Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 01:43:37

Actually, I'm really interested in seeing how it pans out. I was anti-bank, but I'm starting to sway towards it. I'm not sure it's going to work for Cyanide, however I'm glad they've taken it on, then we can compare the 2. In my opinion Petty Cash doesn't work fine.

Posted by happygrue on 2015-09-27 01:47:33

I played PBeM over the NTBB site for a short while, and the single thing that I couldn't stand was the bank rule. I didn't agree with everything, but the bank rule (assuming it is similar, I haven't looked at BB2's version) just kills the long-term play of any team but the best few (or those that have very cheap players). How many games does it take before your team is well and truly shattered by a game where they lose 4 positionals? It doesn't really matter, that's how many games your team has before you have to ditch it!

I don't think petty cash is perfect, but the bank rule is a step backwards. At least, that's the opinion of this guy, who likes to play the lesser races. You know, the teams that are plenty challenging enough without having to endure the bank rule. ;)

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 02:08:20

Well bank is now 150k not 100k (not sure what you played) and SE has been raised (I say that, maybe it hasn't?) which helps out.

I feel with a low SE and cash storing it makes for far too an artificial environment. I think after awhile coaches will learn to play in a new environment and I can't see how any team can't play long term, with JM available. Particularly how Cyanide is using them.

Definitely worth sucking and seeing. But then........I don't play Cyanide, so I'm a winner either way.

Posted by tussock on 2015-09-27 02:37:44

The problem with unlimited bank in CRP is the heavy teams can last for 100+ games without having a rebuild phase.

You're supposed to have your team regularly crash after the first 30 games or so, drop back to 1500 or less, build up money and replace positionals, then get skilled back up into 2000+ range and go win a big tourney or something before you crash again.

It works fine for Elves and various others because they can never save enough money in the first place, it's just leagues and tournaments get long dominant runs by the heavy teams because they've got a million+ in the bank and take forever to die back, on top of being able to reach a higher TV because they're tougher.

Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2015-09-27 02:46:34

I'm personally glad the Bank Rules aren't used on Fumbbl :)

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 03:58:57

I'm fine with bank rules if they start kicking at 500 k cash.

If it's in the area where I can't replace 2 wardancers and a lino after a bad game I don't care much for them.

Posted by animefreak2599 on 2015-09-27 04:00:17

The bank rules are pretty bad, but the aging rules are even worse.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 04:00:52

Actually rather make that a million. There isn't really a need to run around with more than that I suppose.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 05:10:50

500k is pointless.

"I'm fine with bank rules if they start kicking at 500 k cash.

If it's in the area where I can't replace 2 wardancers and a lino after a bad game I don't care much for them."

This is one of the reasons why I want to see the bank rule in place. Let's see what happens to those teams.

It's well know that I despise this sort of saving. I think this sort of mentality is extremely........how can I say FUMBBL mentality.

I don't understand Tussock's response at all. Could you clarify or rewrite it?

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 05:17:24

"This is one of the reasons why I want to see the bank rule in place. Let's see what happens to those teams."

So, what's the upside?

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 05:32:34

Well you're idea of the bank rule is pretty pointless. Keeping Petty Cash is better.

I don't want to see teams that play with small squads and always have gold to replace their positionals if they get injured.

With the bank, we may see teams spending the money on players (particularly if SE is raised). Therefore squads are bigger and less chance of your stars getting injured anyway.

Cyanide are also using JM differently. That looks bad on paper, but.....with the above rules we don't know the true effect yet.

There isn't an upside to competitiveness as such. However there could be an upside to balance and a healthier environment.

I'm not saying it's going to work, let's wait and see.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 06:04:59

Look, I'm mostly with Jimmy. The bank rule serves no purpose. It's largely a plain inconvenience and gets in the way of the enjoyment of the game. The way it is now there isn't anything game breaking about gold. But gold being a ressource short on supply can be and has been something game breaking in the past that causes massive unrest to the game balancing.

The only thing I find at best a little disconcerting is that you can aquire virtually any amount with no limit. Hence my suggestion. If you disagree with it I'm perfectly content rallying against a banking rule.

I have this nice analogy to this: In Germany you can drive as fast on the autobahn as you want, right?
So, personally I find this a little extreme. If you have ever gone at 200 kilometers down a road you'll find that a road that otherwise appears completely straight suddenly bends into extremely sharp curves. It's virtually impossible to have a proper line of sight, especially when you can expect other cars to go at 70 kilometers/h less on the same lane.
So, I'd like to see a general speed limit at 180, but this is never going to happen. You know why?
Because those people that are in favor of a speed limit will never agree to anything faster than 130. And that's ridiculously slow.
So.. it's just not gonna happen.

