FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Aug 21, 2008

Posted: Jun 06, 2015 - 23:00

My bench will be slightly different, you could have a team of 16 and start only 11 if you wanted. The main trick is to stop saving stars for tournies, hence the over 50 rule I mentioned. This would also allow leagues to be much more flexible, especially with new teams versus veteran squads.

_________________

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jun 06, 2015 - 23:21

zakatan wrote:

I still don't understand the concept of "journeyman abuse", but this is a whole different story, I guess

At the end of the day no one abuses J-men. J-men abuse themselves for playing this violent sport for no money. It is the J-mans fault in the end.

Shocked

_________________
Comish of the:

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jun 06, 2015 - 23:22

WhatBall wrote:

My bench will be slightly different, you could have a team of 16 and start only 11 if you wanted. The main trick is to stop saving stars for tournies, hence the over 50 rule I mentioned. This would also allow leagues to be much more flexible, especially with new teams versus veteran squads.

Fair enough.

My idea is based on 2ED reserve rules which eliminates all this meta game reserve discussion almost down to a non discussion.

You have to field 16 players before you can elect to have players 17-20 take the reserves.

_________________
Comish of the:

uzkulak

Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Posted: Jun 07, 2015 - 00:50

Kam wrote:

uzkulak wrote:

Well, you would still be restrained by roster limits, so these "scary" players would all essentially be linemen as any reserve positionals would just be swapped out for another. And having 4 scary linmemen would therefore be a suboptimal approach as you would have no reserve positionals and your one dimensional team would likely be dumped out of every tournament in the second round.

Nope, I think you missed my point.

If you play enough games, you will get stat freaks. It's easy, you just have to be patient. The hard part is to keep them alive. But if you put them in the reserve as soon as you're happy with their development and save them for tournaments, then the probability of having them maimed or killed is drastically reduced. And in the meantime, the survival rate of your other players (including other potential stat freaks) drastically increases as you don't have to save your apo for your legends.

Also, that would give an unfair advantage IMHO to teams with players who alone can make the difference and win games. Think one-turners for instance. We've seen how broken they can be in the hands of a decent coach (including in the last major), but they're also fragile. Now what if the guy had one or two more one-turners in reserve? Or what again if those one turners didn't have to play outside tournaments, and therefore were assured to survive while you're skilling up the rest of the team, hidden in the reserve? And the same reasoning probably goes as well for stat freak wardancers, AG4 thro-ras, ST5 blodge blitzers, etc...

Yep, I get it. But... I'm not sure I really see what you are describing as a problem. So, some teams rock up at a tourney with a bunch of stat freak super star players. Great! Its an even playing field - every team can do it - and now with a bench all coaches can be tactically flexible and can (or should be able to...) bring a squad (with inducements?) that can deal with any conceivable threat.

one turners, for example, are part of the game. Maybe, they shouldn't be, but until the rules change we all need to be able to deal with that reality. So, someone brings a team with a one-turner to a tourney - and has a reserve option as well. What's the problem here, exactly?

The suggestions above would reduce the effectiveness of a bench, if that's what you are looking for - but so far I cant see why we should overlook the opportunity for increased strategic play.

Thespian

Joined: Dec 28, 2007

Posted: Jun 07, 2015 - 01:39

That amazon team would play so differently. Wow.

_________________
Instagram: @instajoshjg
NAF ID: 20907 (Phrygerator)

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 20:55

Spiraling expenses

Instead of taking it out, once again look to the past for inspiration of the future.

Bring back, wages from 2ED.

Realy easy on how it would work now.

Any player with 51-75 SPP gets paid 50 gold after the match

Any player with 76-125SPP gets paid 100 gold after the match

126-175SPP gets paid 150

176+ SPP gets paid 200.

Use that as a frame work and adjust up or down how ever you feel.

The idea is that Spiraling expenses is no longer tied to TV but rather to quality of the players on the roster demanding more money for their services.

Alternative to promote teams with high SPP players would be something like this.

76-125: 50 gold

126-175: 100 gold

176+: 150 gold

_________________
Comish of the:

uzkulak

Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 21:01

PainState wrote:

Spiraling expenses

Instead of taking it out, once again look to the past for inspiration of the future.

Bring back, wages from 2ED.

Realy easy on how it would work now.

