32 coaches online • Server time: 11:48
* * * Did you know? Up until now, 1485755 players have died on the pitch.
Recent Forum Topics  RNG speculations | Blood Bowl 2024 Edit... | SWL Season CI |
2011-10-18 16:58:06
23 votes, rating 4.2
23 votes, rating 4.2
Why do crippled players keep their value?
Maybe I just missed the discussion, or simply didn`t find the right threads in the forums, but anyway I never encountered a large scale discussion, why injured player`s value stays unaffected.
+AG inreases the value by 40k, so why does -AG not decrease the value by 40k or lets say at least half of it.
I admit, most people would simply retire a player suffering from -AG or even -ST.
But rumours say there are some coaches who put a lot of effort into creating players, background history, funny names etc.
It`s simply sad that you can`t have your crippled darlings, each of them meaning a lot to you, die on the pitch like they deserve. They bloat the teamvalue and thus have to be retired, or else the opponents star player chainsaw chops your remaining players into pieces.
And elf with -AG, is not so valuable any more, and not the gravest threat to your opponent.
So why not introduce a player value reduction, that those guys can be kept for fluffy reasons and fight trolls and ogres along the line until they die instead of simply vanishing for stupid min/maxing reasons.
+AG inreases the value by 40k, so why does -AG not decrease the value by 40k or lets say at least half of it.
I admit, most people would simply retire a player suffering from -AG or even -ST.
But rumours say there are some coaches who put a lot of effort into creating players, background history, funny names etc.
It`s simply sad that you can`t have your crippled darlings, each of them meaning a lot to you, die on the pitch like they deserve. They bloat the teamvalue and thus have to be retired, or else the opponents star player chainsaw chops your remaining players into pieces.
And elf with -AG, is not so valuable any more, and not the gravest threat to your opponent.
So why not introduce a player value reduction, that those guys can be kept for fluffy reasons and fight trolls and ogres along the line until they die instead of simply vanishing for stupid min/maxing reasons.
Comments
Posted by Synn on 2011-10-18 16:59:56
Because then a Thrall/Zombie/Gobbo with -AG is free.
You could imagine having players with a negative value!
__Synn
You could imagine having players with a negative value!
__Synn
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-18 17:04:22
just because them is the new rules.
like the (appalling nonsense that is) PO, what can ya do?
like the (appalling nonsense that is) PO, what can ya do?
Posted by BlizzBirne on 2011-10-18 17:13:48
still he is right - if an increase of stats gives you extra value then a decrease of stats should reduce value. i think the suggestion of half the increase effect would be fair, taking into account what synn said below. and of course a -1 on AG can only reduce the players' value if he didn't have AG 1 before already. ;-)
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-18 17:24:57
why should? so, can I have my -ag, -av zombie for free then?
Posted by Hitonagashi on 2011-10-18 17:36:49
The idea is that injuries are supposed to be a penalty!
There was a lovely example in LRB 4...a -st Troll Slayer was the same price as a goblin (despite having frenzy, dauntless and G access!).
There's also issues of effective decreases...I'd personally take an Ogre who got a -ag and was 20k-40k cheaper!.
As Pythrr says, zombies are super effective if you decrease their cost with stat drops.
You can keep injured players. I've kept several, and you have to understand the downsides by doing it. If you are that concerned about fluff, just don't fire them!
There was a lovely example in LRB 4...a -st Troll Slayer was the same price as a goblin (despite having frenzy, dauntless and G access!).
There's also issues of effective decreases...I'd personally take an Ogre who got a -ag and was 20k-40k cheaper!.
As Pythrr says, zombies are super effective if you decrease their cost with stat drops.
You can keep injured players. I've kept several, and you have to understand the downsides by doing it. If you are that concerned about fluff, just don't fire them!
Posted by Synn on 2011-10-18 17:48:33
Rather than vanishing for min/max purposes.... you could see them kept for min/max purposes.
Or being creative with the apoth to generate TV reducing injuries (oh you know someone will do it!) :D
__Synn
Or being creative with the apoth to generate TV reducing injuries (oh you know someone will do it!) :D
__Synn
Posted by RC on 2011-10-18 17:51:04
I hate this as well. I really loved those super awesome -ag-ag -av-av dudes with dp that you could have in your teams. They where so flavourfull.They do take up one extra slot in your team so its not like they are totaly free. How many zombies do you field at one time after all.
