Ageing and such

Rustycan · Post by **Rustycan** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:06 pm

Hey Galak?? Just wondering if you made those tables for your rosters with a program or wrote the script by hand? Just wondering as I am looking for an easy way to make html rosters for our teams. And right now I just do the script for the tables by hand.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:36 pm

Currently I use TeamTracker to create the beginning html and then I use a text editor to clean it up. After that the PBeM tool updates and tracks all the info on the html.

Galak

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 6:46 pm

I have done an updated version of Team tracker in Excel and it can be downloaded from:-

http://www.dn-allen.supanet.com/BBRoster/BBRoster.xls

Now IMO it is easier to add new players and is more flexible although it doens't do everything Team Tracker does. Also the HTML part only works in Excel 2000 or later.

There is a TBB thread on this too:

viewtopic.php?t=1027

Try it out,

Dave

Rustycan · Post by **Rustycan** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 6:53 pm

Ok sounds good, however I dont have Excel. Is there any other program that will work?? If so let me know! thnx

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 3:52 pm

My problem with rules like aging and such, is that they are only necessary for a certain type of game (extremely long running leagues) which I have to wonder how common such games are. I've never seen such long-running leagues before in my life -- the leagues I used to play in in college were perhaps long-running, but reset every semester. You also had a stricter schedule as to the amount of games you played and who you played each season, and new players couldn't really join mid-season.

Other than that, I've seen a lot of relatively short-lived leagues that just kinda died a natural death after a while.

I think this default assumption that is driving rules changes isn't really the most common scenario "in the field" so making rules changes based on that is a big mistake.

If I were to start a league today (and hopefully I will in the relatively near future, albeit a smallish one at this point) I'd axe the aging rules, I'd axe the differentiation between traits and skills, and I might go back to 3e wording of some of the skills that have been particularly emasculated, like Mightly Blow, Frenzy and possibly Diving Tackle.

To control "runaway TRs" we'd simply reset every so often.

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 3:58 pm

Joshua Dyal wrote:To control "runaway TRs" we'd simply reset every so often.

then why bother tracking spp's at all? sounds like you'd be much better off just playing with unchaniging tr100 rosters every week... you'd never have to worry about resetting, and you'd be engendering just as much commitment and attachment to the teams...

fixed schedules were your problem.... forget them and you'll find out just how well and how long people can play this game...

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:11 pm

Lucien Swift wrote:then why bother tracking spp's at all? sounds like you'd be much better off just playing with unchaniging tr100 rosters every week... you'd never have to worry about resetting, and you'd be engendering just as much commitment and attachment to the teams...

fixed schedules were your problem.... forget them and you'll find out just how well and how long people can play this game...

Sorry, I don't follow this logic at all. Developing a team is fun! Why would I want to play every game with rookie teams? You do still get attached to "shorter" term teams, but at the same time, too much time with one team is (to me) boring. Plus, starting from scratch and clawing your way up in money and development is what's fun about the game. Once I feel I've "arrived" with a BB team, it's usually time to call it quits and start with something else. I also don't see how a fixed schedule is a "problem" -- I thought it actually a rather elegant solution.

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:24 pm

but you are denying other people the opportunity to enjoy a different approach to the game because your favorite portion of the game is the early stages (i'll be honest, i't smine too, but that's not the point)...

also, a fixed schedule makes it difficult for a new player to join in mid-stream, it also has a tendency to fall apart once players start to leave the ship...

having an open schedule and allowing coaches to play multiple teams if they want gives you all the benefits, and all you give up is matchup control...

with an open system, you can have players come and go as they like, it makes no difference. you can also start a new team without having to worry about them getting run into the ground because the coach always has the option to decline a match against the orc team that's at the top of your league... invariably, teams wind up playing mutually-favorable games because a coach will have two, maybe three teams on hand at all sorts of different tr levbels and the other guy who's available to play him will be able to match up well with one of them... if a team gets too powerful or out of control, that team will be ostracised, problem solved.

