Posted by Cloggy on 2017-05-17 11:38:46

I find it more or less business as usual to be honest. Wizzard removal is a minus for me as it hurts the chance of an underdog to win unbalanced games, while removal of PO is a big bonus. other than those two there's really nothing that has impacted my day to day play.

Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2017-05-17 11:50:38

The removal of petty cash (or at least the ability to spend without re-imbursement) is a big deal to me. In a league thing introduces an element of treasury control as you know your games.

In TV-MM it just gives people the chance to tilt games even further knowing there are no repurcussions if they have to re-start their team later, so long as they win.

This is particularly bad in ranked where people can check the treasury/team of their opponent and then induce accordingly, knowing their opponent cannot reply. Seen plenty of overdogs do this, and had it done to me.

Posted by CroixFer on 2017-05-17 11:55:01

That is one fo the things I meant. Also, this can also be done in majors somewhat "altering" a former "balanced" game...

Posted by Purplegoo on 2017-05-17 11:58:35

Wizzies will return in some form or another, they've said as much (whether you're pro or con). FUMBBL have chosen to remove them until they resurface, but consider that a holding pattern, I think.

Couldn't agree with AD above more. I don't want to become a boring broken record (or be any more boring, most likely ;)), but I rather hope that is one change that is modified by the end of the series of releases. It's not brilliant online, but it's worse in a real league where you have to invest even more time into a game where your overdog opponent gives himself an even greater advantage as you sit down. For now, though, at least on FUMBBL, rules are rules.

Posted by Purplegoo on 2017-05-17 12:00:46

(By 'real', I guess I mean on TT. Online leagues are real too. ;))

Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2017-05-17 12:29:42

Just had the above done to me in the box.

Overdog necro takes two cards vs UW.

Seriously, why even play the game now? Waste of my time. And of course since he got kicking boots he's decided to trash my team. What a gent.

Posted by bghandras on 2017-05-17 12:33:43

I have managed to trash a team as underdog when opponent spent all his cash. Very satisfactory.

Posted by Purplegoo on 2017-05-17 12:36:46

Sure - moments like that will be lovely. But I doubt they'll be the norm?

I have no intention of beginning a R v B horror urinating contest. But for me, this is likely another reason I'll favour R. I can at least check treasuries and ensure no funny business before accepting a game. Of course, some may use the system to ensure beneficial funny business. Such is the internet. :)

Posted by Rawlf on 2017-05-17 12:38:25

I fear it will go from bad to worse when wizards return.
Imagine the 2500tv+ Elven Overlords playing in a Major with the option to induce a wiz for good measure.

Posted by koadah on 2017-05-17 12:38:52

So, here is the thing. We could set up a ruleset with all the old stuff and run it in League.

But how many people are going to be interested?

And if we do it, will that further screw up other parts of the site. Parts that we might have already had an argument about. ;)

All the old stuff but nerfed CPOMB. ;)

Posted by Purplegoo on 2017-05-17 12:46:38

I think any previous ruleset run as a huge, open league in L designed to rival R and B is doomed to failure and not worth the hassle of trying. It's been done before both by the user base and by the site (LRB 4 division), and it's never gone well. Individual leagues having the ability to take and leave what they want and people playing as they please is probably the happiest ending.

It may be unnecessary in the end, anyway. If any part of BB2016 is a deal breaker for you personally, remember we don't have the full BB2016 ruleset yet. By the end, it might all work out to your liking. While we're implementing bits as they happen and are 'incomplete', there are bound to be some teething issues.

Posted by Gartch on 2017-05-17 12:50:47

I also dislike the new petty cash/inducement system. And like Purplegoo, I think I will find it especially ennoying in private league.

Posted by Verminardo on 2017-05-17 13:08:52

Not to say I like it but isn't the new petty cash "back to LRB4"?

Posted by koadah on 2017-05-17 13:09:16

@Purplegoo: It wouldn't need to be a real rival to be considered of success. Though Box is already unwell on some time zones and taking ArrestedDevelopment out wouldn't help it. ;)

Posted by paradocks on 2017-05-17 13:34:39

Agree with the points raised here. I was one of the masses advocating cpomb nerfing, but just removing po wasn't much of a fix. The final nail in the coffin for me will be the Seasons rule being implemented

Posted by Throweck on 2017-05-17 13:35:44

I had sparked a small conversation about this on discord the other day. I could have spent 1300000 on my team but I chose not to as I believe that would have been a seriously douche move. Yes it was a tourney, yes it would have been within the rules, yes I had a better chance of winning and yes etc.

However, I am also understanding that others would not see that as a douche move and would do anything to win.

