Players Retiring

[Slothman]

Ok we do this for our League. To help with the understanding of why.

We run two concurrent leagues. An open league where pretty much anything goes. No leaving, limited amount of games against different opponents. Multiple teams per coach and pretty much just for fun as you organise your own games.

We also run the Structured League which is a divisional type league with a schedule etc. The leaving table only applies to the Structured League and only at the start of each season AFTER teams are nominated.

This is because, under certain restrictions, Open teams can transfer accross to the structured at the start of the season to allow new players to get to grips with the rules and come accross with some already developed players.

So here are the leaving rules.

Leaving/Retiring Players Table

Why do we do it?

I have set the structured to be a kind of middle of the skill pool league, a feeder league if you wish. I also wanted to have that factor of "My season 4 team was way better than my Season 2 team which won it all".

Add to that I wanted people to have a chance to chase Carear and Seasonal records that seemed achievable.

Keep in mind we also run a 1.5 spiralling expenses with both leagues it helps to keep things tight.

I also didnt want one team totally dominating each season and this forces coaches to replace/rework key players and change and adapt.

So far it is working well with limited retirements (although this next season could be harsh). We also TRY to have a get together for the rolling of the retirements (lots of hoping for your divisonal opponent to lose that player or two) and voting of the Hall of Fame so it gives us an excuse for socialising .

As to why it starts at 16? Well there is LITTLE chance these players will leave and it adds to the tension but by starting there you get an easy table up to 76+ but still gives MOST players a chance to stay regardless, unless injured/making the final.

Just thought I would put these out there for people to have a look at.

www.albany.bloodbowlleague.com

[mattgslater]

We do something vaguely similar, actually.

[Slothman]

Cool.

I feel it just adds something extra without taking a huge amount away.

Teams still get out ahead each season (usually a different combination each season) and you still get those few star players but they are more around 60spp instead of 100spp.

This season is the big test as our league grew from 10 - 16 and this season will get bigger. So its a big test in a bout a month or two

[Rhyoth]

Although i understand your concerns, I can't say i'm a big fan of this rule. Yet, i will try to be as objective as possible ; here are my biggest fears about this rule :

1) Skilling up a player can be long and painful, and it's always frustrating to see your veterans leaving your team.

--> maybe it would be less painful if you find a way to skill up player faster, for example :
_ give (1d6 -1) spp to every rookie player (and/or for each skil gained)
_ before every match, nominate the captain of your team, this guy will receive 1 spp bonus after the match


2) There will always be one unlucky coach who will roll only 6 when he shouldn't, which will make him start a new season with nothing but 6-7 lineman and a whole team to buy (again)

--> personnally, i'd give N x 10,000 GP to a team for each retired player (or find another way to help coach replacing lost players)


3) I think your second table need a complete revision since :
_the fees to keep a player who "Goes Looking" is globally inferior or (comparable) to most linemen price
_ the fees to keep a player who is "Poached" is globally inferior or (comparable) to most positionnals price
That means the only reason not retaining a player (assuming you want to keep him) is because you are broke ...

That could lead to a vicious circle where poor and/or weak teams become even poorer and/or weaker (compared to other teams) : it may be more realistic, but i don't think it's more enjoyable.

--> the fees to keep a player should be : Price of the position + X0,000 GP
--> instead of "Poached" , you could reintroduce a soften "Ageing" : reroll 1d6 :
1-2 : Niggling Injurie
3-4 : -1 MA
5-6 : -1 AV


4) In BB, teams don't evolve at the same pace :
_ some are growing really fast, earning a lot of SPP, but they lose a lot of players along the road
_ some are slower to develop, but they usually have a high AV, so their playerlast longer

4,1 : I'm afraid that short-lived team will suffer retirements much more often than tougher team.
--> in your tables, add a +1 modifier for each complete season the player has made with his team
(may need too rewrite your tables a little, for example with 2d6 rolls instead)

4,2 : a tough team, who manages to keep most of his players for several season, risk to eventually face a massive disaster
--> see#2

Here we are, sorry to for the lenght of this post. I hope those thoughts will help you.

[Slothman]

Great post and thoughts...will wait for the thunder storm to pass than reread and think...

[Slothman]

Rhyoth...interesting thoughts...some I had never considered and will try to incorporate in the future.

As before this will be the first main season we have run it with chances of more than one or two leaving for the entire league. Previously it has made little impact but I see this season has potential for on or two teams to lose, or at least buy back, one or two players each.

I will go through your points and either explain decisions of totally steal your ideas

1) Skilling up a player can be long and painful, and it's always frustrating to see your veterans leaving your team.

This was a major concern while designing the table. I wanted people to feel like each player could leave but also that even skilled players had a chance to stay. A little bit of league history. Originally started with 3-4 players just playing in an Open season style, organise and play who you want, when you want. This helped grow the player base and once we had 10 meant we could run the structured system. So at the moment (and the foreseable future) we will always run 2 leagues. One organised and one more casual. The casual we do not run the leaving rules. So that was how I got around the threat of leaving players. If you dont like the chance, play in the casual (Open).

Concession here though. IF we have a large player base (say 20+) it would probably make a difference. Being a small town with a limited player base it has added...SO FAR!!!!...lets wait until the start of the new season..big test there

2) There will always be one unlucky coach who will roll only 6 when he shouldn't, which will make him start a new season with nothing but 6-7 lineman and a whole team to buy (again)

Again something else I considered. This was the biggest sticking point for me as I saw myself being that damn coach . Anyway after much thinking and post rule referencing (went through old BB magazines all the way back to Star Player addon for BB Version 2 ) I found something similair to what you are talking about with a compensation for lost players OR replacing with free positional (ie lose a 50spp Blitzer, gain a new Blitzer for free). But than it occurred that when those rules where in place there was a limited Inducement and Journeyman system.

With the current inducement and journeymans I dont think it will be TOO much of a problem. I am in a position where I will probably lose my 2 runners in the Norse team and MAYBE an Ulfwerener....so in my league I will be the first to see how it effects people. This is still a concern for me and can understand your thoughts there.

3) I think your second table need a complete revision since

2 parts to this one. Dont agree on the first part about the only reason to not retain is if you cant afford them. By making the coaches roll on the highest SPP player first and RESOLVING that player completely before moving on it means that the teams with multiple players have to decide to keep that one star, or 2-3 lower. Its a risk. Admitedly the teams with more cash can keep more players but most teams will only need to roll on the table after their second complete season (8 games per season) so most teams effected will be the higher value teams. The lower teams only have to roll on one or two and most of them are only just in the area where 2 sixes will remove them.

The second part about the ageing table. Pretty cool concept. I wanted to incorporate that at the start but than figured, ah we will see how it goes. I LOVED the ageing tables and was disappointed to see them leave. That isnt bad at all, and than rolls over with the added rolls for the next season. Interesting. I like the concept. I will wait and see for after this season to see if I can incorporate it. I even like the idea about incorporating that in as an extra column....hmm..got me thinking there.

Your final part 4 comment needs more thought than I can handle right now. The idea about the faster developing teams retiring more players is correct. The part about the slower teams having the fear of mass retirement is also warranted. But than here comes the main reason I wanted to do this. I LOVE team management and wanted more of it. By KNOWING that you have to make the rules you can start saving cash, firing and replacing earlier to give players a "cycle", any number of alternatives.

So in short...LOL..most of your comments are still fresh in my mind and I am waiting till after this season to see how they work. I do like the ageing one though and there where some "concerns" that I hadnt seen yet...so thanks and that post was perfect to get my brain working and look at things in a way I hadnt.