Change niggling injury?

[DesTroy]

...aging doesn't seem to be doing its job to be honest in several of the leagues that I've seen as there just isn't enough umph behind Niggle which is the main penalty from aging.

Then change the Niggle roll itself, making it more likely the player will niggle out the more injuries he carries, as I outlined before on this thread. For each NI, the roll to avoid missing out gets more difficult. Players with one NI need to roll 2+, as normal, but 2 NI forces a roll of 3+, 3 NI = roll of 4+, etcetera. Simple, plus it adds the "OOMPH" you are seeking.

Changing niggles is one way to improve reaching the goal of the game developer.

Hence my suggestion.

[DoubleSkulls]

10000 teams is 10000 teams

And how many games do they all play? The thing with fumbbl is that you have no requirement to carry on playing a team - so its rare to find teams who play the number games required to break the TR300 barrier.

[GalakStarscraper]

FUMBBL isn't that great of an example if Handicaps were just implimented or not even using the official ones, and there are no challenge rules. Both will help to lower TR. I'd hate to see changes to real leagues based on problems with online leagues that occur because not all the rules are used in them. Am I correct, or do they use those rules?

I think both you and Ken missed my point.

The changes being looked at break down into 3 categories:

First category is based on league data completely ignoring FUMBBL and that is giving Niggle more umphf and a better handicap table. These changes have been discussed as needed for over a year.

Second category is pick your poison. Aging or Negative Winnings. One or the other. I personally feel one does a significantly better job than the other but that's my opinion. Again this category is based on information that could completley ignore FUMBBL as well.

Third category is icing. Freebooted Apothecaries are a change that would actually help rookie teams start up in experienced leagues and make running high TR teams more difficult. However, I'm not convinced its a required effect but the overall effect is a good one. FUMBBL data simply helped see when zero winning points are reach ... other leagues provided this data as well.

So again ... Category 1 was coming if FUMBBL never existed. Category 2 resulted from outcry against Aging not FUMBBL results. And 3 was simply a good idea proposed on TBB ... having nothing to do with FUMBBL.

So if FUMBBL never existed, the points of the package would still have come up. There are no FUMBBL demons here.

Galak

[Jugular]

Rarrrr GRRRR! <- FUMBBL Demon :D

[Sixpack595]

1st: I'm all for a new handicap table. I'm not sure this is the right one or the right way of doing it, but it is a good concept. Niggles? Dunno, I fire them.

2nd: Ageing is crap. Get rid of it! Negative winnings? No problem with it, I just hate the reason for it. Long term balance should be the leagues job, not the LRB. If a league wants 400TR teams, cool. If they want 200TR teams hit, cool. Every league is different, so a one size fits all approach isn't the best route. Why not list several balance options in the league section and let the Commish pick the one they feel best fits their league? RPGs list a few stat generation options so the GM can tailor it to their needs, why not BB? So I say no to negative winnings on principle, but won't sell my figs over it.

3rd: Unless I see some good playtesting evidence that it won't hurt teams who have a bad few games I'm against it. I see some risks, and don't think its worth it. Again, not a make it or break it for me, but if JJ and the BBRC want people to have any faith in them they better get it right.

The changes being looked at break down into 3 categories:

First category is based on league data completely ignoring FUMBBL and that is giving Niggle more umphf and a better handicap table. These changes have been discussed as needed for over a year.

Second category is pick your poison. Aging or Negative Winnings. One or the other. I personally feel one does a significantly better job than the other but that's my opinion. Again this category is based on information that could completley ignore FUMBBL as well.

Third category is icing. Freebooted Apothecaries are a change that would actually help rookie teams start up in experienced leagues and make running high TR teams more difficult. However, I'm not convinced its a required effect but the overall effect is a good one. FUMBBL data simply helped see when zero winning points are reach ... other leagues provided this data as well.

[DoubleSkulls]

Every league is different, so a one size fits all approach isn't the best route. Why not list several balance options in the league section and let the Commish pick the one they feel best fits their league?

That's not a bad idea. However BB has always been a game that was heavily house ruled so I expect leagues that want TR300+ will just house rule away negative winnings/freebooting apoths.

There is also Grumble's point that BB basically breaks down at high TRs because it becomes a game where you are looking at whoever wins is the one who rolls fewest snake eyes or double skulls.

