Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 05, 2015 - 15:23 |
 
|
From spectating a league game today there appears to be a small oversight in regards to inducements.
Coach 1 went in at 1790k tv
Coach 2 went in at 1750k tv
Coach 1 spent 50k from petty cash for an inducement
(normally this would mean coach 2 gets 90k now but...)
Coach 2 then spent 150k from petty cash for an inducement
So now we have
Coach 1: 1840 (1790 + 50)
Coach 2: 1900 (1750 + 150)
When inducements were taken because Coach 1 now had the smaller TV he was given the difference between the two but the 50k he spent from petty cash was taken away for nothing (no actual value added to the team, just tv bloat).
Coach 1: 60k inducements
Coach 2: 150k inducements.
Obviously this resulted in unbalanced teams, Coach 1 was at 1850 and Coach 2 was at 1900.
My reading of the rules suggests that as Coach 1 became the underdog after petty cash was transferred, he should have received the 60k difference in addition to the 50k petty cash he had spent (this also results in a fairer matchup at 1900:1900 rather than 1850:1900) rather than only the tv difference.
I think the rules are open to interpretation either way but I prefer this method because it is the most equitable solution (and taken to extremes the other is wide open to abuse and powergaming). |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2015 - 15:27 |
|
Implementation looks fine to me in this case. But my word is not official at all. |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2015 - 15:29 |
|
I don't know what happened, but the order of actions you describe is not really possible with the client.
You are asked first if you wish to induce money. Only after both coaches have induced their money, they get to choose what they want to buy.
So, if coach 2 wants to spend 150 k at a TV of 1750. Coach 1 would get 110k for inducements from the start.
If he had induced 50k himself, he would still get 110k.
Of course, he doesn't have to spend it all if he doesn't want to and can just buy a babe. |
|
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2015 - 15:32 |
|
That's exactly what didn't happen wreckage. Coach 1 put in 50k then coach 2 put in 150k. Coach 1 got the (now) 60k difference and his 50k from petty cash was simply lost entirely while coach 2 got the 150k he put in. |
|
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2015 - 15:35 |
|
| bghandras wrote: | | Implementation looks fine to me in this case. But my word is not official at all. |
Let me give you an extreme example. Let's say a lizard v lizard matchup.
Coach 1 has a 10k advantage over coach 2 and wants to splurge on both Morg and Slibli so he puts 680k petty cash on the table. Coach 2 decides to mess with him and puts in 700k. Now coach 2 has a 10k advantage. Coach 2 gets to spend 700k, Coach 1 gets to spend 10k (but 680k is taken from his treasury anyway). Coach 2 now has an effective 680k advantage in tv for this game. That's the current implementation, does it still look fine? |
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
If what you've said is correct, then I agree that looks messed up |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2015 - 17:13 |
|
| Faulcon wrote: | | That's exactly what didn't happen wreckage. Coach 1 put in 50k then coach 2 put in 150k. Coach 1 got the (now) 60k difference and his 50k from petty cash was simply lost entirely while coach 2 got the 150k he put in. |
It looks like a bug indeed. I'm pretty sure it was working fine with the old client, but that may very well have changed with the new client.
You should make a bug report here: https://fumbbl.com/p/bugs |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
 |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
