Increasing the required amount of SPPs in perpetual leagues.

[MattDakka]

I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but I would like to discuss it.
What do you think about adding a 33% increase to each SPP Table bracket, ONLY in perpetual leagues?
One of the issues of the perpetual leagues is that it's not so hard to build a killer by playing lots of matches.
Increasing the required SPPs amount for 3 skills could mitigate the ClawPOMB issue, because more matches would be necessary in order to obtain 3 skills, hence more chances that the player could be injured or killed before getting it.

The modified SPPs brackets would be something like this:
0-7 : Rookie
8-20 : Experienced
21-40 : Veteran
41-67 : Emerging Star
68-100 : Star
101-233 : Super Star
234 + : Legend

[burgun824]

I don't think it's necessary. I've found in the perpetual leagues I participate in that killer players eventually get targeted by everyone else (as they should) when they become too much of a nuisance. Then they eventually die a glorified death on the pitch and everyone cheers.

As for ClawPOMB; it can just as easily be fixed by erasing PO from the rulebook instead of adjusting the SPP brackets.

[neverworking]

I'll keep my comments to the table rather than the premise, but I wouldn't do a straight increase at each level. Some key players on some teams struggle to level as it is, and as your stated goal is to push out multi skill combos the problem would really occur late not early. I don't think making a saurus get 2 casualties and an MVP to get block will be very fair. Certain player turnover would be even more devastating. I'd leave the first two brackets where they are. I do think stretching the table should result in more balanced development across the league, and may allow some newer teams to be on equal footing faster since it will be harder for other teams to develop too far ahead. It might make some skill selection trickier as you won't be so easily able to say "I'll just wait to get block and power level this player".

[MattDakka]

I'll keep my comments to the table rather than the premise, but I wouldn't do a straight increase at each level. Some key players on some teams struggle to level as it is, and as your stated goal is to push out multi skill combos the problem would really occur late not early. I don't think making a saurus get 2 casualties and an MVP to get block will be very fair. Certain player turnover would be even more devastating. I'd leave the first two brackets where they are. I do think stretching the table should result in more balanced development across the league, and may allow some newer teams to be on equal footing faster since it will be harder for other teams to develop too far ahead. It might make some skill selection trickier as you won't be so easily able to say "I'll just wait to get block and power level this player".

Good point, the main idea is to adjust the brackets, how to do it is open to discussion .
Lizardmen are one of the strongest teams at low TV, to cope with the lack of Block they could buy rerolls.

[neverworking]

Thinking about it some more the initial proposal will also have the side effect of extending any initial imbalances that happen at TV1000; the early advantages that dwarf, norse and amazons enjoy will be extended longer since the league will essentially linger longer in that time frame. I assume that effect is not desired. Personally I think the game is at its most balanced in the 1600-1800 range as to me that is when some slow starters have developed enough and some of the fast starters have lost a little of their edge, but nearly every team is on close footing. I think stretching the skill bands for skills 3-5 will hold the league in that area for longer. Of course it may also have the side effect of less diversity since teams will be more likely to have a larger number of players in the same level bands, but I'm not sure about that.

If I was going to head down that path I think I'd be more inclined to something more like this:

0-5 : Rookie
6-15 : Experienced
16-40 : Veteran
41-70 : Emerging Star
71-100 : Star
101-175 : Super Star
176 + : Legend

It still leaves the top spot where it was, and honestly not that many players reach it, nor do I consider the last skill to normally be that much of problem in most player builds.

[dode74]

Easier to simply lower SE and add the bank, surely?

[neverworking]

Easier to simply lower SE and add the bank, surely?

Not that I was advocating the original plan, but I think you would get a very different result. More players will spend more time in 2 and 3 skill land under the proposal. Lowering SE will have the impact of forcing coaches to manage around players that acquire large number of skills and thus add to the SE tax; the proposal offered would force coaches to manage around smaller skill stacks across their and opponent's rosters. With lower SE and bank, some coaches may opt to cycle through their roster and thus a similar result might occur for those, but others would be free to build their super star soloist in essentially the same time.

[MattDakka]

Easier to simply lower SE and add the bank, surely?

My idea doesn't exclude to use SE set at 1800 with steps of 100, as suggested by Plasmoid (if I recall well) and bank (up to 150k gold) as well.
The intended effect is to have less stacked skills on 2-3 Star players, and more evenly spread across the team instead.
Another benefit is that there would be less skill difference between a team which played 10 matches and one with 1-2 matches, a positive thing in a perpetual league, I think.

