MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 05:02 |
 
|
| Antithesisoftime wrote: |
Tell me again how low AV teams can't bank? |
Maybe because you play your low AV teams in divisions less bashy than the Black Box? |
|
|
Antithesisoftime
Joined: Aug 20, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 05:23 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | Antithesisoftime wrote: |
Tell me again how low AV teams can't bank? |
Maybe because you play your low AV teams in divisions less bashy than the Black Box? |
At which point, I again point to my KPL vamps who have to contend with not only playing against almost exclusively bash teams, but claws where they don't belong, saws, knives, and bombs.
Also, how much Stuntee Leeg have you played? Some of those teams can be more bashy than anything you find in Box. Gnoblar, Gnome, Strigoyan, Nurglings. Not to mention that Weapons are in an overabundance in Stuntee.
I can't remember the last time I saw a stuntee match that had no casualties, but I sure can remember a few Box matches without. |
|
|
Medon
Joined: Jan 28, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 06:58 |
|
Even Elves bank in the box, it is very easy but just requires you to play with enough loners.
But the real issue is: why is there an issue? What is so annoying about money on the bank? Money on the bank does not impact the game so it can not be that. So it must be some irrational emotional thing then? "Why does my team have 1,000,000 in the bank while I have nothing?" "Why does your team have more money than my team?" "Why am I always broke, both online and IRL?" The solution to that is not a rule change but a psychiatrist... |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 07:35 |
|
| Medon wrote: | Even Elves bank in the box, it is very easy but just requires you to play with enough loners +
What is so annoying about money on the bank? |
= A problem for me. This is artificial team building and an unrealistic gaming mechanic taking advantage of a rule. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 07:53 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Medon wrote: | Even Elves bank in the box, it is very easy but just requires you to play with enough loners +
What is so annoying about money on the bank? |
= A problem for me. This is artificial team building and an unrealistic gaming mechanic taking advantage of a rule. |
Well, the j-man rules deals with this actually.
Though I agree with Medon that the j-man rule is stupid and cash serves zero purpose in R or B anyway, so why do we care?
Though, I do get the 'fluff' issue, I just don't think that a bank rule is the way to address it. |
|
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 09:24 |
|
I don't see how the bank rule would help any low AV team in terms of team development or competitiveness in a league environment such as the SWL (which I believe is the actual intent of having team development rules in the first place).
For the high cost, low AV (HC/LA) teams it reduces the number of positionals and linemen you can replace after the usual deaths and perms against tougher opponents team in your schedule. Bank rule stops you from preventative savings and forces a long rebuild (2-3 seasons).
For the low cost, low AV (LC/LA) teams it does almost the same as for the HCLA, but you can fill up on fodder (yay goblins). Bank Rule stops you from preventative savings and forces a short rebuild (1 season).
For the Low cost, High AV teams you will generally see less attrition through death and perms so will not need as much treasury to replace injured players. Occasionally you will play a CPOMB team and need to rebuild the team (1 season).
For the high cost, high AV team same you will see even less attrition through death and perms so will need less treasury. In the event you meet a CPOMB team and need to rebuild it will be a long rebuild (2-3 seasons).
The bank rule just seems to make rebuilding a team harder in the short term and makes something like CPOMB (or what used to be DP) even more devastating to take on in a league environment.
In short the bank rule is irrelevant for the purpose of making low AV teams competitive in a league and in my opinion is not a good way to limit TV (if that is it's intent).
If you want a TV cap (soft or hard) for your league just put one into the rules for your league. SWL did it for a long time in their lower divisions (pre-CRP) and I don't think it negatively affected the performance of the longest running league on FUMBBL.
If you want a soft TV cap bring back ageing for the last 2-3 skill rolls for each player to lower the number of fully functioning legend players OR make a player SPP cap that forces retirement after legend status (For Harvestmouse the fluff would be that your legendary player is soo great that he refuses to play with lowly rookies).
P.S. for the record I don't believe that ranked and box are actually what the rules are designed for, and no matter what adjustments are made to the rules coaches will find a way to "meta-game" and exploit the rules. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 10:40 |
|
10 pages of "Let's all disagree with harbestmouse".
Miguel de Cervantes would have a good chuckle if he had the chance to read this thread  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 12:16 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | 10 pages of "Let's all disagree with harbestmouse".
