A serious look at ageing

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 8:32 am

Concerning ageing:
It is a cap on team development and I like it. It's funny although I don't deem Niggling Injuries results as OK since they tend to hamper the team in the long run and are especially harmful to young teams. What I would propose is not an increasing chance of ageing every time an advancement is taken, but at certain points in the career (say, at 31, 76 and 176 SPPs) the player would age automatically. The coach would have to roll on a modified ageing results table - with funny negatraits included in the possible outcomes, such as Bonehead (the player is quite senile, and if rolled repeatedly, it worsens to Really Stupid) or 10K requirement for each match (increased fees, health insurance, etc., and if rolled repeatedly it would cumulate). This way the ageing mechanics would be a bit calculable and actually a fun-inducing factor.

But the question stands:
Do we want to drop ageing, modify it, or leave it as it is? And why?

TiMuN · Post by **TiMuN** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:27 am

Toby in disguise?

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:53 pm

TiMuN wrote:Toby in disguise?

What does this mean

? I suppose Toby is someone proposing changing ageing?

I actually like ageing, although I don't like niggling injuries.

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:08 pm

TiMuN wrote:Toby in disguise?

easy TiMuN! reel back in your suspicions, Bifi is not Tony.

Bifi, this is just the TYPE of thing that our German friend proposes from time to time. including the reintroduction of Star Players to League play and other gems.

Post by **Thadrin** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:17 pm

comparing this idea to Tobyisms is harsh guys...

Its not an idea I like, but it seems to be at least REASONABLE.

FWIW I wouldn't mind seeing Punch Drunk/Bonehead added to the aging table, but I have a feeling Aging's days are numbered. Our league dumped it and I think the feeling is generally for removing it.

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:38 pm

voyagers_uk wrote:Bifi, this is just the TYPE of thing that our German friend proposes from time to time. including the reintroduction of Star Players to League play and other gems.

Gems? (Or germs?) Maybe I'm a naive morsel or what.

But OK, I take it the majority of people don't like the current ageing system.

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 1:54 pm

I said drop it, but other changes need to be put in place to limit TR growth - eg -ve winnings or some other method.

Dave

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:33 pm

Will negative winnings make it to through the actual BBRC? Will they drop ageing?

Robotorz · Post by **Robotorz** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:38 pm

If you dont like his suggested change how about this:

You get your first skill with no aging rolls made
The 2nd Skill with no aging rolls made but after this you consult the normal aging table!

Evil Git · Post by **Evil Git** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:14 pm

i've said modify it.

i don't really like the way it is at the minute but i can see the need for such a thing. i also realise that you won't be able to please all the people all of the time so whichever system is in place, it's still not going to be universally accepted.

Circular_Logic · Post by **Circular_Logic** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:39 pm

I favor the simple solution:
When you fail an aging roll, just peak the player. No niggles, no stats-decrease - this guy has just reached his top. There will be enough playerturnover on the field.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:01 pm

Dangerous Dave wrote:I said drop it, but other changes need to be put in place to limit TR growth - eg -ve winnings or some other method.

Exactly my opinion.

Evil Git · Post by **Evil Git** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:02 pm

circular_logic

i really like that idea. that just makes everything really simple. if you want to increase things then get rid of the player and sign a new one therefore keeping teams fresh.

Blammaham · Post by **Blammaham** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:04 pm

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.

c9805222 · Post by **c9805222** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:37 pm

I like the idea of peaking.

My idea however would be to have an aging table that gave negatraits, niggling injuries etc. but you roll for it at the end of a tourney or league season, and you roll for every player in your team who has exactly the same chance of aging. I think to do this and encourage player turnover using this method you may need to make the results a bit more drastic.

Also this assumes your playing in a league with set seasons, or where yo can take your team from tournement to tournement.

Talk Fantasy Football

A serious look at ageing

What to do with ageing?

A serious look at ageing