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-10-18 18:19:26
In the old rules, bad team management was actually encouraged.
If you got -AG on your Dwarf Blockers, it was a great TS reduction. -MA, -AG or even -AV on that DP Zombie, perfect you can now field a player that will only play a couple of drives even cheaper.
Now you have to manage your team and the TV of the team. The only person that can fire that player is you, but if you want to keep him, you will have to pay full value to do so.
Keeping injured players on a team should never be rewarded.
If you got -AG on your Dwarf Blockers, it was a great TS reduction. -MA, -AG or even -AV on that DP Zombie, perfect you can now field a player that will only play a couple of drives even cheaper.
Now you have to manage your team and the TV of the team. The only person that can fire that player is you, but if you want to keep him, you will have to pay full value to do so.
Keeping injured players on a team should never be rewarded.
Posted by Sammler_der_Seelen on 2011-10-18 18:30:54
had a dp gobbo once -av -ma -ma n -st 1,2 tv worth a normal gobbo with dp was 11 tv that what is pretend in lrb6
Posted by harvestmouse on 2011-10-18 18:46:06
Well the problem here is the game has become too TV reliant. Causing problems in many areas. Killing the game IMO.
Posted by PainState on 2011-10-18 18:56:47
Well the short answer to that question: By not discounting TV for injuries is a mechanic that at some point forces you to retire your player to drop your teams TV.
This LRB4 stuff about TS...Keeping injured players because it reduced your TS was simply LRB4 min/max stuff.
And why cant you have a -AV, -AG, -St DP lino in LRB6? Did I miss something? A non injured DP lino costs the same as the injured one now. So why not keep the injured one? Seems like replacing him is bad team managment. The guy is a single purpose player, lay the boot, hurt pixels and get ejected from the match. Why waste the Gold and a healthy replacement to do the exact same job.
This LRB4 stuff about TS...Keeping injured players because it reduced your TS was simply LRB4 min/max stuff.
And why cant you have a -AV, -AG, -St DP lino in LRB6? Did I miss something? A non injured DP lino costs the same as the injured one now. So why not keep the injured one? Seems like replacing him is bad team managment. The guy is a single purpose player, lay the boot, hurt pixels and get ejected from the match. Why waste the Gold and a healthy replacement to do the exact same job.
Posted by Corvidius on 2011-10-18 19:00:56
Our TT league use a house rule that you can never drop below starting value but permanent injuries lower that players tv. Been using that for a while and no real issues. One "bonus" is that i've got a couple of av4 Diving Tackle Snotlings that are only 20k each, av4 and ST1 are terrible but sidestep diving tackle is tasty. :)
Posted by PainState on 2011-10-18 19:07:47
"Well the problem here is the game has become too TV reliant."-harvestmouse.
Well it took the conversion over the the TV system to realize my errors.
LRB4 had the same flaws. They were just more hidden in the TS system. TV is out in the open, everyone can understand it and work with it. TS for a lot of coaches was a non factor and did not even attempt to manipulate it.
TS was huge because it effected the match up of games. It was a huge advantage if you could min/max your TS in one off games.
Another area of LRB4 that gets overlooked is this idea of "sweet zones" for you team. The Lavino Fighting Hellfishes were masters of this. The idea that they never kept injured players on their team was a fluffy way of say we are going to keep our human team in the TS 120-190 range all the time. Because that was were the best matchups for humans is. Thus the Hellfishes have a great win/loss record.
The point is a lot of the FFB stuff we talk about happened in LRB4 it was just not blantant, over the top and set off 19 page threads about the "cheese" TS min/maxing and sweet spoting teams in certain TS ranges.
Well it took the conversion over the the TV system to realize my errors.
LRB4 had the same flaws. They were just more hidden in the TS system. TV is out in the open, everyone can understand it and work with it. TS for a lot of coaches was a non factor and did not even attempt to manipulate it.
TS was huge because it effected the match up of games. It was a huge advantage if you could min/max your TS in one off games.
