My beef with the bank!

Got some ideas for rules? Maybe a skill change or something completely different!!! Tell us here.

Moderator: TFF Mods

koadah
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by koadah »

As a ox player I'm not keen on the Bank.

Who cares if AV9 teams have a million in cash. It's more important that the lower AV teams can put a bit by if possible.

IMO the bank favours the high AV teams as they have less need for the money. (Otherwise they wouldn't have such a large surplus).



It might not be such an issue in a less bashy environment but if you set the bank at different levels for different races...

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by dode74 »

IMO the bank favours the high AV teams as they have less need for the money. (Otherwise they wouldn't have such a large surplus).
I'd be interested to see if the playtesting from the vault (which was played with the bank) backed this up.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by Darkson »

The Bank favoured no-one, and there had been no complaints from the playtesters (though it had been asked for an optional rule that it could be set at 150k).

If anything, it hampered the high AV teams, as they couldn't sit on their millions*, so when they have the inevitable game where they lose 2 (or more) players, they couldn't just go out and replace them immediately.


*(Without giving up inducements)

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
koadah
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by koadah »

dode74 wrote:
IMO the bank favours the high AV teams as they have less need for the money. (Otherwise they wouldn't have such a large surplus).
I'd be interested to see if the playtesting from the vault (which was played with the bank) backed this up.
Though I did say as a ox player. The Vault sure wasn't the ox. ;)

We're back to win% not being the only measure of 'good'.

Even without the bank we don't need to worry too much about teams ballooning over 2200.
http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b ... printId=15

Though I suppose if you are going nerf C-POMB... ;)

Reason: ''
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Koadah,
the idea was that lower AV teams have a need to spend their cash continuosly, so they'd rarely be affected by the Bank. They rarely have a surplus.
High AV bashers have a surplus, which the bank rule will wipe out, which means that they can not stay aflot very long above the 2.2mil mark.
AFAIK it worked will in playtest.

But yes, sometimes softer teams will get affected.
It any given post-match sequence they'll have their bank (100K/150K) + any excess they dare carry around + the winnings roll from the game that just ended. That ought to be enough for 2 linemen or a positional.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
koadah
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by koadah »

That sounds fair enough.

But in the Box I would take it as another disincentive to play anything but bashers.

I figure that they would be happier running an 11 or 12 man team when cash was short.

Reason: ''
Smurf
mattgslater's court jester
Posts: 1480
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:39 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by Smurf »

BTW it states in the rule book commissioner's rules. The LAW!

So imo I'm capping spirralling at -40K. They can generate money slowly. I'll see how this works over the next few years.

Reason: ''
The Scrumpers (Wood Elf)
Timog (Chaos Dwarves)
Cursed Crypt (Khemri)
Fur Fur Furious (Skaven)
Dzerards
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:06 pm
Location: Irlanda

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by Dzerards »

bouf wrote:Okay, so obviously I'm out numbered here... it seems that people like the bank ( :puke: )
I don't like it either. It feels clunky and a bit like a joy reducer. I bet Ageing sounded like a good idea at the time too.

Don't get me wrong, I really like all the other proposed LRB7 house rules, just not this one.

Reason: ''
Image
"Luck is the residue of design" John Milton
User avatar
garion
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by garion »

To be honest, having thought about it for a while there is no point in the bank really.

Why not just increase the starting point for Spirraling expenses by 100k or 200k then make money count towards your TV. It would ultimately have the same effect long term, and it just means that you don't have to have two pots of money.

Reason: ''
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by plasmoid »

Because ultimately the new TV system was about making handicapping more fair - now that handicapping is also more potent.
So if my ogres are saving up for a reroll, with 130K in the bank, and I end up sucking on a wizard for it, then that would go against the intent.

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
User avatar
garion
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by garion »

fair point lol :lol:

Reason: ''
Steam Ball
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by Steam Ball »

Darkson wrote:The Bank favoured no-one, and there had been no complaints from the playtesters (though it had been asked for an optional rule that it could be set at 150k).

If anything, it hampered the high AV teams, as they couldn't sit on their millions*, so when they have the inevitable game where they lose 2 (or more) players, they couldn't just go out and replace them immediately.


*(Without giving up inducements)
It would also affect teams with Raise the Dead, Nurgle's Rot or lots of Regeneration, they wouldn't sit on the money either.

Knowing that the long testing was done with bank instead of petty cash, and that it would affect the resistant teams (read that as mix of high AV and skills to endure or recover from damage), you have to wonder if (part of) the problem with bashing dominance is this money cushion petty cash gives, allowing them to withstand smashing for long periods, instead of making a dent once they get a bit kicked in one or two matches.