[MattDakka]

Thinking about it some more the initial proposal will also have the side effect of extending any initial imbalances that happen at TV1000; the early advantages that dwarf, norse and amazons enjoy will be extended longer since the league will essentially linger longer in that time frame. I assume that effect is not desired.
.

This is one of my concerns about my idea, although tournaments seem to work quite well, and they are usually played with teams having a TV around 1000-1100.
Dwarfs, Chaos Dwarfs, Amazons, Norse would benefit from my idea, but on the other side they would gain skills at a slower pace (they would take Mighty Blow later than now, Dwarfs and Chaos Dwarfs progress slowly without causing many CAS, as they don't score a lot usually).
It would be a bit harder to have a minmax Amazon and Pact teams (due to the fact that 8 SPPs are required to get Block, and it's harder to have 8 SPPs on 11 Amazons, 88 SPPs instead of 66 SPPs as now) making attractive "normal" rosters, in theory.
By the way, your tweaked table seems ok to me, I like it.

[Rhyoth]

I think what's more problematic with your rule is that it actually favors killers over any other players (except dedicated ball carriers and Elves) : since killers gain SPP much faster than any other players, they won't be affected as much as other players.
for example let's imagine the effect of your rule on those 2 Black Orcs :
a) killer Black Orc with Block, Mighty Blow and Piling On
b) supportive Black Orc with Block, Guard and Stand Firm

While the killer Black Orcs would need somthing 2 or 3 more match than usual to reach his next skill, the supportive Black Orc's path would probably be extended by 10 or more games...

So, no matter how much you change the SPP table, killers will still gain SPPs much faster than most players ; the only way to reduce their advantage is to reduce SPP awarded for CAS, which would require several adjustements.
(as i said in another thread, for perpetual league, i advocate for 1 SPP/CAS, 2SPP/TD + 1 additionnal MVP for the winning team)

[MattDakka]

I think what's more problematic with your rule is that it actually favors killers over any other players (except dedicated ball carriers and Elves) : since killers gain SPP much faster than any other players, they won't be affected as much as other players.
for example let's imagine the effect of your rule on those 2 Black Orcs :
a) killer Black Orc with Block, Mighty Blow and Piling On
b) supportive Black Orc with Block, Guard and Stand Firm

While the killer Black Orcs would need somthing 2 or 3 more match than usual to reach his next skill, the supportive Black Orc's path would probably be extended by 10 or more games...

So, no matter how much you change the SPP table, killers will still gain SPPs much faster than most players ; the only way to reduce their advantage is to reduce SPP awarded for CAS, which would require several adjustements.
(as i said in another thread, for perpetual league, i advocate for 1 SPP/CAS, 2SPP/TD + 1 additionnal MVP for the winning team)

Yes, but with my system the killers would have to play more matches than now, at least.
The difference between 51 SPPs (current SPPs table) and 68 SPPs (my SPPs table) is 17 points. i.e. 8.5 more CAS needed to get the 4th skill. During the extra matches the BOB could be injured or killed.
Lowering the SPPs awarded for CAS (as you suggested) could work as well, but I think that many bash coaches would complain about it.

[burgun824]

How about we just get to the point and identify a simpler way to eliminate the problem we're all timidly not mentioning here.

Solution: Erase Piling On from the rule set all together. Everyone's problems solved.

[neverworking]

I think the concept at least is something reasonable to test, but you're probably approaching a point where anything other than testing won't advance the discussion much. Sadly its going to take a lot of games played to really discover much, so I think it comes down to what can you sell your local gaming group on trying?

[MattDakka]

How about we just get to the point and identify a simpler way to eliminate the problem we're all timidly not mentioning here.

Solution: Erase Piling On from the rule set all together. Everyone's problems solved.

Erasing it is a bit drastic, in my opinion, Norse need it, for example, but I think that a PO nerf is necessary.
Currently is used in a quite mindless way.

[MattDakka]

I think the concept at least is something reasonable to test, but you're probably approaching a point where anything other than testing won't advance the discussion much. Sadly its going to take a lot of games played to really discover much, so I think it comes down to what can you sell your local gaming group on trying?

Yes I know.
Where I live I can't play tabletop BB , but I liked to share my idea to read some feedback.