Another area of LRB4 that gets overlooked is this idea of "sweet zones" for you team. The Lavino Fighting Hellfishes were masters of this. The idea that they never kept injured players on their team was a fluffy way of say we are going to keep our human team in the TS 120-190 range all the time. Because that was were the best matchups for humans is. Thus the Hellfishes have a great win/loss record.
The point is a lot of the FFB stuff we talk about happened in LRB4 it was just not blantant, over the top and set off 19 page threads about the "cheese" TS min/maxing and sweet spoting teams in certain TS ranges.
Posted by Jeffro on 2011-10-18 19:49:00
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=player&player_id=6960018
Keeping Kevin Bacon on my team actually does provide me negative team value, plus it provides revenue because he is a controlling shareholder of the new Footloose movie that is being released, which counteracts any spiraling expenses that accrue. Added Bonus: Kyra Sedgewick makes a mean pot pie...
Keeping Kevin Bacon on my team actually does provide me negative team value, plus it provides revenue because he is a controlling shareholder of the new Footloose movie that is being released, which counteracts any spiraling expenses that accrue. Added Bonus: Kyra Sedgewick makes a mean pot pie...
Posted by Catalyst32 on 2011-10-18 20:30:32
Injuries probably should decrease a players TV value but not by as much as a Stat Increase increases their value. A Human Lino with +ST is easily more than twice as valuable as his teammate with -ST.
If I were trying to tweak the rules I would propose that stat decrease counts for 1/4 of what the stat increase counts for (rounding up if needed). This way the stat decrease would still be costly and would encourage firing the player but that some compensation for the injury would make it less painful to keep the player around.
However I am not particularly concerned with this aspect of the rules. I certainly would not campaign to alter this aspect of the rulebook.
If I were trying to tweak the rules I would propose that stat decrease counts for 1/4 of what the stat increase counts for (rounding up if needed). This way the stat decrease would still be costly and would encourage firing the player but that some compensation for the injury would make it less painful to keep the player around.
However I am not particularly concerned with this aspect of the rules. I certainly would not campaign to alter this aspect of the rulebook.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-18 22:39:56
"it provides revenue because he is a controlling shareholder of the new Footloose movie that is being released,"
.... so, about 5 dollars a year then?
(yes, it was THAT bad)
.... so, about 5 dollars a year then?
(yes, it was THAT bad)
Posted by nin on 2011-10-19 02:40:43
I keep them (sometimes) for fluf or because they are still good.
Taking such decisions is fluffing your team or coaching well.
If there were a TV reduction, then some people would keep them because that's efficient...
That's nothing to do with fluf or interesting team development imho.
Taking such decisions is fluffing your team or coaching well.
If there were a TV reduction, then some people would keep them because that's efficient...
That's nothing to do with fluf or interesting team development imho.
Posted by zakatan on 2011-10-19 11:25:42
Official rules never took into account injuries as far as I know. TS was a fumbbl houserule to assess the "competitive strenght" of a team. TS didn't have a direct effect on the game though, as handicaps, tournament caps and mostly everything was on TR, the exception being BlackBox matchmaking bot. TS also considered crappy or good skill choices.
TR/TV don't take into account the injuries because it's not their goal to judge wether a team is competitive or not, but how much the team is worth (in gold or whatever). Go and tell the players' Union that you're lowering someone's salary because he's a little slower...
TR/TV don't take into account the injuries because it's not their goal to judge wether a team is competitive or not, but how much the team is worth (in gold or whatever). Go and tell the players' Union that you're lowering someone's salary because he's a little slower...
Posted by Melech on 2011-10-19 12:06:35
Quite a lot of people seem to fear coaches taking advantage of injured players reducing their TR.
But hey, why not. If someone takes the risk of keeping his -av -av wardancer, with a very high chance of beein one man down pretty soon in the game, then it should be rewarded.
Of course a player can never be for free, and the player value reduction has to be limited.
Some of you suggested that I can keep my players if i want to, like for example a crippled DP, because he can still do his job. But this discussion is not about poorly skilled players, but exactly the opposite, the highly skilled ones.
I`ve got a Gutter Runner for example with lots of skills who now suffers from -ST. I`d still like to keep him, because he causes panic in my opponents defense and could still be a player dor certain occasions. But keeping an ST 1 Gutter with 5 skills and without a reduction of his value is simply insane.
