Hi all, especially Mike,
In terms of being a house rule it's all fine... anything is fine as a house rule. That has never been plasmoid's interest, though - he (as you do, given your CRP 2.0 reference) builds around the idea that he will solve fundamental issues and that people will want to adopt his ideas universally.
You keep saying that like it's true. It really isn't.
Sure, it would be strange of me (or anyone) to kick around house rules that have no intent behind them, so yes, I do want to fix stuff. Or at least make stuff better.
But I don't try to get my rules adopted universally.
I set up a site for my rules because I'm quite happy with them, so I wanted to make them available.
But PCRP+ and NTBB has always been niche house rules, intended for people who subjectively share some of my concerns about the game. Like the PCRP+ CPOMB tweak being for those who subjectively feel that CPOMB makes the game less enjoyable for them.
Everyone else should by all means stick with the official rules.
And if I'm lying, and secretly plotting to take over the BB world, then I still don't think anyone has anything to be afraid of. I doubt even 1% of the BB community plays NTBB.
The rules presented in this thread are not NTBB. And they're still very much in a brainstorming state.
I did not post them here to alter the game in one fell swoop, but to get ínput from others.
I get that I don't have a metric. Then again, I'm not looking for proof yet. Perhaps not ever.
So perhaps I should have said I might "try" these rules rather than I might "test" them. (Heck, did I say either of those?)
Certainly I won't be embarking on a mission to get truckloads of games played.
But one metric for seeing if these price tweaks does anything would be to see if any of the less popular skills get taken more, or the popular skills get taken less, say, within the first 2 skill picks for each player in short term play.
I'd need data for that, naturally. Both pre and post house rule. Which isn't going to happen as I have Little time in my life to collect it the slow way, and no computer skills to make it go any faster.
I could then have started by establishing which skills get taken a lot, and which skills get taken never or hardly ever.
For the table presented in the first post, I relied on my own experience for that.
I was then hoping that others would offer up theirs. A few people have.
I don't think "gut feeling" and "experience" are quite the same thing, but the memory of said "experience" is certainly subjective.
I also get that your method #4 could track skill popularity. Great. But it is not Work that I'm going to be able to do. Since your method does not measure each skills actual power, but rather what power coaches 'think' they have, then asking others that exact question is at least a small step of the way.
That the skills I put at 30K belong there is based in memory of selections I do myself and see others make, but also on the fact that these are the skills employed in minmax tactics, which is a way of trying to exploit a loophole in the TV system. Guard is the obvious exception here.
The 30K skills are also based on my experience prepping for the Lucca World Cup. Res tournament and League play is not the same thing, but it is worth noting that the Lucca App still Works, and contains some 900 rosters to peruse. And I dare say there will be a heavy slant towards a handful of skills.
The second thing you bring up, Mike, is me trying to make the TV-system "perfect", by measuring just mechanical strength.
I prefer that too. What you, and many others can't wrap your head around is that there is presently no way to do that... and, in fact, that is not what you're doing with your suggestion, either.
I'm not saying that I can isolate coaching skill from mechanical strength.
I'm saying that I prefer a system that does not actively factor in coaching skill. I'd rather ignore it.
And I'm not saying that I can measure mechanical strength perfectly. At all. I'm saying I want to measure it better.
And that the perfect don't have to stand in the way of the possible.
This is where I think sound thinking can be applied.
I'm also saying that even TV+ would benefit from an improvement of TV, seeing as how it takes time for TV+ to kick in. I don't just mean the rule discussed here, but any sound change to TV would also benefit TV+
For example, more precise TV was a focus of the PBBL rules.
I think you'll agree that TV isn't completely arbitrary.
Id rather be a 50 point overdog, than a 20, a 20 than a 0, and rather a 0 than a 20 point underdog. (with no inducements in play)
But the system obviously isn't precise (which is why it is good that there are no inducements at less than 50K).
One of the Things that was done was to make players not present for the game not contribute TV.
Another was to not let unused treasury Count towards your TV.
And yet another was to make the apoth weaker, so as to not be able to put your TV200 player back on the field for a mere 50K.
These all make perfect sense, as far as I can tell. Even with no testing.
In a similar vein, I hope that you agree that it is uncontroversial that all 50(?) skills cannot all be equally useful. This is supported by the (lack of) variety in skill selection. And it follows that varied skill values would make TV ever so slightly more precise. That would be what I was aiming for with these rules.