Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
Galak, your points 4 and 7 are actually cons, not pros. I also don't see why you didn't put them together because they basically say the same thing, but you seem to have done this with many other points as well to make your list look bigger:
4) You can develop an effective star player with this system and he's targeted no more of less by the system than any other player.
7) Links Aging with the actual age of the player.
One of the <b>strong</b> points of the current aging system is precisely that it targets problem players, <b>like it was designed to do!</b> Why on Earth do you it's a problem to do that when it was in fact the only reason that aging was brought in at all?
I also agree with every point brought up by Pinky, so i won't needlessly repeat them her.
There is another side effect of replacing MVPs with EXP.
I think that you will see far fewer skilled linemen in the first half dozen games.
Normally a couple of your linemen will get skills in the first few games, because of a lucky cas or TD and an MVP.
Under the new rules, with a single casualty it will still take a longbeard, on average, 6 games to get that 1st skill.
And for all you elven coaches out there its still worth using line elves to get extra completions. However it also encourages you to concentrate on developing the line elves that get lucky on EXP rolls as its the last few EXP that are hardest to get.
3) The coach will have no control over the ageing rate.
Think Jimmy the blitzer needs some rest? Well, forget about it, because he takes as much wear from scoring TDs as from passing out drinks. At least by benching players now you can reduce their SPP earnings.
While I agree with this point. I've never seen a coach bench a player to not have him age or get SPPs.
So the rules are that bench warmers don't get EXP rolls?
If I understand the current MVP rules correctly the only players who are ineligable are those missing the game through injury or handicap result. I thought those rules applied to EXP too.
The two advantages to playing those rules are
1) You don't have to keep track of who actually played (or silly things like bringing players on for the last turn of the half)
2) It allows your "useless" lineman to develop so that he may become worth playing. This helps mitigate the effect of having to retire players in experienced teams as your rookie players can sit on the bench and get a bit better.
If you don't like this for fluff reasons - well these players are training so EXP could be seen as a combination of both match experience and training.
Boy you lot have been busy while I've been asleep. This thread was only a few messages long when I went home yesterday!
GalakStarscraper wrote:
I don't think TRs are continuing to climb.
They are in the MBBL2. I got several teams getting ready to pass TR 250 who are no where near close to losing members from aging.
I think this is an issue with the current method of aging. It targets the players who are doing most and therefore they are the ones that coaches can least afford to retire. If you look at my MBBL2 high elf team, I would love to retire my niggled thrower, but until his replacement has developed at least one skill I can't really afford to. By targetting all players equally, we may well see a situation where more players are retired.
ianwilliams wrote:
So the rules are that bench warmers don't get EXP rolls?
No they do get EXP. What PH meant was that with the LRB aging, if you bench a player, he never really gets SPPs (other than the rare MVP) so his odds of aging with the LRB rules are very low.
While I agree with this statement, I've never seen or heard of a player sitting a star out to avoid a possible skill then aging roll under LRB rules.
If you think the 1/6 idea needs modification, just start it lower and build in some mods. For example:
* 1/6 rule kicks it at 5 EXP.
* For every additional EXP, subtract 1 from the roll.
That should handle that, if you cared to make it more difficult for older players.
And Zombie is right, the Ageing rules in the LRB were designed to bring down powerful players...in part. Really, they were designed to help preserve long-term viability in a league. That was the best factor we had at the time. Any system that encourages player turnover in some reasonable fashion is likely to work to that end. You'll just need better means of targetting the power players. (Fouls, anyone?)
I like what's been done with this idea so far, although I think the addition of Pro is more necessary than ever and will continue to test it here.
Acerak wrote:
I like what's been done with this idea so far, although I think the addition of Pro is more necessary than ever and will continue to test it here.
I think that having an entire team with Pro is a recipe for problems. Mark my words here, after 14 games you'll be hating Pro. Particularly your Amazon team will hate it. Every other two die block without a straight Pow result will be re-rolled with Pro.
I look forward to your results, but I'm not optimistic about them.
i still don't buy the logical construct that says "in order to institute aging, and thus take something away from a player, i must first give him something in return"
i think the numbers have shown that this system results in fewer aging effects than the lrb aging system, and there was no up-front benefit in that system... also, not every player capable of aging will age, so he gets something for nothing... finally, a player who can age has at least 6spps, so he has something, his first regular skill roll...
Lucien Swift wrote:
i think the numbers have shown that this system results in fewer aging effects than the lrb aging system, and there was no up-front benefit in that system...
What are you talking about? Have you looked the numbers?
neoliminal wrote:What are you talking about? Have you looked the numbers?
i thought the upshot of all of this was that there are more potential agers per _team_ but the odds of any one particular starplayer agging were actually less once they got over their third skill... or something like that...
i don't do math!
well, i do, but that's work, i refuse to bring that nonsense into my recreational time
In a locked thread, Dave said: 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.
Dave,
Assume your team is comprised of 6 Skeletons. Every 8 games, 3 of them win an MVP award. At this point, you need to get a TD or a Completion or a Casualty for them.
Now assume that 6 Skeletons play 8 games. In that time, they'll pick up approximately 5 EXP apiece...in other words, you're in the same boat, I think.
Pro comes down to placing it in the proper spot for me. Arguments against this come down to these two:
1. You don't have to give something to a player in exchange for ageing.
2. Pro will get very cluttersome on 16 players.
I don't agree with the first one, especially against my original suggestion: 1-rr-1 caused you to miss a game. This ensured that a big team would miss 4 players every 9 games. With the current 1-(7 or less) model, however, you'll have 14 players missing time. That's an extra player per game. So if I felt Pro was a good idea before - and I did - then I think it's an even better idea now. I understand that people don't agree with this; that's fine.
But I don't think Pro will get very cluttersome, because I don't ever expect to see a 16-player team of Pros. Fouling isn't capped as heavily in my league - it's less deadly, but there's no IGMEOY, so I don't imagine it will be bottled up as it is in most leagues. The upshot? We'll see a healthy turnover from attrition, making widespread use of Pro less intrusive.
Finally, I think some folks feel that Pro on an older player will be too powerful. I don't see a problem with the skill, however. So it allows you to re-roll some blocks - so what? If the block is a turnover and you have a re-roll handy, you'l use it. If it isn't, it takes about 2 seconds to pick up the dice for that one player and then re-roll them. But I think a few "old hands" out there could add to the drama. Want to try an extra dodge or a GFI with that Jerry Rice-type player? That's cool with me.
Also, note that I'm proposing Pro at 5 EXP rather than 6. This also means that Ageing will kick in earlier than it does in the "6 EXP" system - by 6 games, on average. So I don't think it's "giving" the player much.
But we'll see, eh? Maybe it will be a nice touch. Maybe it will bomb horribly. It's my job to find out, but I'll say that my coaches are thrilled with the concept.
As much as I like this concept Chet, I don't like given Pro out at 5 EXP and I don't like starting the 1 is an age after EXP 5.
The rule is simple right now and I think both of these effects add elements I don't like.
I think having 12+ players with Pro for free is widening the gap between rookie and experienced teams. One of the objectives of the rules was to top out teams and give rookies a chance. To me this is contrary to that.
I also like aging not starting until after 6 EXP. This means that a team with resetting seasons will not have to deal with aging. The plan as presented is good and I'd prefer to stick with this than the modifications that Acerak said he would be using in his league.