Reason: ''
User avatar
GalakStarscraper
Godfather of Blood Bowl
Posts: 15882
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by GalakStarscraper »

Dzerards wrote:I don't like it either. It feels clunky and a bit like a joy reducer. I bet Ageing sounded like a good idea at the time too.

Don't get me wrong, I really like all the other proposed LRB7 house rules, just not this one.
But this is the thing ... we have real proof it WAS NOT LIKE AGING. IT was TESTED for over a YEAR and was very well liked by the playtest leagues. The feedback was so good ... it was 100% voted in by ALL the BBRC player members to be part of the LRB 5.0 rules.

It was not seen as clunky ... it was not seen as a joy reducer ... it is not some mad house rule we just came up with. It would be part of the current BB rules if JJ would have followed his own rules that he laid down for moving BB from LRB 3.0 to LRB 5.0. IE no rules go into the book that were not tested by the playtest leagues for at least 3 months (this moved to a year for CRP). Petty Cash was something he thought up in seconds and FORCED into the LRB 5.0 in place of a tested system that worked and was well liked.

I realize the history of this game gets lost quickly ... but sometimes its important to understand it.
Steam Ball wrote:you have to wonder if (part of) the problem with bashing dominance is this money cushion petty cash gives, allowing them to withstand smashing for long periods, instead of making a dent once they get a bit kicked in one or two matches.
That is my opinion. Petty Cash was a moment of hubris by JJ ... an unfortunate moment and one I wish we as the BBRC would have re-opposed with the final playtest round before CRP became official.
garion wrote:To be honest, having thought about it for a while there is no point in the bank really.

Why not just increase the starting point for Spirraling expenses by 100k or 200k then make money count towards your TV. It would ultimately have the same effect long term, and it just means that you don't have to have two pots of money.
Hi garion ... plasmoid answered your question pretty well ... I'll just confirm what he said. The bank at 150k is important because given up a Wizard or a Bribe and Babe just because you are saving for a re-roll just was seen as a rule that actually pentalized teams for trying to develop. Which I agree with. Just having cash be part of TV doesn't work if you want to encourage team development (just like inducements making matches equal was anti-development (so they were aimed at 35% successful)). So the bank becomes important to work to make players fell okay with developing their teams.

Reason: ''
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image
User avatar
bouf
Friend of Bumblef**k
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:56 am
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by bouf »

I love a good history lesson as much as the next guy Galak, but some of your comments offer nothing...

Tested for over a year you say...? How long has the Experimental rules be out (pre LRB5 I mean)? I dare say that the Petty Cash System isn't busted, and has well more than enough testing. The most important benefit should be that the "Game" is fun and as fair as possible. (by "game" I mean a single instance of playing BB - and by "as fair as possible" I mean that I understand the BB isn't designed to be a level playing field) The Petty cash system doesn't not affect any single game, but has knock on affects that affect "League results"

Forced in by JJ was it...? Hubris is it..? Why does that justify any change in any form. It was done, the reasons for doing it do not affect the present. Now... today... lets implement change it if it needs changing, and only if it's beneficial.

As I see...
The Issue you are trying to address is that "Resilient Teams" can carry WAY too much cash, especially at high TV and as a result are able to ride the High TV wave for longer than intended. This is not something that affects a single game per-se, but rather affects League performance.

To address this you are looking to implement a change that has an affect on a single game, and also has the possibility to affect all teams and at any value.

The intended benefit may be achieved, but the clumsiness of the change has other effects that are of no/negative benefit.

What you want to do is keep teams within a TV range that is acceptable. (A league play issue)
What you are actually doing is forcing me to spend the excess cash the rules provide me. (a Game play result)

And I don't want to be forced into anything... especially if I am already making positive/progressive decisions that manage my TV to acceptable limits. If I can maintain a TV that is within 1800 and 2200, why force me to buy inducements I don't want.

The more i think about it the more i hate the bank.

Reason: ''
~ bouf - Find me on Board Game Geek
Or find me on YouTube!
Image
User avatar
bouf
Friend of Bumblef**k
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:56 am
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: My beef with the bank!

Post by bouf »

By all means, address the excess cash issue...
But please only address the excess cash issue.

Maybe a Salary cap need to be implemented to address the root cause (High TV)

Reason: ''
~ bouf - Find me on Board Game Geek
Or find me on YouTube!
Image
Post Reply