42 coaches online • Server time: 01:48
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Northern Wastes Leag...goto Post SWL Season LXXIVgoto Post FUMBBL cup XVII: Pre...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Best 1980s cult film?
Goonies
27%
 27%  [ 15 ]
Big Trouble in Little China
31%
 31%  [ 17 ]
The Burbs
3%
 3%  [ 2 ]
Videodrome
1%
 1%  [ 1 ]
An American Werewolf in London
9%
 9%  [ 5 ]
They Live
5%
 5%  [ 3 ]
Escape from New York
20%
 20%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 54


Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 12:09 Reply with quote Back to top

So its been here a year ish.

How are people finding life with no Spirraling Expenses with Expensive Mistakes instead?

The rule was designed to be used with the awful Seasons rules (which thankfully isn't implemented yet). Which was meant to stop teams growing too big, by adding in a form of ageing.

But without the Seasons re-drafting rules etc... are teams growing too big? Or are Expensive Mistakes keeping teams TV in the 1,000k - 2,500k region effectively?

_________________
Image
ArthurWynne



Joined: Sep 23, 2015

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 13:21 Reply with quote Back to top

Overall I think it accomplishes the goal of forcing teams to "use it or lose it" and not build up giant treasuries, which means big teams don't have bottomless reserves and small teams can't sweet-spot as easily, but there is one problem IMO.

The 100k cap is a little too low, it's a menace to teams with big guys or 60-70k rerolls -which is quite a few- when they are growing or rebuilding.

I think the cap should be raised to 150. If necessary I would rather the roll be more punitive to compensate.

As it is, the risk isn't great but I don't like having off-pitch randomness be important for teambuilding and it quite often ends up adding insult to injury for teams in a precarious spot.
awambawamb



Joined: Feb 17, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:16 Reply with quote Back to top

It's terrible.

why?
because less and less people will be compelled to a long-playing league, because losing a key player means losing it and not being able to replace it until you fall all the way down to the bottom. but at that time you will be left, realistically speaking, with a team neding a full rebuild, costing you much more than the 1.000.000k you get with a new team. therefore...

...the game is shifting towards a different approach: quick leagues. we will see many teams going into the trash can after maybe a dozen matches or so, because it will become near impossible o keep on.

back in the tin foil hats room, another bell is ringing: the new audience won't care about the teams, won't go meta-gaming anymore. Startrek.nl will be a fading memory in the furious recycling of teams over teams and players... perfectly in line with some games, I'd say. I'm referring to those games that started changing their rulesets every year, thrashing anything one could have built previously. Call me an old grump now, but IMHO there won't be another Vindaloo with those expenses. IMHO.

_________________
"la virtú sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"

Image
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:35 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
How are people finding life with no Spirraling Expenses with Expensive Mistakes instead?

Spiraling Expenses only punished low AV teams at high TV. Because of the ability of high AV teams to save huge coffers of gold, it was otherwise a meaningless mechanic.

Expensive Mistakes is one of many rules in BB16 Seasons, and is bordering on pointless when implemented by itself. Low AV High TV teams will get a slight boost from Spiralling's removal however.

Biggest issue I can see is that in the current Fumbbl hybrid rules, high AV teams can exploit their slight money surplus on the "petty cash does not effect inducement money" rule, which is also meant as a part of Seasons, and not to be implemented by itself.


Last edited by Balle2000 on Jul 26, 2018 - 14:47; edited 1 time in total
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:40 Reply with quote Back to top

A lot of teams are now over 2500k. I don't see that as a problem. I don't mind playing them or playing against them.

In CRP I think it was to hard to build big teams. Now it's probably to easy but I still think it should be possible to build big teams, at least with some luck.

So what we have now but a bit harder would be good.

I don't mind some form of aging if it's implemented well. How does seasons work?


Last edited by Tricktickler on Jul 26, 2018 - 15:43; edited 1 time in total
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Tricktickler wrote:
In CRP I think it was to hard to build big teams.

Compared to LRB4, it was rather easy to build big teams in CRP.
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
But without the Seasons re-drafting rules etc... are teams growing too big?

I think this is a non-issue.
Tricktickler



Joined: Jul 10, 2004

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Balle2000 wrote:
Tricktickler wrote:
In CRP I think it was to hard to build big teams.

Compared to LRB4, it was rather easy to build big teams in CRP.

My elf teams in lrb4 was constantly bigger than my elf teams in CRP. So it seems the effect of spiralling expenses and pilling on was larger than the effect of aging.
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Tricktickler wrote:
Balle2000 wrote:
Tricktickler wrote:
In CRP I think it was to hard to build big teams.

Compared to LRB4, it was rather easy to build big teams in CRP.

My elf teams in lrb4 was constantly bigger than my elf teams in CRP. The effect of spiralling expenses and pilling on was larger than the effect of aging.

Yeah, you're right, when it comes to Elves. High AV, regen teams, etc, would have more issues with aging and Team Rating bloat.

