After the last skill?

[Smurf]

I was thinking that after the last skill, when the player has earned over 176pts, they can play on until they 251 spp and then they hang up the boots and retire.

As the gap is a long way from 76 to 176, then maybe 251 isn't enough and it could be 301 and the player retires.

[SillySod]

Or perhaps they play until death.

[mattgslater]

Why did they cap it at 6 improvements, anyway?

[GalakStarscraper]

Why did they cap it at 6 improvements, anyway?

A mix of things there.

1) Since Star Players were going to become common in games we wanted to redo them ... as we looked at the stars we realized that 6 improvements really were fine to make good star players. 7 was seen as overkill.

2) There was a feeling when LRB 5.0 was being created that LRB 4.0 had just too much high end bloat that created games based around who rolled a 1 the most. A tighter cap on maximum number of skills was deemed one way to address a piece of that.

Galak

[voyagers_uk]

not sure I ever will agree with that Tom,

6, 16, 31, 51, 76, 126, 201 was a much better set-up

[GalakStarscraper]

not sure I ever will agree with that Tom,

6, 16, 31, 51, 76, 126, 201 was a much better set-up

In this case ... I'm more kicking out what the logic was than saying it was my stance.

This change happened in the first year of the Vault when it was JJ running the show.

I ran the Vault for the last 2 years of its operation (but part of that was when I took over I wasn't supposed to change the stuff JJ had already changed ... so whether I agreed with the SPP table or not ... it was what I got).

Galak

[Smurf]

Or perhaps they play until death.

Maybe the player doesn't want to die and plays until he gives up his boots. Like normal footie players.

[SillySod]

We are talking about superstars. Not wussy football players.

Besides, I'm not sure that retiring safely is an option. My teams certainly dont offer their ex-players protection from the various gangs, enthusiastic fans, or souvenier hunters. Not to mention the numbers underworld bosses that will lose alot of money when a perfectly healthy player leaves the team.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that several of my teams mount retirees on trophy racks.

[voyagers_uk]

not sure I ever will agree with that Tom,

6, 16, 31, 51, 76, 126, 201 was a much better set-up

In this case ... I'm more kicking out what the logic was than saying it was my stance.

This change happened in the first year of the Vault when it was JJ running the show.

I ran the Vault for the last 2 years of its operation (but part of that was when I took over I wasn't supposed to change the stuff JJ had already changed ... so whether I agreed with the SPP table or not ... it was what I got).

Galak

Poor JJ his logic was flawed by his failure to come up with a system for inducement/handicap that worked so he started to try to limit team growth wherever he could... the studio rules really went after advanced teams and some of the earlier articles separated teams and tried to make gamers ashamed for wanting to build to greatness...


If the rules ever opened again, I would lobby for this...

[Darkson]

It was a poor decision on his part - if you're paying for the cost of the skill (which you do), then what was the problem. if you were running 3 or 4 7-skill players, you were probably giving up inducements left, right & centre, not making any money win or lose, and probably running with the rest of the teams being rookies or near rookies.

But then I don't think JJ expected anyone to play above 150.

I'd have argued for/agreed with a system were the cost of skills increased the more you had (so, as a [plucked out of the air] example, a normal skill costs 20k each for the first 3, 30k for 4 & 5 and 40k for 6 &7), to represent the player demanding more money, but I'd guess it would have been "to complicated".

[Smurf]

Well when the time comes I'm going to enforce that SPPs over 301 means the player retires. They got this far, they are famous and it's time to pack it in.

[Darkson]

That's a pretty brutal house-rule - I think Once I got to about 250spp I'd be looking at my player NOT performing actions that gave SPPs.
Enforced retirement is a bad rule, pure & simple, and removing things that made it happen was one of the better changes in LRB5 imo.

[mattgslater]

How about this?

When a player's coach has decided he's too gimpy for the attendant TV hit, the coach may retire the player. You know, like LaDainian Tomlinson.

Seriously, though, this is the problem with the old Ageing rules. If you're going to have rules for player retirement, they shouldn't be SPP-based. You don't want to punish success.

[Darkson]

That's already a rule - you can retire a player at any time.

[GalakStarscraper]

Well when the time comes I'm going to enforce that SPPs over 301 means the player retires. They got this far, they are famous and it's time to pack it in.

A great house rule .... assuming you want your players to hate playing in the league.

One thing I got rid of every where I could from BB in my 2 years running the show was anything that forces you to remove a player from your team or damages a player while not on the pitch. There was a reason for this ... those things ARE NOT FUN ... and its a board game which should equal fun if done correctly.

Galak