team skill rating and value

For Fantasy Football related chat that doesn't come under any of other forum categories.

Moderator: TFF Mods

User avatar
bj0rn
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:32 am

team skill rating and value

Post by bj0rn »

team rating consists of two elements:
1. Total cost of team including treasury
2. skill points

i have played all to many a game where one team was rated much lower but had about 5 times the star player points the higher rating team had. and naturally the "skill" team made butter out of the "value" team about 2 turns into the game.

anyway, lets continue because there is more.

total cost of team can be split in two:
1. total cost of team (including rerolls, fan factor, cheerleaders etc...)
2. treasury (who hasnt seen a dwarf team with 400k in the treasury and nowhere to spend it? - thats an additional 40 in team rating for...practically nothing)

star player point team rating can also be split in two:
1. total star player points
2. number of skills
- you have one player in the team with 51 star player points...4 skills. and he is worth 5 in team rating. where on the other hand you could have 4 players with 6 star player points (1 skill each) and that would only cost 4 in team rating...much more effective than one many skill player (really!)

so, what REALLY matters in team rating?
1. total cost of team (players, rerolls, fan factor, cheer/coaches, apoth)
2. number of skills (much easier to count than total spp/5)

this should be counted to determine team rating...at least for handicap purposes.

just shooting the sky here...1 team rating for each skill? or 1 team rating for first skill and 2 for the second...totaling 3 if you have two skills on one player.
you should of course only count the number of skills aquired...or you could value the first skill aquired as if it was skill number "number of original skills + 1".

that would mean a dwarf longbeard with one additional skill would total a team rating of:
1. total cost = 7
2. skill rating = 4 (4th skill + 3 free skills)

this has to be playtested of course...but at a glance it seems to work quite nicely.

bj0rn - comments please...

Reason: ''
martynq
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 1251
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:21 am
Location: Cupar, Fife, Scotland

Re: team skill rating and value

Post by martynq »

I can see where you are coming from, and have sympathy for the suggestion. However, the following needs consideration first.
bj0rn wrote:that would mean a dwarf longbeard with one additional skill would total a team rating of:
1. total cost = 7
2. skill rating = 4 (4th skill + 3 free skills)
The problem here is that you are assuming that the other things about the longbeard aren't relevant. Compare a human lineman (6/3/3/8, no skills) with a dwarven longbeard (4/3/2/9, Block, Tackle, Thick Skull). According to your system, the rookie lineman has a skill rating of 0, while the rookie longbeard has a skill rating of 3, but of course the human lineman is more likely to pick up the ball and outrun the dwarf. These initial skills the dwarf starts off with are to offset his reduction in movement and agility, and also contribute to his cost. Perhaps instead your system should only include skills gained beyond the initial ones?

I don't know whether it will be popular though - there was a similar discussion before where similar suggestions were not viewed as a good thing.

(Mind you, I still would like to see dwarves start with less skills, as I think they start with too many free skills whereas other teams need to work much harder to get Block and Tackle.)

Cheers,
Martyn

Reason: ''
User avatar
bj0rn
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:32 am

Post by bj0rn »

Perhaps instead your system should only include skills gained beyond the initial ones?
it does

rookie human lineman has a total cost of 5
rookie longbeard has a total cost of 7 (beginning skills are included in cost)

using my rules:
1 skill human lineman has a total team rating value of 6
1 skill longbeard has a total team rating value of 11 (1 additional skill which is skill number 4)

3 skill human lineman has a total team rating value of 11
3 skill longbeard has a total team rating value of 22 (he has a total of 6 skills, but only the 3 aquired count)

initial skills are included in cost and thus not counted as skill team rating, but skill team rating for additional skills takes into account that the player already has more skills than one...thus the first additional skill the longbeard recieves is counted as if it was his forth skill, for a total of 4 team skill rating.

bj0rn - ...