Posted by animefreak2599 on 2015-09-27 06:33:09

One major point in blood bowl 2's favor, as far as gold goes, is that so many opponents concede that teams that would normally be incredibly short on gold(elves) are never really wanting for cash!

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 06:55:43

Well firstly, I can't see us getting the bank rule, so I don't you think you have to worry. I also think that (I'm not just getting at box here) the Boxers have become sort of 'this is our game, this is how we like it, don't you dare change it' type mentality.

However I see box as a failure. Teams are so warped and misshapen that it's as unfair as ranked. Especially when you have these legend coaches sitting on a TV just waiting for the small fish to swim by and dishearten them out of the system.

So I understand that a lot of coaches really won't like the bank, however that's not necessarily a bad thing, it maybe a good thing. The roster that will be most adversely affected by the bank rule is the Wood Elf roster. So what will that actually mean? Wardancers are good, probably too good, and how about the roster? OTTers are pretty easy to make and a more than good enough WD at all TV levels make this a very good roster. Duke T was a prime example of being unhappy in box with his Woodies, getting masses of TV knocked off and becoming disillusioned. However even with masses of TV knocked off, his win % wasn't suffering.

Another example was that human game Balle2000 played a couple of days ago. That team was extremely well balanced, and was given a tough game by a team that wasn't far off of 1000TV short. Looking at his team, I reckon you could give me a rookie team and I'd give that team a good game. Is that a coincidence. A balanced team meaning that inducements work well? Worth a thought.

So......we can conclude with 3 points.
1. Part of the problem with bank would be box itself, it's far too bash heavy. Don't use bandaids to fix broken bones. Fix the bash problem not the bank.
2. Even if Woodies do get beaten up, they're still competitive. Do you have the type of character to live with that? I think that may be and possibly should be part of playing Woodies. It could be that the perfect division would be box, with a team being able to play a certain amount of games like ranked, 10% or something.
3. Coaches will learn how bank works and make a team to compensate.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not sold on the bank, particularly in a League format. I'd be very anti it being added to League in a mandatory way. However, I'd like to add it to box and see what would happen. In fact I'd get a lot of joy ramming it down you boxers throats and seeing you gag :p. I do think you have to compensate though. A higher SE for sure, JM not counting towards TV for winnings, and.......I think some sort of paper, scissors, stone team format to limit the amount of killers. For me, that would be a step in the right direction in getting box out of the extremes.

I don't really see your autobahn analogy (my I've used that word more often in the last week than I have before in my life, and that's no exaggeration). The only similarity I see is installing a limit that is indeed pointless and does nothing to prevent what it's trying to prevent. I mean 130kmh that's still more than anywhere else in the world, isn't it?

On a personal note, I wish you would install a limit. We lost one of our most promising football players to the autobahn last year. :(

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 06:58:34

"One major point in blood bowl 2's favor, as far as gold goes, is that so many opponents concede that teams that would normally be incredibly short on gold(elves) are never really wanting for cash!"

So they've still implemented the double money for concessions?

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 08:00:07

I'm so glad you have found a way to fix the box.
Nerfing woodies is the bloody answer. Why didn't anyone else come up with that before?
No really, great ideaa. First time I hear it but yeah. Sure.

Posted by Dan-Da-Man on 2015-09-27 08:09:45

Cyanide his implemented inducement phase wrong any way, oh and let's not talk about there gold exploit!! Did cyanide even test the game?

Posted by fidius on 2015-09-27 08:14:05

Realistically the bank rule is a hack, designed to keep the cash-management part of the game relevant. It is necessary because it's hard to balance winnings and losses perfectly. Infinite savings is ridiculous. In game terms, you could simply think of discarded cash as the owner taking a dividend (ie profit) and locking it into a trust fund for his grandkids or something.

The bank rule would be more tolerable for the likes of Woodies if winnings were higher at higher TV, and/or winnings were more consistent, ie you could count on average to above-average winnings, rather than risking a 1 or 2 on the d6. Way too much variance. SE kicking in at a higher level just kind of postpones the problem imo.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 08:24:16

I think adding 10 tv per 100k is reasonable. 10k per 10k is just not.

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 08:56:50

Yup fidius wreckage and happygrue have it spot on, kills longevity of a team, and its pointless.

Posted by tussock on 2015-09-27 09:55:18

harvestmouse.

The idea in designing CRP, with spiralling expenses and the extra casualties (and journeymen to cover the teams lower down), was that all teams (but not stunties) could reach over 2000 TV but could not stay there for very long periods before losing players and having to drop back down in TV for more cash and a rebuilding phase.

So teams get better for 20-30 games, peak, get hurt, drop down back down, and start getting better again.

