Ageing rule fixed: "Wear and Tear"

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
recently in my league we've been discussing ageing.
Around these parts, as well as in many other leagues, the rule isn't all that popular.
Mind you, we like what it does - just not the way it does it.

In my analysis, there are 3 problems with ageing.
1) Luck: Ageing introduces a(nother) huge element of luck to team progression. Most coaches will do OK, but some will get off very lightly, and some will really get burned.
This goes for both how many "injuries" you get, how severe they are, and which players get them.

2) Sudden Death: Some players will be downright killed by their "injury". A thrower or catcher who loses AG, or virtually anyone who loses ST will be rendered close to useless. In my experience, that is not a lot of fun.
My friends pretty new chaos team had it's top scoring beastman (MA+1, Sure hands) reach it's third skill, and he got crippled. It was pretty much his teams only "profile" and it was a very sad experience. His team certainly didn't seem like it needed to be taken down a big notch, compared to the other teams.

3) The "ageing" name: OK, it's a tiny thing, but I've had a lot of coaches respond negatively to the fact an elf with the lifespan of a millenium gets "too old" after playing Blood Bowl twice.


With those 3 things in mind, we came up with this rule to replace ageing:

Wear and Tear: Whenever a player earns his third or subsequent spp roll, he must also choose one injury (MA, ST, AG, AV or Niggling). No player may reduce a stat to 0, or reduce a stat to 2 points below it's starting value.

Easy as pie!

Nobody gets the lucky brake or the burn, and though teams will slowly (but surely) accumulate a lot of injuries, you can be pretty sure that they will still be able to play on, albeit with annoying little drawbacks.

[Darkson]

Or you could use the EXP rules discussed here:-

viewtopic.php?t=2639&highlight=exp

[Trambi]

I don't like the name of aging : I will prefer physical usury or something like that.
But Darkson is right read the thread about exp

[gallowin]

Why are the systems based on attaining skills? Are we saying the a lineman who hardly sees a 2nd skill is NOT going through as much wear and tear as a position player?

[Zombie]

No, we're saying that such a player doesn't need to be brought down for the sake of balance, so there's no need for aging on this guy.

[plasmoid]

Exactly Zombie!

And we're also saying that maybe the guys that earn more spp's are more "in the thick of it", and hence get worn down more.

Martin

[Vitalis]

As I see it Ageing is an imperfect tool to obtain the goal: Downsizing the Supermen on the team. Simple luck lets the chosen ones construct a killer team anyway. Simple luck or 1000 more games played than the rest of us.

EXP Ageing is in my view a more complex and timeconsuming task that STILL doesn't solve the task at hand.

Therefore I really like this new rule a LOT.



Please share any playtesting experiences here!

[Grumbledook]

Aging wasn't bought in to eliminate superplayers, it was bought in to keep team ratings down. The EXP rules every player will eventually roll enough 1s to make it senseless to keep them on the roster. Might take a million games but with enough rolls it will happen.

As for it being complex, I disagree its fairly simple, its a lot easier than having to remember the aging roll table.

[Vitalis]

Aging wasn't bought in to eliminate superplayers, it was bought in to keep team ratings down.

I must disagree of course. Ageing affects the individual player. Not the team as a whole.

What's your stance on the luck issue?

In my view there is a vast difference between the complexity levels of the two suggested rule modifications.
Choose a stat decrease/niggle vs. dice roll table lookup dice roll.
There's simply no comparison.

BB is complex enough. Simplicity should be prefered whenever possible.

[DoubleSkulls]

The primary effect of Ageing is to remove the most skilled players in a team, but this was not the intent.

According to BBRC members the intent was to increase player turnover, and hence cap team rating.

Now there is a separate issue whether you actually need Ageing at all. Reduced income combined with the changes to wizards and star players mean that there isn't a constant upward spiral of team development.

Just by reducing income and increasing expenditure you can stop the development of TR600 teams - and because high TR teams don't get any income they are going to suffer as they can't replace players who die or get stat decreases.

Personnally I'd drop Ageing altogether, but if it has to remain IMO it has to be random. There should be a chance that you can generate a Griff like player. Of the proposed systems experience is the one I like most. The current ageing rules penalise unlucky coaches when teams are undeveloped.

[Grumbledook]

Aging was bought in to control team rating and player turnover, that I do believe is fact. Having to retire a player cause he has aged or worn out whatever does affect the team as a whole.

