I hate aging!

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:54 pm

Having seen some more of this debate I will admit that i'm a little worried that the EXP system would punish players like Longbeards that take forever to gain skills (although in the case of the Dwarf team, when they do all get Guard and then stop aging for a long time they get nasty, so I guess there is a counter argument)

I like some of the ideas on Pariah's table, definately a good alternative to the hated loss of ST and AG. I also like the way aging doesn't kick in until the 3rd skill.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of all players rolling after this point, perhaps still making an aging roll to see if they age, and maybe adjusting the target number could be the way to go.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:58 pm

I almost put a Wild Animal result on there. I was thinking of a brain damage type injury or making him go rabid. I didn't use it cuz what about a RO that rolled that result?

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:42 pm

The brain damage actually causes the RO to lose WA?

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:27 pm

... or rots it even further and makes him Really Stupid as well.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:54 am

Milo wrote:teams with lots of star players tended to grow, and grow, and grow, and would eventually become more or less unbeatable.

I don't believe this is the case any more. The FF modifiers and reduction in income mean that high end teams are starved of money. This means that if they are unlucky enough to lose a player it takes them ages to replace them, they can also end up with lots of players with stat decreases and niggles as they can't afford to replace the player immediately.

The other side of the coin is that those teams never get a chance to develop in the 1st place because the old strategy of "if I haven't got a double on my 1st or 2nd skill retire them" can't be implemented as coaches don't have the money to throw away replacing perfectly good players. You wont see as many RSF & Claw equipped CWs because coaches can't replace the CWs that don't get 2 doubles.

Maybe some system is required to effective inflict more casualties on high end teams to keep it balanced - but please try to make the system only effect high end teams. If you are playing short leagues with throw away teams then you don't want lots of bookeeping and you don't want teams penalised because one coach is really unlucky. Try to keep ageing effects on this high end teams.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:32 pm

Yeah I agree. I played in a league where once a TR got 200 or 250 the coach was bored and started something new. Ageing was really unnecessary in that league (especially with our fouling and bounty rules).

I'd also like to speak out against the number of games played systems that seem to be all the rage now. I'm starting to really have a problem with them. #1 The poor players that develop slowly, zombies, longbeards, non-elf linemen, sauri, and black orcs etc. are going to get just as many penalties as the players that increase in skill very quickly...like any elf in the game. I don't really think it's fair to stunt the growth of my dwarf team before it get's off the ground just because an elf coach has some ageing already. The elf linemen are going to reach their 2 second skill much faster than a zombie. (probably before the zombie gets his first!) so why should they age at the same rate? Zombies and longbeards are the backbones of uber-teams. The ghouls and the troll slayers are.

All players are not equal and shouldn't age equally!

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:34 pm

Well Pariah perhaps some players could be given a new racial trait.
Hardy - players with this trait age with a -1 penalty on occurance and +1 result. They really exist on the realm of whatever does not kill them makes them stronger.
Included in the hardy list would be longbeards, chaos dwarves, zombies, skeletons, and some of the other ag 2 less than st 4 guys.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 11:38 pm

So instead of finding an alternative to 'number of games played" you suggest adding more racial traits?

With all the good suggestions we have I just can't agree. The system needs to be based on SPP's, it just doesn't need to be the current system.

Soffa Blackeye · Post by **Soffa Blackeye** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:52 pm

We have this kind of system (I don´t know if anyone has said this before (there are too many posts to read)): the first ageing roll takes place when the player gains their third StarPlayer roll, and is at that point 4+. Then after that you roll again for every starplayer roll, and it goes to 5+..6+.... and so on. That way we don´t have as many ageing rolls as we would if we used the official system.

Icedman · Post by **Icedman** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:52 am

OK the thread's been revived so I'll throw in on what I've been thinking about lately....

Taking Milo's earlier posts, and JJ's write-up in BB Mag 1 (stop yellin' dammit, I do have a reason for mentioning it!!!

), the BBRC seems to recognise that the problem of the uber-team is related to the skills of its players. The Aging system currently in place is the refinement of 4th Ed's OSPA and Appearance Fees systems; both of which were implemented as methods to lessen the impact of highly-skilled players on the game.

Now, part of me does agree with Milo; the current system is good, but it could probably be a little better...