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

Post by GalakStarscraper »

who hasnt seen a dwarf team with 400k in the treasury and nowhere to spend it? - thats an additional 40 in team rating for...practically nothing
I haven't seen it yet with the new rules. Money is restricted. FF is restricted. Money gets used to replace the player who have aged or niggled .... the money just doesn't pile up anymore. TR for most teams is going to cap between 200 and 250 ... I'm pretty sure of this.

Galak

Reason: ''
User avatar
bj0rn
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:32 am

Post by bj0rn »

TR for most teams is going to cap between 200 and 250 ... I'm pretty sure of this
i would think closer to 300 - 350...although it varies by teams.

bj0rn - ...

Reason: ''
User avatar
Anthony_TBBF
Da Painta
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Anthony_TBBF »

I agree with you Galak, my league team is approaching 200 and I am already feeling the capping effects. I usually get 0 or -1 on my winnings rolls now, same with FF. It's a comfortable zone IMO.

Reason: ''
Image
The TBBf is back! http://tbbf.obblm.com/
User avatar
GalakStarscraper
Godfather of Blood Bowl
Posts: 15882
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Post by GalakStarscraper »

This brings up the question has anyone running a pure BB2k1 had a team break TR 250 ...if so how about 300???

My league hasn't been running long enough yet to test the ceiling ... but I have a feeling that TR 250 is it ... I think 300 is just not doable ... if it is then the changes the MBBL is testing for the BBRC should fix that.

In my pure BB2k1, after 3 games the highest rated team out of 26 is 134 ... ie averaging only 11 points a game. Add in aging and more niggles from SI rolls and I just don't see much beyond the TR 250 ... and at current rate of speed it would take 14 games to get there (so get back to me this time next year as PBeM is 1 game/month)

Anthony thought his team would top out slightly over 200 ... I've seen posts of Dark Elf teams stuck at 250 ... so I'm waiting for someone to show me that the BB2k1 ceiling goes beyond 250 ...anyone got proof of this yet?

Galak

Reason: ''
Toby

Post by Toby »

I want to outline the following points.

The current Team Rating System is not an accurate indicator how powerful a team is.

The suggested "counting Star Player Rolls system" is inapropiate to represent a Teams Power as well, because certain Upgrades have an Higher impact than others. For example an Human Lineman with +1MA is not upgraded with the same efficiency as an Human Blitzer with +1ST.

I thing one should not focus on the idea that team rating shows the exact power of a team. Team Rating actually is a burden, a problem. Managing your Team smartly is also trying to keep the Team Rating low and the Players cleverly skilled. I consider that a Feature, not a Bug.

Team Rating is actually exactly what it gives you in the game: a Handicap !

(you could imagine a big company that looses a lot efficiency because of its oversized organization)

Bottom Line, for me the Team Rating is not to bad the way it is right now.

Reason: ''
User avatar
bj0rn
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:32 am

Post by bj0rn »

oh, and why should the "badly" managed team (i.e. the one who doesnt try to keep team rating down) be punished when playing against someone who tries as hard as they can to "get an edge" by micro managing teamrating?

the underdogs should be the less skilled team...right?

bj0rn - ...

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

Post by GalakStarscraper »

Nah ... team management is becoming more and more a part of BB as the rules progress. So if you are stocking piling treasury and not retiring niggled players then you deserve to get handicaps against you by a micro managed team who is trimming fat and spending money wisely.

The rules of the game are changing for the better. Holding onto a team until it hits TR 300 isn't doable anymore, the aging rolls and the money are going to catch up with. In 3rd edition, you could afford to not manage your team ... just let it grow. With the LRB rules, you HAVE to manage your team or its starts to fall apart which is exactly how it should be.

Blood Bowl should have an element of team management in it with rewards for doing so. Now that some has been added to the game, most of the opinions I've seen lately is to make the game even more wear/tearing on players so that they get injured even more easily if they've aged to futher add in team management decisions.

I am in the crowd that says ... bravo!

