I don't like the handicap system

[Ghost of Pariah]

Yeah I don't like MVP's either.

Said it before and I'll say it agian. The handicap table should be cut and dry. No random stuff or results that are situational. The handicap table should be 1 bonus reroll for every 10 points of difference in the TR's. (round down)
Put the cards in there as an optional thing. I'd say take the table from 4th edition, use it as an optional fluff rule and maybe fix some of the results so theyare so game breaking.

[Colin]

I would have to agree that I prefer the tables from BBmag2 than the handicap table. Seems silly that they through out everything that had to do with "4th edition".

[roysorlie]

I agree with warprat. Playing underdog sucks. the only underdog team that remotely has a chance of scoring, might be WE, HE or skaven. But they will get the crap kicked out of then, anfd then some.

I implore all you disbelivers. Try starting a fresh team against a a team with 10 or more matches. You will lose so adly. And they will benefit immensly. There needs to be an incentive to play i higher TR team. The present handicap table isn't worth shit. Gives you no real benefits, unless you're insanely lucky. Take Stilletto for instance. Sure, it gives you a reasonable chance to damage somebody. But that only means the other team will foul the shit out of that player. Grudge match? Hah, unless you "get the ref" it's useless. And even then, try knocking down a team with 200 TR. Never happen.

The rookie teams needs mor SSP to play an experianced team. That's it.

And again, if you don't think it's neccacery, try playing a rookie team with 100 more TR, and compare what you get out of it, and what he does.

I'm drunk. Going to bed.!

Have a nice hangover!

[Snew]

Warprat, Warprat, Warprat,

You like busting my balls on open forums when you can pick up the phone don't you?

Snots Wrote:

Choose your opponents wisely and you can have more MVPs on your team than a much more experienced one.

HUH, what does that mean?

It means that if you only choose teams that moderately ahead of you in the TR race, you can consistently pull 2 per game. I'm not talking about the huge differences where you might get an EXTRA 3 but the extra one games. That TR 200 team that has played 10 games from the start of the league might have 10-13 MVPs. You might be able to pull that off by game 6. True, you don't want to play the Chaos team with 6 Block/Claw/Razor Sharp players but you know it's easy to groom your team up picking at creampuffs.

Then Snots Wrote:

It's true that, now, with the lame handicap table there is absolutely no incentive to play a stronger team but the extra MVPs are NOT the way to go.

What is the way to go?

I already stated that I don't have an answer for this. Do you? Pariah's idea of the extra reroll may be a good idea. It might simulate the extra training your team is doing in preparation for the match for all the role players out there. Help me out here. Don't just crack on me.

I don't know... I've played a number of 100TR difference games. Not 200-300, but 100-200. The only thing that makes it worth playing for the weaker TR team is the three extra MVP's you get. You sure don't score any touchdowns. Even Elf teams can beat the crap out of 100TR Strenght teams.

Don't play those teams that are that much stronger than you. The difference between a 100 and a 200 team is fantastic. Why would you do that except for those MVPs? If that's the only reason, it's sad.

Of course there is lots of benefit for the High TR team. Man, it's touchdown city, even for Dwarf slugs. It's hard to do better on causualties, however, when the opposing team is already all layed out on the field, with little reason to get up.

This I agree with. There's no reason for someone to put their new team through this unless they want the challenge. Just don't do it.

My personal feeling, and I hope I'm wrong, is that the BBRC really has no feeling for the starting coach, and would like High TR teams to keep the upper hand untill the ineffectual Ageing rules somehow ballence thing out.

I don't see where you're drawing this assumption from. I think it's because of the no extra MVP thing but I feel that's silly. If you want to start a new team, find another friend that wants to heal and will start one too. If your team has been totally decimated in the league and can't go on, see if you can start a new team and play X# of games to get them in the ball park so that team can jump in and take it's place. It's up to the League you play in. It has nothing to do with the BBRC.

These are just my take and opinions on it.

[Warprat]

Snot wrote:

You like busting my balls on open forums when you can pick up the phone don't you?

