New EXP/Ageing Rule

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:59 pm

I'll repeat this because people seemed to have ignore my previous post almost completely and this is very important.

The point of aging is to prevent problem players. Your system brings down all players instead of targeting the few problem cases. That goes against the whole point of aging. If you don't like the basic concept of aging, maybe you're not the best person to make changes to it.

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 10:05 pm

Zombi:

maybe there should tried out an completely different solution for such problem players. This ageing rule won't work for me.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 10:33 pm

Zombie, as has already been said (either on this thread or another) there is a problem with aging, in that so many people doesn't like it and don't play it. I have to put myself in that catergory, as we won't be uing aging in our next league.

Whether EXP is the best solution I can't say, though I do like the idea behind it, but a solution must be found if so many coaches, commishes and leagues are against the current rules.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Oct 12, 2002 10:44 pm

I think this is hopeless either way. Many people loved appearance fees and will keep playing with them no matter what happens. Others will keep playing aging the way it stands now. Others will adopt a new proposed system. Many more will play with their own house rules that were never official. Yet some more will never use any rule that brings down experienced team.

This is what happens when even the people who make the rules can't agree on one given system. If we adopt Galak's proposal, it will be the 4th official system to date after 1) no system at all in 3rd ed, 2) the appearance fees of 4th ed and 3) the current aging system. Find something that works and stick to it. Everytime you change the system, you lose some more coaches and some more leagues forever.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Oct 13, 2002 4:30 pm

Zombie wrote:I think this is hopeless either way. Many people loved appearance fees and will keep playing with them no matter what happens.

I believe that was an extremely small handful of players.

Others will keep playing aging the way it stands now.

Not that I've heard ... every league I've talked to prefers the EXP system over the current aging rules.

Many more will play with their own house rules that were never official. Yet some more will never use any rule that brings down experienced team.

House rules are a natural state for Blood Bowl

This is what happens when even the people who make the rules can't agree on one given system.

Actually most of the folks that make the rules agree on the EXP concept from what I've heard. Its solves a lot of the complaints of the current aging system while still focusing on their end goal.

If we adopt Galak's proposal

I asked before ... I'll ask again ... stop calling it that. Its was Marcus's idea; Manu recommended linking in aging; Acerak and Neo proposed the method to do it. All I did was run numbers to show everyone how the different proposals would work. I realize you have little like for the BBRC and me but at least get your facts straight thanks.

it will be the 4th official system to date after 1) no system at all in 3rd ed, 2) the appearance fees of 4th ed and 3) the current aging system. Find something that works and stick to it. Everytime you change the system, you lose some more coaches and some more leagues forever.

I believe that is exactly what they are trying to do Zombie. This system looks like the best one proposed to date. You don't agree that's clear, but you are again a minority on this one.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Oct 13, 2002 4:38 pm

Zombie wrote:I'll repeat this because people seemed to have ignore my previous post almost completely and this is very important.

The reason it was ignored was it was incorrect.

The point of aging is to prevent problem players. Your system brings down all players instead of targeting the few problem cases. That goes against the whole point of aging. If you don't like the basic concept of aging, maybe you're not the best person to make changes to it.

Actually since I was involved with the original playtesting of the now LRB rules, I can tell you for a fact that aging was NEVER meant to prevent problem players. Aging was presented to my playtest league by the BBRC as the best method that they had devised to ENCOURAGE PLAYER TURNOVER. This was and always has been the goal of the aging mechanic. So the system was never specifically intended to target the stars. We were told straight up front that a system based on games played was their primary focus but that such a system that made sense, was balanced, and didn't suddenly result in a rookie team with every player making an aging roll on game X had not been devised from the first BBRC brainstorming session. Well, the EXP system appears to be the mechanic that the BBRC wanted from the beginning.

So Zombie I'm sorry but your post was ignored because it wasn't factual. Aging was never about targeting stars. Targetting stars was simply a side effect of the best system that could be devised a year ago. The EXP system is the closest match I've seen to what my test league was told was the best case scenario when we began playtesting the LRB rules before they were released in the BB2k1 Rules Review.

Galak

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:03 pm

"an extremely small handful of players"? If the BBC was any indication, it was the majority of players worldwide who liked it! I think it was something like 80-20. I realize that it was the opposite on the mailing list, but still, the percentages on the BBC should tell you something.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:05 pm

And why did they want to encourage player turnovers? To prevent problem players! That's always been the ultimate goal. It was clearly the goal with appearance fees, since they did nothing but that.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 12:12 pm

Zombie wrote:And why did they want to encourage player turnovers? To prevent problem players! That's always been the ultimate goal. It was clearly the goal with appearance fees, since they did nothing but that.

The BBRC's goal was player turnover. I have no idea what Jervis's ideas where with 4th edition but since that flew like a lead ballon (and App. Fees where part of that lead ballon), I'm sure he changed his thinking as well.

You are comparing too different time periods and ruling bodies by trying to bring App. Fees into the argument.

Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 12:13 pm

Zombie wrote:"an extremely small handful of players"? If the BBC was any indication, it was the majority of players worldwide who liked it! I think it was something like 80-20. I realize that it was the opposite on the mailing list, but still, the percentages on the BBC should tell you something.

Considering that the majority of the posters have migrated from the BBC to here by now .... I fail to see the support for your contention at this time.

Galak

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:24 pm

Well, speaking as somebody who actually quite liked OSPA (albeit for very different reasons than those intended) and posted to that effect on a few occasions on the BBC, you can't just lump everybody into the same bracket. I hated AF, and so did an awful lot of others, certainly enough to produce the attempted 'monty-haul' fix that appeared in Mag2.
In fact I'd hazard a guess that AFs were probably the most disliked facet of 4e.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:53 pm

Zombie wrote: Find something that works and stick to it. Everytime you change the system, you lose some more coaches and some more leagues forever.

--begin troll feeding--

Many would argue that this discussion is a subset of "finding something that works"

--end troll feeding--

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:44 pm

Zombie wrote:And why did they want to encourage player turnovers? To prevent problem players! That's always been the ultimate goal. It was clearly the goal with appearance fees, since they did nothing but that.

The BBRC's goal was player turnover. I have no idea what Jervis's ideas where with 4th edition but since that flew like a lead ballon (and App. Fees where part of that lead ballon), I'm sure he changed his thinking as well.

You are comparing too different time periods and ruling bodies by trying to bring App. Fees into the argument.

The BBRC goal with aging was to assist capping teams without a true capping system around TR 250 to 300. The problem was that the aging rules effect teams in their very early TR stages and this is a point not enjoyed by a LOT of folks. Suggestions to delay the aging effect don't work statwise. Nailing star players has never been the ultimate goal as you suggested. Capping around TR 300 was the ultimate goal and if I hadn't signed agreements otherwise I'd post the emails from the BBRC back from Aug/Sept 2001 that said as much.

Oh and Marcus I would agree with you. I think this is part of that find some better.

Galak

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 6:51 pm

Marcus, you can call me what you want, but not a troll. I'm doing everything i can to make the rules better. Never trolled in any forum in my life. Trying to make things better is not trolling.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:27 pm

Showing my ignorance here, but what's trolling?