thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
 Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:23 |
 
|
| licker wrote: | | if you happen to draw the guy sitting on 290k who decides to dump it on you. |
The value of gentlemanship will then be on the rise.
Not a good thing at all if you think small. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:29 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | if you happen to draw the guy sitting on 290k who decides to dump it on you. |
The value of gentlemanship will then be on the rise.
Not a good thing at all if you think small. |
small is the new big |
_________________
 |
|
charlie1331
Joined: Sep 16, 2012
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:44 |
|
| zakatan wrote: |
small is the new big |
Can't wait to drop this gem on the wife! |
_________________
2016 Chaos Cup Stunty Champion |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:45 |
|
| Roland wrote: | | The age of 11 man teams is over, what's wrong with that? |
Maybe - as I said in the journeyman thread there are perilous few incentives to replace journeymen linos once they pop up on your team since you'll always have better uses of cash either for stockpiling expected replacements or inducements themselves. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:49 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | For type 1 teams EM doesn't change much because they don't need to gold to begin with. For type 2 EM doesn't change much because they don't have gold to lose. |
This sums it up.
And Re: "Free" Inducements
In a league setting, you can view this cash as special move/ultimate you can use once or twice a season. It will change the meta, and you will have coaches planning ahead for which game they might need something extra against a certain rival. It will not make the meta any worse imo, merely change it.
And it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out in Blackbox. I believe its a boost for goblins and flings, who can pick chefs and bribes more often.
Treasury size will likely become a factor in picking/choosing opponents in Ranked. |
Last edited by Balle2000 on %b %23, %2017 - %16:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:53 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Roland wrote: | | The age of 11 man teams is over, what's wrong with that? |
Maybe - as I said in the journeyman thread there are perilous few incentives to replace journeymen linos once they pop up on your team since you'll always have better uses of cash either for stockpiling expected replacements or inducements themselves. |
on a team like this:
https://www.fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=705850
my policy is to never replace journeyman unless I can have a bench, because journeyman are so much better at their job than rostered linos and they don't take a wage.
I'm wondering how this kind of policy can be affected by EM. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 16:58 |
|
A journeyman is better than a lino IF you are trying to save money for the future.
Since with EM saving money is hard past 290,000 I guess now it's better to buy a lino than play with a journeyman if you have more than 290,000.
Not being able to reroll reliably may cost you a game. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:02 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Roland wrote: | | The age of 11 man teams is over, what's wrong with that? |
Maybe - as I said in the journeyman thread there are perilous few incentives to replace journeymen linos once they pop up on your team since you'll always have better uses of cash either for stockpiling expected replacements or inducements themselves. |
on a team like this:
https://www.fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=705850
my policy is to never replace journeyman unless I can have a bench, because journeyman are so much better at their job than rostered linos and they don't take a wage.
I'm wondering how this kind of policy can be affected by EM. |
As I speculated in the journeyman thread - from my perspective it doesn't seem like there should be a journeyman rule in place since there's already a stick beating the gold out of you with EM.
For certain teams with high base cost positionals and linos (read elves), it would be supremely annoying to be cajoled by an admin edict to spend gold replacing marginal players when the replacement cost of two positionals could wipe out your entire treasury anyway.
I really feel the knock on effect of enforcing a journeyman rule with EM would create the incentive to play a team until they suffer their first major calamity. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:05 |
|
The "journeyman rule" was put in place as an answer to rules in a meta that will no longer exist. So it's natural it will be gone, or replaced. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:15 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | The "journeyman rule" was put in place as an answer to rules in a meta that will no longer exist. So it's natural it will be gone, or replaced. |
But if replaced, what would that even look like?
It hurts my brain to speculate because every road leads back to potentially hurting the team in the long run by pulling the safety net out from under the team. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:16 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Fair point licker, though inducements on the whole ain't all that. Wizard when they return is the all important one and the teams that benefit most from them (finesse teams) will be able to afford them least. Which imo is a good thing. I also think this change could help flings and goblins somewhat when playing at a more even TV it means they can still buy their toys which is good. |
Not sure I completely agree. Bash teams can and will afford more bribes at least, and will also afford more wizards of their own.
Since if they have no other way of easily dealing with your stat freak blodge ball carrier they may just zap them out of the game, or at least zap the ball out of their hands.
My actual concern with this isn't in how it might change the balance of the meta, it's in how that change will be perceived by players.
The saltiness over min/max kill teams is mostly gone, but still crops up now and then.
The new saltiness will be on how some team playing down 200k is also now facing a wizard or bribe or whatever else the overdog just lumps on top.
Sort of worse in my opinion in when two teams basically evenly matched find one of them with 290k spending it down to add a wizard and bribe or what have you. That's turning an otherwise 'even' match into a ridiculous up hill battle for the other side. I can't see that being embraced or even enjoyed.
The points about benefiting stunties are offset by the counterpoints about imbalanceing the other matches. Now imagine you are the stunty team low on cash, and some team with a TV edge on you already adds more inducements against you.
It always can go both ways. And sure, eventually the new normal will simply be the default for everyone, but we have to appreciate that the new normal is going to contain more intentionally imbalanced matches, because the rules basically demand that you spend down your petty cash at some point.
Again, this IS HAPPENING over at BB2 right now. It's not some imaginary problem we have to wait and see how it might shake out. It's been shook, and it's just stupid  |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:19 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | The "journeyman rule" was put in place as an answer to rules in a meta that will no longer exist. So it's natural it will be gone, or replaced. |
At first I thought you were talking about the CRP journman rule not the site one 
As far as the site one goes (hopefully went) it was an answer to a question no one ever asked, so to this day I still do not understand why it existed or was enforced as arbitrarily as it was. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:25 |
|
and we already saw what happened here when coaches realized they were in a use it or lose it situation turned up to 11. In fact, that situation is why Christer moved up the EM implementation ahead of schedule - because the outcry was huge and the meta gaming egregious.
Turn that lose or use it down to 5 and you still have teams without treasury getting jobbed by teams that do in one off situations with the underlying base of the team determining how badly being jobbed will impact them. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:33 |
|
If more unbalanced matches means less pseudo-chess, I can live with it. More so if tit-for-tat skews unbalanced matches toward smallish retributions. Otherwise, we found our new CPOMb thread.
What spams of CPOMb haven’t killed is now stronger. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 23, 2017 - 17:37 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | But if replaced, what would that even look like? |
It will be replaced with a rule that we have the need for. And if we don't need anything else, it will just be gone, imo. |
|
|
|
|
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
