mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 17:41 |
 
|
licker keeps reiterating an important point - if you force B and R to conform to seasons youre eliminating, yes, eliminating casual drop in, drop out play. Something many coaches self select for because they dont like playing in leagues for various reasons.
While many of the ideas sound fantastic and intriuging, they are seemingly much more suited for coaches who enthusiastically opt in, not something foisted upon them. |
|
|
Xeterog
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 17:48 |
|
I play in a couple of leagues now, pretty much exclusively. However, I do like to enter tournaments with my ranked teams--the only games I play in ranked have been tournaments for the last few years. having to reset my team after/before every tournament would pretty much eliminate my teams from playing any ranked games.
Blackbox, I might play 2 or 3 games every 6 months now with various teams.
If seasons were implemented for R/B teams, I would hope it would be # of games played, not by tournament schedule or such. |
_________________
- Xeterog |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 18:07 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | if you force B and R to conform to seasons youre eliminating, yes, eliminating casual drop in, drop out play. |
Unless B and R remain a place for friendlies first and foremost. I do not see why one could not play N hookup games in B and then enter downtime. Saying that seasons are incompatible with open pools looks more political than anything.
Seasons do not imply all the league stuff that is portrayed in DZ as a bland Round Robin. Leagues could have their own season's length, shorter than the one that forces them to enter downtime. It could take years for a casual player to finish their seasons. Who cares? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 18:13 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | if you force B and R to conform to seasons youre eliminating, yes, eliminating casual drop in, drop out play. |
Unless B and R remain a place for friendlies first and foremost. I do not see why one could not play N hookup games in B and then enter downtime. Saying that seasons are incompatible with open pools looks more political than anything.
Seasons do not imply all the league stuff that is portrayed in DZ as a bland Round Robin. Leagues could have their own season's length, shorter than the one that forces them to enter downtime. It could take years for a casual player to finish their seasons. Who cares? |
They're incompatible with coaching preferences 
The way I see it, the new rules are intriguing enough that I have no doubt that a ton of us would happily create new teams for a new division that caters to open but structured play with seasons. But I also think you still need a venue for coaches who don't buy in until they see the proof of concept.
I'm all about that tabula rasa. |
|
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 18:20 |
|
| licker wrote: | | if the creation of that (separate division) kills R and B so be it. |
It won't. People insist to their old teams too much and that is fine. Another division would just divide us even more. Maybe that would force B to die/merge but surely not R. We ended up with the main division(s) not having seasons.
The question is, whether one or both of the the main competitive divisions should follow seasonal directives or not. |
_________________
   |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 19:28 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | if you force B and R to conform to seasons youre eliminating, yes, eliminating casual drop in, drop out play. |
I don't think that's necessarily true. It kind of depends on season's lenght tho.
The point is finding a number of games that still serves its function in regulating TV while not disrupting casual play.
20 games looks like a good number to me. But it needs testing.
If such a way to not disrupt casual drop-in/out play is not found, then my guess would be it won't be implemented in R and B.
Give Christer some credit. He built this environment, i don't see him even risking damaging it just for the sake of blindly foloowing rules.
When/if seasons will be implemented in R and B, it will have been massively tested, thought upon and all instances taken into account, I'm sure.
This won't obviously stop people conplaining about how everything was better in the old days, but you can't really change that.
I'm convinced that changes implemented will ADD to Fumbbl or not be implemented at all. And seasons have lots of potential in my opinion. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 19:36 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | if you force B and R to conform to seasons youre eliminating, yes, eliminating casual drop in, drop out play. |
I don't think that's necessarily true. It kind of depends on season's lenght tho.
The point is finding a number of games that still serves its function in regulating TV while not disrupting casual play.
20 games looks like a good number to me. But it needs testing.
If such a way to not disrupt casual drop-in/out play is not found, then my guess would be it won't be implemented in R and B.
Give Christer some credit. He built this environment, i don't see him even risking damaging it just for the sake of blindly foloowing rules.
When/if seasons will be implemented in R and B, it will have been massively tested, thought upon and all instances taken into account, I'm sure.
This won't obviously stop people conplaining about how everything was better in the old days, but you can't really change that.
I'm convinced that changes implemented will ADD to Fumbbl or not be implemented at all. And seasons have lots of potential in my opinion. |
Because of this need for testing, etc, I reckon it'd be a cinch to get some 3 or 4 dozen dedicated goofs who are genuinely interested in seasons like me, you and thoralf, to be part of a test division where we can go through the motions.
The process lends itself to separate division, then integrating existing teams once the proof is in the pudding.
I just think there should be a division even within the context of bb2016 that doesn't invoke coaches to metagame harder if they don't have the time or skillset to do it well. It's just another hurdle to overcome for some. |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
46 pages to reach a conclusion, as i told you some time ago, that Christers usual solution would happen and was the only sane way forward. A test division where we can break it, and then decide what happens to legacy teams. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 20:50 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | But you are discouraged from building a huge bankroll, so if you have it you may as well spend it. |
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Not really. The EM mechanic encourages you to dump excess if anything. |
Are you sure?
The average winnings is 35k gold / game. So for an 8 game season you will get an average of 280k if you maintain a 50% winrate.
This means that all extra inducements you take, will subtract directly from your TV the following season.
In addition to this comes the extra players you might buy the current season as well.
Most leagues have around 8 games / season. So I don't think it's as black & white as you guys make it out to be. At least I hope not. |
The average winnings are not 35k, they are substantially higher.
Winner of FAME gets +10k or 20k and winner gets +10k.
If you lose every game and never win FAME then yes you will average 35k per game.
If you win... well if you win then you also get to reroll, so yeah, 35k is simply not a useful number. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 21:53 |
|
My point still stands.
For simplicity's sake 35k is the average of a D6. Thanks for doing the dirty work though, although you missed a spot. Need the exact average for BB winnings. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 21:57 |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 21:58 |
|
| SzieberthAdam wrote: | | The question is, whether one or both of the the main competitive divisions should follow seasonal directives or not. |
That's not really the question though is it. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 21:59 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Thought most people don't seem to be talking about 8 games for R & B. |
You asked about the new inducement rules. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 22:16 |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 23:02 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | My point still stands.
For simplicity's sake 35k is the average of a D6. Thanks for doing the dirty work though, although you missed a spot. Need the exact average for BB winnings. |
Your point stands incorrectly.
If you're cool with that then great, but you're not going to get too far with bad maths here.
If you want the exact average for BB winnings it's a bit more complicated since +2 FAME is so dependent on relative team FFs. But maybe it's not that bad since in an 8 game season with resets the FFs shouldn't move that much?
Or do they, I forget how FF is handled in the reset.
Mostly I don't care though, the amount you get in your bank is rather pointless as with EM no one is likely to bankroll over 200k, or much over 200k.
So it's really a question of if you think a team can wind up with ~200k in their bank after X games. This probably hurts elfs a bit more than bash, but I suppose that we'll also see a lot more teams just running loners, because, you know, why would you actually rebuy players when you don't have to worry about loners ever taking an MVP?
But yeah, I'm sure no one would try to play with 5 studs and 6 loners... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