The bank rule is there to stop teams having too much in reserve, so they can't stay over 2000 TV for long periods, like Nurgle can for hundreds of games, and thus dominate league play and not share the trophies around.

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 10:23:09

Show me one place that has happened, I've never seen it. What I have seen is teams auto reyred when they can't replace positionals because of the bank rule. Team retirement is terrible for the game. There should never be a rule that forces it so strictly.

We get the reason behind bank rule but after millions of games in crp we can safely say it wasn't needed.

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 10:23:30

Retired*

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 10:45:21

I think something is needed. Since I've been playing on FUMBBL, I don't think the games been in a worse state (game not site, that's continually improving). For me there's nothing worse than the team building philosophy that is here on FUMBBL......well some of the new roster designs maybe.

I want to see what happens, I'm genuinely interested and I don't see it cut and dry. However a successful outcome for me, isn't going to be the same for most of you guys I guess.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2015-09-27 10:55:53

Yes, an off pitch mechanism to randomly destroy Wood Elf teams is totally what is needed to fix Box. Nice one HM :D

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 11:00:43

I totally get where you're coming from. But bank won't address the min max team building philosophy you're referring to. Bank just makes team rebuild impossible and makes team retirement the only option unless you're willing to lose 10 games on the bounce.

The answer to the problem you mentioned is cumulative tv increase with levels instead of flat skill costing or variable skill pricing. So that more diversity is seen. The deeper bench that you want to see I'd more troublesome though, I'm not sure how to encourage that really, but bank won't help, teams will still be trim to avoid SE.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 14:37:21

Well generally if JF doesn't like something, that's a good thing. It suggests to me, balance. JF and Wreckage stopped with the debating and just went for ridicule. Again, I'm not on either camp at the moment. However as JF seems to be playing there and not here, why not take it to their forums if you don't like the responses.

RE Garion, haven't they Upped SE? With a higher SE I think bank becomes more of a goer.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2015-09-27 14:47:01

You deserve nothing but ridicule, friend.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-09-27 15:37:36

Apologies, my way of communicating can be a little harsh at times. I felt you were kind of uncompromising and it felt like you did little effort to see things from my point of view which made me give a snappy and ironic remark which I hoped at the same time would be understood for its actual argumentative value.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 16:11:32

Well, remember I'm not sold on the bank rule. I just want to see it in action. The fact it's on a site outside of where I play is perfect. You can be harsh, you can be soft, but it doesn't affect either of us, and we can only learn from the data it provides. I only see it as a win/win scenario.

The only person it effects in this blog is JF, who doesn't really play here, or add anything to here, but he can't really relate to the Cyanide community so he continues to blog here. Meh.... that's your gaming site JF live with it.

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 16:32:25

No SE is the same, plus ageing is in play, so after a few months we will see LOADS AND LOADS of teams retiring because their legends age and they can't afford another because of bank .

It's gonna lead to massive amounts of retiring and starting again. Even more than usual.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 16:50:27

Nah, you're legend retires, you obviously have played at least 40 games with the team. Play one more game and you'll have the money to replace him. I can't see coaches retiring established teams just because they don't have the replacement money right there.

Legend retires, fed up with that, retire yes. Legend retires, willing to continue but don't have the money to replace him right now... no.

And bank at 150k......what player costs more than 150k?! Just the death roller, so make the bank 160k, nobody would argue with that.

That for me isn't a plausible scenario. Retiring because of the crap aging/ageing rule; yes. Retiring the team because of aging + bank; no.

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 17:17:18

The problem is as grue said - all it takes is one bad game and that's it, team destroyed, with little cash to rebuild many teams are screwed. The issue bank causes is if you need to use that 150k one game then the next you lose some players you are screwed again. This was my experience and grues with bank rule, and ageing wasn't even in play, which piles on the missery.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 17:25:53

That's playing with a roster that's specializing in a few players. Spend the excess money on players, make them useful and each loss isn't so significant. I'm not saying that's how it's going to happen, however that's how I'd like to see it happen.

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 17:38:27

Yeah I get where you're coming from, but because SE is there people will min max, keep teams trim so they don't hit SE. I guess we will have to wait and see but when ageing starts effecting people along with bank I'm sure their forums will start lighting up.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 17:51:48

So the fact, I say fact I can't remember.....that Cyanide have raised SE, this changes the playing field a bit, doesn't it?

Posted by Garion on 2015-09-27 17:52:51

They haven't raised SE to my knowledge

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-27 17:58:04

Ahhhh then that's a shame.....it would have worked better with raised SE. I understand the roster problem, in that there's a worry that the NAF will buckle under pressure and rubber stamp them, then FUMBBL being forced to do the same.

