JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 15:31 |
 
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | Of all the recurring Internet Blood Bowl arguments, the whole treasury thing is the one that I understand the least. What physical difference does it actually make when a Blood Bowl team has 150 k or 500 k in the bank? |
Yeah, crazy that people have issues with it outside of BB2. In BB2 however, there is no declare petty cash phase so the bank rule is the only thing stopping complete degeneracy. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 15:44 |
|
Hmmmm maybe that's why the guy has a problem of there not being a bank rule here. Misunderstanding petty cash. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 15:49 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: | | Of all the recurring Internet Blood Bowl arguments, the whole treasury thing is the one that I understand the least. What physical difference does it actually make when a Blood Bowl team has 150 k or 500 k in the bank? |
Yeah, crazy that people have issues with it outside of BB2. In BB2 however, there is no declare petty cash phase so the bank rule is the only thing stopping complete degeneracy. |
so on cyanide you just get to stick in 150k in before the match to get a wizard and it doesn't add to your TV? |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:07 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | I think the ‘cause’ of almost every ill in those environments is how TV is calculated (and we should not change that for very good reasons, we would have the inverse of the OP’s friend, for one)... |
I think the TV calculation should be adjusted. Mainly to allow stunties to have their skills at half TV value, but that's a different story 
Anyway, I think the 'bank' thing would actually benefit the bashers more than the agile teams, as it's the bashers that don't need to rebuild so much, whereas it could force agile teams into the permanent rebuild mode. |
|
|
jdm
Joined: Nov 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:20 |
|
I'd hate to be saving money and have to pour it down the drain, knowing that if I had a game where 2 or more of my ogres got permed/died I wouldn't be able to hire 2 new ones as I couldn't have the 280k I need for those 2 players in my bank. It happens more than you think in high level box. |
_________________
 |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:31 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: | | I think the ‘cause’ of almost every ill in those environments is how TV is calculated (and we should not change that for very good reasons, we would have the inverse of the OP’s friend, for one)... |
I think the TV calculation should be adjusted. Mainly to allow stunties to have their skills at half TV value, but that's a different story
Anyway, I think the 'bank' thing would actually benefit the bashers more than the agile teams, as it's the bashers that don't need to rebuild so much, whereas it could force agile teams into the permanent rebuild mode. |
Yes that is a problem I see. How often does an agile team need to replace more than one player after a game? The bank rule on BB2 is basically allowing most such teams to cover one death/perm. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:32 |
|
Adjust the TV cost of skills based on their 'in-game' effectiveness/worth & alot of issues disappear... |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:33 |
|
This is a CRP concept though, having this safety net. We never used to have it. If you're playing with a large roster.......then yeah it's a fair point, and could be crippling. However if you're playing with a small roster, then you're asking for injuries and then have your safety net. That in my opinion isn't right. However that's the mindset now. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:39 |
|
its not about that though harvestmouse no one cares if their linemen die but if say you are playing high elves and you lose 2 catchers and a blitzer then the team is auto retired because bank rule doesn't allow the rebuild. Sure deeper benches were more common before but they do not help with the limited positionals.
Your issue, with min maxed teams and sweet spotting was not a consideration of the bank rule. The bank rules intention was to stop teams staying at high TV too long as it was their belief stockpiled cash would allow this.
Bank rule hurts tier 2 and 3 teams more than anything else and encourages team retirement and starting again. Which are bad things.
There are other things that could be done to help around the minmaxing issue etc.. such as the aforementioned skill pricing change, and possibly cumulative skill cost increase with skill levels etc...
forcing people to throw money away is just weird.. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 16:49 |
|
Well I'm not arguing that it's not the greatest fix. For me though (and I know I'm in a tiny group that thinks this) it would fix some issues.
It's the old chestnut though that it's a band aid fix for the problems caused by TV.
Throwing money away is weird yes.......but not as weird as stock piling cash and playing with a very slimline team.
I honestly feel CPOMB is a lesser evil than a team with 11 players and 300k in the bank. But that's me. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 17:22 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
I honestly feel CPOMB is a lesser evil than a team with 11 players and 300k in the bank. But that's me. |
Maybe because you don't play in Black Box.
11 men teams are not my cup of tea either, they are a consequence of CRP's TV calculation. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 17:40 |
|
lol, i would take any team with 11 players and 300k in the bank as an opponent over a team with 3+ cpombers |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 17:46 |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 18:04 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: | | Of all the recurring Internet Blood Bowl arguments, the whole treasury thing is the one that I understand the least. What physical difference does it actually make when a Blood Bowl team has 150 k or 500 k in the bank? |
Yeah, crazy that people have issues with it outside of BB2. In BB2 however, there is no declare petty cash phase so the bank rule is the only thing stopping complete degeneracy. |
so on cyanide you just get to stick in 150k in before the match to get a wizard and it doesn't add to your TV? |
Pretty much, so what jimmy says is very true for keeping the 'simplified' system in BB2 not being completely stupid.
It's worse though because as the lower TV team you can simply add cash to the TV difference to get your inducements rather than having to pay the full price.
150k in the bank means as the lower TV team you can buy a wizard every time and the opponent gets nothing back.
Now, I'm sure there will be much ranting and raving about this implementation, but meh, ranting and raving about cyanides faulty implementations just isn't worth doing.
All that said...
The #1 stupidity is the j-man rule, always has been always will be. Let's note though that with a bank rule the j-man rule is no longer necessary. So for those of you actually think the j-man rule makes sense (it doesn't, it's ridiculous) embrace the bank.
Otherwise, yes the bank rule is meaningless when you have a proper inducement phase. Cash dumping in BB2 is just part of the game, but at least you can use extra cash on cosmetics like stadium upgrades. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 25, 2016 - 18:14 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
It is just some fluff thing. |
Without fluff there is no BloodBowl. Do not underestimate the power of the fluff! |
|
|
|
|
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
