massive treasuries..

[stashman]

Thats a form of houserule, so it's a diffrent thing.

So is:

We use divisions so teams are TV based.

Yes

But a houserule with a houserule makes more changes

We do it like this.

Rookie - new teams only
Minor - up to 149 tv
Major - 150-189 tv
Super - 190-229 tv
Super D. - 230-269 tv
Legend 270 and above tv
Open Challenge - any tv but no new teams
Fury Cup - any team, that must play in a division
Champions League - any team that won a division last season

So we keep cashflow high so our teams can keepvplay in "bigger" divisions.

[Viajero]

Yeah, I know already it is a house rule obviously. I stated as much in my post.

I am honestly asking for your opinions for the Bank Rule in such an environment where (hoarded) cash can also be used to hire skilled up pieces.

[Darkson]

Viajero's house-ruled environment is just as valid as yours. Your house rules may make the bank unnecessary, doesn't make it a bad idea.

[stashman]

Never said it was a bad thing...

Asked here what the problem is with loads of cash in leagues

Our league is not the right thing, its rare that msanyone use petty cash unless its about getting a wizard for 50k (the holder of Dingeonbowl trophy)

So I'll try again with my question:

Are there many leagues that have problems with cashflow???

Then we should be lucky not to have abusers!

Last two seasons we have "low tv" winning teams in our Open Challenge.

I see mid-tv teams being winners in the inducements, not "cash rich" teams.

Myself having an orc team around 200 tv when I entered our Dungeonbowl, with two ST4 blitzer, 3 well built black orcs, a troll with block - adding Varag and wizard against high TV chaos dwarf team. If that CD team would use petty cadh to get "advantages" it would give me even more nice inducements.

[crimsonsun]

Personally I feel teams should be allowed 200k in the bank as this gives enough to replace a player or two but does not allow teams to become immune to fiscal worries. On the same time though I feel if your going to enforce such a strict ruling then you need a reasonable outlet for cash in terms of Inducements which is my concern. Say for example my upcoming OCC game I am getting 300k inducements already, plus I won 60k last game so add that on as I took no damage and have a full bank. Now 360 is ok but you might end up with increasing amounts of redundant with teams especially those teams like Halflings, Goblins and Underworld who are already disadvantaged because say they have TV1400 up against 2300k of Chaos dwarfs who have 50k winning they need to add so your looking at 950K before any extra cash they have... which is especially for Goblins a redundant amount of cash... 2 star players is the limit which will very likely make you up to 16 so no journeyman players...

Though it depends on if you think some teams having stupid cash reserves compared to others with redundant inducements - which is more important...

[dode74]

My understanding is that the aim of the bank was to prevent the building of huge treasuries within a season which can then be used in tournaments. An example of this is the FUMBBL Cup X where RandomOracle's (then high TV Chaos) team was able to hire several wizards and, iirc, apoths on the way to the final before winning the tournament.

That's not to detract from RO's achievement, merely to point out where large treasuries can be used to "cushion" the effect of opponent inducements. After all, you can only hire one wizard...

[Smeborg]

My understanding is that the aim of the bank was to prevent the building of huge treasuries within a season which can then be used in tournaments. An example of this is the FUMBBL Cup X where RandomOracle's (then high TV Chaos) team was able to hire several wizards and, iirc, apoths on the way to the final before winning the tournament.

That's not to detract from RO's achievement, merely to point out where large treasuries can be used to "cushion" the effect of opponent inducements. After all, you can only hire one wizard...

I that's the perceived problem, then you could solve it in another way, by limiting the amount of cash per game that could be spent towards inducements.

Hope that helps.

[dode74]

How would you do that? If Team A has 1 mil in treasury and is 500TV above Team B how do you prevent Team A spending cash without hamstringing Team B?

[mattgslater]

Cap Petty Cash at 10% or something, then. Then you can splash for one inducement only. So RO could constantly take a Wizard, but that's pretty much where it stops. And that's just like the old days when it was rostered and both sides had one, except the handicap you give up for it is more meaningful.

Even at those values, btw, there are good inducements. Expensive stars, Wizards, Babes, Bribes, Merc DPs… just because Wizards are conventionally the best value doesn't mean that an extra 150k isn't sometimes worth its weight in Wizardry, or at least usually worth something. Heck, sometimes three Dirty Tricks is as good as two or even three Wizards!

[Smeborg]

How would you do that? If Team A has 1 mil in treasury and is 500TV above Team B how do you prevent Team A spending cash without hamstringing Team B?

