Poll |
How do you feel about Min TV + Max Inducements |
It's all part of the fun |
|
49% |
[ 37 ] |
It's a little unethical |
|
13% |
[ 10 ] |
It should be banned |
|
10% |
[ 8 ] |
Morg ate all the pies! |
|
26% |
[ 20 ] |
|
Total Votes : 75 |
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
  Posted:
Dec 18, 2021 - 01:10 |
|
Sp00keh wrote: | Well put
But Morg being good means they can sell a mini for £23 |
This.
Games Workshop are a miniature company wanting to sell minis. BB is a niche game and doesnt probably make as much money for them as AoS etc.
Why would they limit their limited revenue stream even more by making people reluctant to use (and hence buy) Morg.
I personally dont mind the pricing. It gets these mega stars in the game. If an underdog now becomes an overdog because he can cash in and buy Morg, good on them. It relates to the anarchy that BB is.
I played Goblins with Morg in a 3 game TT tourney and finished tied for first with a 2/1/0 record. I pitch cleared a human team (with Griff) and it was murderous fun. If the dice run hot, then they run hot. For my opponent he had Griff KO'ed and he sat out 3/4 of the game. His dice ran cold. Thats the game.
The only thing I would change with the NAF tourney scene is make the Highlander Rule come into effect. This would make some lesser light stars more attractive. |
|
|
Kinks
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
|
  Posted:
Dec 18, 2021 - 05:17 |
|
Lots of thoughts. Thanks. Seems the silent majority are broadly in favour of Morg in Rookie teams (50% at time of posting). Have to say, mini sales had not crossed my mind.
maznaz wrote: | I proposed a while ago adding a minimum games for each star to reflect their ego and status . Morg would only play for long established teams, but there would ideally be still some of the cheaper stars available even for rookies. |
That would work for the first season & RRRs, but with redrafting, it is very easy to reset your team sheet however you like each season once you've hit the required games target.
Sp00keh wrote: | This would be easy, just say teams need to have played 0 games and have a value between 950-1000k |
What about stunty teams, shouldn't they be allowed bribes and such.
Sp00keh wrote: | Is it a problem though? Does min tv + stars often win rookie rumbles? Do people even go for that? |
Yes, as far as I can see at least one team has entered every single active RRR ATM and the tend to be doing pretty well.
Kondor wrote: | I does not matter simply because it will not happen very often on Fumbbl.
In the open division, matches are based on TV or you choose which matches you take. |
As I understand it, that is not the case of the new proposed system. Have you seen the thread?
Sp00keh wrote: | That match was crazy! 1 player left in the first half
Both of the stars are now price increased, but that's not yet implemented here is it, which would have toned it down a bit |
Actually the price increase is in place now and was before that game. Admittedly, it was not in place in previous games, so they potentially had more built up funds. Then again, they did just throw a turn 16 fireball for the hell of it.
Nelphine wrote: | For myself, I think star players are best when they cost 10-30% more than a player you could homegrow on your team with the same stats. |
I have to say things do seem a little backwards now. A combination of very costly homegrown players and cheap Stars seems to mean it is better to hire stars rather than bother developing a team.
- Stars are comparably cheaper.
- They never gain lasting injuries.
- You can change them as you like form game to game.
- Spiralling agents fees is of no concern.
- Receiving a MNG has no impact.
- No need to worry about skilling players up.
Shame, the team building aspect is one of my favourite features of BB. |
_________________ Better lucky than good |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
  Posted:
Dec 18, 2021 - 15:21 |
|
Another one for that list:
- a lot of rostered players got more expensive from 2016 to 2020 rules, whereas stars got cheaper |
|
|
Kinks
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 11:07 |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 11:10 |
|
Kondor wrote: | I does not matter simply because it will not happen very often on Fumbbl.
In the open division, matches are based on TV or you choose which matches you take. |
I messed up the quote function of the forum. Kinks wrote this
"As I understand it, that is not the case of the new proposed system. Have you seen the thread? "
Actually, that thread is another Fumbbl user making a suggestion just like you are making a suggestion here. As far as I know, Christer has not given any hints that he might take the site or a division of the site in this direction.
On the contrary, he has said that the site uses TV because while it is flawed, people complain bitterly when they constantly face large TV gaps.
Until it looks like the site will move away from TV matching, the issue of star player pricing is largely irrelevant.
Where you might see it is when we move to a scheduler and a stunty team goes to season 2, keeps their TV at a minimum, and monoactivates. Even then, I doubt the site will deviate from the rules as written. |
|
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 11:18 |
|
That is an excellent player using snotlings in a niche situation. Again, not a reason to change the rules of the site in general.