Allowing players to pick the stat descrease will just eliminate this, they are going to pick what limits that player the least and therefore means he isn't discouraged to retire the player. This goes against the reason why aging was introduced anyway, i.e. to give players more of a reason to retire players to keep team ratings below the 300 mark.

As for the luck issue its fine, you might get bad luck one time good luck another time, thats the way the cookie crumbles so to speak. It all evens out in the end.

At the end of the day aging is a game mechanic to control team rating. As for a better working on the EXP system I will leave that for Galak to run through when he gets back and has the time, seeing as he has the stats done allready and is using them in his league, he will be able to show you proper numbers that it works fine and it is also a simple system.

[Vitalis]

Aging was bought in to control team rating and player turnover, that I do believe is fact. Having to retire a player cause he has aged or worn out whatever does affect the team as a whole.

Allowing players to pick the stat descrease will just eliminate this, they are going to pick what limits that player the least and therefore means he isn't discouraged to retire the player. This goes against the reason why aging was introduced anyway, i.e. to give players more of a reason to retire players to keep team ratings below the 300 mark.

As for the luck issue its fine, you might get bad luck one time good luck another time, thats the way the cookie crumbles so to speak. It all evens out in the end.

At the end of the day aging is a game mechanic to control team rating. As for a better working on the EXP system I will leave that for Galak to run through when he gets back and has the time, seeing as he has the stats done allready and is using them in his league, he will be able to show you proper numbers that it works fine and it is also a simple system.

Well. You're wrong. Player ageing was brought in as another tool to make teams 'plateau' by putting negative stats og niggling injuries on your supermen to be.

Consider the subtle difference between your understanding of this and the finding of last years october review.
You focus on team rating.
Ageing was brought in with focus on downsizing the strong players.


You surmise players won't be handicapped in any way by having to choose a stat decrease because the decrease can be chosen by the coach. In my view this severely handicaps the versatility of the player on the short term and the usability on the long term.
The exact same goal the ageing rule was about but without the luck-factor.

This gets my vote for three reasons

1) No luck factor.

2) Simplicity itself.

3) Goal obtained.

[DoubleSkulls]

1) No luck factor.

IMO this is not a good reason. Luck is a vital element of BB - both in team development and game play so why should ageing be exempt?

I like having the chance to be able to develop a 5/6/7 skill player without him picking up any ageing effects.

Some of the problems with the current ageing system can be resolved by getting rid of the roll for the 1st and maybe 2nd skill.

[Grumbledook]

I do believe that Jervis' idea on a blood bowl team was to have a few star players and start topping out tr at about 250-300. Not to have every player who was likely to get a bundle of skills a cripple.

You still have a luck factor involved as to weather the player ages or not, you just getting to choose the inj reduces the effectiveness of the inj. My skaven thrower got -st and due to me being a plonker i didn't use my apoth cause i thought it was just a miss game inj, turns out he got +ag for his skill roll so i kept him anyway.

Now if i could choose what inj a player had the thrower does use str that much and wouldn't matter so much, if he gets -ag then he is a good candidate to retire.

Aging is meant to give players reasons to possibly retire some of their longer serving players when they don't really want to. It defeats the point if you can pick the disadvantage to still maximise their usefulness to you. You still might get lucky and get the stat decrease you would have chosen. At the end of the day there is luck in if a player ages or not. This system related to skill gains still means a player can get to a point where they might never age. The EXP system means players will eventually age this is a guarentee with enough games played. If i remember correctly the aging isn't a problem till the 23rd game on average (when players are on average going to fail a roll). I am sure if and when galak sees this thread he will give the exact details as he has run some numbers on the issue.

Until you see this, I wouldn't say that its not a system worth consideration and in the opinion of some the best "fix" thats been raised.

[plasmoid]

Hi all,

Grumbledook wrote:
>You still have a luck factor involved as to weather the player ages or not,

How so? The wear and tear injury is automatic, and you choose it.
Where is the luck in that.
My _only_ problem with EXP is the luck factor, even though it is less present than in old ageing.

What I specifically like about wear and tear is the removal of luck.
The fact that this is a luck based game certainly does not mean that we should pile more randomness into it. Quite the opposite.

Anyway,
wear and tear means that when a team builds up, it also slowly deteriorates. Probably not enough to cause any actual player turnover.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice if the 4 skill orc team that you were facing also had MA3 on every single player?
It would surely make it easier for less developed teams to compete.

(Yeah, its a constructed example - but I'm sure you get the idea)
Martin