| Poll |
| The New Rulz are: |
| Exactly what I wanted and predicted |
|
17% |
[ 14 ] |
| A sign the GW is getting the Blood out of BB |
|
13% |
[ 11 ] |
| A bit better than a piece of pie |
|
28% |
[ 23 ] |
| The final nail in the coffin of my hopes in humanity |
|
19% |
[ 16 ] |
| Par for the course |
|
20% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 81 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 18:58 |
 
|
| licker wrote: | | thoralf wrote: |
CRP would allow millionaire teams to buy saws every single game. Yet we do not see that happening. What goes around comes around. |
CRP does allow this.
But there is a price, namely that you are also giving your opponent equal cash (depending on the starting TV difference) to spend on their own saw or whatever they want.
BB2016 allows you to buy saws and your opponent gets nothing.
So again, this doesn't have to be good or bad (though I think it's nuts myself), but it requires you to rethink your notions of what it means to 'balance' a match based off of TV.
I'll hate myself for saying this, but it would almost make more sense to use this rule with a different measuring stick than TV...
Yep, hating myself... |
BURN THE HERETIC! |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 19:07 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | You know why they did it this way though - they didnt want a conpletely contrived hire and fire method of controlling cash to avoid expensive mistakes. Cash exists to be accrued and consumed. |
Surely coaches would still be able to dump cash if they want, to avoid expensive mistakes? Buy/fire cheerleaders, etc? |
And thats a completely contrived way of managing your cash. |
Perhaps I just happen to be very picky about my cheerleaders?  |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 19:07 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | But that's just me probably, thinking this might actually be a better ruleset than CRP was. |
I'm positive as well.
It's also an inaccurate art to judge the exact implication of a new rule without any play testing. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 19:19 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | You know why they did it this way though - they didnt want a conpletely contrived hire and fire method of controlling cash to avoid expensive mistakes. Cash exists to be accrued and consumed. |
Surely coaches would still be able to dump cash if they want, to avoid expensive mistakes? Buy/fire cheerleaders, etc? |
And thats a completely contrived way of managing your cash. |
Perhaps I just happen to be very picky about my cheerleaders? |
Usually you dont pay tryouts advances. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 19:49 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Uedder wrote: | | But that's just me probably, thinking this might actually be a better ruleset than CRP was. |
I'm positive as well.
It's also an inaccurate art to judge the exact implication of a new rule without any play testing. |
The artfulness was in creating a new rule without actually play testing it then? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 20:02 |
|
There is more artfulness in acting as a GW intercessor without any real leverage. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 20:37 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Uedder wrote: | | But that's just me probably, thinking this might actually be a better ruleset than CRP was. |
I'm positive as well.
It's also an inaccurate art to judge the exact implication of a new rule without any play testing. |
The artfulness was in creating a new rule without actually play testing it then? |
I don't have nearly all your truths, unlucky me.
Guess I'm stuck with playing it and see how it works? |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 21:22 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Balle2000 wrote: | | Uedder wrote: | | But that's just me probably, thinking this might actually be a better ruleset than CRP was. |
I'm positive as well.
It's also an inaccurate art to judge the exact implication of a new rule without any play testing. |
The artfulness was in creating a new rule without actually play testing it then? |
I don't have nearly all your truths, unlucky me.
Guess I'm stuck with playing it and see how it works? |
I don't have the truths either, neither does GW, no one does.
Think of BB2016 as a beta test without a fixed end. Probably the best way to do it. |
|
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 21:50 |
|
I see it as the work of professional game designer so I see no real reason to assume it's utterly broken and not playtested and such before i even have the chance to try it myself.
I'll add that the little things that i'm able to understand which they have done so far seem sensible. Debatable, arguable, but not super goofy and lame. They make sense.
And from the little I've seen the guys seem to be genuinely interested in the game and have been interested in engaging the community, which leads me to believe they put some sincere effort in delivering a good ruleset.
That's pretty much it. Why not just wait and see how it works instead of saying how horrible it is before even having the chance to test it?