However with a rule like the bank, it's pretty clear. If it works they may do, however if it's as bad as you guys think, they won't even consider it and it's not an issue anyway.

So I really can't see any harm in seeing how this pans out.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2015-09-27 21:22:09

HM: You're about as clueless as Plasmoid, and that's saying something.

Posted by happygrue on 2015-09-28 02:01:04

Yes, I agree with Garion that this is a wide path leading toward retire-restart of many, many teams.

Suppose you keep 50K in the treasury for a game or two and 100K in the bank. Let's take humans, a cheap team (try doing this calculation with an expensive team, or a hard team, or Slann...):

In one game, you have your Ogre killed and a blitzer -st. Well, you've been saving up, giving a free babe to your opponents just so you can have cash for this rainy day.

Your cheaper ogre costs you 130 and the blitzer is 90, so if you lost that game and got 20K in winnings, you end up with 170 to replace 220 worth of positional players ON A CHEAP TEAM. So you can't do it. You replace the ogre and bank 40K. Next game you also lose, because you're playing with 3 blitzers on a human team, and roll 30K winnings. Now you have 70K, and sadly you lost another blitzer. You now have 180K worth of positionals to replace. You have two blitzers on a human team and 70K to work with. You're also at 11 men now, so buying a lino to go up to 12 is very tempting if you were actually playing to win your next game...

This team is ruined and it will take many games without any more loses to play them again seriously.

That was a cheap team, losing 3 players in 2 games. That is par for the course! You need to build a bank (500K would actually work pretty well IMO) to absorb two games of back-to-back bad luck. It's going to happen, and not letting coaches plan for it is just silly IMHO.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-28 05:05:56

"That was a cheap team, losing 3 players in 2 games. That is par for the course! You need to build a bank (500K would actually work pretty well IMO) to absorb two games of back-to-back bad luck."

This is removing part of team building though. Building back your squad. We had to do it in LRB 4, and outside of box there wasn't a massive problem. We now have JM too. This saving for a rainy day business isn't right.

I do think though in a scheduled league, the bank rule definitely isn't the right way to go.

Posted by fidius on 2015-09-28 08:04:00

I don't usually disagree with Grue (except on politics) but "the team is ruined" is silly, as is playing BB "seriously", but to each his own I guess. However I do agree that teams need a gold mechanism that allows rebuilding.

What if your gold winnings increased as your team advances, with SE keeping it balanced so that net winnings are about what they are now. But when you take a severe TV "trim" your winnings would not fall by very much, but your SE *would* drop down. So in other words your net winnings would be much higher while you rebuild.

I've been thinking about how to rig this properly. My current idea is to base winnings on Gate plus Fan Factor, split winnings equally between teams no matter what the outcome, and give a 10k bonus to the winner. Fan Factor does not count towards TV, 5 is granted at team inception, and cannot fall below 5. FF can only be purchased during the Post-Match Sequence, at the rate of 10k per new point -- so for example taking FF from 7 to 8 would cost 80k, and 7 to 9 would cost 170k (80+90). There would be no upper limit.

What would this mean? First, FF would be a gold-sink for excess cash; fluff-wise, it would be like investing in team promotions and branding. Second, because FF only rises or falls by 1 point at a time, winnings would not plummet even if you lose. Third, because successful teams would have inflated FF, you would get higher winnings when playing these teams.

A 200k (or so) Bank would limit savings, true, but recovery would be faster if instead of getting your 55k for a win you got say 85k or more on average.

The other factor here is player attrition, which needs to be addressed (see CPOMB thread). But a simple answer in this context would be to make casualty rolls only on a *natural* 10-12; all other CAS = Badly Hurt.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-09-28 09:02:32

Journey Men only count towards TV for match making and handicapping. They are not counted towards winnings or working out SE. That might work. With the bank, those playing with a small roster deliberately wouldn't gain from this JM rule. And teams genuinely hurt would gain more money potentially.

Posted by fidius on 2015-09-28 20:26:13

Like it.

Posted by happygrue on 2015-09-29 18:10:13

@fidius, yes I would keep playing that team too if I liked it (heck, I've kept on with pro elves that started their first 5 games far worse than that back to back example).

However, I also play in an environment where other players are going to play the way they want, and that means if we change the environment to accentuate behaviors like rinse-repeating teams (which already happens way to much under the current rules!) then that impacts everyone on the site (indirectly) even if they stick it out with teams that "should be retired".

Ruined was a strong word, but I think that's how many coaches are going to feel about it. I think the incentives for and against certain types of play can have a powerful effect on the community, and I think something like the bank rule would have an overall negative impact - though I could be wrong.