mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 19:41 |
 
|
| thoralf wrote: | If there was no death, no perm, no reset, there would be 16 legendary stat freaks teams fighting for FC forever and ever.
If that is not a problem, then I don't know what could be. |
Sounds kinda hot actually. Sounds just like Painstate's mythical Legends League. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 19:52 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Sounds kinda hot actually. |
Sounds kinda Kool Aid Bowl to me.
I'd still be willing to play in your L league. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
A thought I had not really related to seasons, but to attritional mechanics in general, but as people have said SE isn't really replaced by EM as they work differently. But SE is still in the rules, just in the optional bit. How well would they interact together? SE would pick up all the elves like it does now, and EM would stop tougher teams building a bank at lower TV. That would impose some kind of soft TV cap. Would it be harsher than CRP? Personally I'd prefer a season division be given a go, but it's another idea... |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 21:29 |
|
Mrjoshua what i think EM + SE will do is basically make high tv (2000tv and more) unsustainable for elves. You could get there, easily, but would end up running with loners pretty quickly.
Teams that don't suffer much attrition and get cheap/free fodders (nurgle,undead,necro, orcs maybe) wouldn't be affected much if at all. Unless they lost 2 expensive positonals in a couple matches. Which with the removal of PO is not going to happen as often as now.
Basically it would give a max 200k parachute to sustain attrition. Teams that can live with that will have a good time at high tv. Teams who don't will collapse quickly. Pretty much as of now, but with more variation between the extremes. If that makes sense.
That's what i think would happen. But we gotta try to find out for sure i think. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 22:29 |
|
Disregarding the doomsday arguments, the only problem I can see against setting up a game number limit per season is how to deal with concessions.
Suppose a player U faces a concession. He gets two MVPs, which are kinda neat with the new rule. But U expects at least two CAS and one TD to be even with that game, assuming 25k per game is needed for him to buy back his players.
If the concession comes before two CAS, that's a problem. That concession forces U to get more CAS or TD in all his remaining games. For one concession, that's not so bad. Imagine five per season.
Even if the concession comes after two CAS, that's a problem too. The 25K figure is supposed to be an average. U could have expected more than that in a game that he dominates.
So the current system may encourage concessions. At the very least there ought to be more admin work at first. Concessions guidelines will need to be clarified. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 22:46 |
|
PAGE 38! |
_________________
 |
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 23:10 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | This doesn't seem very productive.
A faction want seasons as that's what the new rules seem to say (to be updated by further supplements) and it would appear to be the new system to limit team value growth.
A faction don't because it messes with their idea of the 'freedom' they have in R and B.
And round and round we go. I'm bored.
Firstly because it won't happen like that, Christer will build a test division, called DivX, we will sandbox around in it and try to break it and then decide what heppens to R and B based on the data/feelings. that's what BigC always does, because its the sane answer.
People upset at losing 'what they have' (like in some way data on Christers computers is yours) will get to keep it, they always do. But should prepare for the fact that they may be gaming in an empty room, as everyone else grudgingly moves on. this happens every rule migration, because people.
Secondly: 'Whaa whaa I dont like the idea of seasons' but no answer yet to what will replace it. A voice against seasons is either for rampant huge TV teams, or for SE to remain, or for some other attrition mechanic. Because in this instance being against something IS being in favour of one of them. And all are bad. Seasons is at least different and seems (unplaytested) less random and more like 'managing' a team.
End result a thread getting ever longer while two people restate postions the other doesnt agree with. Great, and? |
This about sums it up.
As with the migration from LRB4 to CRP there are going to be people that don't like the new rules or how they are implemented or some other variation.
The reality is that Christer will likely set up a test division and playtest different set ups for a while before making a decision and we all learn to live with it or fade away.
IMO the seasons mechanic has now become an integral part of the core rules for playing with teams that develop. Others can agree or disagree at their leisure.
If you don't agree then have a think about what house rules or optional rules you would implement in its place and what effect this would have on how BB is played on this site.
Then after that have a think about what effect that would have on the use of this site for people who want to play with the latest set of "official rules" and/or for new players to the site who have just bought the latest shiny rulebook and are looking for an online community. |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 04:54 |
|
| almic85 wrote: |
As with the migration from LRB4 to CRP there are going to be people that don't like the new rules or how they are implemented or some other variation. |
Indeed there will be.
| almic85 wrote: | | The reality is that Christer will likely set up a test division and playtest different set ups for a while before making a decision and we all learn to live with it or fade away. |
Well he might, but you have to understand that playtesting seasons as it would relate to R and or B is going to take... A long time. I mean it's actually kind of trivial to just run the numbers based off of historical X game sprints for TDs and CAS and then to know what kind of spread of money teams can expect after X games. Heck, it's already been done in this thread.
Test divisions are great for sussing out bugs and issues in the client with new rules, I'm not sure they will be great for showing how seasons will work. Other than for the bug sussing aspect of it.
| almic85 wrote: |
If you don't agree then have a think about what house rules or optional rules you would implement in its place and what effect this would have on how BB is played on this site. |
Oh lordy, have you read this thread?
| almic85 wrote: | | Then after that have a think about what effect that would have on the use of this site for people who want to play with the latest set of "official rules" and/or for new players to the site who have just bought the latest shiny rulebook and are looking for an online community. |
So no, no you haven't read this thread. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 05:46 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Suppose a player U faces a concession. He gets two MVPs, which are kinda neat with the new rule. But U expects at least two CAS and one TD to be even with that game, assuming 25k per game is needed for him to buy back his players. |
Totally against pampering coaches involved in concessions. If that feels like a loss for both sides, that is definitively how it should be.