About the argument that a salary reduction for players with handicaps is not fluffy as well:
Why should that be unrealistic. Ronaldo and Messi will definetly not recieve the same salary thry get now, when they turn 35 and loose their speed and effectiveness.
But hey, why not. If someone takes the risk of keeping his -av -av wardancer, with a very high chance of beein one man down pretty soon in the game, then it should be rewarded.
Of course a player can never be for free, and the player value reduction has to be limited.
Some of you suggested that I can keep my players if i want to, like for example a crippled DP, because he can still do his job. But this discussion is not about poorly skilled players, but exactly the opposite, the highly skilled ones.
I`ve got a Gutter Runner for example with lots of skills who now suffers from -ST. I`d still like to keep him, because he causes panic in my opponents defense and could still be a player dor certain occasions. But keeping an ST 1 Gutter with 5 skills and without a reduction of his value is simply insane.
About the argument that a salary reduction for players with handicaps is not fluffy as well:
Why should that be unrealistic. Ronaldo and Messi will definetly not recieve the same salary thry get now, when they turn 35 and loose their speed and effectiveness.
Posted by blocknroll on 2011-10-19 12:54:56
why should they be rewarded for hanging onto a player who is past his best? and isnt the decision re the gutter runner simply this - is he worth it or not? if his job doesnt involve his ST (which it probably doesnt) why should you get an advantage that his ST is lower when it has nothing to do with the role you use him in? the "reward" you get for keeping a player like that is not having to buy a new one and playing however many games it takes to get him to the same spp level as the one you are replacing.
Posted by ZeZe on 2011-10-19 15:00:59
Ok, first of all, i´m with you Melech. Pixels on fumbbl got more personality then on any other website ;-). But as you see from most of the comments, people tend to play more for winning then for anything else on this site. You asked about keeping fluffy players, and the ppl discuss how they could get the best DP, Mino and so on out of this rule, and that´s why such a rule wouldnt work out, because it would simply be used for minmaxing as well.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-19 15:25:44
woodstock said no.
we can all go for tea now.
we can all go for tea now.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-19 15:26:49
"Ronaldo and Messi will definetly not recieve the same salary thry get now, when they turn 35 and loose their speed and effectiveness."
Oh for gods' sakes.
HOW DID I DIE FALLING OVER ON GRASS!
Oh for gods' sakes.
HOW DID I DIE FALLING OVER ON GRASS!
Posted by Melech on 2011-10-19 18:22:51
that`s the first thing that comes to my mind when someone suggests that a lower salary for slower players is a strange concept. To me it is not.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-10-19 20:27:12
hang around awhile, and it will.
"It's a game with orcs and elfs. It is not supposed to be _realistic_."
"It's a game with orcs and elfs. It is not supposed to be _realistic_."
Posted by Arktoris on 2011-10-19 22:09:30
personally I'd like to see some reduction for injured players, but in a practical sense don't think its very feasable.
maybe one day we'll see it done in the future TS system.
maybe one day we'll see it done in the future TS system.
Posted by Irgy on 2011-10-20 01:13:43
It's an intuitive idea that seems good at first glance, but is just plain awful on close inspection. Which is why it keeps getting raised and shot down over and over again. And will continue to no doubt.
The funny thing is people complain about min-maxers ruining the idea for the fluff-lovers who want to keep their much loved players. And yet the only reason the fluff-lovers can't keep their players is they're apparently too min-maxy themselves to put up with 4 or 5 units of 'unfair' TV hit. Here's the thing, you either cop a TV inefficiency hit for your own injuries, or you cop a min-maxing opponent with a similar TV efficiency gain from strategic injuries. Right back where you started.
The funny thing is people complain about min-maxers ruining the idea for the fluff-lovers who want to keep their much loved players. And yet the only reason the fluff-lovers can't keep their players is they're apparently too min-maxy themselves to put up with 4 or 5 units of 'unfair' TV hit. Here's the thing, you either cop a TV inefficiency hit for your own injuries, or you cop a min-maxing opponent with a similar TV efficiency gain from strategic injuries. Right back where you started.
Posted by Melech on 2011-10-20 01:57:15
you got a point there.
If you are fluffy enough. then keep the players and give a goddamn about TV.
If you are fluffy enough. then keep the players and give a goddamn about TV.