A serious look at ageing

[noodle]

Circular_Logic Said"When you fail an aging roll, just peak the player."

I really like this idea, a peaking role. Fluff wise it really seems to add up to the rookie being as bust and not having the top end talent to make it. Also this limits team growth, and the ultra super star mega player. this also makes the player not a liability.

I also like the bone head / punch drunk idea, however I think it seems like a serious injury resulting from a concussion, maybe roll a d6 on a concussion on a 1 the player has become punch drunk and is bone head, if this happens again, Really stupid. S.

We have something very close to this - in effect in game niggles which I have prattled on about for ages.....

Peaking is also good...

[Bifi]

A blodge-catcher, rarly getting knocked down is more likly to age than a lino, who gets beating on the LOS.
That´s the major flaw.

Not if he suffers serious injuries.

[Circular_Logic]

Yeah, but the point your missing is that Ageing is designed to effect WHOLE TEAMS. If you consider individual players in isolation, then you are bound to get upset.

Then you are missing, that a team getting lots of players peaked, won´t improve, if they don´t retire players and replace them. You can even make peaking more likely. In addition, the team gets a lot of dead weight, as the players SPPs count towards the teamrating dispite the player´s not getting any skill. So sooner or later he WILL be fired, but it´s the coaches choice not the dices choice, as if he gets -AG, -ST or sometimes even a niggle.

Not if he suffers serious injuries.

Serious injuries don´t increase the chance, that player ages in a set period of games.

[juck101]

just aged a HE team with 309 TR. Roster from 3rd ed rule book.

HAD 44 skills over the team so well developed players with 1 old star player. Ended up with ten players from 15 with a niggling and two with 2 niggling. Man my team is crushed. Need to retire so many cant risk a game with 12 nig rolls, compond that with natural miss games and could have 300tr 5 man team!

Think ageing correct has culled my team. Currently played 6 games with nig roll in each half and works much better, far more unpredictable.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Has anyone wondered why they didn't just expand the SPP table out? I mean this would have the double effect of slowing development and increasing the amount of points the stars contribute to TR.

Not only that but it could be easily adjust for the taste of the league.
Did they even try this?

[David Bergkvist]

I've asked myself the same thing.

The ironic thing is that they did the opposite: In the third edition, you needed 101 SPPs to get your fifth roll, whereas now you only need 76 SPPs.

[Munkey]

just aged a HE team with 309 TR. Roster from 3rd ed rule book.

HAD 44 skills over the team so well developed players with 1 old star player. Ended up with ten players from 15 with a niggling and two with 2 niggling. Man my team is crushed. Need to retire so many cant risk a game with 12 nig rolls, compond that with natural miss games and could have 300tr 5 man team!

Think ageing correct has culled my team. Currently played 6 games with nig roll in each half and works much better, far more unpredictable.

Now I might be able to actually beat this team

This is no indication of a problem with aging though - If you'd done it as you went along a lot of these players wouldn't still be on the team as you would have sacked them.

This is what would happen if you soldiered on and didn't sack the nigglers when you could afford to.

Dark Lord:
What do you mean by expanding the SPP table? If you mean upping the limits to get skills they've done that in the BBB league and it wasn't a popular choice IIRC.

[Toby]

Quicker Progression, more fun.

I advocate for a long time to remove skill roll #6, so that from 76 to 176 your players are stalled but inflate TR more and more. But, I also want to see players PEAK at 176 so the TR Handicap stops at that point.

[Joemanji]

Not a bad idea Tobemory. In combination with neg winnings and a decent handicap table.

[Circular_Logic]

Well.. just say all failed aging-rolls peak the player (or even better: let the coach choose, if he wants to peak the guy or if he wants to roll on the aging-table), but SPPs, gained by a peaked player still count for TR.

[Blammaham]

I was just wondering if it might work if peaked players NEW spps didn't add to the team rating. The team isn't improving from his added spps, first of all and it might be an incentive to keep a few grizzled veterns around as valuable players if they were peaked later on in their careers. Now of course all of the peaked players spps gained BEFORE he was peaked still count towards the teams rating.S

[Joemanji]

No, that is completely contrary to the point. We want those extra, pointless SPPs to weigh down TR, so that a coach who continues to rely solely on his multi-skilled vets, instead of recycling players, gets his TR pushed way out of proportion.

Still hate peaking. So much prefer Toby's idea of dropping the 6th skill roll (at 126). It's actually quite subtle, although not sure if it is enough on its own. If I'm hyping up a Toby idea, you know how much I dislike peaking!

[David Bergkvist]

If you're going to drop a star player roll, I'd prefer the following star player table:

Code: Select all

0-5     0 rolls
6-15    1 roll
16-30   2 rolls
31-50   3 rolls
51-100  4 rolls
101-200 5 rolls
201+    6 rolls

Or even better:

Code: Select all

0-5     0 rolls
6-12    1 roll
13-25   2 rolls
26-50   3 rolls
51-100  4 rolls
101-200 5 rolls
201+    6 rolls

But that's mainly because they look better and are easier to remember.

[Oni]

Peaking should be in the aging rolls. Some players get injured as they age and some players are just not as smart. The coach still decides who to fire.


Oni