The thing that amuses me most though, is everyone's "problem" with Aging; its either like the one that started this thread ("my really good player aged and lost a stat that's important to what he does. It's the only time its ever happenned to me but I think it sucks!!!"), or its an inability to reconcile the concept of Aging (as in getting older) with immortality (ie: "why does my Elf/Dwarf/Mummy get older? It doesn't make sense!!!"). If these are the best reasons we can come up with for some new system......

D'Arquebus had a theory not too long ago (we're in the same TT league); keep the current system, just call it "EGO" (gawd, he's gonna kill me; I think he wanted to post this one himself

). It works really easily:

Code: Select all

NI: "the pitch is too muddy"/"I'm far too good to play against them"/"I   can't play, I've got a photo shoot/autograph signing and I have to look   good for the fans!" etc...

-1 ST: not doing as many weights programs as they used to...

-1 AV: thinks he's a god, doesn't need that wussy armour...

-1 MA: not doing as many laps as he used to (gettin a little fat)...

-1 AG: just can't be bothered trying as hard...

Simply put, we're talking about professional sportsthings here, just look at how prissy real-life sportspeople are. They're not necessarily getting injured, of getting older, or whatever; they're getting a big head!!!

If we must leave Aging (EGO, whatever you want to call it) behind, I believe we must really think about how we want such a system to work. There have been some really good ideas on this thread (Pariah's Wear n Tear, Mestari&Cervidal's missing the occaisional advance, etc). EXP has a lot of merits too, but it also shifts the balance of the game, as Galak and others are discovering (the desire to bump up the point where rolls are required, wanting/needing to bring back MVPs, etc), so it should probably be quite heavily revised before it is included in the rules (if it is at all). Fundamentally, though, it seems that the BBRC are interested in a system that encourages (not forces) a coach to retire a good player every now and then (important, though, is the assurance that such a system doesn't want a coach to retire all players past a certain skill level)

zeroalpha · Post by **zeroalpha** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 1:41 am

ianwilliams wrote:old strategy of "if I haven't got a double on my 1st or 2nd skill retire them"

Im not sure how you run your leagues, but i don't think i have ever been in a position to retire a player simply beacause they have not rolled a double on there first or second skill. Especially due to the fact that i don't want to go losing players that have advanced in any way, double or not.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 4:07 am

Icedman wrote:("my really good player aged and lost a stat that's important to what he does"

More like "my very average player became totally useless because he got an MVP". Aging should only affect problem players, even you recognize that. But it's not doing that at all with the current rules. Look at the other thread i started for a system that addresses the problem players much more precisely.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 4:12 am

zeroalpha wrote:
ianwilliams wrote:old strategy of "if I haven't got a double on my 1st or 2nd skill retire them"
Im not sure how you run your leagues, but i don't think i have ever been in a position to retire a player simply beacause they have not rolled a double on there first or second skill. Especially due to the fact that i don't want to go losing players that have advanced in any way, double or not.

It was a pretty common strategy in 3rd ed, where money was plentiful. If your player reaches 11 SPPs (two skills back then) without rolling a double or stat increase, fire him and hire a new one. It was particularly popular with goblins in orc teams, because they're very cheap, gain SPPs very quickly and their normal skill selection sucks.

Icedman · Post by **Icedman** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 4:34 am

Zombie wrote: Look at the other thread i started for a system that addresses the problem players much more precisely.

Now that I've found it...... I remember reading the thread before, and frankly, I like the idea Zombie. As the most likely problem people on any given team are the main scorers this system has a nice neat way of dealing with them. The only problem I see with it (not sure if it was pointed out on the other thread or not) is that coaches would be a little hesitant to try and advance any player they got attached to.

But all in all, definately a good starting point for a new system.

Zombie wrote: Aging should only affect problem players, even you recognize that. But it's not doing that at all with the current rules.

Yes, I do recognise that Aging (or some variant thereof) should target problem players, but I don't entirely agree that the current system is completely useless at it. The current Aging system was just the next step in the evolution of uber-player-reign-in systems that started with OSPA and App. Fees. Thus, Aging should probably be used to make the next step in the evolution of this system.

I do agree that such a system could be better implemented than the current incarnation, however, I am very strongly in favour of a system that we can agree on before throwing another patch onto the LRB only to find later on that it wasn't working the way our numbers said it would (as EXP seems to be doing, if my info is correct).

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 5:19 am

My proposed system is just a starting point. The numbers obviously need to be worked out through a huge amount of playtesting (a lot more than my league can provide), and i certainly wouldn't want it incorporated into the LRB before that's done. So if anyone's interesting in trying it out, tell me and give us feedback on how it went.