Recurring team costs

[Mestari]

One of the problems with developed teams previously was that they began to store loads of money, thus being easily able to replace players. Stadiums and the like never offered a good solution, as they only prolonged the time required before the team was "saturated", i.e. it had 16 players, wiz, apoth, (stadium + other house rule stuff).
There was never anything that you needed and for what you would have to constantly use money.

Now that wizards are always freebooted, I feel that this problem has been partially addressed: as high-end teams get less money from matches it's harder for them to have the wizard. As they will probably spend their spare money on the wiz, consequently they won't be able to replace lost players so easily. Or, if they spare their money, they won't have the wiz

So, those of you who have played high-end teams with the new rules, do you think that this (with the decreased amount of gate income) has helped in the way described above?


I think that other similar effects could also be introduced. Some ideas:
-Losing rerolls or paying something
.......You roll a die after the game, if you fail, pay something (10K) or lose a reroll. What you need to roll is dictated by the
....... number of rr:s you have and what is the cost of the rerolls. Dwarves pay less, chaos pays more.
-Losing cheerleaders and assistant coaches
.......Introducing sensible rules for them might also help
-Losing apothecaries
.......Maybe a roll after the game. Must be tied to TR so that low-end teams wouldn't get screwed

The aim would be that teams might oscillate between a low and a high TR, without simply converging on some high TR (after which the league is usually disbanded).

[GalakStarscraper]

The money is so restricted now at the high TR end that there is no need for other effects in my opinion.

Galak

[Deathwing]

Hmmm.. I can see what Mestari's getting at. We converted our teams over to 2k1, and it's natural that the real high end team's TR are going to drop naturally through attrition and earning virtually no money. (We're already beginning to see the effects of this, I'll post the TRs at the start of this season and the current ones after each team has played say, 5 games. Be interesting to see the average drop etc.) I digress, the problem is that the teams that have stacked up on rerolls, cheerleaders and assistant coaches will probably always hold that advantage. Treasury, full rosters and FF will drop over time and even out eventually under 2k1, the other things won't.
Ultimately we decided to leave as they are, we couldn't come with a solution that could be applied evenly to all higher end teams. Where do you draw the line for a start? So we'll review at end of season, and we may just simply retire the powerhouse teams if TR as a whole hasn't dropped sufficiently or if the amount of TRR etc. is stacking the balance too much in their favour. Splitting into 2 Divisions helps, the big boys don't play rookie teams.
Obviously the simplest solution was to start afresh, but well..we'll see how it pans out.

[Anthony_TBBF]

My new Norse team in the TBBF (TR 191) is averaging 60K per game (14 games total now). I am starting to notice the cash drop though, I am usually getting 0 or -1 on my winnings from the table now. I think the table is working great, I have a full roster minus one lineman (50K) and I have 4 rerolls. It will be interesting to see where my TR levels out, I have a feeling it won't be much over 200.

[Acerak]

Here's something simple that was brought up last October and might make the rounds again in some form this time around:

If your team generates negative winnings, they have to cover the difference out of the Treasury. If they are STILL negative, they must do one of the following:

* Fire a player (you can't make him an assistant coach)
* Lose a team re-roll
* Fire all of your assistant coaching staff (Cheerleaders, Apothecary, Assistant Coaches)

That would keep teams cycling down and losing those last few things they can't seem to lose normally, which would more or less complete the cycling angle.

-Chet

[High & Mighty]

Losing a player, re-roll, or apothecary seems pretty drastic! It would probably be tough to enforce something that said you could wait a see if you got enough money in the next game and then you had to cut someone. What about something like for every -10k or -20k, one player misses the next game.

As for the differing effects on teams, my leagues numbers

Our league carried over 4 teams from last season (updating for RR) and added 4 new teams. The breakdown after four games has been:

New Old
TR/Game 6.9 5.0
Winning/Game 54k 33k

That means if you take out TR gained from cash (so leaving SPPs, death, and retirement), new teams are gaining 1.5 TR/G and Old teams are gaining 1.7 TR/G.

Old teams started with TR of 123, 154, 166, and 170 and are now 132, 180, 180, and 201. New teams are now 136, 137, 139, and 139.

Retirements are just starting to begin in the developed teams though so that should help close the gap. The TR201 team, for example is carrying a 15 man roster, but 3 with niggles, one with -1St and one with -1Ag. That would be my team. Thanks BBRC...

[Acerak]

Losing a player, re-roll, or apothecary seems pretty drastic!

I don't think so. It's your choice, after all. You're probably overdeveloped if you got a negative modifier and didn't have enough in the Treasury to cover it. Most teams seem to cary weak players, so here's an incentive to drop him. Apothecaries gotta go at some point. And the re-roll...well, once they're on your roster, they're on your roster for good right now. You may have noticed a pull away from that trend in the new rules set.

It would probably be tough to enforce something that said you could wait a see if you got enough money in the next game and then you had to cut someone.

Are you talking about a different system? I don't recall saying anything about waiting. The game ends and you roll for money. If it's negative and you can't pay the money out of the Treasury, you drain the Treasury to zero and pick what you want to lose:

* Any one player (fire him immediately)
* A team re-roll (cross it off the roster immediately)
* All of your coaching staff

The idea is (a) to encourage TR drops via some means other than player attrition and (b) to remove these otherwise permanent additions to your team.

What about something like for every -10k or -20k, one player misses the next game.

It doesn't solve the problem of the team that maxxes out at 8 re-rolls and never loses them. It doesn't solve the permanent Apothecary. You may not see these as "problems," but others did. That's why I threw the rule out there.

Cheers!

