MVP vs Experience Rolls

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:06 pm

Galak, do you have a program you are using to run these numbers? Can I get a copy?

I would like to see numbers run with the following conditions (on the team I showed earlier):

After a player reaches their 6th EXP, any subsequent rolls of 1 for the EXP roll requires a possible aging roll. (Note, no secondary roll)

Ageing roll:

2-6: No Effect:
7-8: Niggle
9: AV -1
10: MA -1
11: AG -1
12: ST -1

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:09 pm

Lucien Swift wrote: i'm not arguing the numbers of games or percentages or any of that because i don't have the patience to do the math... i'm arguing _philosophy_ of the aging system... deterioration vs. handicap...

I'm going to post a thread about a system that let's people keep their stars and doesn't use ageing at all, but which will keep leagues balanced.

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:25 pm

neoliminal wrote: I'm going to post a thread about a system that let's people keep their stars and doesn't use ageing at all, but which will keep leagues balanced.

that almost sounds sarcastic

and, that's not waht i'm arguing for...i still want those lasting effects in there, i just don't want to see them suddenly become more frequent than they were under chet's original proposal.... i also am openly speculating on the value of increasing the likelyhood of a mng added to chet's original idea because of the climate and charcter of the games being played out here in the weeds...

my kvetching on this thread can be boiled down to two things,
a) more aging injuries will mean no aging injuries because people won't use aging
b) aging can be re-designed to achieve a different type of balance, availability rather than ability.

yes, a no-injury aging would achieve them both, but would not be the optimal system, a blending of the two designs is going to serve all...

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:29 pm

has anyone run the numbers on a 1-lingering injury 2/3-mng second roll yet?

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:59 pm

well, that just won't do!

not nearly enough of anything...

but will we know the right mix when we do see it?

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 6:20 pm

I've seen it and it looks like this:

Zarg: Rolls: Games 12, 15, 18; Rolls: 10, 4, 6; Aging -1 MA
Pow: Rolls: Game 21: Roll 10; Aging -1 MA
Zam: Rolls: Game 11, 16, 26; Rolls 8, 7, 6: Aging: 2 Niggles
Smash: Rolls: Game 14 and 22; Rolls 7 and 8; Aging: 2 Niggles
Bash: Rolls: Games 13, 14, 15, 23, 25; Rolls 8, 6, 6, 3, 5; Aging: 1 Niggle
Warrior: Rolls: Games 12 and 14; Rolls: 4 and 8; Aging: 1 Niggle
Smug: Rolls: Games 19, 20, 25; Rolls: 6, 7, and 3; Aging: 1 Niggle
Bug: Rolls: Games 24 and 25; Rolls: 12 and 7; Aging: -1 ST and Niggle
Thug: Rolls: Games 19, 20, 21; Rolls: 5, 11, 8; Aging: -1 AG and Niggle

Features:

No ageing roll before 10 games. Effects that actually result in player turnover (very important) and a nice spread of effects. If the number of niggles were too high, then you could lower the niggle results to just a roll of 8. All this and no need for a secondary roll (which I hate, it serves no purpose other than to cut down the results which can be done on the ageing table by tweaking the "no effect" results.)

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 7:25 pm

so, uh, which one was that agian? the 1/2-6,7-8,9,10,11,12?

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 7:51 pm

After a player reaches their 6th EXP, any subsequent rolls of 1 for the EXP roll requires a possible aging roll. (Note, no secondary roll)

Ageing roll:

2-6: No Effect:
7-8: Niggle
9: AV -1
10: MA -1
11: AG -1
12: ST -1

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 7:56 pm

i like it better when there's a sit out a match possibility at least... how do the numbers for this compare to the earlier proposed 1-3 second roll keeping the original secondary table with the mng 2-8? how about if that table goes 2-6 mng, 7-8 niggle?

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 8:17 pm

Quick note - I typed this up before seeing some of the later posts - this post analyses the proposal assuming 1 in 18 chance of aging per match once a Pro....

OK I think I'm OK with the EXP thing and 6 EXPs = Pro.

OK if I'm reading correctly, under this proposal there are no MVPs anymore. That means the only way to score SPPs is via EXPs or the standard cas, TD route. This is going to make Linemen really struggle.... particularly the really bad linos such as Zombies or Skeletons. Developing these is going to be real tough since you normally try and manufacture an SPP for the guy who got an MVP.

Secondly, using Galak's suggested change (1 in 18 for an aging roll), this means that a player should age on average once every 18 games provided he has earned 5 EXPs (lets assume this takes 15 games). Assuming that a player earns SPPs at a rate of 2.5 per game (the highest in Neo's list), then in order to make 176 SPPs (a legend), he will have to play 70 games - and will therefore on average have 3 aging effects (70-15 = 55/18 = 3).

