ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 20:14 |
|
mister__joshua wrote: |
That’s fair enough, but I’d be interested to know why?
The idea behind 2) is that it would keep TV managed while also allowing teams to carry over some players for several seasons which Is one of the problems people seem to have with seasons.
3) is to give a bit of diversity between good and bad seasons, but not enough to be oppressive. |
I feel like making it (much) easier to carry players over is actually very unhealthy within the ruleset described. Granted this would be offset slightly by your shorter season, but this is where we hit the bigger problem:
The formula Christer suggested was tweaked so that wins mean something without creating too huge a gap between eventual TVs between someone who goes 0% and someone who goes 100%, simply because they can use treasury to hit the cap. The 100% player gets rewarded in this instance by most likely having a better selection of players to keep, as well as knowing he's at cap and can spend during the season on inducements or cycling/management decisions before he even hits rebuy. The poorer coach knows that even though his season sucks he can just keep bank, and buy whichever if any players are good enough to keep for next season, or simply fill out his roster beyond the 1k start ready for next season. At the start of which, the gap will be absolutely minimal.
Your proposed method renders a poorer coach in a much worse spot.
If people want to keep players slightly longer and it seems to be healthier for the site after testing +20, something like changing the per season tax to 10-15 is possibly in order. But it should still be quite prohibitive rather than lax. |
_________________
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 20:17 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | The whole point of the rules is to stop you retaining key players. You see "key player" on your newly trimmed team, others see "farmed superstar who makes a minmax team function". Each time you retain a key player your treasury cost goes up but eventual TV after rebuy goes down. All you in effect would do is create bigger mismatches, push a minmax meta harder than the actual rules (while it will push TV down, most teams will not be keep 4+ skill players on retainers for multiple seasons) and create an even more hostile environment for new teams.
The elephant in the room that no one is addressing when they talk about legendary teams, or old teams, or big teams is that these team's existence puts people off playing in tournaments, spinning in box etc. They are barriers to entrance. Old teams sitting parked indefinitely, playing major after major, xfl after xfl, minor after minor etc, and rarely if ever actually being cut down or trimmed significantly in any way. They might be celebrated by their coaches, or even the site, but their very presence and continued participation isn't actually healthy.
Fluff teams who are making a story of a franchise are almost completely unaffected by this - seasons render a team more immortal than any other rule before. |
Yucking my Yum!
FWIW, I don't even know what a 'key player' looks like categorically at the moment under BB2020. I guess we'll find out but just as a general question, from Woodelves for example, who would be worth rolling over from season to season that can't be built in 4-5 games from fresh?
Like, my mind is going "If I can't build players over 2 seasons, what's my best bang for buck ~15 games?" |
Last edited by mrt1212 on %b %12, %2020 - %20:%Aug; edited 1 time in total |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 20:21 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | when they talk about legendary teams |
I appreciate your nod to the Cathay Cobras. Cheers mate. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 20:40 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
The elephant in the room that no one is addressing when they talk about legendary teams, or old teams, or big teams is that these team's existence puts people off playing in tournaments, spinning in box etc. They are barriers to entrance. Old teams sitting parked indefinitely, playing major after major, xfl after xfl, minor after minor etc, and rarely if ever actually being cut down or trimmed significantly in any way. They might be celebrated by their coaches, or even the site, but their very presence and continued participation isn't actually healthy. |
I've already mentioned it. 15 years I've been on the site and don't remember a single capped Major. Or did I miss something?
And now you want to cut everything to the bone?
Frankly, I'm flabbergasted.. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 20:48 |
|
koadah wrote: | 15 years I've been on the site |
15 years is also about the time since you last played outside the League division right? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 20:59 |
|
Balle2000 wrote: | koadah wrote: | 15 years I've been on the site |
15 years is also about the time since you last played outside the League division right? |
And I still only have one fewer official tourney win that you.
Edit: HLP Gold is something though. Don't say that I never done nuffink for the official divisions.
