Very simple alternative to Ageing : "Fees"

[BlanchPrez]

2: Player demands a 10k fee to continue playing for the team.
3: Player demands a 10k fee to continue playing for the team.
4: Player demands a 20k fee to continue playing for the team.
5: Player demands a 20k fee to continue playing for the team.
6: Player demands a 30k fee to continue playing for the team.
7: Player demands a 30k fee to continue playing for the team.
8: Player demands a 40k fee to continue playing for the team.
9: Player demands a 50k fee to continue playing for the team.
10+: Roll on the Aging Table.

I really like this though you could change the aging roll to a serious injury roll.

That might be interesting. I think I wouold make theactual aging roll 9+, and get rid of one of the 10k fees. So, 10K once, 20K twice, the rest the same, and 9+ aging.

Chirs

[Joemanji]

Yep, it wouldn't suit to have the chances and effects of failure both increase together. One or other should be non-variable.

So either 20k fees (for example) accross the board, or fixed chance of failing the roll - ie. roll of 1 on a D6, no roll for veterans, with fees of 20k, 40k, 60k etc.

Considering players up to the 51 SPP level, where 99% of activity takes place:

Example of the former
A player reaching 51 SPP will, on average, have failed 0.56 rolls. So he will cost the team, on average, an extra 11k.

Example of the latter
A player reaching 51 SPP will, on average, cost the team an extra 20k.

[Joemanji]

Anyway, my point is that this idea should work once you fiddle the probabilities and fees to the right levels.

[Skummy]

Could the price be tied to the base cost of the player? I think it's pretty reasonable that a goblin with 5 skills is still going to cost less to resign than a wardancer with 5 skills.

[Joemanji]

HANDICAP TABLE
11 - APPEARANCE FEE: The player on the opposing team with the most SPPs has decided that he needs to be paid money to take the field against 'those bums'. Roll a D6 and multiply the result by 5,000. The result is the number of GC the player must receive before he will take the field. If he isn't paid, he'll sit in the Dugout, refusing to come out until his fee is met or the game ends! The opposing coach may choose to pay the fee any time after the start of the match if he wishes.

This got me thinking. TR capping is intended to stop high-TR teams destroying low-TR teams. Ageing does this by effecting high and low TR teams, but statistically is much more likely to damage high TR ones. The handicap table, on the other hand, is completely relative - it works only to the advantage of the lower TR team.

What if teams always had to pay some kind of app. fee for their better players? E.g. any player with 51+ SPPs has to pay the D6x5000 fee against opposition with a lower TR? Or had to pay it on a 1-3 roll of a D6? Maybe only if the difference in TR was large enough - not it it was just 1 or 2!

Any team with a TR significantly greater than the rest of the teams in its league would be worst effected. New teams wouldn't be hurt at all. Teams in the middle would be effected equally. This could effectively cap the TR of the biggest team, causing him to leak TR, or force him to trim it himself.

This solution would also be specific to each league. So in a league with lots of evenly balanced teams, it would have no effect.

Also, this would effect bashy and agility teams equally. High AV teams are likely to have more players with roughly the same number of SPP, but more cash to pay their fees. Whereas low AV teams have a higher turnover, and would probably have a greater spread of SPPs - some players with many, some with a few.

[Joemanji]

Yes, I know this is similar to the 4e appearance fee rules. But it isn't identical. For example, the 4e rules forced you pay the fees even against teans with a much higher TR. And the fees were much larger. As a favour to me, would you read through carefully before making that comparison? Ta

[David Bergkvist]

TR capping is intended to stop high-TR teams destroying low-TR teams.

AFAIK, that's not the only reason why there should be TR capping. It is also desireable to prevent teams from getting TR 300+, because games between TR 300+ teams are generally considered to be boring, even if both teams have similar TR.

Therefore, the ageing replacement should come into play not only when a high TR team meets a low TR team, but also when two high TR teams meet.

[Joemanji]

If this is the case, and I'm not convinced, its only 3% of the reason. 97% is to stop evil teams of death slaughtering newbies and turning them off BB for good.

[Skummy]

Okay, I've tied in the base cost of the player into a formula to retain a player. The cost to retain a player is the 1/3 of the base cost (rounded down) multiplied by the number of skills the player has.

Code: Select all

Cost of player    Cost per skill to retain player
30,000     -     10,000
40,000     -     10,000
50,000     -     10,000
60,000     -     20,000
70,000     -     20,000
80,000     -     20,000
90,000     -     30,000
100,000    -     30,000
110,000    -     30,000
120,000    -     40,000
130,000    -     40,000

The problem I see with this is that the team is clearly going to be better off paying for the player unless he has got more than 3 skills. Not really a very good incentive for player turnover, I'm afraid.

[Grumbledook]

isn't this just a more awkward way of doing what the negative winnings tweak galak came up with?

[Skummy]

Pretty much, yeah.

[Joemanji]

I suppose it is really...

Where is the old chap? He hasn't posted in a few days, not like him at all.

[Skummy]

I think he's taking it easy now that Grumbledook got a job. Doesn't have to post as much to keep in the lead.