huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 02:04 |
 
|
I didnt take into account those that choose to game the system, but rather focused on the way the game was intended to be played in one case. That being progressing your team in a league format (ranked or box being treated as a league here). Sometimes I like to forget about those that want to abuse the ways some of the leagues are setup here (ranked and box again being treated like leagues) and like to think that everybody plays for enjoyment that comes with competing against an opponent. Competing being a key word there.
I just know from my experiences of playing with some low AV or high cost teams (Elves) teams that gold can actually be a factor and a bench is a luxury I can rarely experience, and they are also teams that would get use out of a bench. Funny how that works out. Then you see teams with a 200+ tv and all this gold stockpiled. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 04:28 |
|
huff, those teams are precisely the ones I would like to analyze.
My own Legendary Infestation already demonstrates that clawpomb teams (who are the ones most likely to get legends on a regular basis) would have a HUGE problem with gold, to the point where you would probably see Chaos teams running with 1 or 2 legends + 3 or 4 beastmen + journeymen.
This would make it far harder for old Chaos teams to be competitive; they either get rid of their legends, or they don't have enough money to keep even 4 chaos warriors on their roster. (Unless they are like the Roid Rage Babes and manage to start 4 warriors on the road to 500+ SPP legendhood at the same time. But those teams seem to be exceedingly rare.)
Without 4 warriors, clawpomb chaos would have far more problems, which could lead to a change in skill selection in order to maintain competetive play.
Now I want to know:
What would the ACTUAL effect be on elven teams?
Give me some to analyze! I LOVE TO ANALYZE! |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 05:37 |
|
Has anyone said Spiraling Expenses suck yet?
Sorry, I skipped all the posts.  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 05:53 |
|
Haha.. I got you brother. I was thinking about making SE even for all teams and that they dont just impact elves/ect. The flip side to that making SE to impact all teams, what you are shooting for. Just the way to make that happen is your goal here. I'm good with either approach: either all teams are impacted or all teams arnt.
Research project time for Nelphine!! I wonder if you could pass off this work for a thesis for your doctorate.
And Yes: they can definitly suck for some teams. Which may be a causing factor on why there seems to be a lack of diversity in the high TV ranges.
I like how the author, Nelphine picked one of his own teams that would directly be affected like this in a negative way. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 06:09 |
|
that's IT!
I am going to randomly choose a high TV blackbox wood elf team and analyze it just to see what it says:
Eyre Faery. 1950 TV wood elves, 140,000 treasury, 40 games old.
They have currently spent 150,000 on spiraling expenses (3/4 of what my Nurgle team who is 4 times as old has spent).
Under my proposed system they would instead have spent: 30k (hummingbird) + 40k (starling) +75k (hawk) +45k (robin) = 190k. This would actually be MORE than what they currently spent, although not nearly as much more as Legendary Infestation.
So my system would actually negatively affect everyone; and given that this is an elf team with all stars (no superstars or legends), I would have to say that at least at this point the system would seem to be more problematical than beneficial.
Elf teams would be even worse off for money than they are now. And AV teams would have a hard time as well, discouraging EVERYONE from playing with highly skilled players. And given how much I like my legends (Shindahl is the BEST EVER. Even if there is a silly pombing Saurus above him), I think anything that makes the coach want to get rid of legends would be a Bad Thing (at least as bad as aging).
So unless anyone wants to refine my suggestion, I think I have to veto it myself. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 06:32 |
|
Props for the scientific analysis. Science is looking for the truth, not defending one's view. Nelphine did science. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 06:42 |
|
Doing one more test on some box norse just to confirm my current conclusion:
Winterfell Northmen
Currently 10k treasury. 55 games played. 310,000 spiraling expenses (higher than both the wood elves AND legendary infestation).
Under my system:
15k for past players + 5k (hotfire) + 250k (robb) + 3 more superstars = far more than 310k spiraling expenses.