I'm probably being dim, but I can't see your point at first reading. Please could you explain by example how Team B is "hamstrung" in this case? They have at least 500,000 in inducements. Are you simply saying that if team A is stupid enough to add cash in treasury to his TV for one game, then team B would have more than 500,000 in inducements, and that this should not be disallowed?

All the best.

[Darkson]

Cap Petty Cash at 10% or something, then.

Can't do that - according to JJ it's to "difficult" to work out (I wanted a handicap system based on the % difference of the teams, and JJ basically said % were not a simple rule, so were not even under consideration).

[dode74]

Matt - 10% of what? Of your treasury? Even then a wizard can be bought every game by teams able to hoard cash, which is something other teams cannot do. Being able to counter the underdog's wizard with one of your own is a big advantage, so being able to do so every game can have an effect overall.
We agree that you'd choose the "best value" inducements first with large amounts of inducements. If the overdog gives you another 150k to spend then that extra 150k will be spent on less TV-effective inducements than the first 150k. It does have a nullifying effect even if you can still spend it on something.

Smeborg - We're talking tournament games here, so winning is important enough to put cash down (just as RO did in FUMBBL Cup X). Your suggestion is an inducements cap. Either this is an overall cap or a cap on the amount which can be put in by A. If the latter then you have the same issues as described above to Matt: you can still buy a wizard every game, effectively nullifying any wizard bought by team B, forcing team B to spend the 150k on something generally considered less effective (it is considered less effective because 90% of people would choose a wizard over just about anything else). If the former then B will not get the full amount of inducements if A spends enough cash.

I guess it comes down to this: no matter how you try to limit spending by TV overdogs on a per-match basis (other than making it a very small amount) if they are able to stockpile large amounts of cash then they spend the cash on useful inducements every game, whereas teams which are less able to stockpile cash cannot.

[swilhelm73]

I guess it comes down to this: no matter how you try to limit spending by TV overdogs on a per-match basis (other than making it a very small amount) if they are able to stockpile large amounts of cash then they spend the cash on useful inducements every game, whereas teams which are less able to stockpile cash cannot.

Outside of the wizard though, is there really any inducement that this matters?

If I am down a non-trivial amount of TV and my opponent wants to buy say a star, that means he is giving me a star which considering the fact I have fewer skills favors me.

Countering a wizard with a wizard is a powerful option, but I don't see how it makes sense to substantially modify the rules, and significantly increase the chances of team death, to handle this edge case.

In 11 season in my primary league overdogs have splurged on a wizard perhaps 2 or 3 times?

[dode74]

You can negate stars, too. Taking Morg will prevent the opponent taking Morg, for example. If you chuck in enough petty cash it seriously limits the opposition's options. Maybe not an issue 90% of the time in league play, but in tournaments it can, and arguably has, made a big difference.

I don't see how it makes sense to substantially modify the rules, and significantly increase the chances of team death, to handle this edge case.

I see it the other way around. The rules were set up in order to prevent this "edge case" from happening before it was decreed that the current rules would be in place. I don't think it increases the overall chances of team death, either. Journeymen are there for a reason.

[swilhelm73]

You can negate stars, too. Taking Morg will prevent the opponent taking Morg, for example. If you chuck in enough petty cash it seriously limits the opposition's options. Maybe not an issue 90% of the time in league play, but in tournaments it can, and arguably has, made a big difference.

I can't speak for tournaments as I play leagues, but I have never seen this happen in league play. Arguably it should happen more in the Cyanide client then anywhere else too with its highly limited list of stars.

I don't see how it makes sense to substantially modify the rules, and significantly increase the chances of team death, to handle this edge case.

I see it the other way around. The rules were set up in order to prevent this "edge case" from happening before it was decreed that the current rules would be in place. I don't think it increases the overall chances of team death, either. Journeymen are there for a reason.[/quote]

Yes, but most people will end a team after getting into the journeyman spiral. The second leading cause in team retirements I see (first being lack of success) is taking many injuries in a short time period that you cannot replace. Allowing teams to build up a cash reserve mitigates this, the bank rule would exacerbate it. For example, in a recent playoff run (3 games) with my chaos dwarves I lost a Minotaur, a Bull Centaur, and two dwarves - replacing them all coming with a price tag of $420k. The bank rule would put me in a position were retiring the team was probably the best option. IMO, the rules should be set up to try to avoid this.