Let's finally say that this is just the first installment of more to come. We may see more things in further installments/errata etc... |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 22:32 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | I see it as the work of professional game designer so I see no real reason to assume it's utterly broken and not playtested and such before i even have the chance to try it myself. |
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting it is utterly broken. There are aspects of the rules which are awkward (and dumb in my opinion) to try to fit into perpetual ladders. But these are professional game designers (if you say so, *shrug*) who admittedly do not care about the online game, in particular about the perpetual ladders online.
They developed the rules for TT league play. Not for NAF either one should point out.
Of course that's utterly fair for them to do, and if the rules work great in that environment then job well done. I guess. But we are not in that environment, so we are 'stuck' figuring out how to adapt our perpetual ladders to the new rules which were not designed with perpetual ladders in mind.
| Uedder wrote: | | I'll add that the little things that i'm able to understand which they have done so far seem sensible. Debatable, arguable, but not super goofy and lame. They make sense. |
Really. The change to inducements and the way the cards will work seem sensible? We can agree to disagree on that, I know there is no 'right' way to play BB, but these rules move the game in a direction which clearly supports randomness over coaching ability. And I would argue that basing any rule, no matter how trivial, off of how the miniatures look is not just goofy and lame but patently idiotic.
| Uedder wrote: | | And from the little I've seen the guys seem to be genuinely interested in the game and have been interested in engaging the community, which leads me to believe they put some sincere effort in delivering a good ruleset. |
Engaging what community? The online community? Did they engage us here? Did they engage anyone at cyanide? If they did all parties involved are keeping it close to the vest.
So sure, they engaged some community, probably the TT community, and again, that's who they are selling to, I get it, I'm not saying bad job on them for engaging their actual customers. I'm saying ignoring the plethora of data they can mine from fumbbl and cyanide seems an odd way to go about figuring out how to approach rules, especially any balance rules, not that there are any really. Well PO is a big one, but let's not discuss that here.
| Uedder wrote: | | That's pretty much it. Why not just wait and see how it works instead of saying how horrible it is before even having the chance to test it? |
Well I've already seen how horrible some of these ideas are as they were used in part in BB2.
| Uedder wrote: | | Let's finally say that this is just the first installment of more to come. We may see more things in further installments/errata etc... |
I'm sure we will see more things. I hope they are continual improvements, but the thing is that the future installments are still likely to ignore the online communities. I hope I'm proven wrong on that. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 22:47 |
|
| licker wrote: | | CRP does allow this. But there is a price, namely that you are also giving your opponent equal cash (depending on the starting TV difference) to spend on their own saw or whatever they want. |
"Whatever they want" is a bit strong, since one does not simply buy two wizards or Morgs in Mordor, and elves can't haz chainsaws.
Under the CRP petty cash system, only the favorite can spend a few Ks to improve his inducements. If one already gives away a wizard, it might be profitable to invest in one's own wizard, even if 150K now appears in the system out of thin air. When the underdog decides to do the same, he simply loses his inducement money.
DZ1's inducement system allows the underdog to add only a few Ks to his petty cash to get two kegs, a mercenary, a DP, or (gasp!) a Mayhem card. You're telling me it does not help the underdog because the favorite could theorically spend a big part of his Treasury in one game for a saw?
Sure.
Even if this would be true, this kind of spending spree could not happen more than one time per three games unless you roll very good winnings and Expensive Mistakes rolls. Therefore, I see no other reason to spend the few Ks I got in my Treasury than to crush small B teams. For everything else, I'd rather keep my change.
This makes me suspect that such system would increase relatedness and sociability.
***
In any event, here's the relevant bit:
| Quote: | | Each team can spend gold from their Treasury to purchase any of the inducements listed below. The team with the lower Team Value is granted an additional amount of "petty cash" equal to the difference in Team Values [...] The team with the highest Team Value must purchase inducements first: once they have finished, the other team can purchase inducements. |
It may therefore be more precise to say that Petty Cash becomes an inducement handicap. The expression "petty cash" is still in the rulz.
Clarity and all that jazz. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 23:28 |
|
Hi Thoralf,
I should start by saying that I like the majority of the new rules. Even the ones that I don't quite know how will play out. They look good on paper.