Something people may seem to forget in discussing this there is something else that is carried over after reset. Which is the teams bank. Which is unstable after... 300k, right?
So up to 300k you have basically free cash to rebuy + the million making it 1.3 million before extra cash. That is presuming you can hold on to that cash.
Concessions give twice the money. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %05, %2016 - %05:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
almic85
Joined: May 25, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 05:48 |
|
oh, I have read this thread and have provided my opinion previously in the thread before zoning out at 4 people having 16 arguments between themselves.
My opinion was basically that League is the true competitive division of FUMBBL and is the real reason all true bloodbowlers come to this site (Shout out to the SWL for being the way, the truth and light). As such I am looking forwards to seeing the seasons rule get implemented into L and then played with by the various league commissioners.
As for how the implementation of seasons affects the ranked and blackbox environments it is a side issue as both of these divisions are not set up in the true meaning of bloodbowl development.
For a perpetual league environment with no formal season end you face three options, which are time frame based seasons OR match qty timed seasons OR not including seasons at all. Each has pros and cons that have been argued in this thread before and multiple other variables.
For the below arguments please keep in mind the below definition:
Hardcore gamer - One that plays 2 or more games per week.
Casual gamer - One that plays 1 or less games per week. (in real life this would actually make you a fairly hardcore gamer)
Option 1 - Time Frame Based Leagues
Pro - Seasons can be lined up with the official FUMBBL tournaments (either just before or just after) preventing mid tournament season ends.
Pro - You can make your team super buff for entering that FUMBBL tournament you always wanted to.
Pro - Hardcore gamers don't have to deal with the season rule all the time.
Pro - I am out of other pros.
Con - There is potential for extreme imbalance between casual gamers and the hardcore group in terms of games played and TV sizes.
Con - Casual Gamers will potentially be put off entering tournaments because all those hardcore gamers have built super buff teams and I have bugger all chance of winning and/or having a fun game.
Con - Casual gamers will have to redo all of their teams every 3 months. IMO this will lead to people having less teams on FUMBBL because of the extra admin associated with this.
Con - Non-major tournaments will be affected by the forced season restarts associated with the majors so can't run concurrently.
Con - the increase in TV for some teams will lead to a greater spread of TV and make it harder to find games in any type of matched environment.
Honestly I think calendar based seasons are a bad idea because of the amount of imbalance it will bring about due to the difference in number of games played.
Option 2 - Match qty seasons (for arguments sake lets say 16 matches)
Pro - Will create a soft cap TV limit based on the number of SPP you can get in 16 games.
Pro - All teams site wide will be within this soft cap of TV.
Pro - It allows for active team management of a teams TV up to the soft cap by the coach (meaning you can "build" for a major)
Pro - Casual gamers are not disincentivised to make multiple teams due to additional site admin.
Pro - Casual gamers can enter tournaments with a better idea of the upper limit TV that they may face.
Pro - It will increase the number of games played at or near the TV cap.
Con - Hardcore players will need to interact with the dreaded season mechanic more often. The more you play the more you have to interact with it.
Con - The season might end in the middle of a major tournament and I am upset because I didn't think about it when entering.
Con - I have to accept that the game is capable of change.
Option 3 - No Seasons
Pro - I never have to make a decision about what players make the cut each season and everyone gets a medal.
Pro - My team can bloat, i mean grow, to extraordinary sizes (especially now that there is no more killer CLPOMB)
Con - One of the new rules included to promote player turnover is removed and we need to house rule something to cover it.
Con - New players wanting to come to this site and experience the wonder of bloodbowl the way it is written in the current ruleset that they have just paid AUD$205 for may be confused by the change in rules.
Con - The ever growing TV upper limit continues and creates such a TV differential that it gets really had to find another team at matched TV.
That is my assessment of the options.
Long live league. (This is how you feed the trolls...also) |
_________________
SWL the place to be.
If you're interested join the Fringe |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 05:54 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Totally against hampering coaches involved in concessions. If that feels like a loss for both sides, that is definitively how it should be. |
The one who has already lost has less to lose than the one who is winning. You're almost suggesting that we should concede more.
There is already some "hampering" going on, BTW. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 06:09 |
|
Pampering. You silly people respond too fast at 5am in the night. Sleep dammit.
Also context. |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 06:29 |
|
Almic, the option is #2 where the season does not end in the middle of a tournament that your team is still in.
So if "16 game" season, you can play 15 after a reset (in smacks or open play, as you will) and then enter a major and have to do end season stuff after you get knocked out (or win it) no matter how far you get in it. Or after your 16th game of open play, if you get there first.
Pro: encourages people to go in tournaments to end their seasons with more matches, TDs, and Cas. \o/ |
_________________
  |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 06:59 |
|
You forgot the only con in option 2 that anyone actually cares about.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure it out though, since you seem to think you've already figured everything else out. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 07:03 |
|
tell me the answer is two girls "another boy in town" cause that is my hi nrg jams. |
|
|
|
|
| |
ramchop takes on the...
Search