Claw/Po/MB was not a strong enough reason to deviate from the rules. Old school fouling was not a good enough reason to deviate from the rules. Some teams being inherently stronger than others is not a strong enough reason to deviate from the rules.
This is not a strong reason to deviate from the rules. |
|
|
Java
Joined: Jan 27, 2018
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 15:27 |
|
undress_ has been running snotlings in the rumbles in the previous ruleset as well, actually it's almost the only roster he has played since joining the site. It's great he's finally got to grab a title with them.
On the other hand I know of someone who's decided to run snotlings in the rumbles until "something is done about it", so there is that.
Beyond morglings, any proposed limitation such as extremely restrictive TV minimums or outright bans, basically boils down to "don't bother bringing stunties to RRR" and have little impact on any non-rookie tournaments. Even the smallest amount of tackle and MB can wreck havock on the team around the big scary star, and win by attrition.
The uproar seems to be caused by the disparity between the expected result, and the reality of what the rules of the game allow.
Sometimes we're just unhappy that things have changed. Can we have old passing back, if we ban stars? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 15:48 |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 15:55 |
|
To be clear, I don't care about which team is winning.
My only problem with stars, is that they are so good, that you want to fire highly developed players to get them, and that is a cost effective move. I dislike that, because I believe the team building aspect of the game is probably the best part of the game, and what brings me (and others) to keep playing.
I'm happy to see snotlings bring Morg, and maybe not even have a chance, but actually win! That's amazing. I don't want to see teams fire their best players, because that will allow them to get Morg, and that's just flat out better choice. This unfortunately will weaken teams like snotlings or underworld, which is sad, but not my goal. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 17:21 |
|
I'm thinking that if I start a TT league I'm gonna implement a "you can't take the same star in two consecutive games" rule. |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Kondor
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 17:39 |
|
koadah wrote: |
They did it without Morg. |
That is really funny. Morg was tossed on the opening kick off due to an extra effective ref. |
|
|
C0ddlefish
Joined: Sep 17, 2019
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 18:23 |
|
JackassRampant wrote: | I'm thinking that if I start a TT league I'm gonna implement a "you can't take the same star in two consecutive games" rule. |
Make it an increasing fee every time the same star is used by a team in a season....so they pay 380 for the first game, 430 for the next, 480 for the 3rd etc. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 21:51 |
|
C0ddlefish wrote: |
Make it an increasing fee every time the same star is used by a team in a season....so they pay 380 for the first game, 430 for the next, 480 for the 3rd etc. | ooh ... A cumulative 10k each time they're induced. First time, +10k, second time, +30k, third time +60k, then +100k, +150k, etc. Refreshes in the middle of the season (after 6 games). |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Kinks
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 23:29 |
|
Kondor wrote: | Actually, that thread is another Fumbbl user making a suggestion just like you are making a suggestion here. As far as I know, Christer has not given any hints that he might take the site or a division of the site in this direction.
On the contrary, he has said that the site uses TV because while it is flawed, people complain bitterly when they constantly face large TV gaps. |
Didn't know that, thanks. I was under the impression the thread had a lot of support.
Kondor wrote: | That is an excellent player using snotlings in a niche situation. Again, not a reason to change the rules of the site in general. |
Absolutely. Although, as far as I'm aware that is the last 2 RRR's with similar teams that have won (bare in mind RRR's are 4 consecutive games, not 1). As well as them doing well in the others from what I can see. Never mind the fact that there seems to be a very high proportion of teams with a similar format in the RRR's.
I've done barely any research in to the win ratios, the relevant CR's of those coaches, etc. Just at a glance and instinctively it seems very off how many there are.
Kondor wrote: | That is really funny. Morg was tossed on the opening kick off due to an extra effective ref. |
Sounds worthy on an ani gif - has it been suggested? |
_________________ Better lucky than good |
|
Kinks
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
|
  Posted:
Dec 19, 2021 - 23:33 |
|
Nelphine wrote: | I don't want to see teams fire their best players, because that will allow them to get Morg, and that's just flat out better choice. This unfortunately will weaken teams like snotlings or underworld, which is sad, but not my goal. |
Absolutely my thoughts. I think in reality, coaches like us will continue to develop players and teams. Sadly that will make us sub-optimal and will probably result in seeing fewer and fewer traditional teams win tournaments going forward. |
_________________ Better lucky than good |
|
|
| |