Miguel de Cervantes would have a good chuckle if he had the chance to read this thread |
To be fair to harvestmouse he did write on page 1
| harvestmouse wrote: | You won't get much support on here for the bank rule (that's what it's called).
|
And later
| harvestmouse wrote: | No it wouldn't at all. As if a finesse team can have a bank they need it more. So for a finesse team to lose money due to the bank rule is crippling.
Also with a multi tier league you have seasons where you push and seasons where you build. During the building seasons you would want to save up your money.
Bank rule in a multi tier league would cripple finesse teams, not help them due to hindering bash teams. |
So he doesn't want to see it implemented in SWL either!
He's a very complicated fellow that harvestmouse! |
|
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 12:53 |
|
| buuface wrote: | | garyt1 wrote: | | Sounds like the guy left from a misunderstanding of the bank impact if he thinks of it the same way as Buuface. |
i'm just trying to form my own opinion from both sides of the argument and my conversations with him. I'm quite new to the whole concept myself
To the idea that agile teams get the worst from the bank rule because they need to save money more - but when do agility teams in the top tiers of leagues ever have more than 200k anyway?
Just look at the SWL premiership
Lizards - 1.6m
WanjaWarriors - Orcs - 850k
Nercros 560k
Dorf 1 460k
Dorf 2 480 k
Pro Elves 220k - (3 loners)
High Elves 180k - (5 players missing next game)
Delves 70k
It least with the bank rule they are brought down to an even playing field. Agility teams getting an extra apo every two games from opponent inducements would mean they suffer less attrition and be more likely to have the 200k they need for emergencies |
As the lizard team above who played many years in lrb4 I love not having a bank rule. I wrote off entire 7 game seasons in lrb4 rebuilding because I didn't have enough gold to replace dead lizards. I went into many games with less than 11 players simply because I couldn't afford to replace them for multiple games.
For me what's not fun is knowing I have no chance in the next 2 or 3 games but have to play them anyway. That's 2 or 3 weeks of annoyance and good riddance to it.
| tussock wrote: | In perpetual play, right now, the high-AV teams almost always have enough money to replace players, even after a hundred games or more sitting at very high TV. In one of my leagues I've seen a peak Lizard team casually replace multiple MNG Saurus for a game to avoid having a few Mercs for that one game, and why not when you've got 2 million banked.
--
TLDR. Makes even the toughest teams suffer through more common rebuilds at sufficiently high TV, and prevents journeyman abuse. |
Yep me again, and forgive me but this one is just nonsense. A mercenary saurus = 80k + 30k. A new saurus = 80k. If I can afford either, why wouldn't I replace a mng rookie with a fresh rookie? It's straight up cheaper and better (and either is better than having to play a game with just 5 big lizards). Especially when it's game 7 of a 7 game season and I need a result to win the league.
My team is in a constant state of rebuilding. I started last season with 4 rookie big lizards because they get crippled. Having money in the bank just means I can replace those players and get to rebuilding immediately rather than having to play meaningless games devoid of fun for me. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 13:22 |
|
yes faulcon you're spot on.
its a crappy rule that promotes team retirement nothing more, if you think having rookie players to skill up in a team of legends is straight forward you are frankly kidding your self especially slow and low AG players.
no need to punish a team twice
I just need to pray this does not sneak its way in to the rule book sadly i think it will  |
_________________
 |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 13:31 |
|
On what basis do you hold that view? I've read 'no change to core rules' everywhere that lists what we know about the new box (and that line is from GW). You may well have a hunch, but I'm yet to see any evidence that very much at all will change when the new set arrives. I don't really consider a couple of new stars much of an inconvenience?
I am rather impressed this has gotten to ten pages. All of the diversions apart, this is rather a non issue, no? I appreciate now that Cyanide have house ruled and that sadly their pre game sequence is a bit of a mess, but that doesn't effect anyone outside of their sandbox? |
Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %27, %2016 - %13:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 13:35 |
|
I've done a little adding up (yay excel) and here some more stats to ponder.
My team has played 180 of their games since crp started, I've ignored the first 80 and only worked on the last 100 since that should be a large enough sample and was well into the crp environment. This is a league team playing primarily near the top of a perpetual league against all varieties of opponents.
Over 100 games
Average tv (min/max) for 2029.7 (1500/2400)
Average tv (min/max) against 1867.4 (1290/2630)
cas for 150/80/28 (258)
cas against 180/72/12 (264)
I can't help but feel that averaging 2.64 cas per game against over 100 games is fairly decent player turnover already, the big difference to me is that I apoth players other people don't, skinks, or a one skill saurus and don't save it for the stars and that I save it for the perms.
