massive treasuries..

[mattgslater]

I still fail to see the problem, I guess. I've yet to develop a team that doesn't get a runaway Treasury after a brief period. Once your team gets to a certain age, "crashing" is about SPP, not money. I've never had any luck with Petty Cash, and after almost a thousand games in LRB6 nobody has ever impressed me with a Petty Cash usage. Heck, I've spectated games with Petty Cash many times (it's kind of a necessity in one of the leagues I play in) and but one time in dozens has cash seemed decisive.

1) Bash teams are unlikely to lose (150k+Winnings) in player cost in a game. Value, maybe, but not cost. Ditto midrange teams, and if they do it's so much damage that I don't see why you'd penalize them. This really hits elf teams. Really, ultimately, it's a penalty for the unskilled and unlucky, because only they go broke, and only bad money managers stay broke.

2) You protect your ClawPOMBers because they're impact players and it takes time to build them. If your Star dies, replacing his tackle zone is not the problem. (Oh, and PO saves lives: it will make him MORE likely to PO, so he can't get blocked back.)

3) The difference between races when it comes to hoards is about 10 games and about 300k at peak. Once elves peak, their Treasury climbs at almost the same rate as Chaos, a little slower than the midrange teams who never hit SE so their money just keeps on flowing. Even Skaven, for crying out loud: the Journeyman rule means an 11-man rat team has 5 guys worth replacing until the treasury hits overflow mode (and maybe MVP Journeyrats if that's your thing). Show me a counterexample and I'll show you either an outlier result or a money management fail.

4) I've dumped 150k to buy a Wizard quite a few times, and I've had it done to me. My experience says that no matter how perfect the math works, it's always the wrong decision. If you're the favorite, there's always something the underdog wants with 150k more gold, and if he doesn't have any use for the cash, the match was already so far uphill that it doesn't merit the expense. Heck, even if you just upgrade as a 110k to 140k underdog, you're really not doing yourself much of a favor over the Bribe or Babes you'd have gotten. Even as a 50k-90k dog, where you can get 150% value for the second Babe at just 100k, it's still pretty meh. If you don't believe me that it's meh, two less-disruptive fixes would be to either cap petty cash if you think big money is the problem, and/or to add Petty Cash to both sides' inducement totals rather than to TV, if you think gaming is the problem.

5) If my opponent is up so much I couldn't spend the extra value when he dumps half a million gold to beat me, I've already won. I'm already in his head. He's put so much more into the game before it even starts… all I can do is sit back and .

We'll see pretty soon. FUMBBL has taken Treasury out of their Team Weight mechanics, so there will be a lot of fat wallets running around in what are functionally TV-capped tournaments. I'm predicting we'll be underwhelmed. It's not like we don't have a lot of experience seeing rookie squads up against 2M squads with 2M Treasuries, and it's not like the "favorites" don't tend to win those matches without resorting to Petty Cash.

[mzukerman]

What do you do about teams that don't have things to spend money on like Amazons? We had a team that had a large reserve and was trying to keep their team value low. This would punish them. Of course, we adopted bounties to help that some, but still it seems to penalize them unnecessarily.

[mattgslater]

The Bank only hurts teams that shed money regularly as-is. The only ones that do that are the ones that take a ton of damage to non-Journeymen, and teams at very high SE levels. Staying out of very high SE levels is smart BB for all manner of reasons in all manner of formats. It punishes suboptimal behavior: playing it right means the only difference is you jettison cash as fast as you take it in hiring/firing coaches (or taking Babes out of petty cash or whatever) and you hope Nuffle doesn't hammer you beyond recognition 'cause you can't just bounce right back anymore. Only hurts the teams the new rules screw, plus the coaches who haven't figured out the new rules yet, and maybe the odd team that takes a whopping gets kept down. Solution in search of a problem, doling out damage in the process.

[dode74]

Subjectively, I disagree with you there Matt. I'd like to know what data you're basing your conclusions on, especially at point 3, since the numbers you're using seem quite specific.

[Pedda]

Pedda,

The banking rule simply states the first 150K in your treasury does not add anything to your TV. Any amount in the treasury after this first 150K counts.

The current official rules (CRP) state all money in treasury does not add anything to TV.

