Getting to grips with aging

[martynq]

I've heard some comments that the current aging rules do not go far enough, so I thought I'd try to get to grips with what they are currently supposed to achieve.

My interpretation is that the new match winnings table is to prevent the TR of a team getting too high, while the aging rules are to prevent there being too many players with lots of skills. Am I correct with this (somewhat approximate) interpretation?

So in view of this, how many skills should a player get before aging forces him to retire? Clearly, a player with 7 skills should be extremely rare, but shouldn't it be ok to get 2 skills without aging kicking in?

(Just trying to get a feel for current opinion.)

Cheers,
Martyn

[plasmoid]

Hi,
though this reply may seem somewhat unrelated, I'll ask this:

Is it too late to have the rule called "wear & tear" rather than ageing.

It seems ridiculous that a brand new wood elf catcher plays a good first match (2 skills), makes a bad ageing roll, and is suddenly "too old" to play after just 1 game.

Though it shouldn't have been, the very name "ageing" was an important reason why my league didn't adopt the new rule.

[Lucien Swift]

the odds of getting 2 skills without aging is very high (ask the number boys, i'm a right-brain guy), but the potential for a player to just not be that great is there... that's a nice balance. i don't think that the game needs to be set up in a away that has players who are entitled to anything... it's a simple roll of the dice... either your player is a superstar or he's a schmuck, you play the game, you take your chances... kinda like real sports...

personally, i like the new combination of reduced income and fading players... makes it more possible than ever to play the game indefinitely with the same team in a league where other teams will come and go randomly, with a constantly predictable zone of competition, a much needed improvement...

[voyagers_uk]

I agree, I like ageing as it is, the leveller which has failed IMHO is the handicap table which has just too many results of dubious value.

[Lucien Swift]

indeed, the handicap table is just not worth the trouble.... i've long argues that handicapping shouldn't be needed in a league setting once devices were put in place to contain a team, and with aging, peaking, and reduced income, those controls exist. with realistic ceilings at the top, why punish them further? leagues, even those where teams come and go and an open schedule is used, are more competitive than ever under the current rules, handicaps, be they extra cards, mvp, or table rolls, are no longer needed at all...

ditch'em!

for what it's worth, i played in a league where we scrapped the whole handicap concept and just had each team pull one card each for flavor... we didn't miss the handicaps and the two cards in each game were enough to add flavor without being able to overcome the game...

[sean newboy]

Handicapping is still needed. Im still playing a game where i have "In the bag" against me, and between his luck and mine, it IS. Its looking to end 2 or 3 - 0 with casualties being somewhat even i have caused 3 so far and he has caused 3 so far (2 to himself on failed dodges). I certainly agree the word aging could be changed, i would prefer something like stressinjury, but i can live with aging for the same reason they chose that word, its shorter.

[Acerak]

Bringing the thread back to the original topics, the Aging and Gate rules (and the "Bandwagon Rule" that controls rampant FF inflation) were all designed to keep teams cycling. They occasionally peak through 250 TR, maybe on a stretch they could hit 300, but they're supposed to come back down again very soon. And this cycling affects all teams, not just the high-end monsters. The system is geared to have a lesser effect on the smaller teams, however.

Focusing on Aging, it's designed to put some small crimps in the career paths of players who would otherwise become monsters. Given the current aging rolls, a player with four skills now has a 54% chance to avoid aging altogether. But, in theory, that means we have half the "pure" four-skill stars we had before. The other half have been retired, or they're worse than they were in the old days.

I suspect that any feeling that aging hasn't done enough comes from the tighter restrictions against fouling, which I'd like to re-address this October. If the eye is on you, fouling is never an even proposition. If it's not on you, it's easier to shift things in your favor. I'd like to see a system that measured more closely the risk against the reward, ideally by tying the odds of getting caught less to the Eye and a little more to the type of foul. But that's another topic.

Finally, the Handicap table! I agree that it needs to be made more consistent, and I promise that we're going to fix some of the more inconsistent results this October. But note that it's purely optional, so if your league doesn't feel it's necessary, you're perfectly welcome to ditch it.

-Chet

[sean newboy]

Type of foul? how many are there?

[Acerak]

I suspect that any feeling that aging hasn't done enough comes from the tighter restrictions against fouling

Another possibilty: Coaches aren't paying attention to the overall number of monster players in their leagues because they think the Aging rule is designed to eliminate, rather than gently brake, the progress of such players.

-Chet

[Acerak]

Type of foul? how many are there?

In my mind, there are two types. One is a skill-free foul. Your average yob runs up and punts the other player.

This is decidedly less lethal than a skilled foul, which currently revolves around Dirty Player.

