Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
User avatar
SirIronclad
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 October 2015, 18:57
Twitter: @SirIronclad

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby SirIronclad » 04 October 2016, 12:46

Why would you need to change the inducement system? Or do you mean the "cash >150k counting towards TV" bit?
If I understand you, you want the ability to save any amount of cash which you're not planning on spending on inducements and not have it count towards TV anyway, right? What else are your two "hedge funds" for if not exactly that?
So we're talking about your suggestion as an addition to mine rather than being a counterproprosal?

Well they could just implement the actual tabletop rules that require the coach to nominate how much petty cash they wanted to use on the match at the inducements stage and it would no longer be a problem.
Cyanide settled for the current system for a reason so I based my suggestion on that.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby dode74 » 04 October 2016, 12:50

So we're talking about your suggestion as an addition to mine rather than being a counterproprosal?
Either one. I think it does what you want (allows teams to save cash in case of a blowout) while preventing unfettered runaways upwards for those team which get lucky with cash and casualty rolls. Personally I would implement it with the Petty Cash rules as Kurgol suggests.
Last edited by dode74 on 04 October 2016, 12:53, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby dode74 » 04 October 2016, 12:53

To get back to your suggestion, the bank as it stands is something of a risk vs reward thing. If you want to be able to save for that blowout then you take the hit in terms of TV, whereas if you're willing to take the risk then you stick rigidly below 150k (or whatever you set the bank to).
Image

User avatar
SirIronclad
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 October 2015, 18:57
Twitter: @SirIronclad

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby SirIronclad » 04 October 2016, 13:09

Like I've mentiond earlier I made this thread because it would seem Cyanide wants to keep their inducement system. Having a more sophisticated bank rule sounds like compromise everyone could live with. I really like your concept for Spiraling Expenses, though. Would definitely fix some of the issues with high TV we're experiencing currently.
To get back to your suggestion, the bank as it stands is something of a risk vs reward thing. If you want to be able to save for that blowout then you take the hit in terms of TV, whereas if you're willing to take the risk then you stick rigidly below 150k (or whatever you set the bank to).
The system as it is now is way too punishing. I really don't get why we have this huge difference compared to other Blood Bowl platforms in BB2. If you really think there should be some kind of limitations to have that risk vs reward aspect I'd go with this:
Might work, but I would still count the playerpool money somewhat towards TV, not fully but some fraction. Reasoning behind it rather straight forward, money in the stadium fond doesn't involve and gain towards the game, while the other 2 pools can more or less directly influence the team/game.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby dode74 » 04 October 2016, 13:15

I really don't get why we have this huge difference compared to other Blood Bowl platforms in BB2.
Cyanide settled for the current system for a reason...
;)

More seriously, the bank was "tested" (in the Vault, which was TT based) at 100k. 150k was suggested to allow a team to buy any single player they would need to (which, after winnings, is true for all but the Bloodthirster). If I understand you the issue is recovery from multiple injury situations, which would require multiple games to get back from. There are two approaches: make it easier to save cash (which could get complex, particularly if we're not to have an effect on inducements), or reduce the odds of a blowout happening.
Image

User avatar
SirIronclad
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 October 2015, 18:57
Twitter: @SirIronclad

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby SirIronclad » 04 October 2016, 13:24

Can I just say that your nitpicking is incredibly frustrating, especially if you get me wrong because of it? I know why Cyanide implemented the bank rule and inducements like they are. What I don't understand is why they made no distinction between money for inducements and money for players or the stadium upgrades (especially the cosmetical ones). On top of that though nobody seems to like the bank rule, that's another reason to change or expand it.

And that stadium upgrade you've mentioned seems like a great idea, it's gotta be in line with the already existing ones though.

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby dode74 » 04 October 2016, 13:32

I wasn't nitpicking, I was pointing out that you appeared to claim one thing while earlier stating another. It was also fairly clearly meant as a joke.

First off, I don't think you do know why they implemented it as they have.
Second, what distinction needs to be made? Money is money and how you choose to spend it is up to you: if you choose to spend it on inducements then you get immediate benefit while if you choose to save it for something else you do not. Risk/reward, as I said.
Third, I don't think you can reasonably say "nobody" likes it: call it nitpicking, but I have read people who like it, and I've got no idea what the general population's thoughts are because they've not been assessed. If there were a vote I would hazard a guess (and it is just a guess) that the majority would prefer Petty Cash instead purely because it is CRP.

Are you suggesting that stadium upgrade is not in line with the other upgrades?
Image

User avatar
SirIronclad
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 October 2015, 18:57
Twitter: @SirIronclad

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby SirIronclad » 04 October 2016, 13:34

Yes, unless I got you wrong. I made a comment in the thread you've linked.

User avatar
Focus_GuillaumeQA
Administrateur
Posts: 424
Joined: 21 December 2015, 11:25

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby Focus_GuillaumeQA » 04 October 2016, 13:58

Hello, it's a good topic, we're aware that the Bank/Inducements could be reworked a bit so we're eager to collect opinions and suggestions about it.

The current system is pretty likeable for its simplicity and as Dode noted the choice to use or save his money, as a player, I think this dilemma is really exciting in Round-Robin/KO competition. This said, the 150k limit is not fair for low armor teams.

I like the initial suggestion and can imagine something like this:
- The wallet which stay like today with a 150k free limit and +10TV every 10k more.
- The bank safe with maybe a tax system like SE if you have too much money in it.
- You can use the wallet money for all (inducements, players, stadium upgrade, etc) but your bank safe money can't be used for the inducements phase.
- You can put wallet money in your bank safe but not the opposite -> your investment is final.

It even improves a lot the mercato usefulness if you can buy players with bank money and receive this sale money on your wallet, giving a valid reason for the players to sell, in order to bail out their wallet.

No official statement here, just a player thought :p

User avatar
Mercy Flush
Posts: 562
Joined: 08 October 2011, 02:21

Re: Bank Rule Suggestion (save money for players/invest in stadium)

Postby Mercy Flush » 04 October 2016, 15:07

Dode, did you guys ever implement the original Bank rule into the OFL?
I remember there was a good debate about it. If so how did it work out?
Image


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron