TR system revisited

[Holy G]

I agree with Dave...its well balanced, if you retire players and spend sensibly you can manipulate the team rating......if you hoard the cash then your team usually ends up giving away the handicap roles...

And people like me like that..

[Ghost of Pariah]

Claiming that if a team is capable of beating another team then they should have the same TR is laughable. Think before you press submit.

First of all there is no need to be insulting.

Second, Why is it laughable to suggest that 100 point halflings are every bit as capable of out scoring 100 point orcs as 100 point dwarfs are. So a 100 point dwarf team has some better positional players? They don't have 2 big guys or near as many players in reserve as the flings!

I don't think the goblins and halflings have the potential that the other teams have but I think at start up they are just as capable of beating any other team as anybody. They most certainly don't need a handicap roll right from the start!

[GalakStarscraper]

Halflings&goblins:
No, I do not under-estimate them and I'm perfectly aware that they are capable of beating any other starting team. But far less so than the other starting teams. Claiming that if a team is capable of beating another team then they should have the same TR is laughable. Think before you press submit.

Actually, Metari ... I'm one of those folks that think that at TR 100 ... Halflings and Goblins are on basic footings with other teams. Eric's TR 108 Orc barely beat my TR 105 Halflings in the beginning of the MBBL. At TR 100 each, I lost to a Lizardmen team only because my Halfling failed a GFI that would have won the game.

Now granted they have a lot NOT going for them, but I definitely don't feel that out of the gate that these teams need handicap rolls or TR bonuses .. not all all.

Galak

And yes, I did think before I pressed.

[Zombie]

To answer the original post, i love the idea behind it but i hate the implementation. Your proposed system is much more accurate than the current one, but also much more complicated, with huge lists that must be consulted all the time.

Trying to make a better TR system is fine, as long as you can keep it as simple or simpler than the current one, which isn't the case here. Even though i think my proposed system is far from perfect, at least it's simple and that's why i think it's superior to yours. Of course, i'd love you to make something better, but i can't say that's the case here.

And i also fully agree with every point and criticism brought forward by everyman (except the last one about permanent injuries), so i'm not going to repeat them here.

[Pink Horror]

I like Blood Bowl's current TR system. It works like a soft salary cap. You have to manage it properly to get the most out of it, and if you let your TR increase wildly it'll come back to get you.

This is one reason why I like starting with lower fan factor. More money and more TR won't always make your team better. If you bloat up faster than the rest of your league you'll be handing out handicap rolls.

TR is a long-term number. If we take money and injured players out of TR, you're adding incentive for hoarding money and keeping injured players on top of the inherent values of hoarding money and keeping your SIs. What would be the point of replacing one of the few long-term mechanics in the game with a short-term version? Tournaments and short-term leagues don't even need TR.

While I'm participating here, I might as well insult some of the specifics of Mestari's plan. First, how the heck are zombies worth only 2 points? They're at least 3, and maybe even 4. Why do Goblins get a break on Goblin teams? Do they have some other option which makes the normal Goblin worthless? Halflings are also a good deal for their price tag. They don't need a change of worth. I don't see an increase in short-term accuracy at all. A dwarf longbeard taking guard gets 1 point. A wood elf spends 2 on guard. Which player is gaining more power? I say the longbeard. Also, which increase helps out more: a human lineman getting block first, tackle second, or pro third? I think block is the biggest increase of power, but this system makes pro cost 3 points. If your goal was to stay close to current TR, that's great, but if you really want to make it a true measure of team power, maybe the point cost should start high and go down with experience.

On a side note, my second team analysis spreadsheet needs major overhauls, so I've stopped working on it for now. That means I'll finally get to work on the AI.



Pink Horror

[Mestari]

Your proposed system is much more accurate than the current one, but also much more complicated, with huge lists that must be consulted all the time.

How come? The only list there is is the one which lists point values for skill and statistic upgrades, and that doesn't look too huge to me. And it's also quite easy to remember.

The only place that it can be argued that this is more complicated is the situation when a player gains skills/abilities, when you really just have to add a single digit number to a 2-digit number at most.
Otherwise I think that the cleansing up of the roster sheet and calculations keeps this system about as simple or even simpler than the current one thus making it worth the while.

Galak: I don't consider you as an average halfling coach. And even you're not winning too often (0-5-0 in MBBL at the moment?). Even though I agree that most coaches fail to use halflings full potential, I feel pretty secure with the claim that they are not as good as the rest of the teams, and thus would be entitled to a little handicap.