If a team has 400K in their treasury then 400K- 150K = 250K would be added to their team value before checking for underdog/overdog and base inducements.

Cheers,
Michael

So, I create a new 'fling team for say 600k. I've got 400k in the treasury and would then have a TV of 850. Correct?
I'm then facing of against a new team with a TV of 1000.
To get Deeprooth and a Chef, I'd have to spend 400k-150k from my own treasury, but in doing that, I'm giving my opponent the same amount to play around with.

I guess it would just be a problem for one game, since I'd just have a maximum of 150k in the treasury after that first game and/or a bunch of journeymen.

Doesn't seem fair to the stunty teams if you ask me

[dode74]

You'd have 600k in the team, 150k in the bank and 250k in the treasury. Your TV would be 850.
Your opponent would give you a further 150k in free inducements.
You could spend 150k for free and would need another 250k from treasury to get Deeproot and a Chef.

Assuming you did that then the second game you would have 600k in the team and 150k in the bank, giving you a TV of 600.
Your opponent at 1000k would give you 400k in free inducements, giving you deeproot and a chef.

[Kikurasis]

Or, alternatively, on creation, you can burn the treasury by buying team goods and letting them go. That way, you have 0k gold in the treasure, 150k in the bank, and are worth 600k for calculating inducements (giving you 400k vs. a 1000k team).

[mattgslater]

Subjectively, I disagree with you there Matt. I'd like to know what data you're basing your conclusions on, especially at point 3, since the numbers you're using seem quite specific.

Empiricism. About 1000 games in CRP, and as far as I can tell the only problem with the money rules is that they're boring. That, and there's a little learning curve when it comes to proper use of Treasury (read: learning to leave it alone). Re point 3, 300k ~ 10 games ~ about how much longer it takes to right your ship and flood your bank for a struggling low-AV team compared to a team that stays healthy.

[celticgriffon]

I really don't like boring. I would like every dollar to matter no matter what the TV or skill set of the team. I think part of the fun of an ongoing campaign is having terse and tense decisions on what to buy, what not to buy, how much to keep saved, etc.

In any game having the money to buy whatever you want whenever you want usually means the game is dull. In my opinion having excrutiating decision trees which are full of angst make a game worth playing. If I buy x then I have to sacrifice y and honestly both choices seem equally awesome... To me, that is an indication of a great game.

I am 14 games into a league with my Chaos Dwarfs. I wish I had tougher decisions to make already. I have already bought too many re-rolls (according to many on this site) but perhaps it was idleness in having all this extra cash.

Perhaps the cost of everything needs an overhaul when it comes to long term play? I truly feel tense decisions are the key to what makes a game exciting and interesting.

Maybe journeymen should cost something? Maybe inducements need to cost more? I am not sure what the next steps should be to be honest. I am just thinking out loud.

And of course maybe nothing needs to be changed. But having a bank system in place would at least bring more decision making into the leagues. And I feel that is definitely a good thing.

~Michael

[mattgslater]

Well, let me break out that "boring" bit.

Once your team has gotten to a certain point, if you peak out under 2m, your Treasury will just sit there, and if you never touch it, the actual number becomes abstract.

For young teams, the game is about the same either way. You're loading up, replacing losses, doing cute management tricks, until you get together all the stuff you want and 150k. There are some differences: for example, the Secret of NUFL wanted to go to a Rat Ogre build as quickly as feasible, but I didn't want to stay broke all the time. So I didn't replace losses or anything until I got enough money to hire a Rat Ogre and fill up to 12 bodies, and then re-hire some lost players when inevitably they go down. I wouldn't have done that with the Bank rules.

For older teams, the current rules mostly give you flexibility. If I get tired of playing slower, tougher Humans before I get tired of Malachite the Waaaaghdansa, I can cut 3 Linos and pick up 4 BOBs, poof. Did my team get any better? Not really, or maybe by about as much as my TV went up (I'd probably only get two). But if a bunch of guys die, the drama is about the skills and stuff they took with them, and about how to rebuild the rookies, more than it is about whether I can afford it.

