won match modifier

[valedictor]

In my league of relative newbies, pretty much all of us seem to think that the +1 modifier for winning a match when rolling for treasury is a bit on the lean side. More often than we like, it is the case that the loser will end up with a bigger slice of the cash. We are thinking of increasing the modifier to +2, but i thought i would check out the general opinion of implementing this change on here. What i would like to know is;

a.) Does anyone else think that +1 isn't really enough reward for a hard fought victory?

b.) If we choose to increase the modifier, will we run the risk of unbalancing the financial aspects of the game significantly in the long run? (do coaches with lots of league experience find that the +1 adequately rewards a succesful team anyway? / will increasing the modifier make it unreasonably tough for weaker teams to keep their income at a level which will maintain purchasing potential comparative to the strong teams over the course of,say a 20 game league, or will the gulf between the teams become too great?)

c.) Are we better off just leaving it as it is?


Look forward to your comments, cheers, John

[Bevan]

Some leagues use +2 for a win and +1 for a draw.

I haven't tried this, but for less experienced coaches it might be better for team development.

[longfang]

Leave it as it is. It helps maintain a balance amongst the teams in the league and in the long run the new winnings table works well. In third edition teams had large treasuries, full rosters, all the star players they could take and huge fan factors. If these rules make it a struggle for teams to have full rosters because they can't afford to replace deaths and retirements then thats a good thing. Fast agile teams use to have enough reserves to take a battering and still win a league in their second season whilst teams like dwarfs who could clock up casualties and do well in their first season plumeted down to the bottom of the table in their second season. It should be hard to earn money and develop teams, basic blood bowl is by far more entertaining than super leagues.

[GalakStarscraper]

Agree with what Longfang said.

Galak

[neoliminal]

If you must play with this number, try this: subtract 1 for the loser. That is like giving the winner +2.

[Mestari]

10k money is not enough to reward the winner. Alone. But you're forgetting that the winner also gets:
a). Probably more SPP's
b). Better chances of increasing their FF
c). A victorious game.
d). Prestige among the other coaches

So all in all I feel that the +1 is more than sufficient. If you have a problem with the losing team getting more money, say that the winners spent most of theirs while organising a feast to celebrate their victory!

[valedictor]

Cheers for the experienced players' perspective guys. In light of your comments, i'll go along with your recommendations and keep it at +1.

All the best, John

[Zombie]

I once had the same thought you did and designed the following to counter this problem:

Instead of rolling 1D6 and adding +1, do the following. Winnner rolls 2D6 and keeps the higher number rolled. Loser rolls 2D6 and keeps the lower number. In case of a draw, simply roll 1D6.

This accomplishes two things:
- Makes the average difference of money between winning and losing 20k instead of a mere 10k.
- Makes it very rare (but still far from impossible) for the losing team to get more money than the winning team.

It worked pretty well the couple leagues that used it.

P.S. I like your avatar.

[Mestari]

Zombie:
otherwise that would be nice, but I'm afraid it could easily perpetuate the downfall of a team that is already in the "bad circle", i.e. they've lost players, they're losing their games, losing more players etc. The fact that the winnings table is quite equal to both teams helps those teams get a grip before their TR has dropped tremendously.