tournaments come around every so often and the big teams get a chance to strut their stuff and beat up people who now can't avoid the seeded schedule, but these things are wrapped up in a week or tow, so the structure doens't risk falling apart if someone bails...

really, you get so much from a casual league, it's the only way to factor in the reality of the people you're playing with's lives, and you can develop teams the way you like, another guy can do what he likes, another guy can try ten teams in ten weeks, and in the end, everyon is happy and the game takes care of itself...

structured leagues and periodic retiring of rosters accross-the-league is so antipathic to both the ability of people to just be there and many people's opinions of how the game should be that you're only going to reduce the number of players you have available, and eventually, run them all out unless you happen to find two or three people who feel exactly the same as you and have exactly the same schedule and commitments as you.. unlikely at best...

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:32 pm

Actually, we had a league of 10-12 guys who all thought that way. I can see your points, but literally none of them applied to my situation (when I played in college) and I still think that system works well for what I want.

To be clear, we didn't "schedule" games with particular players, you just showed up on game night and played a team that you hadn't played before. If someone had developed a real powerhouse, all you had to do was either delay playing them until the end of the league, or -- if you were really smart -- play them early when both of you were still rookie teams.

But my point wasn't to go off on a tangent about the league I played in in grad school, or to hold it up as a solution (I didn't even mention that I would do that if I were to run a league today anyway, because likely I wouldn't have more strictly scheduled matches) -- my point was that a lot of the rules being written for the LRB are based on a default assumption on how the game is being played that I think is unlikely to be a majority of the leagues actually in play. Therefore, the rules have missed their target -- they're targetting a minority of the coaches and leagues that exist "in the field."

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:44 pm

well, the type of league you run probably wouldn't see much use of the rules you're talking about... if a team only gets to play 10 games, how many of its players will eally make aging rolls? how many will get high enough into the winnings table to start running out of money, etc... the way you're talking about playing isn't the sort of league the rules are built for, but you have to realize that if there are leagues out there that do last longer than 10 games, tehy are in real trouble. you also have to realize that the sort of rules required to ensure game balance are easier for individual leagues to leave out as needed than to put in as needed... what i'm saying is that the sort of league controls that the game is currently searching for, albeit only affecting 25% of the leagues out there in reality, are still systems so complicated and delicate that those quarter of the leagues cannot be asked to come up with effective solutions on their own, they need guidance, the rules are attempting to give it... on the other hand, if you're going into a league knowing it'll only last a couple month, it is quite easy and requires little thought to just say "we won't use this this and this"

yes, the rules are designed for a minority, but it is easier for the majority to adapt than that minority... so the development of the rules is valid, useful, and effective...

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:05 pm

Joshua Dyal wrote:My problem with rules like aging and such, is that they are only necessary for a certain type of game (extremely long running leagues) which I have to wonder how common such games are. I've never seen such long-running leagues before in my life -- the leagues I used to play in in college were perhaps long-running, but reset every semester. You also had a stricter schedule as to the amount of games you played and who you played each season, and new players couldn't really join mid-season.

Actually Joshua ... you'd like the thread on EXP vs MVP and the proposed change to aging. Aging would not kick in for most teams until after their 15th game. IE you could use the official rules and if you reset every season they wouldn't effect you at all.

Best of both worlds.

Galak

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon Oct 07, 2002 7:59 pm

I've only played 3rd ed ( and it's forms) in a fixed no. of games league, as we like to have a (semi) structed schudule to our games, and with only 8 of us in our club it was easy to do a fixtures list. There were 2 divisions of 4 teams. Each team played its own div. twice and the opposite div once for a total of 10 games, plus semi's, finals (champions and wooden spoon) and 3rd/4th & 5th/6th play-off, for a total of 12 games each.
If memory serves me correctly there were only 2 aging failures in the whole league, and one of them cme after the final play-off game, and we had already agreed to retire the teams.
IMO if you are playing a league/tourney, with a fixed length of upto 20 games or so, I think you could forget about the aging roll without affecting game balance to much. However if you are going to play in a continunig league, and especially if you are going to alow rookies midseason, then I can see how the aging is essential, even tough i not that keen on it in it's present form.