Got your point but does that mean you will stop playing if there is no Prize money ?
Aren't you currently playing this season despite there ain't any money on the line ?
If Money is the main motivation, Maybe this is not the game for you cause it won'tmake you rich and maybe at some point it will make no business sense for Cyanide or Focus to put money on that competition. 500 bucs may not be that much, they still need to sell between 10 to 20 copies of the game to amortize that cost.
I believe the business model will not support the prize money indefinitely. And when Money will not be part of the equation anymore, I hope this admin competition with play offs will still be offered and I believe most players will keep on playing it.
No Im not playing this season. Like I said, there are many people, myself included, who only started playing the champ ladder when prizes were introduced. It doesnt mean that those people only play BB to make money. It just means that without the prize incentive, those people prefer to spend their BB time playing in some other way besides the open ladder, or spend their video game time with a different game. As soon as they brought the prizes into the champ ladder, the uptick in interest in the champ ladder, and in the game in general, was noticeable in the community leagues I am a part of. It obviously created some positive buzz, and got more people playing the game, both of which are probably worthwhile for the company at a cost of $1000 every 6 weeks or so.
They had significant prizes up for grabs for the last world cup too, which again seemed to create a lot more interest than there otherwise would have been. Nobody is trying to be a professional BB player on a few hundred dollars of prize money, but the point still stands that a lot of people want it and it makes a difference when it is there.
What are actually the odds for a player to earn a single penny ? Organised competition with post season play offs is enough motivation... Money is a cherry on the cake that most of us (and by most I mean 99% of us) will never receive.
By that logic, why does any competition need a prize since only a small percentage of people will ever get it? Also, how do you think the lottery exists and gets thousands of people to buy tickets even though its a tiny fraction of a fraction that actually win?
Yes of course some people dont care about the prize money, but obviously many people do. There was even a poll for people to vote on whether they wanted the champ ladder to start asap, or wait a little longer and come back with the prizes, and the prize option won the vote so obviously most people who have not ever won money, and statistically are unlikely to ever win, still care about having a chance at real money.
Also, I dont have any stats to back this up, but I would imagine the stats exist out there somewhere to show that there is much more activity in the champ ladder in seasons where a prize is up for grabs. Anecdotally, I know of many many people, myself included, who only started playing when the prizes were announced.
I do think you have an advantage if you can hammer out a bunch of games early on with certain races. Some races actually do quite well when down in TV (I would say skaven for example... getting a free wizard is probably of more value to a skaven team than playing a team with 150k less TV's worth of skills). Others do much better when they aren't out-skilled, like chaos. So sometimes yes, this is an important consideration.
Another issue with the COL format in general is theres a big dis-incentive for most coaches to keep playing after the 3-4 weeks mark because by then, theres a bunch of well-established leader teams who are going to be very hard to overcome, and starting a fresh team to charge through 40 matches in a couple weeks just isn't feasible for most people.
I would like to see a two-tiered season system, where you basically offer up wildcard spots to X number of teams who have the best records AFTER a certain date. This could work with LE, once we have more teams and the playoffs expand, and there are better tools to customize and format leagues.
So it could work like this: 24 teams in LE, the top team from each race across the 6-week season still qualifies (same as now). For the final 8 spots (making it a 32-team playoffs), you take the 8 teams who had the best record over the final 3 weeks of the season. Or even the final 2 weeks. Games played in the final 3 (or 2) weeks would still count for the regular overall standings, but they would also count for the second-half wildcard standings, so that way if you wanted to start a fresh team but didn't have enough time to play all 42 games over the final 2 weeks, you still have a shot. Or say you had a good team from the start of the season but your record is like 20-6-5, and the leading team in that race is locked in at 35-4-3, you still have a chance to qualify with that team based on your performance over the final 2-3 weeks in the wildcard standings.
This way, everyone is incentivized to play until the end, which basically solves both problems. First, you don't have such a big drop in player population after the first couple weeks of the season. Second, you don't have as much of an advantage anymore if you're an early-season grinder, since there will be more people playing fresh teams later in the season with this wildcard system.
I mean I gotta say, I didn't exactly have a strong opinion coming into this discussion one way or another as I have not been keeping up with the TV+ debate at all, but the way you're describing it, it basically sounds like the major difference in true TV+ is that you get less inducements the more you win, and more inducements the more you lose, in an effort to keep everyone's win rate close to 50%. If I am understanding that correctly, then no wonder so many people are opposed to that.
I understand that you're saying we could still keep track of player rankings under this system (I assume that rather than looking at overall wins and losses, since we're all supposed to be around 50%, you'd be basically looking at who has the highest "handicap" under the TV+ system - correct me if I'm wrong). But at the end of the day, even if that could theoretically end up producing a more accurate ranking of players across races, why is that preferable to just having the freakin wins and losses tell the story? I can appreciate wanting to make things competitive and fair and get the rankings to be as true and accurate as possible, but when it comes at the expense of equality in terms of what each team gets to bring to the pitch in any given match, that is a bridge too far for me.
If youre looking at two matches, each of which contains one team of TV 1500, and one team of TV 1200, then both those matches should include the same amount of inducement money distributed in the same way. Maybe the TV++ thing makes for more accurate rankings in the long run, but try telling that to the guy who has to face Team X armed with 200k in inducements, while his friend is facing an identical Team X with only 50k inducements, all because of some wins and losses from other, unrelated games. If we were just playing some perpetual ladder format with no immediate concerns like qualifying for playoffs etc, then sure, make TV+ an option for those who want it. But when you are in a tight CCL playoff race and you end up losing a game because your opponent got just enough bonus noob inducements to buy a wizard and then "oops, the kitchen knife swung too far the other way... we'll make sure to correct for that next game!".... gimme a break. At a certain point you gotta just recognize its competition, and someone is always gonna be better than their opponent, and that is a feature, not a bug.
I kinda like the idea of the TV+ system accounting for overall differences between races. For example, everyone knows low TV chaos suck, and low TV skaven/elves are at a big advantage over them. So if you wanna say "All skaven vs chaos matchups below a certain level of TV will give X amount of inducement to the chaos team" based on the data, then I could probably get on board with that. But in terms of adjusting different amounts for each individual game based on the person's record.... no way. Keep it fair for everyone. If you suck at the game, get better. You don't just get free gold to make up the difference. Let the wins and losses speak for themselves. I understand why this would be good for team-based matchmaker environments like overwatch, LoL, etc but BB is one-on-one, and tilting the board in favour of one player over the other is just not in the spirit of this kinda competition IMO.
Most of this post seems to be the usual "make the game softer/easier" refrain that seems to miss the whole point of Blood Bowl. The thing that makes this game unique and keeps such a hardcore fanbase around it is its random and unforgiving nature. Blitz kickoff should only happen for the team that's losing? are you kidding me? Maybe this game just isn't for you. Maybe competition in general just isn't for you, if that's really what you think.
And hey, Focus might decide that to expand the customer base for this game, they do have to soften it up and broaden its appeal by making it less "hardcore." Some of the things you mentioned, like the team apothecary idea, could be alright if implemented correctly (In that particular example, I'd be alright if the team apo could be applied to one player at a time, and basically remove a permanent injury like niggling or -AV over the course of, say, 3 games, but not alright if it can just instantly fix injuries and raise the dead).
But overall, BB is fun not in spite of its difficulty and cruelty, but precisely because of those things. I agree there is a ton of room for improvement in the way CCL works, but I don't think the answer is to just make the game easier for everyone and eliminate the advantages of higher TV teams.