How long was it before you got the BBT? |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
steinerp
Joined: Sep 18, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 21:35 |
|
mister__joshua wrote: | A few more suggestions for the melting pot. Feel free to exclaim as brilliant or decry as ridiculous, as appropriate:
1) Make Competitive division a fresh start
|
I wouldn't be opposed to this as long as all the teams were moved to a new division. In fact I might actually prefer it as that new division would probably become the defacto division and people who want to play min-max can play in the "competitive" division |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 21:38 |
|
I like high TV play in Blood Bowl and long-lived teams which is why this direction for FUMBBL and Blood Bowl is not very appealing to me. However, that is just personal preference and it could well be the case that the changes are for the better overall.
All the best to everyone and have fun with the game. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 21:39 |
|
steinerp wrote: | mister__joshua wrote: | A few more suggestions for the melting pot. Feel free to exclaim as brilliant or decry as ridiculous, as appropriate:
1) Make Competitive division a fresh start
|
I wouldn't be opposed to this as long as all the teams were moved to a new division. In fact I might actually prefer it as that new division would probably become the defacto division and people who want to play min-max can play in the "competitive" division |
Some people would want to keep their team in the "competitive" division even if they lost everything but the name and the history. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 21:50 |
|
koadah wrote: |
Some people would want to keep their team in the "competitive" division even if they lost everything but the name and the history. |
That's been mentioned - some sort of button to rebuy a team at 1M with bb2020 roster, 0DF, 0rr etc but match history and name would be cool. |
_________________
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 21:58 |
|
I know it's futile, but I admit that, while I'm not a pixelhugger, I'm attached to my team names.
I even refrained from retiring my Wood Elf team with 7 loners just to keep the name.
Being able to keep the names would be nice, if possible, no matter if that means starting the team from scratch.
Keeping the names would give me the feeling of "history" of my teams. |
|
|
Malmir
Joined: May 20, 2008
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 22:03 |
|
Loving the assumption made by more than one person that I am only bothered about losing my ‘statfreaks’. I have played 6000 games and lost a lot of those. I am actually much more bothered about losing teams I like and not being able to make new teams I like. I am also bothered about losing races I like. At no point have I said I will quit and I do plan to give the new rules a chance. I am quite capable of winning games without statfreaks so my concerns don’t come from wondering if I will still be able to win a game of bloodbowl. They come from wondering if I will still have as much fun. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 22:11 |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 22:16 |
|
Malmir wrote: | Loving the assumption made by more than one person that I am only bothered about losing my ‘statfreaks’. I have played 6000 games and lost a lot of those. I am actually much more bothered about losing teams I like and not being able to make new teams I like. I am also bothered about losing races I like. At no point have I said I will quit and I do plan to give the new rules a chance. I am quite capable of winning games without statfreaks so my concerns don’t come from wondering if I will still be able to win a game of bloodbowl. They come from wondering if I will still have as much fun. |
When no one arrives to give an unheard opinion, strawmen will suffice, I suppose.
Like, I'm not personally worried about how I'll fare, I'll think of something that works for me but...one of the draws of playing, seeing what Nuffle gives you and rolling with it...that's gonna go away. 20-40 games to make the most useful players is a different way of approaching the game from letting Nuffle take you on a tour of crazy possibilities.
Also, the possibility of differentiated experiences is going to shrink, not just in crafting teams but also in there being a game possibility at higher TV if you like it, lower TV if you don't. Cramming everyone down into a specific range isn't exactly a breadth of experience sweetner. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
  Posted:
Aug 12, 2020 - 22:41 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
The elephant in the room that no one is addressing when they talk about legendary teams, or old teams, or big teams is that these team's existence puts people off playing in tournaments, spinning in box etc. They are barriers to entrance. Old teams sitting parked indefinitely, playing major after major, xfl after xfl, minor after minor etc, and rarely if ever actually being cut down or trimmed significantly in any way. They might be celebrated by their coaches, or even the site, but their very presence and continued participation isn't actually healthy. |
This.
1 and 4 also address unhealthy patterns of behavior, but we discussed this to death. |
_________________ There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
|
| |