Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 07:48 |
 
|
I think this is a pretty good idea because it adresses the issues with legend players differently than by the use of TV. I do not believe that having 6 skills is usually better than having 6 players with one skill. The exception are very few possiblities to build up combo skills. Yet such combos are very present.
Giving a mild incentive in SE seems like the right approach that is neither very complicated.
I do not agree that low AV teams can't save money or that SE is a big issue, right now. http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=643564 I don't believe it is well implemented but money is a pretty minor aspect of these rules. |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 07:56 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | I don't believe it is well implemented but money is a pretty minor aspect of these rules. |
It's pretty major for long-running leagues with existing teams... (but the rules weren't designed with them in mind...sadly) |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 08:23 |
|
| Craftnburn wrote: | | but the rules weren't designed with them in mind...sadly |
Wasn't it? What the hell were they designed for in your opinion? Are you really surprised that agile teams have a harder time staying alive than bashy teams? How is that news or even a problem? Do you really need a 2000 tv team in league? Man, I can't build such a team in open environment and I can play freaking forever. On top of it handle inducements TV difference pretty well. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 08:45 |
|
As a note:
So far, if we went with my proposed change, my team Legendary Infestation would be almost 2 MILLION gold in debt due to player spiraling expenses.
Instead, right now, the team has spent a grand total of 210,000 gold on spiraling expenses over 152 games, and has 3.5 million gold saved up.
So, with this change, my Nurgle team would have spent over 5 million gold, or twenty five TIMES as much in spiraling expenses, than with the current rules. I would literally almost never have been able to afford to replace positionals after getting my first legend (although this would mean I probably wouldn't have some of the players that would cost me so much, but I'm ignoring that.)
It also means my team, with it's current players, would be spending 75k per game in spiraling expenses, instead of the 0 it currently does.
As a note, more than 3 million of the 5 million the team would have spent, would have been on players who reached legendary status (a mere 4 players). Player who died as Superstars generally cost the team around 300,000 gold before dying, and did not have any serious impact on the teams ability to save gold.
Basically: Legends would quickly bankrupt teams, especially if there were any superstars on the team at the same time (and god help you if you have more than 1 legend at a time), similar to how being above 2050 TV does now.
Anyone have a high tv low spp low av team I can look at to see the other side of the story? (Woodies or darkies maybe?) |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 09:12 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Wasn't it? What the hell were they designed for in your opinion? |
Umm...gee...I don't know.. Tournaments maybe?
| Wreckage wrote: | | Are you really surprised that agile teams have a harder time staying alive than bashy teams? |
Apropos of nothing... Spiraling expenses mean that agile teams can't reload, which is what they were supposed to be able to do to counter the longevity of Bashers.
| Wreckage wrote: | | Do you really need a 2000 tv team in league? |
We don't "really need" Bloodbowl. However the point being that many teams in long-term leagues got to 2000TV before there were spiraling expenses and the new rules were thrust upon them, paralyzing them where they stood. Which, as I said, shows that the new rules simply weren't designed with such teams in mind (i.e. no grandfathering or phase in)
And on another note.. jeez! try some meds!  |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 10:34 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Wasn't it? What the hell were they designed for in your opinion? |
The game's built for resurrection style tournaments, with perpetual progressive play bolted on.
| Wreckage wrote: | | Do you really need a 2000 tv team in league? Man, I can't build such a team in open environment and I can play freaking forever. |
Are you talking about elf teams or any teams? As you have a 2000TV elf team. If you mean generally, sure you could if you were willing to spend your treasury and play with more than 11 players.............which is the problem this idea is trying to eradicate.
| Wreckage wrote: | | On top of it handle inducements TV difference pretty well. |
Which is part of the problem. With this argument what's the point of progressing a team at all? Only those who like the fluff element of progressing a team really need to do that, and as pointed out, making your team better in more than half the cases is actually detrimental to winning matches.
I like inducements in certain situations (resurrection for instance) however they were never meant to be equalizers or in a lot of cases making the underdog the favourite. This should never be. A 2000TV team should beat a 1500TV in nearly every match, which isn't the case. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 14:25 |
|
man I spend 90 minutes painstakingly going through my entire team history and everyone just wants to talk about 'tournaments' vs 'perpetual leagues'.
Well, I would like to ask everyone to come closer to my vision of the topic; I understand the off shoot argument, and it is actually largely on topic, but to my mind, what was meant to be is neither here nor there. What IS is what matters, and I'd like to look at this very particular idea of how we might change it.
