowers Corp game #94, missed at least one game
Cost: 85k+290k = 375k
Bolestive Legendy: Star vs Nordiques de QC #43, Superstar vs Prey For Death #55, Legend vs Hashut's Earthquakes #97, died vs Plun-dar Mutatns #113
Cost: 60k+420k+320k = 800k
Dolorosa Llegenda: Star vs Hashut's Earthquakes #97, Superstar vs Run-Amuck #107, died to American Gladiator #125
Cost: 50k+180k = 270k
Pynlik Legenda: Star vs Cold Tails, #152.
Cost: 0k
Agrl Efsanesi: Star vs Artists of Chaos #123, Superstar vs Wild Dragons #127, still alive after #152
Cost: 40k+250k = 290k
Dau Do'n Huyen Thoai: Star vs Kryptan Pojat #99, Super Star vs Big Falkers #106, Legend vs Great Charlotten #147, still alive at #152
Cost: 35k+430k+100k = 565k
Schmerzhafte Legende: Star vs Inglorious Followers #47, Superstar vs Gameness #60, Legend vs Boxing with Style #125, still alive at #152
Cost: 65k+650k+540k = 1255k
Total for team: -3940k.
so far, all except my original legend, Legjenda e Dhimbshme, who is my oldest player (135 games) and who has been a legend the longest.
Even without this player, my team would be 500k in debt, meaning I could not have replaced my last 5 positonal losses. |
Last edited by Nelphine on %b %17, %2013 - %08:%Mar; edited 3 times in total |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 06:36 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | Q: can we turn SE off in leagues now? |
+10 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