Any player with 51-75 SPP gets paid 50 gold after the match

Any player with 76-125SPP gets paid 100 gold after the match

126-175SPP gets paid 150

176+ SPP gets paid 200.

Use that as a frame work and adjust up or down how ever you feel.

The idea is that Spiraling expenses is no longer tied to TV but rather to quality of the players on the roster demanding more money for their services.

Alternative to promote teams with high SPP players would be something like this.

76-125: 50 gold

126-175: 100 gold

176+: 150 gold

Wasn't this part of a winnings system based on fan factor - where ff could be 20+? ie high value teams could expect far more income than currently.

Agree it was a good system though.

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 21:11

uzkulak wrote:

Wasn't this part of a winnings system based on fan factor - where ff could be 20+? ie high value teams could expect far more income than currently.

Agree it was a good system though.

No, that was LRB4 winnings chart which, IMO, was Spiraling expenses in reverse.

Wages, as laid out above, was from 2ED, where each player after the match was paid.

_________________
Comish of the:

Kam

Joined: Nov 06, 2012

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 22:55

WhatBall wrote:

tmoila wrote:

Or any benched >50SPP player would have 50% chance of leaving the team?

Yes, something similar to concession rules. I also thought of that, but wondered why anyone would risk it. It just seemed to be an extra rule for little/no gain. If a team were for some reason to be able to field 11 or more 51 SPP+ players, then there would need to be a rule to handle that.

I wouldn't.

However, what about a system like the old niggles? Every game (or every 2 games or whatever) spent in the reserve, the player would get a "niggle" (find another name). Whenever you want to play with him, you roll a dice for every niggle (max 5 or 6). If the result of one of those rolls is 1, the player needs more training before he can play again with the team, and misses the game.

For every game a "niggled" team member plays, he loses a "niggle".

And of course, you roll the dice before you chose to put active team members in the reserve, so you don't end up with one positional missing if you were trying to replace one. So the pre-match sequence would be something like:

- Declare which player(s) you want to move from the reserve to the current roster.
- Roll d6s to see if he can join the team.
- Add or substract "niggles" depending on the result (aka depending on if he's going to play or not)
- Eventually, move players from the current roster to the reserve, including positionals if you have too many with the reserve dudes who have joined the team.

_________________
GLN 17 is out!

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 23:29

I'll say this right now - one of the reasons I like Bloodbowl is that it isn't overly complex with a lot of esoteric rules. This whole bench system seems like it's hurtling towards overly complex what ifs and esoteric errata.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 23:37

Well, yes you have a point that whatball maybe falling into that a little. However, it is out of game sequence, which means on a computer a lot of it wouldn't be done manually.

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Jun 08, 2015 - 23:57

harvestmouse wrote:

Well, yes you have a point that whatball maybe falling into that a little. However, it is out of game sequence, which means on a computer a lot of it wouldn't be done manually.

ALL HAIL THE MACHINE!

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jun 09, 2015 - 00:21

The side effect to changing spiraling expenses to the idea I posted earlier is that it would give an incentive for expensive rosters like elves the shot to actually have a 16 man team.

Right now elves suffer from high cost AND they hit Spiraling expenses way to earlier at around 13-14 players depending on their skill ups.

So if you remove TV from the equation then elves can afford to run a 16 man squad and not worry about running a team in the 1800-2000 TV range with elves that have a roster with no star players or better to start incurring SE's Or Wages is what it would be called now.

_________________
Comish of the:

mrt1212

Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Posted: Jun 09, 2015 - 00:45

PainState wrote:

The side effect to changing spiraling expenses to the idea I posted earlier is that it would give an incentive for expensive rosters like elves the shot to actually have a 16 man team.

Whalelfs don't grow on trees, do they

PainState

Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Posted: Jun 09, 2015 - 00:49

mrt1212 wrote:

PainState wrote:

The side effect to changing spiraling expenses to the idea I posted earlier is that it would give an incentive for expensive rosters like elves the shot to actually have a 16 man team.

Whalelfs don't grow on trees, do they

Very nice, I love me some bloated elves.

So right now under CRP they are taking 60,000 Gold in SE

Under the proposal I laid out, I will keep it in CRP terms, they would pay 35,000 Gold in Wages.

_________________
Comish of the: