I hate aging!

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:03 pm

Yesterday, my troll won the MVP. That brought him up to 32 SPPs, which gave him a new skill. I chose guard (he already had block and piling on). I then roll for aging: 2,1. Roll for kind of aging: 6,6. Because of the MVP, the troll is now ST4! You can be sure that he retired right away.

How can you like aging after something like that? I mean come on, geting a -1ST troll because he won the MVP! Damn!

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:07 pm

I'm waiting to chortle with joy at the first Mummy to lose movement.

carnage4u · Post by **carnage4u** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:11 pm

I know the debate on aging is old and long. But I dont know if I can ever be conviced that win You reach a new skill lvl and gain a skill, that their should be a chance you are punished by ageing. If the ageing chart had some chance of a postive skill like earning pro or something like that I could tolerate it. but since aging is 100% negative, It makes no sense.

and winning the MVP to bump you to -1st is just sad and shows why ageing is lame.

I am all for a system to keep teams in check somehow. but i think the fact they made it harder to make money with the new rules and they bumped up the 2nd skill to 16 are 2 good ways to help.

The people i play with all stop playing teams after 12 to 15 games anyway so we just dont have the issue of teams that are 3 yrs old and have a 400+ team rating. That style of play is not what our league does.
However I know others like to keep the same team forever.. but ageing is a lame way to punish them.

salary cap system could be interesting if done right
the exp system people have talked about also in interesting, but i honestly dont unerstand it completely to really give a good opinion on it.

Ok.. I just wanted to type a lot so it looked like I had a clue what i was talking about.

Gorbit · Post by **Gorbit** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:26 pm

Its sad, Zombie, really sad.
in my league, we use a rule that came up after reading an old string(From november?) here in tbb.
After every 10th game, every player roll ageing on 5+, if that fails, we CHOOSE from the age list. If we didnt choose there would be an overflow of nigglings, and it doesnt cripple a team if , for example , your troll could choose -1 in move.

I personally liked appearance fee better, but with the new rules and no cards, its not working.

Gorbit

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:27 pm

I just want to say that i have now come to the conclusion that any system that aims at player turnover should never give -1ST or -1AG. Nigglings, -1MA, -1AV, you can work around. But -1ST always means the player retires, and -1AG on a thrower, a catcher, a wardancer or a witch elf is automatic retirement. The coach should still have a choice to keep the player or not, and this is not the case with these two.

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:29 pm

Gorbit wrote: I personally liked appearance fee better, but with the new rules and no cards, its not working.

Gorbit

FINALLY someone that agree that App. Fee was better. I was wondering if I was the only one on this board

zeroalpha · Post by **zeroalpha** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:38 pm

Ageing is mildly annoying, no more annoying than a goblin killing your dragon warrior on the second down of your opening league game (that is a story for another time however)
We ran a league once that had a cap on the total number of SPP's allowed in a team, worked quite well but ended in the same result as ageing, you eventually had to retire players as thier negitives outweigh their positives ie. their niggling injuries mount up.
I agree with other posters that a salary cap or appearence fee type system would also be good, but then you may just find that there are post that say " i hate the salary cap" or " i hate apearence fees" and all we have done is come full circle.
Its time to either except it or email fanatic and try to get them to modify it

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:52 pm

Heiper wrote:
Gorbit wrote: I personally liked appearance fee better, but with the new rules and no cards, its not working.

Gorbit
FINALLY someone that agree that App. Fee was better. I was wondering if I was the only one on this board

I have said many times that i find both appearance fees and salary caps better than aging.

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:18 am

zeroalpha wrote:Ageing is mildly annoying, no more annoying than a goblin killing your dragon warrior on the second down of your opening league game (that is a story for another time however)

In the first game of our new league, I played against another orc team - a very bashy one, with lots of BOB:s and an ogre.

First thing that happens is that one of his Black orcs two dice-blocks my lineman on the LOS. He gets double skulls, chooses not to reroll, and promptly dies. No apo.

And I didn't even mean it!

