| Poll |
| Is FF 8 a minimum for a starting [r] team ? |
| yes |
|
37% |
[ 66 ] |
| no |
|
62% |
[ 108 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 174 |
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
 Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 16:43 |
 
|
| Eddy wrote: | @Glimmer
you don't seem to understand: you don't need your FF to end up at 10 after plenty of games. you want it to have been always high because:
- it gave you more money on all these games
- you stated yourself it was hard to increase past 10, so why waste all those good natural 6 on FF to raise your FF to 9 when they could be used to raise it above 10 ? =) |
How about this: FF9 = more cash over a lot of games
FF1 = 80k more gold on team creation. If that's spent on re-rolls, you can double the number (so with 50k for re-rolls, mostly, I think it's reasonable to say that you've got 130k worth more than the ff9 team).
So with more effective money (as opposed to deadweight ff), your team is going to be better than compareable teams. Not 5 games from the start, but right now. Hence you're more likely to win and get the +10k bonus, which you'd oterhwise get from your high ff.
Since the teams are going to settle somewhere between 8-12 ff anyway after a while, there's really no point to start out with a high ff.
I plan my teams to buy the necessary things like players and rerolls first and any excess is allocated to ff. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 18:04 |
|
well, first let me debunk your argument by speaking about a chaos team: 70k RR, you only save 70k by not investing in FF.
also, i won't bother: go on www.talkbloodbowl.com or www.bloodbowl.com and search for Doubleskulls's analysis of FF: you start winning money VERY fast when investing in FF. and saying that FF is going to settle between 8 and 12 is as false as "false" can be. where's the evidence for that ? what are the arguments ?
last, what exactly is "necessary" ? for me, something is necessary only if i can start with at least 7 FF. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 18:39 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | well, first let me debunk your argument by speaking about a chaos team: 70k RR, you only save 70k by not investing in FF. |
Eh?
Ok, so you make a chaosteam with say 9 FF and 3 rerolls, 1 chaos warrior and 10 beastmen.
Someone else makes a team with 2 FF, 4 rerolls, 1 chaos warrior and 10 beastmen.
Now the guy from team A thinks "Hey, I want to have the same setup as coach B, let's buy a reroll."
Question: How much gold does he have to spend to get the same lineup and hence the same punch?
Sure, I'm "ignoring" the slight advantage you get from the kickoff table, but I feel it's really not going to make a difference. The important results like "blitz", "quicksnap", or "perfect defense" work without ff anyway.
IF you're winning and have a high FF, then that's correct. However, if you're losing and have a high ff, your winnings are probably going to match the guy's who is winning and doesn't have a high ff, but a competitive team instead.
That's my contention here. All you supercoaches should buy ff by all means, but the average joe, who loses a game here and there, is better off starting with a strong team, rather than a high ff team.
| Quote: | | last, what exactly is "necessary" ? for me, something is necessary only if i can start with at least 7 FF. |
Yeah, if I didn't say so before, I'll do it now: It's personal preference, obviously.
EDIT: Removed an awful lot of typos. |
|
|
Diarmuid
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 19:05 |
|
I find that I like having a higher ff, as it helps the team survive in the long run. If you want your team to be playable for a number of games at high team rating then high ff is a must. Otherwise you will lose players at a faster rate then you gain them unless you are playing vs some less than harmful teams. Maybe in "happy go lucky" bowl this can occur. but when you play some of the nastier teams as I usually end up doing, ff is a must. It is sound financial planning is my estimation. If you intent to carry a team beyond the first 10 games then having extra positionals or rrs of the get go no longer make a real difference as you have bought them by then. And if things do go wrong and your down a few players off the start then your investment is nullified anyways. Its the less dicy way of doing it, and for me that is the best way. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 20:27 |
|
@Optihut
i guess i jyst don't agree with most of your analysis, but then again, since i can't be bothered to go through the numbers myself, i'll join you on the "matter of preference" stuff and go back to real work =D |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
Coach_Lo
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 20:54 |
|
I say No.
You can achieve greatness with a team that has ff1. You will need a great deal of luck and
some good coaching. It can be done with lower numbers 5,6,7 you just might be short handed at times.
I WOULD NOT SUGGEST AN FF1 team to a new BB player or even just someone new to fumbbl.
