New EXP/Ageing Rule

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:22 pm

Acerak wrote: But I don't think Pro will get very cluttersome, because I don't ever expect to see a 16-player team of Pros.

We ran tests and that's exactly what happened. Haven't you been reading along? We used a test team from my league that was near 30 games. It was full of "Pro"s by the 14th game.

Lucien Swift · Post by **Lucien Swift** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:22 pm

but your tests didn't figure in normal game-based casualties, did it? i mean, isn't there a chance, even with them tough orcs, that three or four of those players would have gotten killed or maimed sufficently to retire? what about mng from injury, etc...

point being, that admittedly you'd probably have 10 or so pros, but your tests really didn't figure in the "reality" of bloodbowl...

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 12:41 am

Lucien Swift wrote:but your tests didn't figure in normal game-based casualties, did it? i mean, isn't there a chance, even with them tough orcs, that three or four of those players would have gotten killed or maimed sufficently to retire? what about mng from injury, etc...

point being, that admittedly you'd probably have 10 or so pros, but your tests really didn't figure in the "reality" of bloodbowl...

Now that's funny. Please go back and read the test.

We took a team in my local league that's played about 30 games. We removed all the ageing effects from the team (just one effect, BTW) and we then ran that team through the new ageing system. Players who died were dead, or injured or whatever.

You're really back-peddling here. The fact is that this new system is going to result in more ageing effects and cause some player turnover, where the current system doesn't. Also the system that Galak and I are supporting has no "Pro's" per say. We don't think you should be adding them.

If you insist on being inaccurate when the facts are waiting to be read on this very thread, then I'm affraid I can't take much stock in your posts, can I?

Rustycan · Post by **Rustycan** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 12:58 am

I think this EXP system is ok but for a few things....
<BR><BR>

2 ST -1 and Miss Next Game
3 AG -1 and Miss Next Game
4 MA -1 and Miss Next Game
5 AV -1 and Miss Next Game
6 Niggle and Miss Next Game
7 Miss Next Game
8-12 No Effect

<BR>
With a roll of 5 you get a -1 AV, that seems a bit harsh! Why not move the -1 AV to 12 so it is harder to roll?? And put the no result in the middle of the table where it is more likely to be rolled? I mean you cant increase your AV by any normal means whereas you can increase your ST with a lucky stat increase. At least you have a chance to get back your St but with AV no way! Im not sure what the % are but rolling a 12 is much less likely than rolling a 5. Im all for it being harder to get a higher TR but it seems a biit skewed to me.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 1:11 am

Well, the original system had the nasty effect on the top...

12 -1 ST
11 -1 AG
... etc

But someone suggested that this would reverse the whole "bad rolls are low" mentality. I could care less.

As for the distribution of effects, they are weighted to the effects we wanted.

Rustycan · Post by **Rustycan** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 1:13 am

yes but would it not be better if the results for -ST and -AV were switched?? IMHO at least there weould be a small chance for my poor Norsemen to keep an almost decent AV.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 1:17 am

Rustycan wrote:yes but would it not be better if the results for -ST and -AV were switched?? IMHO at least there weould be a small chance for my poor Norsemen to keep an almost decent AV.

Well the odds are likely to result in a Niggling injury.... but I can understand why you would want an effect like AV to be smaller. But think of it this way, we're trying to get you to fire the guy.

Rustycan · Post by **Rustycan** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 1:26 am

OK I understand your point, hoever Norsemen dont quit or get fired........ They drink themselves into a permanent stupor! But one other thing, other than the ole Magic Helmet of days gone by, is there, or will there be any way to increase your AV?? Or just a way to bring it back to what it once was???

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 10:37 am

Chet said:

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.

I don't think its the same boat.

Sure in the long run, the skeletons etc may gain more or the same SPPs. However, with the proposed method, there is almost no chance of getting a skeleton a skill until 8 or 10 games. Using MVPs, it is very possible for a skeleton to have a skill after 2 games - 1 if he's very lucky. Perhaps 2 is pushing it but then it is very possible after say 4 games. Sure your other skeletons are likely to be sitting around with no SPPs but then those are line fodder and treated as such.

So if you were developing a team, would you prefer:-

5 skeletons with 2 SPPs
1 skeleton with 3 SPPs

or

1 Skeleton with 7 SPPs
1 Skeleton with 5 SPPs
4 Skeletons with 0 SPPs

OK the first has no new skills and more SPPs. The second has 1 skilled Skeleton and 1 close to a skill.

I know which I prefer - having one skeleton with a skill is far superior IMO.

