Ageing / MVP

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:38 am

The ageing rules currently used are quite illogical.
A more realistic approach would be to simply count the played matches and check for ageing every ten games (10: 2-, 20: 3-, 30: 4-) and consult the LRB ageing table for effects.
The numbers are merely suggestions.

Additionally, 1 SPP for every 3 matches would appear much more reasonable to me than the current MVP-rule (but then, new teams in the league I play in start with 6 players already at lvl 1, i.e. with 6 SPPs, only 1 player for each special position and 5 different skills have to be chosen, a trait is assigned to a random player ).

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:30 pm

The only problem with that is no one wants to keep track of the number of games played.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:02 pm

Intercept slot isn't needed anyhow.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:25 pm

As you all know, there are some large ageing discussions going 'round.
You should not forget that ageing rules have been linked to skills in order to prevent having a couple of 7-8 skill player to dominate a match. Maybe ageing in conjunction with the amount of played games reflect reality but it would let slip away some good players that earned many skills in few games. And that is not the reason for ageing in BB.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:54 pm

I think it is unjustified to punish players for acquiring skills fast or at all, i.e. just for being successful. The current system even allows SPs to slip through the net, if they are lucky, and never age again at all. Though it might be quite illogical as far as Undead are concerned, an unevitable retirement might be a reasonable alternative.
Imporant note: My current league does neither allow stat increases nor does it open up skills on a double, only traits, so broken SPs do not tend to dominate the league, since there are none (well...).
There might be another - and certainly better - way, but I do simply not feel comfortable with a system in which a broken SP could, eventually, become kind of immortal.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:53 pm

Its not about punishing successful players, its about balancing the game. You will understand that two players with 5 skills are much superior than 10 with one each. I hate skill mutants on the pitch, who cares about the three handicap rolls when you have 6 Skill Thrower-Catcher Blitzer combo. (Something your league seems to dislike, as well) The aging rules make good players miss games from time to time (due to niggling).

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:27 pm

Well, our league doesn't support handicap roles either. Of all the extra stuff, only secret weapons are currently active (and necromancers for animating), I even don't like that very much (except for Gobbos perhaps, which nobody selected). What I like very much is the fact, that new teams have 1200k to begin with, and 6 random players with 6 SPP each, one of them a "traitor". And the 8 4-team-conferences have their teams assigned by TR, thereby avoiding annoying match-ups which might distract rookies, who have first contact with tougher teams in the first round of play-offs. This measure also causes the superior teams to not gain incredible TRs, since they must face their equals in the league and don't get easy match-ups.

Nevertheless, I do see your point, though I still strongly dislike the official ageing system for its artificial aura and would like to see it replaced by a more realistic approach to it. Just doesn't feel right to me, I'd prefer an ageing system where each player has to retire eventually no matter what.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:00 pm

Most teams have the same players on it after 10 games that they has when they start and many have the same roster after 20 games... that means when players "aged" the would do it in waves... which could crush a team.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:26 pm

well, with 2- and 3- to begin with, no more than 1-2 players should be affected after the first 20 games. If they started with 16 players and suffered no casualties at all, that is.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:39 pm

If your changes to the aging table would only have an effect on 1-2 players after 20 games, I don't know that it's going to have the desired effect.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:59 am

narkotic wrote:You will understand that two players with 5 skills are much superior than 10 with one each.

I'd disagree with that. Its easy to neutralise the odd star player.

How many teams have you seen where 1 or 2 players hog all the SPPs - those teams never do very well compare to ones with more balanced development.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:19 pm

If your changes to the aging table would only have an effect on 1-2 players after 20 games, I don't know that it's going to have the desired effect.

Most teams have the same players on it after 10 games that they has when they start and many have the same roster after 20 games... that means when players "aged" the would do it in waves... which could crush a team.

The suggested numbers (2, 3-, 4- and each 10 games) were selected arbitrarily. I'd really like to read some suggestions with which numbers and modifications this alternative aproach towards ageing actually might work.

(For example starting with 3-, after the first 10 games, then after 15 4-, after 20 5- , 25 6-, etc., or each 5 games but with 2, 2, 3-, 3-, 4-, 4-, etc., whatever)

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:46 pm

There have already been ample threads about this in here and in the "general discussion" section. Just read those.