As for the opponents:
Chaos 4
Chaos Dwarf 8
Chaos Pact 3
Dark Elf 11
Dwarf 7
Elf 5
High Elf 6
Human 2
Lizardman 11
Necromantic 8
Norse 5
Nurgle 7
Orc 9
Skaven 4
Undead 5
Wood Elf 5
No idea if any of that is actually interesting to anyone but myself but I found it an interesting exercise at least. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 14:31 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | On what basis do you hold that view? |
just because its made its way on the the cyanide game, I understand from what I've read (so 3rd part info) that they are sticking to the same core rules. But me holding this view is just my innate pessimism nothing more 
I hope I am wrong though. I really do. |
_________________
Last edited by Garion on %b %27, %2016 - %14:%Jul; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 14:33 |
|
| Antithesisoftime wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | | Antithesisoftime wrote: |
Tell me again how low AV teams can't bank? |
Maybe because you play your low AV teams in divisions less bashy than the Black Box? |
At which point, I again point to my KPL vamps who have to contend with not only playing against almost exclusively bash teams, but claws where they don't belong, saws, knives, and bombs. |
Vampires have Regeneration and cheap Thralls.
Even in Box I don't have Treasury issues with them.
| Antithesisoftime wrote: |
Also, how much Stuntee Leeg have you played? Some of those teams can be more bashy than anything you find in Box. Gnoblar, Gnome, Strigoyan, Nurglings. Not to mention that Weapons are in an overabundance in Stuntee. |
I played 34 matches in Stunty Leeg before getting disgusted by the cherrypicking and clawpomb even there.
Stunty Leeg has more casualties but players are generally cheap and Badly Hurts are more common (for Stunty rule), moreover you can choose to avoid very bashy teams if you need a recovery game.
| Antithesisoftime wrote: | [
I can't remember the last time I saw a stuntee match that had no casualties, but I sure can remember a few Box matches without. |
As long as you play at low-mid TV Box is not too bashy, but if you play at high TV it is because teams can spam clawpomb and tacklepomb without the fear of not getting a match. |
|
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 27, 2016 - 14:55 |
|
It is slightly confusing why people are concerned about other teams having money in the bank. If that money isn't spent in the game you play against them then it is hard to see what advantage your opponent has gained. I suppose the advantages of money in the bank are that it is spent as follows:
1. Replacing dead / injured players
2. On rerolls, players etc. on the team roster.
3. On petty cash for inducements.
I'll address each in turn.
1. We want all teams to be able to replace dead / injured players to a reasonable extent so the team doesn't have to be retired. So money in the bank for this is fine. For teams with high attrition access to journeymen helps them I they are struggling.
2. I don't recall any concern about "it was unfair, he had too deep a bench, to many rerolls, cheerleaders etc." so money in the bank for these resources is not an issue.
3. The ability to have more to control over the inducements phase for key games seems like the advantage that could be considered unfair - if the money was gained 'unfairly'.
How is a team getting more money in the bank?
1. Low attrition due to racial selection
2. Low attrition due to careful play and team build choices
3. Low attrition due to luck
4. More winnings due to win rate and/or luck
5. Low attrition due to use of loners.
So which of the above bothers people?
1. Racial selection - if it bothers us that some races tend to have lower attrition rates we can either choose to play races with low attrition rates ourselves (so as not to be disadvantaged) or request a balancing rule (armour tax or some such). Personally I am fine with the idea that some races die less often so tend to be more wealthy. (Rich dwarves!)
2. Learning how to minimise you player cas is part of the game - it is something to learn and part of the risk / reward when you make decisions about your team build and during play.
3. Luck evens out...eventually!
4. There is a cash bonus for winning (and drawing) built into the game which seems reasonable in terms of fluff, incentive to win and reward for winning.
5. The site rule about limiting loner use goes some way to combat teams running up a big bank by use of loners. Personally I would write a firm rule into the next amendment to the CRP e.g. "Loners may only be hired by teams with less than 300K in the bank."
In my experience where I have built up amounts in the bank on teams it is less about ever using that money for advantage and more about there not being anything to spend the money on which I see as a net benefit to the team. But that is more about TV than bank rules and would take us off topic. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