That is not to say that I have to like them all. In this inducement rule is one that I really don't like.
| Quote: | There is no wizard, you can't have much more than 300K in your treasury anymore unless you are willing to risk half or all of it, and you need cash to transfer from season to season, Martin. Suggesting that 120K can buy you a Griff rests on bad arithmetic.
|
Andy has already stated that the wizard will be back. Mind you, it could be nerfed. But unless all inducements are nerfed so hard that they can no longer function as an actual handicap system, then value can bederived from them. (Infinite value, if you're so inclined )
Even if you only get 200K of value from 300K - then I still say 200K can swing a game.
Like a Card. Or the Humble apoth bringing back a crucial Badly Hurt player.
Do we not agree that free value will represent some power?
| Quote: | | The only case you presented on that other forum thread is a coach that would use his teams as desperados. |
Desperados?
I'm saying that in any tabletop League I've ever played, seasons eventually end and coaches want to restart their teams.
If one coach retires his, then he can burn all his Cash with impunity and buy a big step towards the win.
Or - if one coach has had good winnings rolls and no injuries, while the other has had bad winnings rolls and lots of injuries - then they can both burn all their Cash, one will just have way more to burn.
The one without the Cash will have an unfair fight on his hands.
| Quote: | | Speaking of which, inducements do not make games fair. Star Players are too expensive, wizards can backfire, and the actual cards are too unreliable. They were meant to induçe lower TV teams. I will check back the original fluff. |
They may not make games fair.
But they make them fair-er.
Which I think you'll agree is markedly different to making them un-fairer.
(And I'd argue that even if your wizard fails, it will still affect the way your opponent plays - like preventing him from stalling - unless you're a fool and use it straight away).
| Quote: | | Under the CRP petty cash system, only the favorite can spend a few Ks to improve his inducements. If one already gives away a wizard, it might be profitable to invest in one's own wizard, even if 150K now appears in the system out of thin air. When the underdog decides to do the same, he simply loses his inducement money. |
Eh?
Under CRP the overdog will have to spend the full ammount to get anything. And will then grant the same ammount to his underdog opponent.
The Underdog can also spend the full ammount to get something, but anything less than the full ammount will negate his 'magic cash' leaving him with no more than before.
| Quote: | | DZ1's inducement system allows the underdog to add only a few Ks to his petty cash to get two kegs, a mercenary, a DP, or (gasp!) a Mayhem card. You're telling me it does not help the underdog because the favorite could theorically spend a big part of his Treasury in one game for a saw? |
Again - Eh?
In DZ1 either side - overdog or underdog - could throw in the full ammount and get something for free.
Overdog at 1500TV, underdog at 1400TV? Underdog gets 100K inducements. Then overdog could burn 200K from treasury, which gives the underdog nothing.
| Quote: | | It may therefore be more precise to say that Petty Cash becomes an inducement handicap. The expression "petty cash" is still in the rulz. |
Yes, the Words are in the rules.
They just represent something completely different (namely the magic/free inducement Cash, which admittedly did need a name).
It's like renaming Accurate to Piling On and then saying that Piling On has not been moved to optional rules
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 30, 2016 - 23:32 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | CRP does allow this. But there is a price, namely that you are also giving your opponent equal cash (depending on the starting TV difference) to spend on their own saw or whatever they want. |
"Whatever they want" is a bit strong, since one does not simply buy two wizards or Morgs in Mordor, and elves can't haz chainsaws. |
It's not a bit strong, it's simply the accurate way to present the issue. Clearly they are limited by their teams access to star players, but I was forgetting that you are a massive pedant.
| thoralf wrote: | | Under the CRP petty cash system, only the favorite can spend a few Ks to improve his inducements. |
Incorrect. The underdog can spend whatever they want, just that they have to overspend the current difference to make it worthwhile.
| thoralf wrote: | | If one already gives away a wizard, it might be profitable to invest in one's own wizard, even if 150K now appears in the system out of thin air. When the underdog decides to do the same, he simply loses his inducement money. |
Incorrect for CRP. If the overdog buys a wizard the underdog gets an extra 150k to spend. Do you really not know this? Or are you just throwing more babbling nonsense which serves no point?
