Reducing Player Values due to injury

purdindas · Post by **purdindas** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:07 am

Me and some of the guys in the local league are interested in a scheme which wil reduce the value of injured players in an effort to make keeping them more attractive. In LRB 5/6 it is detrimental to keep these players in most cases as they upset your TV by making it irrespectively high.

We have considered reducing the values for specific stat increases by the same amount as for the same stat increases (50k +ST, 40k +Ag, 20k +MV&AV). This falls on its face however when you look at a halfling with -ST. He now becomes worth -20k. So we dumped this.

Next we thought about using a modified version of the above system were players could still lose value but can never be cheaper than their original cost. eg. a human lineman with a skill who loses 1 point of ag will be worth 50k as opposed to 30k. This makes keeping these players more attractive but still penalises the teams TV to some extent. This is a fairly simple system and I think we are leaning toward testing this one out.

Another idea was to use a percentage syatem were each stat decrease removed a precentage or the players value before the time of the injury. - ST = -40% -Ag = -30%, -MV&AV = -20%. This would be followed by rounding the value up to the nearest 10K. So a human lineman with a skill is worth 70k. If he then lost a point of AG he would now be worth 50k again and if he lost a point of AV he would be worth 60k. This system is a little more complex but a little more represntitive of the 'true' TV of the team after stat decreases are taken into account.

This is all well and good but not all stat decreases are as harmful to a players performance as others. eg. if an ulfwerener loses a point of Ag he might not care to much but if a human catcher loses a point of Ag he's not that useful anymore and severly bloats your TV. So the last suggestion one of us came up with is one that changes the amount lost depending on what the starting value is for the stat in question. So for example -10k for losing AG if base 2, -20k if base 3, -20/30k if base 4. (again never below the minimum player value).

I would like to know what you guys think, if you have any feedback or ideas of your own and if anyone has ever implemented such an idea and how did it pan out.

Cheers

Ant

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:37 am

This was tested early in the LRB5 playtesting, and it was found not to work, as it stopped many of the retirements the game needed. For example, a human lineman with Block and Guard might care little for an AG reduction, and will probably be grateful for the price reduction.

SillySod · Post by **SillySod** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:58 pm

How about.... a 10k price reduction for every injury? A few players will still actively benefit from injury but to be honest its nt about to be a gamebreaking benefit. Perhaps you could put a 10k minimum on a players price but to be honest a halflings with 4 injuries and no skills is probably worth negative value because its filling up precious space on the team

Digger Goreman · Post by **Digger Goreman** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:27 pm

As much as I hate to lose a player on the field... the previous system of "Aging" was, imho, the best! Balances the usefulness of the player with the possibility that the game has just been too tough on him....

Everyone ages....

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:42 pm

We run a multi-season thing where teams are built from the ground up, and old teams are disbanded, with a few members always making the transition to the new team. Cut players and players on disbanded teams who don't make the transition, or on teams where there is no new team, go to the Waiver Wire, where they can be hired at TV plus a premium "signing bonus" of 20k plus 10k x Star Player Rank. We reduce this premium by 20k per injury (minimum 0). No effect on TV, but it's easier to sign a gimpy player after the season has begun.

Jural · Post by **Jural** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:54 pm

Problem is, some players who take a -1 to a stat suffer no ill effects.

The easiest example is a dwarf longbeard with -1AG. He could have guard and diving tackle, but he would still cost the team 70k! I argue he is just as good as any other longbeard with those two skills- i.e. 150k.

There is one caveat I would like to add- if a +stat player take a -1 to the same stat (your 4 STR Wardancer becomes 3 STR again) then the TV would be dropped by the amount of the increase. I think this is fair in that you field the same piece, and would actually increase the acceptance of some injuries... Sometimes 3 STR, or 3 AG, or 8 AV, etc are really enough.

purdindas · Post by **purdindas** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:30 pm

I realise their probably is no perfect and easy solution to this conundrum...

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Anymore suggestions...?

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:43 pm

Jural wrote:There is one caveat I would like to add- if a +stat player take a -1 to the same stat (your 4 STR Wardancer becomes 3 STR again) then the TV would be dropped by the amount of the increase. I think this is fair in that you field the same piece, and would actually increase the acceptance of some injuries... Sometimes 3 STR, or 3 AG, or 8 AV, etc are really enough.

