I don't like the handicap system

[roysorlie]

I really have no problem understanding why the MVP's were banned. But the way I see it, the big problem now, is that fresh players get fed up.

Is it worth it, to lose players interest in the game to reduce the TR on the teams?

I was trying to fix up a match yesterday. The result I got was;
"Nah, I'm not really keen on playing right now. Besides, I don't like the new system. I'l never catch up."

People really HATE losing ALL the time. It's very very hard for all but the luckies and/or most experianced coaches to get ahead starting a fresh team.

I think the extra MVP's were a good way for fresh teams to get ahead quickly. But the new EXP system works as well, could somebody please give me a link to it, and we'll playtest it.

I don't want to lose players, because they find the new rules hopeless.

[Dave]

Using the Ratio thing is kinda easy. Take 10% of the lowest TR. Take the difference in TR,Find out how many times the 10% 'fits' into the difference. We work it out in no time, and as I said, it works really well.

[Snew]

The major problems with the extra MVP "fix" are that it was in place for so long and it really rewards coaches for nothing. It's like free money. Take it away and poeple start claiming the deserve it or it's owed to them somehow. That what I see happening here.

What I keep hearing everyone saying is that new teams lose a lot. That's true and it's the way it should be. When I start a new team, I lose too. That's life. MVPs don't help this fact. What they are is a knee jerk band aid fix that, like Galak said, didn't help even out new teams. It just helped elevate everyone, artifically, to a level where they had some skills. I think that's crap. From a roleplaying standpoint I can't explain it either.

Blitzer, "Joe lineman, I saw you use block out there. Nice job. How many TDs or Casualties have you got?"

Joe lineman, "None, it's really weird. I was just sleeping on the bench and I woke up with it. Strange huh?"

Blitzer, "Sure is you lazy sonofabitch. We're getting slaughtered out there. I blew my knee out last game working my way up to Guard. Don't be looking fo rme to lend you any assists you pieceofshit."

See. It's just stupid. Now the handicap table doesn't really fix the problem but it and getting rid of the MVPs are definately a step in the right direction. Now start working on some ideas to fix it instead of bemaoning the loss of the MVPs.

[Skummy]

I'm guessing that you are in favor of banning MVP's entirely? Even with the current rules, you see players who have gained skills with only MVP's. I agree that this isn't rewarding good coaching, but MVP's are an artifical game mechanic that ensures a coach has a good chance of walking away from every game with some SPP's. Teams that are badly outclassed need an extra edge to gain competitiveness in the long term, and extra MVP's are a very good way to do this. Awarding them for a 50+ TR difference makes sense to me.

[Warprat]

GalakStarscraper wrote:

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.

Well, as I promised. Thankyou, for letting me know.



roysorlie

I really have no problem understanding why the MVP's were banned. But the way I see it, the big problem now, is that fresh players get fed up.

Is it worth it, to lose players interest in the game to reduce the TR on the teams?

Like you said before roysorlie, rookie teams never catch up. Or it happens with gacial slowness.


For those that would like new ideas, or just a chance to pummel me on the head and shoulders. I've posted a new topic titled "New MVP Ageing Rule Idea.


Warprat

[Snew]

I don't mind the one MVP per game, I just think it should only go to a player that actually walked out onto the pitch and played in the match. That's how we house rule it. What I really want to do, though, is try the EXP rules. I think they make more sensefrom both a game mechanic and a roleplaying standpoint. That, to me, is a good thing.

[Skummy]

I'm not particularly happy with people on the bench earning the MVP either, but we are using the vanilla LRB rules for our league. Maybe next season we will change them up - but people are having a lot of fun with them right now.

Cornbread and chili! You lucky devil.

[Snew]

Yep, Chili and cornbread on a cold, yucky day. There's little better than that. Warprat will be here to play a game so it's just getting better.

[GalakStarscraper]

I agree that this isn't rewarding good coaching, but MVP's are an artifical game mechanic that ensures a coach has a good chance of walking away from every game with some SPP's

The EXP does the same ... IMO better.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

I really have no problem understanding why the MVP's were banned. But the way I see it, the big problem now, is that fresh players get fed up.

Is it worth it, to lose players interest in the game to reduce the TR on the teams?

I was trying to fix up a match yesterday. The result I got was;
"Nah, I'm not really keen on playing right now. Besides, I don't like the new system. I'l never catch up."

People really HATE losing ALL the time. It's very very hard for all but the luckies and/or most experianced coaches to get ahead starting a fresh team.

I think the extra MVP's were a good way for fresh teams to get ahead quickly. But the new EXP system works as well, could somebody please give me a link to it, and we'll playtest it.

I don't want to lose players, because they find the new rules hopeless.

Wanna balance things better and try the EXP rules ... try this.

Leave the MVPs in the game (ie continue to give 1 player the MVP at the end of each game) and try using a combination of the rules at the following two NAF pages:
ADD these rules:
http://www22.brinkster.com/angelli/bloo ... rience.pdf
Change the HANDICAP TABLE to this:
http://www22.brinkster.com/angelli/bloo ... _Table.pdf

Betcha it helps.

Galak

[Darkson]

Roysorlie, maybe you could presuade the coaches with the bigger teams to retire them and start again?

[Falc]

If all the teams in your league have a lot higher TR, why don't you just allow a new team to start with more money in the bank? It's an easy way to start a team at a higher TR than 100 (whether you allow players to buy MVPs is up to you).

[Dave]

We did but found that as soon as these teams reached comparable TR's they had more RR than the other teams ..

Mo good eighter

[Munkey]

Just read through this thread, we had a similar discussion about MVPs recently with several in favor of bringing back the MVP bonus and me against.

The problem I see is this: one player hasd a high rated team and all other low rated teams, now any team playing the high rated team gets a load of bonus MVPs and then an advantage against everyone else they play.

This is from experience as this happened when one of my opponents had a high rated (280+ High Elf team), he always won but had no shortage of opponents as we all got 2-3 MVPs and he caused a low level of injurys.

In short he dragged all the teams in the league artificially up to his level under these rules.

IMO the EXP aging rules simulate the quick growth of rookie teams a lot better as well as slowing down the more advanced teams and avoid the problem of bonus MVPs.

[Colin]

I had always considered the estra MVPs in a handicap match were there to represent the extra experience a team gpt from playing a better team. With the adoption of the EXP system (ok it hasn't been adopted yet, but probably will in the future) MVPs are going the way of the dodo. I was wondering if there could be some sort of adjustment to the EXP when a team plays a vastly superior team. My idea would be to let players roll for an extra EXP after they have played a team that has a TR of (30-50) higher than their's (not sure what the number should be). Anyway, just a thought.