Yet again, we see that the team would have even less money than it does now, much less. Definitely a flawed system given that this team has only had 4 superstars and 1 star in 55 games, and has AV 7. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 06:48 |
|
In the end I am forced to agree with Pythrr. SE simply sucks; big teams will die and have enough problems with TV management that adding on issues with rookie purchasing (and really, at high TV, rookies do NOT carry their weight if they are positionals) is simply adding insult to injury.
Without spiraling expenses a lamed high tv team could retire bloat players and repurchase them as rookies to get down to a manegeable tv. With spiraling expenses, if you retire a bloat player you might not be able to replace him at all, and so be stuck with a journeyman linemen instead (which is infinitely worse than a rookie positional, no matter how poor the rookie might be).
So, I think another solution to spiraling expenses must be found. Perhaps it is simply to do away with it entirely, but that is not my aim of discovery in this thread. |
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 08:18 |
|
The problem with looking at existing teams is it's not accounting for how it warps the environment. Under this new expenses structure people would be highly motivated to spread SPP for "free" skills, resulting in different teams being built in the first place. Is the end result a better distribution of teams or just different?
I think you're too dismissive of the banking rules too. Think of the banking rules as saying "you can't hoard cash". Having no-one able to hoard cash solves a lot of the same problems as removing SE, except in kind of the opposite way. It means no-one having any spare cash rather than everyone having it (to fix the problem of just some teams having it).
The suggestion sounds good to me, and probably no more arbitrary than the existing rules. But I honestly think the whole issue needs a deeper sort of analysis in the first place rather than a suite of potential solutions with unclear merit. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 09:24 |
|
Maybe you just need to reduce the scale of the effect, Nelphine? Either reduce the cost for each player (e.g. 5 for SS, 10 for Legend) or have a higher cost for the first of each type with reduced costs for 2nd and onwards. As I said earlier, it needs to work on a similar scale to the current SE. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 - 09:37 |
|
I think you guys make a couple of wrong assumptions here.
1. SE is not an efficient tool to stop people from building their teams up unless they are dealing with strong monetary problems.
2. This will result in 2 different classes of teams that have to compete against each other: Those who can afford legend players and those who can't.
3. In difference to SE, Legend players are something that is worth to be avoided. As a result of that sweetspotting will be happening at a lower level. Teams that want to avoid opponents with legend players will simply try to stay away from a TV level where they are more likely to meet one.
That and the fact that anyonyone with eyes could see that the new proposed system would hit teams harder in SE than the current system.
I merely like it because it is a rather irrelevant mechanic that incentivices more skill spread. I don't think we need skill spread. Legend players on rookie teams make for incredibly interesting games. But currently the balance has maybe shifted a tick too far. So a little incentive to more evenly spread skills is probably good. I do not really care if teams will have higher or lower TV on average after that. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 - 20:04 |
|
Wreckage, as a note, if we went with my idea, one legend player + one superstar player would be 30k per game, which is enough to bankrupt most teams, assuming they have to replace players with any kind of regularity. Two legend players would probably bankrupt most teams, period. There wouldn't be anyone who has the money to support legend players; there would only be people who got lucky and developed multiple superstars all at the same time without losing any (a la Roid Rage Babes). This would also result in far far more teams than we currently have that look like: 2 legends + 9 linemen which would all be more or less unskilled (there might be 1 with 3). Or 1 legend +1 or 2 superstars + 8 linemen.
The only high TV teams would be ones with no one above star, or teams that had only recently acquired superstars and so hadn't run out of money yet through replacing players. In order to try to get more superstars (before the first couple make you go broke), most teams would have to buy up 14-16 players as fast as possible before anyone skilled and started forcing SE on them; then as time went by, some would eventually reach superstar, which would start the downward spiral into the teams I mention above. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 - 20:50 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | Has anyone said Spiraling Expenses suck yet?
Sorry, I skipped all the posts. |
yes. me. |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 - 21:22 |
|
|
huff
Joined: Dec 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 - 21:47 |
|
That gabbo is goin for Legend. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
