Ullakkomorko
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
|
 Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 08:49 |
 
|
| RedDevilCG wrote: | | I guess I'm just thinking why bother having money at all except to replace players if it gives you no tactical choices when it comes to one game purchases. Just get rid of money all together, or let us use it freely without punishment. |
The petty cash does have a role.
First, say you're playing a fragile team against a bashy team that sits 10k-40k above your team in TV. By burning 50k in petty cash and getting a set of babes your players are more frequent on the pitch thanks to 3+ KO rolls. Additionally, since your opponent was above you in TV he is now the underdog thanks to your petty cash purchase. But he's only 10k-40k below you so he cannot buy anything with it.
The same thing could work for buying the wizard. Say you're facing the same team that sits 10k-40k above you. You buy the wizard (burning a whole lot of money in the process) and the other team only gets either two babes or a 100k inducements which aren't too brilliant for many teams. The problem here is that many chainsaws are cheap... |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 08:58 |
|
Or you could burn petty cash on a chainsaw and just give away a babe, depending on what team you are and the chainsaw price. |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 17:42 |
|
What bothers me about this rule is that you will often have over 100k in the bank because you are saving towards a certain player or a rr. It doesnt automaticallly follow that you are just rolling in cash and as such it sucks to be effectively penalised for it. But if those are the rules then we just have to work within them I guess. But personally if someone had asked me I would have put the limit at 200k (or 150k - I think thats the most expensive player?).
So, I can see that there should be a system that penalises people who have massive banks in order to circumvent spiralling expenses further down the line - and that there should be a system where coaches can purchase inducements, partly for the same purpose (encouraging people not to hoard) but also to add another level of tactics. After all, it otherwise becomes a very clear advantage to always play a team 6TV or 11TV above you.
And yes, sometimes purchasing a bribe or a babe on your team might be very much worth it, even if it means you are effectively giving your opponent a free one in return. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 17:51 |
|
It would be more worth it if you could purchase an extra apo, and not give your opponent 2 bribes or a reroll in return. |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 18:12 |
|
| RedDevilCG wrote: | | It would be more worth it if you could purchase an extra apo, and not give your opponent 2 bribes or a reroll in return. |
Sometimes you can. Say you are 60K down and want a RR. Apoth, 2 babes, or the chef for Halflings. If you put in 40K you can get it and you are only +40TV now, so no inducements for the higher TV team. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 18:27 |
|
Yeah I know that, but that's not what I meant with my above statement.  |
|
|
Sinnyil
Joined: Jul 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 18:41 |
|
| WhatBall wrote: | | RedDevilCG wrote: | | It would be more worth it if you could purchase an extra apo, and not give your opponent 2 bribes or a reroll in return. |
Sometimes you can. Say you are 60K down and want a RR. Apoth, 2 babes, or the chef for Halflings. If you put in 40K you can get it and you are only +40TV now, so no inducements for the higher TV team. |
Actually, you put in 100k cash but only give your opponent 40k in inducement money. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
Sep 03, 2010 - 18:44 |
|
Right, if you're the underdog, adding money just takes away from your inducements. |
|
|
|
|
Secret Stunty Cup IV
Search