The reason why I had only gobs and flings get a lower TR at first is that for the rest of the teams it's really hard to pass judgement on whether some players are worth more than what they cost. The rest of the teams seem pretty well balanced.

PH:
I decided to go for 1pt for skill and 2pts for off-category skills for the simple reason that generally speaking off-category skills allow things not normally possible for the team, thus being a more effective skill than an ordinary one. There are naturally subjective views on the effectiveness of specific skills, like your Guard example (even though I disagree - the elf is better off), but as a general rule I feel that my suggestion has merit.

Block-Tckle-Pro: Still, in a hand-calculated system like this I opted for general rules to get simplicity - if I'd be doing a spreadsheet program like you there'd be room for accounting for every specific skill combination. Again, as a general rule I think the suggestion accounts (to some extent, again I stress that this is not the perfect system) for the increase of skill usefulness thanks to other skills present.

I can't see the grounds for your opinion that costs should start high and go down with experience. Why?

Goblins: the way I see it, goblins are good players when surrounded by orcs, but as linemen they are not. Goblin teams, just like halflings, deserve a little something IMO.

Zombies: I don't have any strong opinions on this, but low AG&MA + lack of skills doesn't seem worth their cost. 4 would definitely be too much, but 3 is an option. You're of the opinion that the AV8 makes them worth their price?

[Zombie]

Good points Pinky, you've convinced me with just the first 3 paragraphs. Can i switch teams and go with the "let's keep TR the way it is" crowd?

[Moonsong]

After the initial enthusiasm, I've been thinking about a thing, but first I would like to take a look at Zombie's proposal. Someone could point me in the right direction? Just downloaded the last edition of the Oberwald, but couldn't find anything.

Moonsong

[Mestari]

Here you go http://www.blood-bowl.net/JervisRules/ober420S.html

It's in chapter 4.1 under "Handicaps"

[Zombie]

Yeah, it's in the Oberwald Supplement, not the Oberwald itself. Sorry about the confusion.

[Mestari]

Even though I can see PH's points about the team management aspect,

in support of the "TR = current ability to compete" -opinion group (that at the moment seems like a minority... Zombie, you desserter! ) I must say that:

Fact remains that in all of the NAF coach rating calculation, it is implied that TR means exactly that. The teams ability to compete in that particular game. There would be no point in changing the rating of a coach according to the potential of the team, as in that case we are certainly speaking strictly just of that one single game.

I wouldn't oppose having too separate Team Ratings. For example you could use my suggestion in a way that:

a) deduct treasury etc. for the NAF coach rating calculations and handicap BUT
b) count the treasury, injured players etc for the purposes of gate income and to show also the teams potential in the long run. It could also be used for the handicap, leaving the other number just for the CR calculations, which are my main concern with this system.

[Grumbledook]

gees your making things overly complex, its taking enough effort to follow the thread, whats wrong with leaving things as they are, its not exactly a hard system as it is.

[Mestari]

No, it's not a hard system, but:

-Current system employs the philosophy that TR should account for the teams power also in the long run.
-Future mechanics (the NAF rating calculations) inherently assume that the TR would stand for the teams ability to compete in its next game.

Therefore I want to discuss how to make a system that would evaluate that ability better than the current system.

Please, if you just think that "why to change it?" or prefer the current philosophy behind the TR, I appreciate it, but the point of this thread is not to discuss the superiority of these philosophies, but to try to develop a system that is
-simple
-accurate
-and conforms to the philosophy that TR should stand for the teams ability to compete in its next game.

Even if you disagree with that philosophy, you can still contribute to this system and help those of us who'd like to use that kind of a system to develop the system into a good incarnation as we can. No point in telling that there's no point in this philosphy because there are people who'd rather like to see that kind of a system.

[Grumbledook]

Fair enough then i thought the thread was about just replaceing the tr system, didn't realise you were trying to make a system to equate to the teams ability in the next game.

Obvious things spring to mind (prob have been allready mentioned i can't remember) is that u have to disregard the teams mng players and have some kind of hanicap to represent niggled players. whilest accounting for the players that are there, the number of skils/increses they have and then things like rerolls, ff and the coaching staff.

Most of all it must be kept simple i will go away and have a think.

Grumbledook

[Grumbledook]

hmm having just read through all the posts, i don't really get why we need to have this naf potenial rating anyway. tr is a game mechanic and its been working in it current incarnation for years.

Grumbledook