Yep, but I think better when I write things down. Dialing the phone means looking up your pager number, and pushing the correct sequence of buttons. That requires energy and effort, after consumming the largest turkey sandwich I can make in the cafeteria. And you know, turkey contains Triptaphen (Mispelled I'm sure), the natural turkey component that causes drowsiness.

Actually, I just couldn't figure that first bit out that you wrote. Now that you've explained it, it makes perfect sense.


And then Snots wrote something, again:

Don't play those teams that are that much stronger than you. The difference between a 100 and a 200 team is fantastic. Why would you do that except for those MVPs? If that's the only reason, it's sad.

Maybe one person has a favorite team that he would like to play, and another person has a new team that he would like to play. I think it's sad when two people have to play different teams than they would like to, because there isn't a decent ballencing method.

If you use the Death Zone rules and the tables from BB Mag#2, you can recieve extra MVP's and extra rolls on the Random Event table that might give you extra players or cash. Personally, I think they really do a very nice job of evening thing out, and allowing good growth to take place. Why try to hold the new teams and Coaches down?

As far as the BBRC goes. Maybe they have played so many games and have so many teams that they have forgotten what it might be like to be a new person to the game. In a league where the teams are not so equal. Where it's hard to shrug off loss after loss. Because these losses are the only thing you've experienced with your new team in Bloodbowl. If I was one of these new players, I could see maybe becoming discouraged, and losing interest. That event does not bode well for the continued existence of Bloodbowl.

Really, although I enjoy the intellectual persuit of the debate, (nothing personal, really ) I am really just concerned for the health of the game.

Warprat

[roysorlie]

In the course of this subject, Snotgrots and Warprat have had a heated discussion. Snotgrots seems to be downplaying the fact that starting out a new team is difficult. In his opinion, all you have to do, is choose you're opponents carefully, and all will be fine. A coach with some experiance should easily manage to get some even games.

I don't completely disagree with this. A good coach, that chooses his opposing teams carefully, has a little luck and knows when to play safe can make it. Possibly. It will be hard, but it can be done.

But then warprat wrote:

Of course there is lots of benefit for the High TR team. Man, it's touchdown city, even for Dwarf slugs. It's hard to do better on causualties, however, when the opposing team is already all layed out on the field, with little reason to get up.

To which Snotgrots replies:

This I agree with. There's no reason for someone to put their new team through this unless they want the challenge. Just don't do it.

Hmmm. I don't know what league you play in, but in my league you sort of have to play whomever is available at the time. And in small leagues, you can't just (not play) one of those teams. Maybe there aren't even any teams that A. won't trash your team soundly or.. B. scor e 6,7,8 or more times against you.

What then? IMHO, I would have a really hard time playing dummy pratcice for some experianced team. I just played a fresh CHaos team, with my HE team with 144 TR. Not too big of a difference. I won 8 to 0, with 2 -1 Casualties in my favour. I had 4 increases that match. Was great fun for me, but I don't think the chaos player found it all that fun.

Also. What if it's a completely rookie coach, who thinks the game looks fun, decides to try it out in a league where opposing teams have TR 100+.
He will lose. Badly. Terribly badly. He won't win, because he's a rookie. He'll never win. UNless he's insanely lucky.
Don't think this new guy's gonna wanna play much. I woulnd't.

In fact, A seasoned BB player in my league, (the CHaos player mentioned above) Was on the brink of announcing that he wouldn't play the game, unless something was done about the way fresh teams get soundly trashed. I sympathize. Having lost three matches in a row, terribly, having the other team harvest SSP en mass, while he gets a few cmp, a cas or maybe two, and an mvp. I wouldn't want to play, because of the insane benefit it would be to the opposing coach.


I agree with Warprat. The game needs some way of rewarding lower TR teams, in such a way, that it's worth it to them to play a much higher TR team. Sure, they'll lose. Lose alot. But the upshot it that their team get developed quickly, and has a much beter chance of beeing a contender.