-Chet

[Mestari]

Chet's version seems reasonable. At least a lot simpler than what I suggested (separate rolls for apoths,ass+cheerleaders and rerolls).

I might suggest this as a house rule to our league next season. As we carry the old teams over, we'd immediately see how this effects the TR200+ teams.

At least what I'd want to see is that leagues could be continued (in theory) for ever. Teams wouldn't get stuck to some certain state, there'd be enough changes in the team rosters and so on, so that the league would continue to be interesting to play.

[christer]

It doesn't solve the problem of the team that maxxes out at 8 re-rolls

You know.. This is one thing that I've been considering for a while now..
Why would you even want to max out with 8 rerolls? It's highly unlikely that you will ever need that many.. In a league with 4 rerolls as max, I basically never ran out of them. Now, we've restricted rerolls even more (max 2) but are considering freeing it up again.

To me, the difference from 4 rerolls to 8 is mostly rating.. For an average RR cost of 60k, the difference is 24 rating, which will more or less give you -1 on the winnings table and your opponent 2(!) rolls on the handicap table. Or if you have the same rating, the 4 RR team will have something like 100 more SPP's than you...

Just a thought..

-- Christer

[High & Mighty]

I guess it wouldn't be such a drastic event for a 16 man roster with 8 rerolls.

And I'm with Christer. Beyond 4 or 5 rerolls, my choice to buy them is purely as a way to get out of a handicap roll or put off that next -1 modifier one more game, and even before then, when I buy them is definitely determined by that.

[martynq]

Another point to consider is that as your team develops, you may well need less re-rolls so off-loading a re-roll isn't too much of a burden. After all, if the players that need them all have Dodge, Catch, and/or Pass, and a few Pros around to help, then you'll only need Re-Rolls for those Double Skulls.

Martyn

[Smeborg]

You know.. This is one thing that I've been considering for a while now..
Why would you even want to max out with 8 rerolls? It's highly unlikely that you will ever need that many.. In a league with 4 rerolls as max, I basically never ran out of them.

There are good reasons to take 7 or 8 re-rolls on a team roster.

The main reason is called extra time (do you play extra time, Christer?).

Another good reason is if you have a low AG team. For example, when I play Chaos Dwarfs, I use Bull Centaurs - AG2 - as the ball carriers. These guys need the re-rolls, trust me.

Another good reason is if you favour highly aggressive plays including lots of Going For It, dodges and one die blocks on that ball carrier.

Another reason is if your team is short on skills. For example, I once ran a Hobgoblin team. They needed those 8 re-rolls, believe me. Similarly, lots of re-rolls transforms the Undead (they can pull off passing plays, for example).

I could go on, but this is just to show that there are reasons to have 7 or 8 re-rolls on your roster. Of course, if you don't play extra time, then it's a different story.

Cheers

[christer]

The main reason is called extra time (do you play extra time, Christer?).

No, you're right. I don't play extra time...

But the thing is, do you think it's worth 2 rolls on the handicap table against you in favour of having rerolls left on the occasional extra-time?

I'm guessing you'll lose more games due to these 2 handicap rolls. And those additional -1 on the winnings table hurt too...

Another good reason is if you have a low AG team. For example, when I play Chaos Dwarfs, I use Bull Centaurs - AG2 - as the ball carriers.

.. This I believe is a mistake. I also play a Chaos Dwarf team. My BC's don't carry the ball, because of AG2. I let the hobgoblins do that...

Another good reason is if you favour highly aggressive plays including lots of Going For It, dodges and one die blocks on that ball carrier.

lots of gfi and dodge is a sign that your positional play is bad. Willingly rolling lots of gfi's without any gain is a bad idea. You'll lose alot of games by all those failed rolls. I have to give you one-die blocks though.. They can mean trouble, but again, you generally don't do them...

once ran a Hobgoblin team.

Oh man.. And you expect people to think of that as a real team?

And regarding rerolls for undead.. Well. I coach an Undead team as well. It currently has ~170 team rating and only two rerolls. Sure, it would be nice to have one or two more, but after that.. I dunno.. I don't need to pass the ball that often.. Switching to a passing play on a team without passers is a waste of skills/rerolls. Until you roll a double on a wight and choose pass..

Bottom line is, if you have to rely on rerolls to win games, you really should consider looking over your strategies. It's far better to play without rerolls at all, just to improve your positional game.

Low team reroll count results in a team which has low rating and lots of skills.. Atleast it's something to think about, before blindly buying those last 4 rerolls...

As for the short-term team rating issue.. That's all it is.. Short term. If you believe your team has too much money, just throw it away... You can do whatever you want with the gold...

-- Christer

[Mestari]

I see your point about not needing the eight re-rolls, but a high-end team could also lose the two rerolls they have, thus definitely hurting the team.

But:

Bottom line is, if you have to rely on rerolls to win games, you really should consider looking over your strategies. It's far better to play without rerolls at all, just to improve your positional game.

This is something that I can't completely understand. I have an excellent winning record, and I've always relied on having TRR:s available when I need them. Especially for those '1's that I seem to get all the time, especially with AG4 dodges...

What I'm trying to say is that even with a close-to-perfection positional game, you will have to make rolls that you don't have a re-roll for. And that's where the TRR:s step in. Naturally, you can't rely completely on them - minimising the odds of failure by positioning the right player on the right squares is the first thing to do, but what if you still roll a '1'?

Also, with elves for example, I prefer to maintain my every player as a serious scoring threat - if they don't have the skills, they should at least have a TRR to back them up.

[Murtho]

What about:

You may kick Coaching staff for 10k each.

This is to avoid having 1 coaching staff just to cancel out negative income.

Maybe something needs to be done about players too, for example linking
to player value...

/Thomas