Aging revisited

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:53 pm

Many people dislike the current aging rules, as a occasionally a player ages on his 1st or 2nd roll. Personally, I don't mind this as it kinda follows real life sports, where young, talented players often blow out a knew or shoulder or whatever and never meet their supposed potential (or never even make it to the pros).

I had another idea for aging the other day, and would like to know why you think of it...

Code: Select all

SPP           Title                               Skills
0–5   Rookie                        None
6–15  Experienced                    One
16–30 Veteran                       Two
31–50  Emerging Star                  Three
51–75   Star Player                       Four
76–125    Super-Star                         Five
126–175  Mega-Star                          Six
176-225   Legend                        Seven
226-275  Legend                        Six
276-300    Legend                        Five
301-320   Legend                        Four
321-335   Legend                        Three
336-345  Legend                       Two 
346-350    Legend                       One
351+    Legend                       None

As the player gains SPP's past 225, he begins to lose skills, traits or even racial characteristics.

When a player must reduce his number of skills, he picks one skill, trait or racial characteristic to lose with the following restrictions:

If you pick a skill, then you lose that skill, but no other penalty
If you pick a trait, then you also must roll a D6:
1-3 you gain a niggling injury
4 you lose an AG
5 you lose a MV
6 you lose a ST
If you pick a racial characteristic to lose, then you also lose 1 strength.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:02 pm

hold on so if you pick a skill you just lose the skill but if you pick a trait then you lose the trait and a stat

who would choose to lose a trait over a skill anyway?

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:19 pm

traits are normally a bit more powerful than skills (I know this isn't always the case)...and you may not lose a stat, but gain a niggle.

Since you had to roll a double to get a trait (or start with it), I thought it would be appropriate to have some other penalty for losing a trait..

Losing a Str for a racial characteristic is mainly for the big guys that would lose their negative trait in a second without the reduction in STR to hold them back a little

duff · Post by **duff** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:55 pm

GorTex wrote:Losing a Str for a racial characteristic is mainly for the big guys that would lose their negative trait in a second without the reduction in STR to hold them back a little

So Trolls get brighter with age?, Minataurs grow up and mellow out? ...
I can see it. Maybe the str loss should only go with the giving up of negatraits.

Uber · Post by **Uber** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:15 am

You rule only kicks in once a player reaches 226 spp, who the hell get to that level anyway? You won't see a lot of basher get there a 2spp per casualty.

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:37 am

Uber · Post by **Uber** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:29 am

Man, I only wish I had the time to play 300 games like this guy....

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:06 am

I don't think the extremes of FUMBBL can be used to justify rules changes.

Most "Normal" leagues do not see 7 skill players at all.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:41 pm

And just thought I'd point out that in a league that let you pick the last of the 5 handicaps, most of these players would be hit by a virus every game, and wouldn't be able to play.

mull · Post by **mull** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:33 am

Thanks Skummy ......

FUMBBL is an extreme. Don't look at the EXTREME teams on an EXTREME site and think there is a problem with the rules.

As always its the minority trying to ruin it for the majority. ie - the majority or coaches/teams do not reach these levels.

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:01 am

hmm. how would this ruin it for players who do not reach 176+ SPP's.

Since it doesn't kick in until 226+ it's not going to be a consideration for most any coach...unless they are in a high volume leauge like FUMBBL.

My intent wasn't to RUIN your game..I don't think there is a 'problem' with the rules. It's just an idea I threw out there to get comments on.

I really would like to know how this idea ruins it for the majority in any way?

Sixpack595 · Post by **Sixpack595** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:48 am

I hate the current ageing rules, this isn't any better. I see where you are going with it, but I think its just a bad fix to a crap rule. On field injuries are a better way IMHO.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:34 pm

Well, they're experimenting with on field injuries on fumbbl in divisionX. But who's going to injure a mummy? Or a team full of well developed Orcs, for that matter?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:08 pm

the mummy will damage the orcs and the orcs damage the mummy

also these developed teams will miss players and things through handicaps

the apoth can always roll a 1 too

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:18 pm

And yet, we're seeing teams like this in Div X... http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team& ... m_id=30386