I assume you're talking about TS not TR though, right?
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 14:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Balle2000 wrote:

Expensive Mistakes is one of many rules in BB16 Seasons, and is bordering on pointless when implemented by itself. Low AV High TV teams will get a slight boost from Spiralling's removal however.

Biggest issue I can see is that in the current Fumbbl hybrid rules, high AV teams can exploit their slight money surplus on the "petty cash does not effect inducement money" rule, which is also meant as a part of Seasons, and not to be implemented by itself.


I'm not sure I agree with your point that expensive mistakes is pointless on its own. Could you eloborate why you believe so?

To me it seems to serve the same purpose as Spiralling Expenses (albeit a little more successfully) in that when teams reach a high TV and lose some players they can't replace them easily, which decreases their TV thus keeping them in the TV range the game is intended to be played.

I 100% agree with you about the stupid petty cash rules in 2016 being added to inducement money but not counting towards TV. That sucks. But appears this is due to be reversed officially.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Garion on Jul 26, 2018 - 15:16; edited 1 time in total
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 15:02 Reply with quote Back to top

awambawamb wrote:
It's terrible.

why?
because less and less people will be compelled to a long-playing league, because losing a key player means losing it and not being able to replace it....


I think you may be over stating things a little here. But i get your point. I personally think Expensive Mistakes is a good rule, however it starts too low, and should probably only kick in 1 band later than it currently does. So teams can re-build without having to hope they can save enough cash to replace their better more expensive players without continually losing cash if unlucky.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 15:17 Reply with quote Back to top

I like Expensive Mistakes rule but the first 100k step seems too low because could prevent replacing positional players and buying Big Guys.
Starting from 150k instead of 100k looks better.
I don't like overdogs being allowed to spend cash, though, because it may create unbalanced match-ups.
About Seasons: I think that some form of Ageing is needed to ensure a reasonable balance between teams in perpetual leagues. Seasons are not the ideal Ageing rule in my opinion but at least forces to fire some players over time.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
Garion



Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 15:24 Reply with quote Back to top

MattDakka wrote:
I like Expensive Mistakes rule but the first 100k step seems too low because could prevent replacing positional players and buying Big Guys.
Starting from 150k instead of 100k looks better.
I don't like overdogs being allowed to spend cash, though, because it may create unbalanced match-ups.
About Seasons: I think that some form of Ageing is needed to ensure a reasonable balance between teams in perpetual leagues. Seasons are not the ideal Ageing rule in my opinion but at least forces to fire some players over time.


Wow pretty much agree with all of Matt Dakka's points here. doesn't happen often Wink

Overdog spending is being fixed and reverted to CRP - http://www.sann0638.co.uk/ruling-on-inducements/

Ageing I am in two minds. i think if attrition hadn't been nerfed so much then there wouldnt be a need for it, however this is far and away the softest version of BB ever. So the new ageing makes sense, though on pitch attrition is surely preferable. Though just done in a balanced way rather than CPOMB sillyness.

_________________
Image
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 15:34 Reply with quote Back to top

My concern with on-pitch attrition is that, if you lose a good player to a random block from a rookie lino, a dodge, GFI, kick off rock, etc. suddenly you lose lot of TV, thus making the rest of the match very unbalanced and quite pointless to play.
If you lose a player off-pitch and you can't replace him the lost TV at least will not count in the next game and, if the teams are kept in check by Ageing and on-pitch attrition, huge TV gaps will be rarer anyway.
So, some on-pitch attrition is needed but off-pitch attrition is needed too and not as terrible as people think.

_________________
Please vote the Diving Catch and Break Tackle/Diving Tackle bug reports, thanks!
PurpleChest



Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Post   Posted: Jul 26, 2018 - 15:38 Reply with quote Back to top

There are so many factors impacting how the game is played and teams are built that separating one out without a more scientific process of monitored change is like economics, guesswork dressed as science and fact.

So all we are left with is empirical observations and guesswork.

We live in the days of FAT. Big chunky teams seem two a penny. So at first glance EM is not limiting team growth in any way.

But at the same time we changed PO, removing a huge factor limiting team growth, and also removed the wiz, with minor impact on both attrition and cash spent.

Trying to spin those out of the impact and look/guess at the effect of EM alone is tricky. I think most people would agree removing PO had a more profound effect. But my intuition tells me EM alone doesnt do much to limit team growth.

I am not sure it was intended to, i think seasons were supposed to do that. I also think EM was party, at least, to stop teams building huge cash piles for the end of season rebuy.

EM seems more designed to stop large treasuries being on hand at all TV's, making a somewhat more even playing field for all the races in terms of reserves. While it kicks in fairly low its impact below 180k is negligible. this does impact rebuilding at higher TV's, but with income more steady rebuilds feel quicker not slower, even without a sizeable reserve pile.

It also encourages spending money, leading to growth of TV. With no penalty to income in having large benches, and game changing wiz gone, meaning less fear of inducements, people see no reason not to be as big as possible.

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor ulli
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone


Last edited by PurpleChest on Jul 26, 2018 - 16:45; edited 1 time in total
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