I think this is really good. Otherwise, I'm not convinced you need anything. Only a ST loss is an automatic career-ender: some players become marginal if they lose MA or AG, and nobody likes to see an AV point go, but we often have guys who hang around with penalties. If you are going to directly cut player value for injury, it should be a flat -10k per injury, and a stat loss and stat boost on the same guy cancel out.

Ooh... if a guy later gains a stat he lost, add one to the stat, cross out the stat loss note, and roll for a new Improvement!

How do you structure your leagues? You might develop some mechanic to recover from characteristic losses. So if a player suffers a serious injury in the season, after the season he has a 50/50 chance to erase one stat loss (niggles are forever) or something.

purdindas · Post by **purdindas** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:29 pm

You have to factor in the journey men cost the same as linemen so the moment a player loses a stat it is normally more favourable to get one of them instead. This is why we think that a player should not drop below his starting value.

I like what your saying Mr Slater. It's fairly simple (a good thing). I'll let the others have a look.

My thoughts on the 10k reduction idea:

Overall it doesnt completely make up for the loss of a stat and cannot 'fix' the problem with a bloated TV entirely but it does help. The system for adding value due to stat increases is the same no matter who gets them. So I suppose its not any more terrible if a system for price reduction also doesnt change no matter who gets the reduction.

-ST normally ends a players career so a reduction of only 10k will make it much more favourable to drop this player. Is a 10k reduction enough?

-Ag is not always the end of a players career but again is a 10k reduction enough? It will certainly help 'balance' the TV but is it far enough?

The same applies for -AV & -MV. Is 10k enough?

I think a 10k reduction is enough for MV & AV but I am not sure about the others. How about 10k for AV and MV, 20k for AG and 30k for ST?

We currently have 3 divisions with 5/6 teams in each. Each team plays another once. At the end of the season (probably in a couple of months time) we have promotion/relegation then a knockout cup.

The Pro-elf coach has 5 stat decreases on his team. He could just sack them and go for a team full of journeymen but his players are quite advanced and have useful skills. He's giving away to much in TV to his opponenets and gets creamed routinely. It would make sense to sack all the injured players but we thought why not have some kind of system that allows for injuries and makes it more favourable to keep the players.

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:47 pm

Mechanics: -30k value is a scary shift. You could make it -20, but that won't change anybody's equation. A ST loss is generally a career-ender and that's that. I don't like -20k for an AG loss, 'cause either the -20k isn't enough to change the math (ball-handler) or -AG doesn't matter much (Blocker).

Real world: two players suffer broken big toes. One is a lineman, one a receiver. Will the lineman be ok? Probably. He needs that toe, but if it's just going to mostly recover and be tender he'll cope with it. The receiver? Only if he makes a full recovery: until then he can't play. No, that's not unfair: the lineman takes more punishment.

Who cares if some players get cut for stat losses? You're better off making a team make the calculus. ST loss? Cut 'im. AG or MA loss? Depends on what he does: Blockers suck it up unless their MA falls to 2 (and maybe get Stand Firm next if they drop to MA3), but receivers probably get cut. AV loss or Niggle? -10k cost mostly counteracts penalty, but lost toughness hurts all positions: only cut if replaceable.

As far as the journeymen vs. gimp lino thing goes, the real question is one of league structure. How many games? If it happens to a rookie lino, bye-bye, unless the team is already down men. But if the injured guy has skills, or if the team is looking at more than one Journeyman, not so much. Remember, Journeymen stunt your growth, except the first one if you're in the market for a lino.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:48 pm

For a 20K reduction, my trolls and sauruses (sauri?) pray for -1AG....

mattgslater · Post by **mattgslater** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:31 am

Minimum 1, right? A Saurus can't lose AG. But an 80k Flesh Golem with AG1 would be a beautiful thing.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:27 am

They still take the -1AG injury though...

PubBowler · Post by **PubBowler** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:42 am

Against this idea here, there and everywhere.

Team management is a tactical challange that is often enjoyable and interesting.

Player retirement is important and many rules have been tried to get people to do it. Right now, it seems to be working. Why mess with it.

Some players with lucky injuries are going to be worth less TV for a no less effective player. And it'll be down to luck, not good coaching.

Ullis · Post by **Ullis** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:24 am

I guess most people have thought about this idea at times. After reading all the posts I'm against it. The main reasons being team management and the fact that this would create instances where the injury would actually be a good thing.

I have a +ST and +AG Gutter runner with -AV and a niggling injury in MBBL. He costs a lot but does pull his weight in the pitch, but I'm terrified of anyone blocking him!