19 coaches online • Server time: 07:23
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Idea to boost the us...goto Post Fumbbl Beer Funraise...goto Post DIBBL: Crap Bowl VII
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Will bb2020 changes make you retire from fumbbl?
Never, fumbbl 4eva!
75%
 75%  [ 274 ]
Completely retire
1%
 1%  [ 6 ]
Retire except still do league
8%
 8%  [ 30 ]
Retire except still do some tournaments
0%
 0%  [ 2 ]
Undecided
14%
 14%  [ 52 ]
Total Votes : 364


mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 07:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Nelphine wrote:
yeah, assuming you want skills from at least 2 different trees (and usually i'd guess its 3 for a legend), honestly you'd need to play thousands of games to get even close to perfect random legends. which isn't realistic even for a player like BillBrasky, let alone the rest of us


Then you merely adjust what your definition of perfection is. Wink
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 08:37 Reply with quote Back to top

tussock wrote:
The game has always encouraged coaches to retire the named pawns.
If they died on the pitch, or suffered an injury (on field or off) that's one thing.. but we're talking about just firing people for no reason just because they've played too many games?
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 09:05 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
tussock wrote:
The game has always encouraged coaches to retire the named pawns.
If they died on the pitch, or suffered an injury (on field or off) that's one thing.. but we're talking about just firing people for no reason just because they've played too many games?


A heavily cost laden choice, nobody is forcing Wink Laughing
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 10:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
If they died on the pitch, or suffered an injury (on field or off) that's one thing.. but we're talking about just firing people for no reason just because they've played too many games?


Happened in LRB4 too - perms via aging weren't the only thing stopping you keeping skill-stacked players forever, the cost to the team meant plenty got fired eventually too (see for example Zed's Tree), wheras some people kept their big legend for as long as possible, even if it meant burning the team to the ground around it (see Cloggy's bull). Because the cost to the team in terms of TR was, for the most part, completely unsustainable - you either gave away far too many handicaps, had other legends around them (unlikely) or you had a completely unbalanced team.
Eventually you would start losing games due to handicaps like virus and your FF would fall, entering a spiral that led to you, wait for it, firing your healthy legend to rebuild, or watch it lead the entire team into retirement.

This was an aspect of team management we completely lost in CRP - the combination of CPOMB+SE (mostly CPOMB) enforced a downwards pressure, but it did not affect the longevity of any one player in anything but a random manner.

The lack of that mechanism in CRP, as well as the increased viability of inducements is, imo, a not-so-minor contribution to the viability of minmax. A lot of the the superstar+ players you see surrounded by fodder players, who singlehandedly win games on their own, and are at a point of being almost eternal at mid or low tv, are only viable because there was a lack of a reliable mechanism to remove them.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 12:12 Reply with quote Back to top

I can understand a player retiring after some seasons, but, if what I understand is correct, with BB2020 players will last 2-3 seasons max. Sounds a bit too harsh even to people like me who don't play to team build.
There were other solutions to keep teams' growth in check (for example reducing skill slots to 5 or 4, capping the max TV to 2000, adding a smart Ageing kicking in after 3 skills, instead of first level up like in LRB4).


Last edited by MattDakka on Jan 22, 2021 - 12:17; edited 1 time in total
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 12:15 Reply with quote Back to top

The cost should be based on the skills or SPPs that a player has accumulated.

It seems to me to be ridiculous that a no skills guy should have to pay the same agent's fees as a legend.

I wouldn't start agent's fees until the third skill.

If this is the way that we're playing, maybe we should relax some of the naming rules. Linemen may as well be Lino 1, Lino 2 etc..

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 12:20 Reply with quote Back to top

Heh, heh.

If I can agree with Matt then we must be right Twisted Evil

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Lyracian



Joined: Oct 29, 2015

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 14:06 Reply with quote Back to top

mrt1212 wrote:

Ah, if only the time to play

That is what will stop most of us trying this out.
BlockBadger



Joined: Jan 21, 2021

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 20:51 Reply with quote Back to top

JanMattys wrote:

I STRONGLY suggest that you create a Ranked or Blackbox team and play at least a match before the tourney in order to get accustomed to the client we use. It's very intuitive, but if you never played on it before it's a verybadideaTM to have the first game of your life in a NAF tournament. Both for you and for your opponent.


That's the plan, It's a very long way from anything I've done before, watched one game so far and my was it confusing.
AzraelEVA



Joined: Nov 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 21:54 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
I can understand a player retiring after some seasons, but, if what I understand is correct, with BB2020 players will last 2-3 seasons max. Sounds a bit too harsh even to people like me who don't play to team build.

No that isn't true. The rules are laid out to entice coaches to play riskier. The riskier you play the more money you get the longer your players will stay at your side.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jan 22, 2021 - 21:58 Reply with quote Back to top

The riskier you play, the more games you lose, the less money you earn? Razz
If there is a hard cap at 1350, no matter if you win a lot, the redraft money will be 1350 in the best scenario.
Hard to keep many skilled players with that sum.
Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2021 - 03:03 Reply with quote Back to top

Why is it that most of the arguments for the new rules really strike me as mental gymnastics attempting to validate the new rules? There are really so many things wrong with the new rules it's hard to believe. Instead of fixing what LRB or CRP got wrong, they just scrapped everything and made a different game with a different set of horrible flaws.

Aging sucked, but at least it was (somewhat) based on the players' advancement (SPPs), not just oh you've played 20 games and haven't done crap, but you 'cost' as much as that 20game Legend over there... That's just daft. Basically it seems like they just want everyone to play starter teams.. well low TV games may be more 'competitive', but they're certainly less thematic and fun.

Oh, and everyone enjoy that Leaderboard for player achievement.. exactly ZERO chance anyone will ever get to the top of any of the categories under these rules!
mrt1212



Joined: Feb 26, 2013

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2021 - 05:53 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
Why is it that most of the arguments for the new rules really strike me as mental gymnastics attempting to validate the new rules? There are really so many things wrong with the new rules it's hard to believe. Instead of fixing what LRB or CRP got wrong, they just scrapped everything and made a different game with a different set of horrible flaws.

Aging sucked, but at least it was (somewhat) based on the players' advancement (SPPs), not just oh you've played 20 games and haven't done crap, but you 'cost' as much as that 20game Legend over there... That's just daft. Basically it seems like they just want everyone to play starter teams.. well low TV games may be more 'competitive', but they're certainly less thematic and fun.

Oh, and everyone enjoy that Leaderboard for player achievement.. exactly ZERO chance anyone will ever get to the top of any of the categories under these rules!


Because new things have a higher bar to clear than the status quo Laughing Wink
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2021 - 07:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Craftnburn wrote:
Why is it that most of the arguments for the new rules really strike me as mental gymnastics attempting to validate the new rules?


Because you don't like them.

_________________
Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jan 23, 2021 - 09:25 Reply with quote Back to top

ArrestedDevelopment wrote:
Craftnburn wrote:
Why is it that most of the arguments for the new rules really strike me as mental gymnastics attempting to validate the new rules?


Because you don't like them.


Do you like them?

_________________
Image
[SL] Old World Rumbble - Brand new teams only - ALWAYS recruiting
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic