How do we bump the Aging effects best?

[Marcus]

Not bad. Have to think about the odds a little, might roll that against some retired league teams to get an idea.

Marcus

[Trambi]

Ageing table (1d6):

Code: Select all

Skill      Roll
1          -
2          -
3          2+
4          3+
5          4+
6          5+
7          6+

You get off scot-free on the first two skills, after that your odds go up.

Think about the effects and get back to me.

John -

Seems good

[martynq]

On the face of it, Neoliminal's d6 aging roll seems to fit a lot of what we want. It gives early skills for free, but then is a harsher aging roll at higher skills:

The following gives the probability of failing the aging roll:

First Skill: Neo's d6: 0%, Current 2d6: 2.778%
Second Skill: Neo's d6: 0%, Current 2d6: 8.333%
Third Skill: Neo's d6: 16.667%, Current 2d6: 16.667%
Fourth Skill: Neo's d6: 33.333%, Current 2d6: 27.778%
Fifth Skill: Neo's d6: 50%, Current 2d6: 41.667%
Sixth Skill: Neo's d6: 66.667%, Current 2d6: 58.333%
Seventh Skill: Neo's d6: 83.333%, Current 2d6: 72.222%

This shows that the chances of failing the aging roll at the 3rd skill are the same, but from the 4th skill onwards, you are more likely to fail Neo's againg roll.

However, these figures are slightly deceptive. If you calculate what the chances are of failing one of the first four aging rolls, you actually find that Neo's roll is kinder on you than the current version, mainly because you were guaranteed not to fail with the first skill and the second skill.

The exact numbers (at least for the first five skill aging rolls) are:

First skill
-----------
Neo's Roll: 100% no aging
Current Roll: 97.222% no aging, 2.778% one aging roll failed.

Second skill
------------
Neo's Roll: 100% no aging
Current Roll: 89.120% no aging, 10.648% one aging roll failed, 0.231% two aging rolls failed.

Third skill
-----------
Neo's Roll: 83.333% no aging, 16.667% one aging roll failed.
Current Roll: 74.267% no aging, 23.727% one aging roll failed, 1.968% two aging rolls failed, 0.039% three aging rolls failed.

Fourth skill
------------
Neo's Roll: 55.556% no aging, 38.889% one aging roll failed, 5.556% two aging rolls failed.
Current Roll: 53.637% no aging, 37.766% on aging roll failed, 8.012% two aging rolls failed, 0.574% three aging rolls failed, 0.011% four aging rolls failed.

Fifth skill
-----------
Neo's Roll: 27.778% no aging, 47.222% one aging roll failed, 22.222% two aging rolls failed, 2.778% three aging rolls failed.
Current Roll: 31.288% no aging, 44.379% one aging roll failed, 20.409% two aging rolls failed, 3.673% three aging rolls failed, 0.246% four aging rolls failed, 0.004% five aging rolls failed.

So the upshot is that Neo's roll is in reality not harsher than the current aging rolls until the 5th skill. My gut feeling is that any replacement system should be kinder for the first skill roll, but harsher from the fourth skill roll (and possibly from the third skill roll) in the sense that you are more likely to have failed one of the aging rolls than with the current system. Although Neo's suggestion would have you more likely to fail the aging roll for the fourth skill, you are less likely to fail an aging roll for the 3rd & 4th skill with Neo's system than an aging roll for the first four skills with the curren system.

Phew, a bit long and complicated, but it was about time I did a mathematical post!

Cheers,
Martyn

[Trambi]

thx you Martyn !
It seems logical and simple and the result with 5 skill rolls are almost the same.

[Pink Horror]

I think the table should be bumped up, so it looks like this:

1st: --
2nd: 2+
3rd: 3+
4th: 4+
5th: 5+
6th: 6+
7th: 6+

Let's think of it this way - what percent of 4 skill players should have an ageing effect? If it's 50%, the current system or Neo's table is fine, but if I could choose, I'd try to make it around 70%.

The other side of the issue is what percentage of 2 skill players should be affected? Should they be exempt, or should a few of them get hit? My preceding table is a little too harsh on them, in my opinion, because I'd like their number to be down closer to 10%, like it is with the official ageing roll. Does anyone have any simple suggestions that could produce these results?



Pink Horror

[wesleytj]

Let's think of it this way - what percent of 4 skill players should have an ageing effect? If it's 50%, the current system or Neo's table is fine, but if I could choose, I'd try to make it around 70%.

And if I could choose, it would be about 30. Maybe Neo's table is the way to go as a decent compromise. Also do mean the CUMULATIVE chance for a failure by the 4th roll, or a failure on the 4th roll itself?

See to me, the way it should be is that by the 5th skill or so, most guys will have suffered at least 1 ageing failure. Now I know most guys don't GET to the 5th skill, but obviously I'm just talking about those that do. I think most players should never have to worry about it. The human lineman who plays his whole career to get to 35 spp is fine by me, no aging required.

The other side of the issue is what percentage of 2 skill players should be affected? Should they be exempt, or should a few of them get hit?

In case you couldn't guess I'd say exempt. First 2 skills for free, after that a modest chance.

[Pink Horror]

I did mean the cumulative chance. Neo's table and the current table both have about the same odds for 4 skill players, which is why I felt like addressing the topic. I thought, what's the point? Is making ageing difficult to avoid for the 7-skill players worth making it so much easier to avoid for the budding stars? I believe (cumulatively) a few 2-skill players should be affected, and maybe half of the 3-skill players, and most of the 4-skill players. That's the range of players that need to be dealt with for balance. Once a guy is around 5 skills or higher, I think the TR value of all those SPPs becomes a real burden and that, along with any previous ageing, should be enough. How about a chart that peaks at skill #4 and then gets easier?



Pink Horror

[Mestari]

Phew, a bit long and complicated, but it was about time I did a mathematical post!

Thanks Martyn - an excellent post.
I, however, would perhaps prefer that players could age already on their second skill roll.

[Thadrin]

OK....lets try this:

D8:
1st:no aging
2nd:2+ (age: 12.5%)
3rd:3+ (age:25%, no age:66%)
4th:4+ (age:37.5%, no age: 41%)
5th:5+ (age: 50%, no age: 20.5%)
6th:6+ (age: 62.5%, no age: 7.7%)
7th:7+ (age: 75%, no age: 2%)

A simple concept: roll equal or more to the number of Star Player rolls made for that Player.

And let us remember, this is without players attrition through injuries.
May be a little leniant at the top levels, though looking at the other stats its harder than the current rules at 4 and 5 skill levels, and if a player survives that long without getting viciously targetted by opponents then I'd be amazed, and I'd lay money the rest of his team would be in trouble.

[Relborn]

I really don't like the ageing rules. The players suffer enough from
injuries already.

I would prefer to see some retirement alternatives to my idea

[Longshot]

Damn:
Statistics, statistics....
Let this rule as it stands. It is only one year old .
i didnt vote cos i want the rules without changes.

[wesleytj]

the problem with your poll is apparently that there aren't enough options, and that it assumes people want ageing. Some want less, some none at all. The poll numbers itself look to show some agreement, but if you read the posts they're all over the place.

This looks like a topic no one can agree on. Maybe whatever aging rolls we DO come to consensus on should be moved to experimental rules so that those that want them can and those that don't needn't be bothered.

[Mestari]

Longshot has a point.

I feel that the aging rules are sufficient for now. Aging is still something that coaches generally dislike ("why do I have to roll for making my player worse when he gains levels?", they ask). It's definitely good that it's there, but it shouldn't get too hard.

In my opinion, we should retain the possibility of producing great players without needing a lot of luck in the aging rolls.

Well, I'm not comfortable with any of the suggestions. Other ways to increase attrition? Change the injury roll to 1-2BH,3BH+,4-5SI,6Dead, where BH plus means that the player must roll on the SI table to see if he gets a stat decrease or a niggling injury, but he can disregard miss next game results...


Well, just my opinion anyway.

[Warprat]

There is no option for dissent.

I don't like ageing as it is now, and I don't like any of the options given to vote on. So I didn't.

I don't know if I'm an old player, a new player, or what? I've played about 80 games. I own 4 painted teams.

The way I see it, some players just never live up to thier full potential. Not everyone is made to be a "Star Player". Now, I'm not talking about Peaking, or career burnout. Just a player that grows a little bit more slowly.

How about just skipping a Skill roll when a player ages?


Players get injured plenty of ways in normal gaming. Why should age injure them also? I just don't see it. And, it isn't natural. If I start my team with 11 players and manage to keep 8 of those players alive for 2 seasons, why should only the players with the most points age? All my guys play full out, no matter how many SPP's they get.

Linemen tend to take more abuse, but gain less SPP's. Niggling injuries should be based on hitting the dirt, not a potential care-free walk into the end zone. Why do only the best players age?

As I see it, the reason for ageing is to help limit the number of players with a large amount of skills. So far, this means punishing the players who have managed to get the most SPP's with an injury. But why create the problem in the first place?

Why can't players evolve at thier own pace, and get injured naturally? Why roll for niggling age rolls at all?

Warprat ;)

[Pink Horror]

As a pure mechanical solution, not gaining an upgrading when failing an Ageing roll, instead of getting both an upgrade and a downgrade, makes sense. However, I don't like it when players don't get anything to show for their experience, good or bad. If you're handing out less skills, less stat changes, and less injuries, you might end up not handing out enough differentiation. The teams become a little less interesting.

I'd be willing to accept this Ageing method, but I think I remember that the BBRC had some problem or another with it. I don't think it would be much of an improvement, though. If this was the only change, we'd still have the problem of the Ageing roll itself. Getting a niggle and a skill for the first roll is bad enough, but getting nothing at all would be even worse. Because this change, in my opinion, needs to be packaged with a change of the Ageing roll, it will be harder to get people to accept it.

For Ageing/Wear to be applied more accurately it should be done with a number of rolls proportional to the number of games played. I think Chet didn't like this method because he thought it was too many rolls. You guys know how I think the opinion of Chet affects the rest of the BBRC, so I think as long as he opposes Ageing rolls per game, it will never happen. But, now that he's willing to try experience rolls in his own league, we could get a change of view. The difficult part of this roll is that 1/36 is probably too frequent for Ageing rolls to fail if they're done every game. If it's more than 2 dice a roll, or more than one roll per player (to find out if Ageing occured) I don't know if I could accept it. I think 2d6 is too much for both current Ageing rolls when a d8 comes in the box.



Pink Horror