I've already discussed this in another thread, but in case you missed it, imagine that the target roll for the Ref Roll was always a 6 or better. You get to add the following:

* Eye on the opponent: +1
* Opponent uses Dirty Player: +1

Here's how the four possible fouls break down for getting caught:

* No eye, no skill: 6+
* Eye, no skill: 5+
* No eye, skill: 5+
* Eye, skill: 4+

I think this system works better than the current "4 or better with the eye on you, skills be damned" approach, which actually encourages people to pick Dirty Player. And why not? If you're going to be caught 50% of the time regardless, you might as well get some bang for your buck.

-Chet

[sean newboy]

OIC just dint understand what u meant.

[Lucien Swift]

Another possibilty: Coaches aren't paying attention to the overall number of monster players in their leagues because they think the Aging rule is designed to eliminate, rather than gently brake, the progress of such players.

i also suspect some coaches look at one rule and not the big picture... there is a body of subtle effects at work here, not just aging, but peaking, reduced income, limited skill access, fan factor controls, etc... there's not one rule to rule them all here, but an overall philosophy which should be working to do exactly what this game has needed for a long, long time, which is introduce a peaks-and-valleys nature to team development...

i think, though, that there's not enough leagues out there that run long enough to appreciate what has been done, and this is a problem i figured would get a lot more screaming eventually...

lets consider the "by design" bloodbowl leage first, the league the rules were designed to keep healthy... you've got 16 or so coaches who play in an open season league with quarterly tournaments and occasional team turnover as coaches come and go or choose to start a new team, etc... assuming this league runs for 1 to 2 years, the new league rules suit it perfectly... teams stay in a tr range, new teams can at least not get oblitterated right off, everyone has highs and lows, and it stays healthy, happy, and fun.

there will never, ever, ever in the history of time be a league like this, so forget about it.

and thats where the trouble starts.

ok, lets look then at reality.

the typical real world bloodbowl league is about 6-10 coaches playing a fixed schedule of a bout a dozen games. at the end of the season (cut prematurely short because 2 coaches quit and the schedule had to be remade in week 4), they will play a tournament and then those teams will be shelved, maybe they'll all come back with new teams next season, most likely only a third will ever play bb again.

what's the problem?

these leagues have no use for highs and lows, they see peaking, aging, etc as enormous stumbling block to their drive to get the three or four good players they need to get to the league final and are pissed off that they can't build their quick-run team anymore... besides, they're all playing with the pre-gen starplayers on their teams anyway and don't see why the one normal blitzer on tehir roster can't be as good as the three griff clones he's got in the first place...

the point being a) that the typical league doesn't last long enough to either _need_ these rules or _benefit from them_ at all, and b) the typical bloodbowl coach is so filled with a compulsive need to have an uber-team that rules which diminish the effectiveness of his team in any way are seen as a personal attack...

in teh end, as much as i like the new rules, i regret that they aren't going to be seen, by and large, as a benefit to the game because of the limitations and shortcoming of the overall hobby of the game...

unfortunate really...

[Thadrin]

Whoa...someone even more cynical than me!

I dunno...my league just finished our first league with 2k1...vanilla apart from one house rule on winnings (+2 on the roll for a win, +1 for a tie. No biggie.) 16 coaches, fixed schedule, 7 games each in two conferences, with the top two going to the semi finals.

From the list thats doing the rounds on the league mailing list at least half the teams that played the first season will return for the next one. We'll see how aging goes. I know one Dark Elf team got seriously niggled up by aging, and I doubt they'll be back....but thats the way it goes. My team did well and are looking solid going into the next season (powerful, but low TR. Cool....). Next season I think we'll really start to see the aging and handicap kicking in, so I'll try and keep TBB posted.

Whatever - I seriously doubt ANYONE has played enough games or seasons yet to really judge these rules. I think the handicap table needs a tweek, but otherwise I'm for leaving be until we've had more time to judge how things stand.

[sean newboy]

Actually there was a large playtesting of similar aging rules in the mbbl3 and in the other leagues that playtested 2k1. One coach had very bad time but for the most part the teams werent overly impacted beyond reason. The mbbl2 was retroactively aged but only 1 of my 2 teams got hit with bad rolls (so far i have one roll at the end of my current game) and neither was more than minor setbacks (i just replaced one).

[Acerak]

I do agree: I think the rules will be better if we let 'em run their course without tweaking them majorly. That said, niggling injuries just don't add enough impact to the game. I think +1 on the injury roll for every niggling injury is a good rule to add to the game, aging or no aging. Bumping the aging target rolls, I'm not so keen on doing. But we'll have some leagues test it before putting it to a vote in October.

But if a league stays short, wants uber-players, etc., there's nothing wrong with them waiving the aging rule. It's optional. You don't have to use all the rules in a league, that's the beauty of the system!

-Chet