A player earning at a much slower rate will suffer more aging effects since he will play more games. If a player earned 1 SPP per game (and there are a number of players earning a lot less than this although as a player develops skills, the SPPs he earns will presumably increase) then it will take 176 games - 9 aging effects (on 161 games)!

OK the chance of getting a player earning SPPs to a legend status without aging and earning at 2.5 SPPs per game is 4.3% (55 games).

The chance earning at a rate of 1 SPP per game is 0.01% (1 in 10,000).

The current aging system gives a player a 3.6% chance of not aging before he becomes a legend - this equates to 73 games or 2.4 SPPs per game.

So what is the point of all this? Well to get to a Griff status, the proposed system is much harder for most players and does mean that the Star Player is taking SPPs away from the other team members in order to progress - the current system encourages coaches to not score with their Star since the more SPPs they earn the more they will age.

Now lets say a Coach tries to score as many points as possible with his Star Blitzer and since he got 4 AG on his first skill, TDs come easy. So let's say he gets 9 SPPs per game. That means he could become a Legend (176 SPPs) in twenty games - less the 15 it takes to earn 5 EXPs, a 75% chance of making it with no aging (I am not saying this is a sensible way of running a team - just want to test the proposal). I am not sure whether this last bit adds anything but it shows that it would be much easier to develop a super star under this proposal.

This proposal also means that it will be harder to develop players who earn SPPs at a slow rate to a Star (51 SPPs).

Now less take some examples:-

A Catcher earning 3 SPPs per game (17 games) - 89% chance of no aging (2 games)
A blitzer earning 2.5 SPPs per game (21 games) - 71% chance of no aging (6 games)
A Thrower earning 2 SPPs per game (26 games) - 53% chance of no aging (11 games)
An Elf Lino earning 1 SPP per game (51 games) - 13% chance of no aging (36 games)
A Lino earning 0.5 SPPs per game (102 games) - 0.7% chance of no aging (87 games)

Again, I am not saying this is wrong just posting that it will have an effect on different players depending upon their ability to score SPPs.

Of course all the above examples ignore injuries sustained from blocks or fouls in the normal course of a game. Thus all percentages above need to be reduced.

OK that's enough of all that! One question though - does a player have a chance of aging if he doesn't play in the game (or indeed if he was MNG due to an injury sustained in the previous match)?

Just some food for thought.

Dave

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 8:34 pm

Dave,

I would highly recommend that you use the same rules for this system that are used under the LRB. The player had to be ELIGIBLE to play in order to have an EXP roll.

If players that Miss a Game or Niggle out continue to age this is just insult to injury. And its NO more complex then the current rules for getting an MVP (since its the same rules) so no one can argue its more difficult.

Galak

Neo, I'll tell you what if I get time I'll run the a simulation of the whole nine yards. EXP, aging rolls, Niggle rolls, etc. and we'll see what we get with the compromise position. I'm also going to use the above rule that you only roll for EXP if you where eligible to play.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 9:46 pm

This is a very interesting thread as I never really liked the aging tied to skills system.

now you've thrashed out a working model could someone post it (in a prefebably easy form

) for us to see here?

manusate · Post by **manusate** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:22 pm

Lucien, I see your point. That´s why my first proposal was to link EXP to pseudo-peaking, forced retirement and the like, because that doesn´t seem to upset the players that much.

In my experience, coaches don´t mind if their players stop developing after a lot of games. They don´t even find that a forced retirement after a long career is a such bad thing. But they REALLY hate their players getting worse for a reason other than an injury on the pitch.

My first try on the rule looked like:

-When a player gets his 10th EXP point, he has reached his top performance, and wont learn anymore (no more skill rolls). He will keep earning SPPs as usual, though.
-When a player reaches his 15th exp point, he is so bored and burnout that will quit playing no matter what he is paid. Player retires.

I still like it. You can adjust the numbers a bit, but you get the picture.

Said so, I must add that ageing through EXP will have a different effect on players depending on their ability to score SPPs. This is the big con of the whole idea. I love the pros, though, but not sure if they weight enough to counterbalance that.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 8:28 am

So do you still get EXP after the 6th point? I think you should since it retains the familiar 1&6 rule.

Galak - have you dropped the automatic Pro on 6th EXP? I hope so, as I don't like the concept of teams getting better for free. Lets face it after 15 games teams are getting pretty good and don't need a further boost.

Anyway I think I'm really starting to like the look of this.

Ian

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Tue Oct 08, 2002 9:45 am

Very nice indeed.

Ian: from my reading you still gain exp on a 6, you just hit the possible aging cap when you reach 6 EXP