| Author |
Message |
Mordredd |
|
Post subject: Another stab at ageing
 Posted: Dec 03, 2003 - 06:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
After playing for a while without any ageing at all our league has just reinstated it. (Largely as a result of two exceptional players.)
We still don't like the niggling/stat decrease approach so we introduced the following.
Roll as per normal for ageing after each skill roll, but not after the first. I.e. the first roll is at 16 SPP with a 4+ roll to pass.
The first time the player fails a roll they are peaked. Peaked players may gain no further skills, but still gain SPP. This means that after a while the player will be contributing a lot more to TR than he is worth, which is an incentive for hiring a new guy. Whilst a peaked player may not gain any skills, he still rolls for ageing at each skill level.
The second time a player fails a roll he retires immediately. We are gong through all the teams and doing all the rolls that were missed when we played without ageing. So far no one has failed twice, even the 2 on more than 70 SPP who caused this change (who failed none  ).
This seems more natural, as the stat decrease/niggling injuries come as a result of real injuries only. Also, when you hire the players they are already pro's, and as most teams in the real world are not made up of star players it seemed reasonable to have a mechanism that would cap some players development earlier than 'star player' level whilst retaining some incentive to replace them.
I would appreciate lots of feedback on this, so flame away.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
GalakStarscraper |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Another stab at ageing
Posted: Dec 03, 2003 - 07:11 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 1562
Status: Offline
|
|
Mordredd wrote: So far no one has failed twice, even the 2 on more than 70 SPP who caused this change (who failed none ).
Negative winnings and 10k freebooted apothecaries.
See the problem with aging is you put it back in but it didn't even resolve the problem you reinstated it for. And while the system you describe might work ... its a very long term solution as most players I know would still be very good players by the time they peaked.
However if you make the overall team pay the price for having stars who are chewing up TR ... then you have a system where the coach has to choose between his star and the rest of the team when the funds start running low.
Just my opinion. Both my leagues are trying the above combo next season instead of any type of aging.
Galak |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 03, 2003 - 07:51 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
Forcibly retiring and causing players to become dead weightsis horrible and makes the game a lot less enjoyable - especially the forced retirement - THATs unbalancing...
I like peaking - but am also for the player NOT gaining SPPs etc. That way you can keep players on etc but they won't add to your T/R - effectively a star player...
Now very rarely will this be a great thing for a team... Very rarely will a player be "just right" when he peaks. Of course sometimes a player peaking is ideal...
But it avoids the unreasonable and unrealistic sight of players AVOIDING spps once peaked!
I also like players getting niggling injuries WHICH HAVE IN GAME EFFECTS.
Forced retirement will lead to payers giving up on the game
I don't want that
See our rules:
http://usitweb.shef.ac.uk/~wargamessoc/whfb/bloodbowl/rules.htm |
_________________
ABBL Commissioner
http://www.shef.ac.uk/wargamessoc
Member #2351
Noodle's Tournies
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 03, 2003 - 11:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: See the problem with aging is you put it back in but it didn't even resolve the problem you reinstated it for.
We didn't really have a problem with the players having developed that far, so much as the fact that they were way out there on their own. Plus we thought we really should have a bit of a brake on development after all. We don't want too many of those guys around. In any case the chances of those two making all their rolls was in the region of 1 in 3 anyway. Perhaps a tweaking of the numbers to make developing into a mega star less likely than that would work better?
Negative winnings will not impact our league that much as most of the teams are high FF and relatively low TR. The freebooting apothecary however might have some impact, if the regular ones in our league weren't such quacks anyway .
"I'll use my apothecary"-roll-1-"Ok, he'll be dead then  "
Quote: Forcibly retiring and causing players to become dead weights is horrible and makes the game a lot less enjoyable - especially the forced retirement - THATs unbalancing...
Coming from the person who questioned the use of 'balanced'.
But seriously, I disagree. The purpose was to have some of the good players give the team a handicap rather than to give some of the good players in the team a handicap. Most players with 2-3 skills will stay on the team until killed or maimed unless there is some incentive to fire them. Also most players with 2-3 skills will be considered quite good, especially linemen. (Miraculous prodigies if Zombies or Skeletons.) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 03, 2003 - 01:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| A system that works on skill rolls will never work properly, because players can always get through untouched and dominate a league. My favorite system is one that i discussed in TBB that you had to roll for every game, but only for the top three players on your team and only after they've reached a certain amount of SPPs, and that worked proportionally to the number of SPPs gained by each of those players. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 04, 2003 - 07:10 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
I'd like to stab ageing! Where do I sign up?
Oh, wait, I misunderstood the thread line
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2003 - 07:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2003 - 12:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Just don't ask me to post it here, since the only place i could get it from is TBB, and what with being banned, i don't have access to it! Maybe someone else could do it for me. It had to do with rolling 2D6 or 3D6 and rolling higher than SPPs/10, or something like that. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
noodle1978uk |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 10, 2003 - 03:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 09, 2003
Posts: 221
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