Also note that some races, usually the ones with AV9 blockers that are hard to rebuild, have a very high potential peak. Once you hit a sustainable 2.05 or Nuffle forbid 2.2M, any expenditures are a one-way trip. I play in the NBFL, where the TVs get very high and all teams get a 400k cushion to start every season, and if you look at the treasuries in our leagues, you'll see a lot of teams over 2.04M and under 400k (myself included), and because the high-TV opponents are so good at tearing them apart, teams lose money week over week so that by the end of the 14-game season it's easy to go broke!

[dode74]

Subjectively, I disagree with you there Matt. I'd like to know what data you're basing your conclusions on, especially at point 3, since the numbers you're using seem quite specific.

Empiricism. About 1000 games in CRP, and as far as I can tell the only problem with the money rules is that they're boring. That, and there's a little learning curve when it comes to proper use of Treasury (read: learning to leave it alone). Re point 3, 300k ~ 10 games ~ about how much longer it takes to right your ship and flood your bank for a struggling low-AV team compared to a team that stays healthy.

So experience, rather than a study of the data. Thanks.

[swilhelm73]

What is the real reason for the bank rules?

Are the races that tend to get large cash surpluses winning more games then expected of a tier one team? Are they specifically doing in on the ability to pay for a inducements out of petty cash?

The problems I see are that

a) People want to play "bash" teams more then say elves
b) Elves are NOT under performing in terms of winning

Here, for example are FUMBBL's race order by winning percentage for 2013:

Race
==============================================================================
Amazon
Skaven
Necromantic
Wood Elves
Undead
Elf
Lizardman
Dark Elf
Chaos Dwarf
High Elf
Norse
Dwarf
Human
Nurgle
Chaos
Khemri
Chaos Pact
Slann
Underworld
Orc
Vampire
Halfling
Goblin
Ogre

The big jumps are between Zons and Skaven and then Chaos Dwarf and High Elf.

https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphp ... ic&t=24472

[celticgriffon]

The link that was provided - shouldn't we be looking specifically at the LEAGUE data for high value (200+ TV)? Sorry I don't play on FUMBBLE so I don't really know the differences between the formats.

On page three of the thread there is a ranking list of league info.

Here is what it shows:
Rank Race Win %
1. Undead 54.53%
2. Skaven 54.48
3. Wood Elf 54.37
4. Dark Elf 53.76
5. Amazon 53.59
6. Lizardmen 53.46
7. Chaos Dwarf 52.59
8. Chaos 52.35
9. Pro Elf 52.14
10. Necromantic 51.85

This seems pretty tight to me. But I would say the AG teams are winning this race not?

All I know is that I want money to count in the league and I would rather have spending be necessary and also painful. Being able to build 500+K treasuries seems like a waste. I want players to have to make constant decisions about what to do with every dollar earned.

Michael

[mattgslater]

Look, break out the win % data however you want and you will see that LRB6 has only one loser, and it is Orcs. Wood Elves used to be totally dominant, but TPOMB now says they're just really good. Undead used to be awesome but their lack of mobile S skill players and the TPOMB vs Ghouls really cramp their style these days, and again, they're merely good. Skaven have benefitted from the new rules, but they're still only good because TPOMB. Chaos are winners because Claw (baller mutants without doubles doesn't hurt, just wait for a guy to hit doubles or 11 at 6 or 16, and he'll be awesome), and CDs were always good and still are because TPOMB.

Elves win because people play kill. Chaos is popular, and the circle of power goes: Chaos eats Orcs, Orcs eat Humans, Humans eat Elves, Elves eat Chaos, everybody eats Stunty. Everybody is somewhere on that food chain.

[Cestrian]

I'm running a small league with a group of friends and we've just introduced the bank rule after playing a couple of seasons with petty cash. Why? Well, we all felt using the money was a bit too easy. As mattgslater pointed out earlier on all you have to do is avoid spending money at every opportunity and you soon build up a decent sized bank. Whilst he might like that (and I think his arguments are very valid), we'd like the post match sequence to be a bit more difficult. By adding the bank you add in another layer of complexity to otherwise easy decisions: want to save up for a re-roll? Fine, but you'll give away extra TV whilst you do it.

So, it becomes a bit more of a balancing act. Instead of being able to shake up your team at any time, hiring and firing on a whim, you have to think a bit more long term. After all you don't want to give TV away that isn't on use on the pitch. Ok, it might not balance the competition in the way it's designed or whatever, but it does make you think about team development from a different angle.