I played a guy, not sure if he was new or had a new account, but he had a ff1 team on DE.
He had 3 rr's and NO APOTH!
Now even though he wasnt a bad coach I see him having some real difficulties maintain the team.
After 1 guy was killed he was considering dumping the team till he earned 70 or 80k.
I know this is a BIT OFF TOPIC but..
What I might suggest to the community is that New accounts should have top build and play
a few, say 5 games in Unranked before they can open an Ranked team.
Just a thought  |
_________________
It’s not whether or not you win or lose.
It’s whether or not you stopped him from winning. |
|
Frankie
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 27, 2005 - 20:58 |
|
| Coach_Lo wrote: | I know this is a BIT OFF TOPIC but..
What I might suggest to the community is that New accounts should have top build and play
a few, say 5 games in Unranked before they can open an Ranked team.
Just a thought |
What for? to show them that they are only n00bs? Or to let them learn how to play the fumbbl-style?  |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 28, 2005 - 02:16 |
|
I, personally, feel dirty if I make a team with only 7 or 8 fan factor. However that's just personal preference. People are entirely allowed to make teams how they like, even if I don't really agree with it. To be honest, I think this questions would be a far better fit in the Tactics section, as that's really what it concerns. As a policy, I'm totally against the attempt to regulate beyond the actual LRB rule, which is a FF between 1 and 9, inclusive.
No, I don't want people to make FF 1 teams... however I want people to have option of doing so if they want to. I consider myself a pretty open-minded guy, but I can't imagine (and haven't yet seen) a vaild argument to the contrary.
| Coach_Lo wrote: | ...I know this is a BIT OFF TOPIC but..
What I might suggest to the community is that New accounts should have top build and play
a few, say 5 games in Unranked before they can open an Ranked team.
Just a thought |
I agree with the thought - in fact, I've tried to openly promote the same suggestion in the User Guide and with #FUMBBL_Academy. However, as above, this is a guideline (a very good one!), not a rule. That is the way it should stay, too.
Regulation isn't the way to encourage a behavior. Example is. Make a low-ranked [U] teams and play a few low-ranked games, then retire them and make a new one, always keeping a low TR [U] team for open play. It would give newbies a much better introduction than the harsh realities of [R] and [F], if you ask me. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
spasheridan
Joined: May 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2005 - 01:03 |
|
Ouch. Good arguments for the higher FF. I just made my first FUMBBL team and gave it a FF of 4. In the tabletop league I play in we set max starting FF as 5.. hey, you're a new team.. you should have a low FF. And our leagues are 8 or 12 games long and then on to a new team, so the extra FF seemed unnecessary. But now I realize that I might play this team for 100+ games and the FF seems mighty important now, and wasting money on double priced re-rolls is just a good way to keep your TR down while buffing the team.
Well, my next team will have a higher FF for sure! |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2005 - 02:29 |
|
| spasheridan wrote: | | ... we set max starting FF as 5.. hey, you're a new team.. you should have a low FF. |
I never liked this reasoning, to be honest. Fortunately, I happen to have a wonderful counter to it.
At one point I looked up the gate at a new football team's very first game ever. I think it was the Carolina Panthers... I don't recall to be honest. Whomever it was, the number of people that showed up for this team which had never before existed was substantially greater than the average gate of a game with a combined 18FF.
It all just depends upon whether you consider your rookie team to be a bunch of guys playing in a sandlot or (preferentially, if you ask me) a new professional sports team. I like the latter much better.
Each to their own, however. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
OldBugman
Joined: May 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 18, 2005 - 03:00 |
|
it becomes a problem when the bashy teams have 1 or 2 FF. |
|
|
Origen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 08, 2005 - 22:07 |
|
I tend to use FUMBBL to test ideas out. I play in regular table top leagues, and do well. I don't have the time, money, or inclination to spend a 4 month league trying out an idea I was pretty sure was dumb in the first place. This is especially true because I convert and paint a new team for every league (2 a year generally). Trying out the dumb strategies helps me play the good strategies better (play a team with 0 rerolls for 4 games or so, then see how much less sloppy you are when you use a real team).
This alone is enough reason to allow people to play with whatever team they want to IMHO. It's not like their opponents can't look at their team and refuse to play them if they don't like what they see. |
|
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