[Warprat]

roysorlie wrote:

I agree with Warprat. The game needs some way of rewarding lower TR teams, in such a way, that it's worth it to them to play a much higher TR team. Sure, they'll lose. Lose alot. But the upshot it that their team get developed quickly, and has a much beter chance of beeing a contender.

Why did the BBRC change the rules from Death Zone anyway? I've never figured that one out. Fear of new players?


They replace the cards with the table. OK, that I can accept. Don't like it or agree, but can accept the reasoning.


But what's the big deal with MVP's?

Really, I'm just mystified, astounded... If someone, anyone, can please provide a reasonable well thought statement on this, I'd be very interested in reading it. I won't even post a negative reply to it. Just a big thankyou for letting me in on the big secret.


Warprat

[sean newboy]

Quite simply they were sick and tired of tr 250+ teams that gave newbie teams less than a chance in heck of winning. Chances are the extra mvp's arent coming back, but personally the new EXP system doesnt seem to be too bad.

[Buster]

Humm... I dunno. I absolutely hated the cards, so for me the handicap system is better than what we had before.

Still the handicaps do seem kind of lame.

[Dave]

I don't think the handicap should be decided by points difference. Everybody knows the difference between a TR 100 and 200 teams is MCH bigger than the difference between TR 200 and 300 teams.

The TR 200 team would have in a much much bigger advantage over the TR 300 team than the TR 100 would have over the TR 200.

We use not the actual difference between the teams but the ratio between the team.

If the other teams TR is twice as high you get all the advantages you can. (ie the TR 200 team needs to play a TR 400 to be allowed to choose one result on the handicap table)

You can use this to calculate all the results (ie 1:1.1 or 1:1.25 or 1:1.5 or 1:1.72 or 1:2)

This works really well in our league.
(Where choosing teams of the same TR doesn't work as we use a fixed scedule)

[Darkson]

Dave's idea of basing handicaps on the TR ratio sounds a good one to me, maybe someone could crunch some numbers.


(Must stop drinking- words becoming fuzzy!)

[sean newboy]

I believe the reason they dont do it that way officially is the math involved. It would not bother me but some people would dislike having to use the dividing key.

[Darkson]

Couldn't they knock up a table similar to the on used in Necromunda for working out profit; your rating down, oppo's rating across, cross referance for number of rolls or whatever?

Surely not to difficult to do if someones already worked out the maths?

[Warprat]

Dave wrote:

We use not the actual difference between the teams but the ratio between the team.

If the other teams TR is twice as high you get all the advantages you can. (ie the TR 200 team needs to play a TR 400 to be allowed to choose one result on the handicap table)

You can use this to calculate all the results (ie 1:1.1 or 1:1.25 or 1:1.5 or 1:1.72 or 1:2)

This is a really nice idea, thankyou!



Also, this from sean newboy:

Quite simply they were sick and tired of tr 250+ teams that gave newbie teams less than a chance in heck of winning. Chances are the extra mvp's arent coming back, but personally the new EXP system doesnt seem to be too bad.

Thanks for the insight. I guess, though, I still don't understand why the MVP's were banned... Anybody?


Warprat

[GalakStarscraper]

Thanks for the insight. I guess, though, I still don't understand why the MVP's were banned... Anybody?

Extra MVPs were banned because the boon of SPPs into the system allowed teams to get to high levels of TR and skills more quickly than any aging or winning reduction system could slow down. You can debate whether this is true or not, but that was essentially the reason.

The EXP system does in many ways mimic the old MVP bonuses though and there are strong odds it will see experimental rule status in the 2003 Annual.

A rookie team with 12 players will get a total of 10 SPPs from EXP (or an extra MVP over normal) whereas a team with 12 experienced players (5 EXP points each or more) will only get 2 SPPs from the EXP rolls ... in effect the rookie team got a bonus of 2 MVPs. So some of that old bonus is coming back it just not linked to who you play anymore.

As for the Handicap table not working ... I really do like the one Chet's NAF league uses. Simple and a lot of good results.

Galak