Me personally, I don't think it's fair.

Posted by MattDakka on 2017-05-17 14:28:56

PO removal is a good change but the new inducements' phase is a bad one, I agree.

Posted by Joost on 2017-05-17 15:01:13

I second Matt here, and personally would like wizards back if the inducement phase would be 'reset'. I've always felt they equalized an unbalanced game well.

Posted by Kondor on 2017-05-17 15:49:50

I enjoy playing with or against inducements. I like the variety. I always hated being short 10k for an inducement as the underdog and being forced to fork over the full amount to get the inducement rather than just making up the 10k difference. In the box, sometimes you will be the underdog with or without gold. Other times it will be the other way around. In ranked, you don't need to accept a game if the other guy has more cash than you want to face.

Tournaments may have problems with it, but can't you consider building a cash reserve part of preparing for the tournament?

Posted by PainState on 2017-05-17 17:02:59

I fully support the new inducement phase because gold now has value to you. It is a resource that must be managed now.

CRP gold had 0 value to your team outside buying players.

Posted by PainState on 2017-05-17 17:07:02

Sure, you could game plan to have a larger stash of gold on hand for the start of a tournament. But you have to have good luck in the EM rolls. Coupled with, how much gold would you spend on the opening round to begin with?

Lets say you have 450K on hand for the first round. Going to blow 300K of it? If you do that, then what was the point of hording some gold? You have blown your wad in the first round of a 6-7 round tournament.

You spend 50K on a card or babe. Not game breaking in the least. Yet now you stash of gold is still to high and have to lucky again on the EM roll because now you have 400K + Winnings.

Posted by bghandras on 2017-05-17 17:10:22

League wins. Beyond that
- Pilin on removal helped R&B
- Petty cash is meh, i preferred old
- Removal of wizard is a good move
So 2 out of 3. Not bad, but i could nitpick all day.

Posted by Burnalot on 2017-05-17 17:20:35

How is the removal of wizard a good move? Price adjustment would seem fine, but removal leaves underdogs at a disadvantage in my opinion.

Posted by mrt1212 on 2017-05-17 18:07:25

I am loving the lack of a wizard. I don't get to use it and don't miss that. I also am not playing a game with a known trump card being held over my head which makes the game more normal.

Posted by Malmir on 2017-05-17 19:28:29

It's not perfect and I hear what people are saying about inducements, but, for me, removing piling on has massively improved it.

Posted by MattDakka on 2017-05-17 19:52:42

MVP nomination looks like a positive change too.

Posted by PainState on 2017-05-17 20:16:02

Removal of PileOn on non big guys a good move..Not allowing Big Guys to Pile On a royal Big Guy hose of the highest order.

Then again, I did not get to vote on this.

Posted by SpecialOne on 2017-05-17 22:53:16

Good thing you got DLE to play in then. All is good then.

Posted by ignatzami on 2017-05-18 03:05:14

Part of the issue with Petty Cash is that teams still have a massive bank from the CRP days.

Once things settle out it'll get better. In my TT league so far (13 games) I've not seen one person float inducements through Petty Cash. You simply can't build up the monster treasuries anymore.

Posted by fidius on 2017-05-18 05:15:42

Monster treasuries aren't the problem because you're right, they will settle out. The problem is that the teams that don't need to replace players every 2 matches can now spend inducement cash on a regular basis to gain an advantage, even if they were already the overdog.

I agree with OP re "taste", but for me it's not the changes in particular. It's that I expect lousy changes to continue to be made going forward. I feel the rules will leave me behind in one or two more supplement iterations.

Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2017-05-18 14:49:02

Yes, as fidius says, undead teams doing this (mostly at low/mid tv) is already a problem. What good is the so-called rookie protection of the box if one can alter the TV-gap by spending as overdog?

Posted by thoralf on 2017-05-18 18:21:57

Petty Cash is, wait for it, petty.

If it wrecks B, removing it *from B* makes sense.

What is concluded from the B model should stay in B.

Posted by Kondor on 2017-05-19 10:01:05

@Fidius and AD

I guess I don't see this as a large issue. Sometimes you are the bigger dog and sometimes the other guy has an advantage. In any case the incentive gap should not be much more than 100k.

High armor teams will have the same advantage in low to mid TV. Others have cheap linemen so if they have a one or two man bench this should not matter.

It seems to me the issues with this edition are smaller that PO in the last or DP in LRB4.

Posted by fidius on 2017-05-19 17:30:35

I agree the issues are smaller. But the changes reveal that the committee doesn't understand the game well enough, which bodes poorly for the future imo.