In other words..
comment on my stupid team analysis! |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 14:46 |
|
Sorry it doesn't work like that.
Also I think it's a valid point. Why is there a need to change it? A lot of people are very happy with how things are. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 15:46 |
|
There isn't nescessarily a need to change; however, experimenting and investigating will let us know if our preset notions (in this case, that the current SE are ok) are actually correct.
If it turns out there is a better, or even more interesting, way of handling SE, then we've accomplished something major. If it turns there isn't, then I've had lots of fun with a thought experiment. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 15:51 |
|
Hey don't get me wrong, on paper I like the idea. I most definitely think it's worth looking into. I also think it'd be better than what we have now. However those that this idea will hurt the most, will loath it. As already pointed out by some. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 16:05 |
|
| Quote: | | The game's built for resurrection style tournaments, with perpetual progressive play bolted on. |
Genuine question: where does it say "resurrection-style tournaments" in the CRP or LRB6? I can find multiple references to open leagues and to tournaments, and one to scheduled leagues with a couple of points-scoring methods, and then there is the Designer's Note at the back about it being the "PBBL (Perpetual Blood Bowl League) edition", but I see nothing specifying that the game was built for resurrection style tournaments.
| Quote: | | Why is there a need to change it? A lot of people are very happy with how things are |
And a lot are not - nobody actually knows how the silent majority feel on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here - the "need" was set out in the OP.
| Quote: | | However those that this idea will hurt the most, will loath it. As already pointed out by some. |
Well obviously. That's hardly an argument against change though. |
Last edited by dode74 on %b %17, %2013 - %16:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 16:05 |
|
I.. actually dont see anyone in this thread saying anything like that.
I see people not liking SE at all, and I see people who want to be able to have a good reason for using 14+ players, and I see people arguing over what the game was designed for (tournament vs perpetual).
I don't see anyone saying that they inherently dislike my suggestion more than the current one. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 17:12 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Quote: | | The game's built for resurrection style tournaments, with perpetual progressive play bolted on. |
Genuine question: where does it say "resurrection-style tournaments" in the CRP or LRB6? I can find multiple references to open leagues and to tournaments, and one to scheduled leagues with a couple of points-scoring methods, and then there is the Designer's Note at the back about it being the "PBBL (Perpetual Blood Bowl League) edition", but I see nothing specifying that the game was built for resurrection style tournaments.
| Quote: | | Why is there a need to change it? A lot of people are very happy with how things are |
And a lot are not - nobody actually knows how the silent majority feel on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here - the "need" was set out in the OP.
| Quote: | | However those that this idea will hurt the most, will loath it. As already pointed out by some. |
Well obviously. That's hardly an argument against change though. |
I have no idea what the rules say they're for. However what they say and what they are may not be the same. I'm saying the rules suit resurrection very well and don't suit the progressive environment. This I thought was pretty obvious.
The rest of your arguments against me are pretty funny, not much I can say to that. Sure after rereading there isn't really much anti the idea posts as I thought, however for the rest you've taken horribly out of context and there's no point me making it an issue. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 17:28 |
|
| Quote: | | I have no idea what the rules say they're for. However what they say and what they are may not be the same. I'm saying the rules suit resurrection very well and don't suit the progressive environment. This I thought was pretty obvious. |
If you don't know what the rules are for then it's not particularly helpful of you to say that "the game's built for X". Perhaps "I think the game's best suited for X" would be more accurate.
And yes, the game works very well in a resurrection environment, arguably (and unsurprisingly given the variables) better than it does in a perpetual one. That doesn't mean that this is what the game is designed for, which was what Craftburn said and what you appeared to back up. I doubt it was designed for grandfathered teams to survive in the manner they have done, but what happens on FUMMBL is hardly the fault of the designers of the changes to BB: there are many ways this site could have handled grandfathered teams. Happens I think you've picked as good a one as any.
| Quote: | | The rest of your arguments against me are pretty funny, not much I can say to that. Sure after rereading there isn't really much anti the idea posts as I thought, however for the rest you've taken horribly out of context and there's no point me making it an issue. |
It's not personal: my arguments aren't against you. You asked where there was a need for change and I pointed out that the OP covered that; you stated that those who it hurts most will dislike it and I agreed with that sentiment. That's pretty much it. The tone of your post was "anti" change in general, so I opined that your points weren't massively convincing arguments against change.
I've no need for an argument, but I think perhaps you were a little defensive there? |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 - 18:08 |
|
Nice hijack of the thread there......I'm defensive or just jaded by your misquoting and your dislike of how I pronounce tomatoes. |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