Micke

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:30 am

we just moved the aging table back 2 skills...aka on your 3rd skill you start with the 3+ roll, etc. That way it's still there to tone down the uberpowerful characters, but you don't have to worry about your line elf getting block and a niggler at tr 110.

also i agree...the new winnings table and ff caps and so on are more than enough to keep teams small...aging annoys coaches (especially rookie coaches who are new to the game) way more than any positive impact it has on game balance.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:29 am

I don't think appearance fees are better...to me they do the same thing that Zobie is complaining abaout. Once a player's appearamce fees are higher then the amount of money a team will make if they win then what is the point in having the player play? Appearance fees were poorly impemented.

I do, however, agree that no ageing effect should damage the player so much that retirement is assured. Losing an ST point on a troll is extremely harsh punishment for doing well! A loss of AV is a much better choice.

I'm a huge fan of making all ageing effects niggling injuries and then having niggling injuries give +1 to injury rolls. (I.E.3 niggling injuries equals +3 to injuries) This, at least, lets the coach have the option of letting their player die on his feet!

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:29 am

I was watching the Dwarf Giants -team from the Wodell league homepage (it's been converted from 2nd edition) and I noticed that most of the players had gained very similar aging results. Meaning that every longbeard had gotten -1MA.

What if the first aging results are fixed to strengthen the bad sides of the player?
That would produce too many tables, but the same could be achieved with this special rule:

When the player ages for the first time, before rolling the aging result roll, the coach can choose to take any of the stat-reducing results instead.

Now the coach is allowed to take an aging result that doesn't make his player completely worthless. The player becomes more 1-dimensional and retains his heavy effect on the TR.

Sixpack595 · Post by **Sixpack595** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:57 am

Ageing is about frigging retarded. OK, glad I got that out of the way. We can debate the idea behind ageing till the cows come home but the fact remains...its a crap system. I don't see a need for it but many do, thats a different arguement. If you want a system like ageing, why not use the Experience system mentioned before? The older the player is, the worse shape he is in. At least you are guaranteed a few games before getting raped.

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:15 am

The EXP system as it stands needs to amended. At present, after 10 or so games, it is not that unlikely to have a team with 4 or so players who could age on a 1 after every game - sure there is a chance that if you roll a 1 they could get the no effect roll or they could just get a MNG result. My team in the MBBL is in this position - in addition there are 3 or 4 more players with 5 EXPs - a roll of 6 on their EXP roll will mean more players who could age after each game. The TR of the team is 165 - if it was 300 then I wouldn't have a problem with it!

As it stands, as with skill based aging it can come in too early. This is why changes like this need to be properly tested before implementation.

I don't believe that aging should be a choice - aging is unpredictable - sure the current system is flawed - see Zombie's troll. But allowing players to pick the effect is not right IMO.

Dave

Fronko · Post by **Fronko** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:18 am

I guess, the whole thing is about penaltying players before they become too powerful. I think we all agree on that. The problem is, you somehow have to decide WHEN someone becomes too old before he suffers from ageing. Ok, you may well say after 10 games or after one season or whatever you will make those ageing rolls. But that would mean you´ll unbalance the teams. While elves could easily achieve 3 skill increases in ten games, longbeards will probably only manage to get 1 (two, if the get many MVPs). So in the long run, you´d punish slow increasing teams more than quickly advancing ones.

We just have to cope with the fact, that any abstraction from reality (and every rule is such an abstraction!) is more or less broken.

I mean, look at the human catcher, who is blocked by an orc blitzer. Blitzer rolls double skulls, breaks armour, dies. That´s 2 SPPs for the catcher, who probably didn´t even now what happened in the first place. Let´s assume, these to points are enough to get the next increase and he chooses pass block. So the "experience" of killing an orc blitzer will make him better at intercepting passes. Logical connection? No way. But that is just the way it is. So, if you don´t like ageing, house-rule it differently, but the concept of ageing in my opinion is the one approach which works best.

Maybe it will help imagine, that those ageing events happen sometime in the training between matches. Poor troll practices ramming into wodden decoys to become more effectiv in blocking but in the attempt breaks his collar bone. How about that? (Do trolls have collar bones?)

Gee, this has become much longer as I intended it to be. Hope, I didn´t bore you into slumber...