Galak

Reason: ''
User avatar
bj0rn
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:32 am

Post by bj0rn »

please, dont misunderstand me. i really like the new rules...
especially where it comes to team management. i like the effort put into bloodbowl to limit and cap team rating and fan factor as well as the new handicap table.

but often i find that the team rating system does not favour those who need the handicap...just my opinion and i am trying to express it.

GalakStarscraper: you might think differently, but it get the feeling you are throwing my concerns away like they dont mean anything and your assumptions of how it works are the ones that are true.

please know that i am not trying to insult anybody by saying this...but could you please get back to topic?

the question is, is team rating calculation broken?

yes, i know your opinion GalakStarscraper, but i find the reasons behind it lacking.

dont get me wrong...im in the crowd that says bravo too! finally after all theese long years we are seeing drastic official changes in team management and balance. keep up the good work.

bj0rn - ...

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

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Bjorn,
I'm with you - TR could definately use a makeover!

The fact the system can't be made perfect doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made better.
Sure, some things may have too little impact to warrant attention, but other tjings have more impact and could/should be dealt with.

Take a peek at this thread.
It actually contains some of the things that you said, along with a few other suggestions:

viewtopic.php?t=859

PS - note that if you start counting spps that have actually given you skills, you will get a cost like you describe: +1, +2, +3, +4

Martin :)

Reason: ''
User avatar
bj0rn
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:32 am

Post by bj0rn »

note that if you start counting spps that have actually given you skills, you will get a cost like you describe: +1, +2, +3, +4
not if the player started out with a couple of skills...
starting out with a couple of skills is REALLY useful, imagine goblins and halflings without dodge!

bj0rn - ...

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

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Bjorn,
personally I think that starting skills are pretty well reflected by starting cost. I think it would be kind of nasty for the longbeard (or whover) to pay for their skills twice, when good skills usually mean poor stats.

Martin :)

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

Post by GalakStarscraper »

I'm not discounting your opinion, really.

But you made some comments that I don't agree with because my league and my friend's leagues are not seeing them.

1) You had an issue with treasury in TR because teams reach a point where the gold just starts stockpiling when they hit TR 300.

My contention is that this is a pre-LRB rule situation usually your BB2k1 league has evidence to the contrary. Cash does not accumulate anymore as it is actively needed to replace aging players. If you do not replace the aging players, your TR will hit a point where you start earning zero gold every game.

2) Your system would make the following players effect TR:
A Dwarf Longbeard with 2 skills = A Chaos Warrior with 3 skills
A Halfling with 3 skills ~= A Gutter Runner with 3 skills
A Minotaur with 1 skill ~= A Saurus with 4 skills

My point is: compare this to the current system and you'll find that this is a dramatic change of balance:
A Dwarf Longbeard with 2 skills = A Chaos Warrior with zero skills
A Halfling with 3 skills = A Gutter Runner with 1 skill
A Minotaur with 1 skill = A Saurus with 2 skills

My point here is simply that I agree more with the current equations than the ones that would occur with the suggested change.

The only change to the TR process that I would agree with is that TR be split into team and effective. Team TR would be calculated the way it is currently and be used for the gold winnings modifiers at the end of the match. Effective TR would be the normal TR calculation but Seriously Injured players missing the game would not count. Effective TR would be used for the handicap table.

I would still include failed Niggle roll players and treasury in effective TR for the simple reason that I think encouraging effective team management adds an excellent tactical level to the game. Removing these from effective TR would encourage poor team management. I also still believe in the SPP/5 formula. Only counting skills removes any credit that a player is 90% towards his next skill ... a player that is one TD away from skill #5 is a more valuable player than one that just got skill #4. Granted his impact to the match at hand is the same, but in overall team management his value is greater and again I encourage anything that makes a coach look at his team long term rather than match by match.

So I'm not 100% in the TR is okay group, but I think it just needs tweaked slightly by removing SI players from TR for the handicap instead of changed completely.

Galak

Reason: ''
Post Reply