| thoralf wrote: | | DZ1's inducement system allows the underdog to add only a few Ks to his petty cash to get two kegs, a mercenary, a DP, or (gasp!) a Mayhem card. You're telling me it does not help the underdog because the favorite could theorically spend a big part of his Treasury in one game for a saw? |
The overdog can spend whatever he has in his treasury for whatever he wants to buy, the underdog gets nothing additional however. I don't know why you think a saw matters in this, it's just a place holder for spending ~110k. The real issue with this system happens not when the two teams are far apart in TV, it happens when they are close in TV, but one (usually the overdog) just spends his cash for whatever he wants and the underdog gets nothing out of it.
Again, that's not a right or wrong way to do it, it's just a really stupid way to do it if you are at all interested in using TV as a measuring stick for having an 'even' match. If you're not interested in that, and maybe GW no longer is, then have at whatever you want.
| thoralf wrote: | | Even if this would be true, this kind of spending spree could not happen more than one time per three games unless you roll very good winnings and Expensive Mistakes rolls. Therefore, I see no other reason to spend the few Ks I got in my Treasury than to crush small B teams. For everything else, I'd rather keep my change. |
Good for you. Literally no one cares what YOU would do. What actually matters is what actual people who play in this system do. You know, like what happens in BB2 since it uses this system.
| thoralf wrote: | | This makes me suspect that such system would increase relatedness and sociability. |
Suspect away, I'm not at all sure why we care about whatever relatedness and sociability mean when we're discussing mechanical rules.
***
| thoralf wrote: | In any event, here's the relevant bit:
| Quote: | | Each team can spend gold from their Treasury to purchase any of the inducements listed below. The team with the lower Team Value is granted an additional amount of "petty cash" equal to the difference in Team Values [...] The team with the highest Team Value must purchase inducements first: once they have finished, the other team can purchase inducements. |
It may therefore be more precise to say that Petty Cash becomes an inducement handicap. The expression "petty cash" is still in the rulz. |
It may be more precise to say that you are not making any sense. Petty Cash is still the handicap given to the underdog. Not sure I understand why you think that's a point that needs making or clarification.
| thoralf wrote: | | Clarity and all that jazz. |
I see much more jazz from you than clarity tbh. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 00:17 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: | | If one coach retires his, then he can burn all his Cash with impunity and buy a big step towards the win. |
Yes, the rules as they are allow teams to go bust. That's what I meant by "desperado." With the new Expensive Mistakes, it will not be a dominant strategy like on Cyanide. The amount of cash involved should be around 300K, and the choice of inducements is in theory smaller in play-offs.
Yes, richer and more powerful teams may go bust to have more chances to win one game. Compare that to leagues like the Major League of Baseball, where the New York Yankees pay the luxury tax every year, or the European soccer teams which have no salary caps. They don't even have to go bust to dominate in a way you call unfair.
However, you have to admit that less powerful teams could go bust too. They may not even have to go bust, because the money they put into the game is added their petty fund. That's more than a fair exchange, if you ask me.
Is going bust any fairer when done by a less powerful team?
Is being unable to take advantage of the money you won any fairer?
I can understand why you don't like that system, but I don't think it's any less fair than the one we had. I'm glad you're not Matt. Otherwise, this quest for fairness would have led to some joyful banter.
The problem here seems to be about "going bust" more than about money. "Going bust" goes beyond inducement money. It goes beyond any kind of rules. Just imagine what you could do with teams you don't care about in an environment with teams you dislike. Do you see why I'm talking about desperados?
It's always possible to rule some behaviour out. Running loners for a wizard every three games does not look pretty kosher to me, for instance. Commissioners always had to compensente for GW's lack of attention to detail. This won't change with this release. This may never change, for every league has its own peculiarities. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2016 - 00:24 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Incorrect. The underdog can spend whatever they want, just that they have to overspend the current difference to make it worthwhile. |
Which part of "a few Ks" you don't get?
Talk about massive pedantry. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
|
|
| |
New Team Page Beta
Search
