| Author |
Message |
noodle1978uk |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 06:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Hmm. We stopped counting treasury in team rating in 1998. Its hardly a major change to the LRB but it is one our league uses. We need team rating to reflect ACCURATELY the power of the team on the field. And besides, we are now going to have debt rules aswell.... Counting treasury in T/R would confuse matters 
I've no real problem with it being counted, except when people started dumping off cash for a fee to lower their team rating! Of course I banned that.... |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
McDeth |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 07:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 120
Status: Offline
|
|
Of course it should be added to TR, Otherwise you could sit on your 240k in the kitty until you need it.
Whats more relevant is should Missing players be added to the TR calculation |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 08:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Er - we DO sit on 240K until we need it. Its called "saving up". Don't know why you should have a problem with it or why it somehow makes your team better - because you're loaded....
Less important now with no special play cards - but we still use those too  |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
McDeth |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 08:19 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Posts: 120
Status: Offline
|
|
noodle1978uk wrote: Er - we DO sit on 240K until we need it. Its called "saving up". Don't know why you should have a problem with it or why it somehow makes your team better - because you're loaded....
Less important now with no special play cards - but we still use those too
Because it means you have the ability to replace any lost players immeditaely, whereas the Team with 0k, wont. I think you may have missed the point, if you have the ability to use 240k, then it should be accounted for.
As an example the option suggested means when calculating someones wealth, then you should exclude the money in your bank account |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 09:14 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
You have to include money in the treasury for one very good reason - freebooters.
I have 100k in the treasury - it adds 10 pts to my TR - I use the money to freeboot Griff. If it didn't count against TR then I'd effectively not have any penalty for having him on the team. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 09:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
I haven't missed the point at all. Team rating should be used to measure how good it is - for handicaps and the like. Its not very fair if yours is elevated because you are rich  However I will concede the point about freebooters, which by the way, are banned in our league |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 09:47 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
noodle1978uk wrote: freebooters ... are banned in our league
Why? I've never seen them as even vaguely unbalanced.
Do you still have to hire wizards for the game? |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 12:35 PM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Galak's pretty much covered it. I guess the question here is whether you want TR to be a reflection of team strength overall or the team strength for that particular game. IMO it has to be the former.
If 2 teams are on otherwise equal TR, yet one is sitting on 240K and you don't apply the 24 point handicap then it becomes a positive advantage to hoard GP. What if the teams take 2 fatalies/career ending SIs each during the game? The rich team can replace them immediately and be in fine shape for the next game whereas the poor team can't. Take away the inclusion of treasury in the TR and (assuming the fatalities are roughly equal) the TR would drop by an equal(ish) amount. What then happens should those two teams play back to back?
That's why I believe TR should be (searching for the right terminology here and not finding it  ) globally representitve (league structure in general) rather than locally representitive (what a team puts on the field for one particular game). |
_________________
 Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2003 - 02:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Makes sense Our teams hardly ever play back to back...
Re: Freebooters - long story. They were hardly ever taken, except in cup matches or in particular grudge matches. People got upset blah blah So now they're banned.
You can still buy AND KEEP a wizard in our league - since we still use cards. All the more to jump on with "Sorry Sir"
Though this will probably change this autumn with our yearly review... |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2003 - 08:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
It does not make sense.
To take up the example of 2 identical teams. Assume their winnings are the same, and that they lose the same value of players (equal gold and SPP). The handicap would reamain the same if you include treasury in TR, but if you do not include the treasury then it gets better for the poorer team.
If 2 teams of equal TR (not including treasury) suffer casualties and one is rich enough to replace the losses and the other is not then one will lose more TR than the other. Should they play 2 games back to back the poorer team would then have a more favourable handicap (it would actually get one) in the second game than in the first.
In the same case (with treasury included) the handicap remains the same despite the fact that one team is stronger on the field in the second game than the other.
The identical teams have the same strength and the same chance of winning, and should therefore have the same TR (i.e. no handicap). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2003 - 09:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
When hiring freebooters you currently get a 1 game bonus. You pay 90k, say for Griff, and get a team that is 18TR points better. A net gain of 9TR points. It would be better if this was taken account of before calculating the handicap.
For example:
A team of TR 150 spends 90k freebooting Griff.
They need to add the full value of Griff (180k) before the handicap is worked out.
Their TR thus becomes 168 (150 +1 .
If their opponents hired a wizard they would need to add 15 points to their TR for the purposes of working out the handicap.
Galak has pointed out that unscrupulous players might save all their money for freebooters for the final. I'm still not convinced they would make it. But just in case you would need to limit the number of freebooters you could hire, or impose availability rolls on star players to compensate. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2003 - 09:29 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: Galak has pointed out that unscrupulous players might save all their money for freebooters for the final. I'm still not convinced they would make it. But just in case you would need to limit the number of freebooters you could hire, or impose availability rolls on star players to compensate.
I don't really see that freebooting star players is much of an issue. I've been saving my money because I'm certain to make the play offs - even so I may well only be able to afford to freeboot 2 or 3 stars (total not for each game) and thats from 6 games worth of income that I'm not spending on new players or TRR and getting penalised for having a high TR because the money is accumulating in my treasury.
There is a limit on freebooter. You can only have 16 players - so you can't freeboot at all if your roster is full. Similarly you can't freeboot a 3rd War Dancer. So for normal roster players this isn't going to be a big factor.
I can see an argument for saying TR ought to reflect your strength for that match - but its much more complex to work out and the current system does a reasonable job in the long run. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 19, 2003 - 06:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
How many of you have actually freebooted regular players? I have. I've done it several times in the MBBL and twice in my own NFL.
You freeboot normal players when you absolutely have to, not to gain some imagined "TR bonus" that must be "accounted for" in handicap. You do it to keep warm bodies on the field, nothing more.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 20, 2003 - 05:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
I totally agree with you about freebooters doubleskulls, stars, staff and normal players. However Galak has made it quite clear earlier on this thread that he does not. I was simply trying to avoid a circular argument by putting forward a limit that would prevent what he described as "very beardy tactics" that he could not condone.
Freebooters aren't an issue in my league as no one ever takes them. Even when reduced to seven men against a full strength team coaches prefer to save their cash for a permanent addition to their team.
I just added the post about freebooters as they needed to be accounted for in a system where treasury in not added to TR. This was a response to the point you rightly raised earlier. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