[kadu-c]

Or treat each niggle as a bonehead roll?
"Oooh, oww.. Hold on guys, damn knee playing up 'ere"

It's exactely what I thought in.
But after reading your comments, it's clear that it's hard to remember during the game.
However, I find this system more realist. IMO, Nigs are not very negative (annoying ok, but not very negative in terms of game): Ok, my star player miss the game, I don't care, he will be there the next game anyway.
Treating Nigs as Bonehead is more interesting. You have to make a choice: Do I field my star player on the pitch if I know that he won't be efficient on each turn, and maybe disturbing my team strategy during this drive ?

But I agree with you, it's annoying to remember one more dice roll to make.

[GalakStarscraper]

3rd: Unless I see some good playtesting evidence that it won't hurt teams who have a bad few games I'm against it. I see some risks, and don't think its worth it. Again, not a make it or break it for me, but if JJ and the BBRC want people to have any faith in them they better get it right.

MBBL2 ( http://www.midgardbb.com ) already starting testing it.

MBBL will start testing in one month.

Galak

[lightingbug]

I never thought that I would actually agreed with this, but to give Niggs more oomph and make them more negative. Make each nig +1 to the AV or INJ roll, or maybe a RR to INJ (i knokw that goes against GWs thinking but.)

To bring in a RL NFl example. How many times can a Quaterback keep playing after suffering a couple of concessions? recent memory Steve Young retired because of too many concessions. Bill Romanonski most likely will for the same reason. Once you get hurt bad enough, you're damaged goods.

I still am a little leary with +1 to AV It would seem as being a little too much effect esp when you get blocked by a MB Horns Blitzer that has + Modifers on his side, which is why I thought of an INJ RR (maybe at +1 per niggle)

I think this would kinda be the effect that they were going for with ageing, Oft injured = Damaged Goods = Ass. coach material and I would keep Niggles rolled for at each half like proposed earlier.

[Mestari]

Throughout the discussion of these proposed changes (the first category that Galak refers to) during the last 1 years or so, I've never seen any good evidence shown: all the examples were from FUMBBLe, which is clearly an useless data source for this purpose. That aging doesn't have enough umph has been almost exclusively justified by waving the roster of the "Terrifying anarchists of Naggaroth" or whatever that dark elf team was.

Basicly, I have not yet been convinced that aging is not effective enough. If other leagues than fumbble really have provided examples that clearly show how aging is not doing its thing, I'd like to see them, as I haven't noticed them before.

My opinion is that what is needed right now is a better handicap table and time. Niggles and aging can be left to be as they are currently good enough, but not too restrictive.

My opinion is that the current system does give benefits to the coach that manages his team. But the coach who doesn't manage his team isn't reminded to do so by stupidly high penalties. Negative winnings which cause debt, immensely negative niglles etc. are things that actually do not promote diversity in team management, but force everyone to manage their teams in a pretty much uniform way. The current system allows for more diversity and roleplaying in managing styles, withouth penalising bloating too heavily.

[Grumbledook]

the change to niggles is more to encourage player turnover

i don't see how any of this is too harsh either the negative winnings would be only a slight occurance against very high tr teams

and i believe the change to the niggle was also in conjunction with removing aging so there would be less niggles about anyway, i maybe even think drastically less. So by making niggles more of a pain to a player wouldn't really heavily penalise a team as you put it, assuming the team is going to have less niggles to counter it

[GalakStarscraper]

Most of my thoughts of upping Niggles comes from getting rid of Aging as Grumble said.

The MBBL2 has a lot of TR 220+ teams ... this season it will be interesting to see if the system has the desired effect on them.

Galak

[Munkey]

I don't recall anyone suggesting that aging is not doing it's thing, and certainly not in conjuction with 'the package'.

I thought it was more that many people don't like aging for a variety of reasons.

On another note, if we are talking about dropping aging in favor of moving to 'the package' is there any need to ammend the Niggles? After all they won't be connected to the capping system in any way.

[DG_Slider]

well, kind of a loaded question. i would be ok with it being a once per half roll...but ONLY if aging went out the window. i've had WAY too players fail their 1st aging roll to want nigs be ANY more powerful if aging is still in effect.

I totally agree! No change if aging stays. If aging is replaced with Negative Winnings or dropped then yes, I would vote to have to roll each half.

[begbie]

My vote goes for a niggle roll at the start of each half with a failure resulting in missing the rest of the game. This would be regardless of what happens to ageing. It will, i think, give a niggling injury a little more bite.

I originally thought that a niggle roll each drive/fail means miss the drive would work. For me it would better capture the niggle flaring up. I think it would need to be supplemented with a -1 modifier for each consecutive drive played by the niggled with a failed niggle resetting the modifier.
While i think this would work well if automated in pbembb it would (as i think was mentioned earlier) probably become a considerable pain in arse in a tabletop match.