I am not saying that the MVP system is better or worse. All I'm saying is that this proposal does change development - to suggest otherwise is wrong.

As with others, I am not keen on the Pro idea. Sure you won't have 16 Pros on a team - but you could easily have 8+. Having this many Pros on the team is going to mean less turnovers - OK roll double skulls - reroll... later on your catcher fails a GFI - so he uses Pro. When experienced teams meet, there are rarely a lot of turnovers in the game. Extra rerolls and skills tend to ensure that less mistakes are made. Adding Pro to a lot of players will reduce this further.

Dave

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 4:16 pm

Dave,

I can see your point but once get that lucky casualty you only need 4 EXP for the 1st skill - so ~6 games.

After 4 games you'll normally have 3 EXP so then you can start trying to get that TD.

So you are only really talking about the 1st half dozen games

Ian

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 4:30 pm

The SPPs are bascially the same in the earily games between the two systems.

Its just more spread out. I sure don't have a problem with the effect Dave described one single bit.

Galak

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 4:57 pm

I still do not like the aeging concept being tied to "Experience" points (call them as you like). This system punishes the lucky player that advances faster - not very reasonable.

Don't understand me wrong, I do not want a system where the rules show 100% realism. BB is still a game but the rules should make sense.

The problem is in my point of view, that a rule like ageing is really needed to balance the growing ptoential of star players but on the otherhand many coaches here fear that their "almighty" Starplayer would suffer from this rules.

In another thread I showed some alternative rules we re trying out right now. Sure theese rules take some amount of decision out of the coaches hand, as a player peakes or might leave the team at an unwanted time.
But please remember, that MAYBE it is good that in a sportsgame, the coach could not deceide everything. MAYBE it shows some of your manageing abilities when you still win games after your Star Blitzer left your team ?

I just wanted to show that I really do not like the EXP-Aging rules because they are an unfitting amalgam of rules-effects that don't hurt to much but try to bring balance. [sarcasm on] Oh the rules should also make sense ??? well not everything could be handled right now ...right ?[sarcasm off]

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 5:05 pm

Galak,

I don't have a problem with the change. My point is that its different and means that you are very unlikely to have a skill quickly with the EXP rules. You may get a skill quickly with the MVP rules. The total SPPs will be similar but more spread out with the EXP rules.

My preference as a Coach of an Undead team is for MVPs since this should allow development of a dirty player

more quickly.

That said, the only point I am making is that since the EXP system spreads out SPPs, development will be different. This will have an impact on the game and needs to be tested.

DAve

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 6:26 pm

Relborn wrote:I just wanted to show that I really do not like the EXP-Aging rules because they are an unfitting amalgam of rules-effects that don't hurt to much but try to bring balance.

This is where we'll just agree to disagree Relborn. I find peaking a player to be a much more unfitting amalgam than the EXP aging system that doesn't kick in with its first effect for an average player until around the 29th game a player plays. Players earning 2 skills and than peaking just doesn't seem more realistic to me than the player has seen almost 30 games and now has an sports related injury because of it. I forget how many NFL seasons 30 games is but I'm pretty sure its around 2 and an athlete playing 2 NFL season often comes down with some permantent effects. This system is very fitting and match up both in realism effect and game mechanic balance for me.

I already gave my opinion of your system on the other thread so I wasn't going to post until you suggest that this is an unfitting amalgam .... that I had to respond because I just don't agree.

Galak

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:43 pm

I don't know what you mean Galak ???

Why on earth should it be unrealistic to peak after two skill rolls (besides the chances are very small that this would happen) ?

Would it really be so unrealistic that not every player would have the potential to become a star player ? Well you choose the example of the NFL - so tell me why not every QB there reaches the status like an Joe Montana (just to pick one) ?

To me it is very reasonable that some players don't have the potential to become a star player. And why should every human blitzer possibly become an second Griff Oberwald ? If the coach does not like the peaked player he could save money to buy a new talent ... and so on.

I think that Bloodbowl does not need an ageing system (wouldn't make much sense for some races, even if you call it wear and tear). The wear and tear factor is already included by the serious injuries a player can suffer. What I agree is, that there should be an balancing factor that teams do not advance into the sky. My system is just on possible solution, and I say possible because we haven't got it playtested thoroughly. So I wouldn't recommend that anybody else should use it till have seen the effects after 40 or 50 games played.

Basically Galak you are right, we could agree one more time that we totally disagree. But that's okay use your ageing rule in your personal league and I would be the last person that would say anything against it. Everybody can choose his own houserules.

Talk Fantasy Football

New EXP/Ageing Rule

Exp-Aeging

Re: Exp-Aeging