New EXP/Ageing Rule

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 5:24 pm

Have we had the same rules for 2 months in a row? When was this? and where was I?
Can you tell me the history of the horns/frenzy thing and explain to me how this was always the same?

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 5:37 pm

Pariah wrote:Have we had the same rules for 2 months in a row? When was this? and where was I?
Can you tell me the history of the horns/frenzy thing and explain to me how this was always the same?

Pariah ... I'm not arguing that the last 2 years have been a mess, but its a mess that is showing major signs of clean-up.

1) The BBRC is not changing the rules this time according to Neo. Clarifications = Yes ... Changes = No. So you'll have the same rule set for a year.

2) If someone grabs Andy by the balls and threatens to remove them if he doesn't start making change logs with the LRB you'll solve the other problem. My understanding is that Andy has been made aware that the BB community may make sure his daughter is his last offspring if the next LRB doesn't come with a change log ... so this should no longer be an issue either.

So while I understand your frustration at the last 2 years, I don't see it continuing to be a problem or at least not nearly the problem it has been. Its all starting to lock into place, my friend. Don't throw in the mental towel yet to the process.

Galak

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 5:57 pm

The EXP-rules proposal seems fantastic to me. The list of Pros is great, it really solves some annoying problems. I will happily roll 16 dice after a match as long as each of them means a potential SPP.

Snew · Post by **Snew** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 6:58 pm

Pariah, Man I'm sick to death of rules changes too but these aging rules have to go. Sure, I'm just really unlucky, but, in the last league we played, I had 4 people age on their 1st skill roll and another 2 on their second. They were all niggles except 1 -1MV but it is just nuts. This was in the 1st 2 or 3 games. It's extreme and it was tied to skill rolls. That's just stupid IMO.

Now under the "official" (is there any such thing really?) rules there will be more aging rolls early in a team's career just because there are only a few SPPs separating the next skill roll. After the first 3, then it should really slow down but I didn't have a team that went far enough to see things smooth out as the league disbanded. What I did see I really wasn't so hot on.

This proposed system looks to smooth thing out a lot and move the effects further down in a team's development. There will still be effects but they will affect the players more realistically. I've said before that "aging" was an unfortunate name chosen for this game mechanic but that's what we've got and this would tie it to the "age" of the player in game terms. Not only does this look, on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd glance to be a better system, it also would get rid of the unfortunate circumstance of having a name that doesn't fit what the rule is actually doing. If they would have called the current system "wear and tear" many people wouldn't have given it a second thought.

You're probably right, though. It does work just fine. Unfortunately there have been a lot of people that got hit a bit like me and we made a lot of noise. This system will move that noise down the line to where a lot of teams probably don't get too; 15, 20, 30 games. That in itself will make it more pleasant.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 7:02 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote: Assume that you are playing Halflings and buy a FULL roster of 16 players when you start the team and by some miracle they NEVER get injure or retired so that you just keep playing with the same 16.

Starting with your 16th game, your odds of aging with permanent effects would be for your 16 player team would be:
1 player: 68.39%
2 players: 7.44%
3 players: 0.53%
4 players: 0.04%

The reason is that statistically speaking your entire team would reach 6 EXP on their 15th game so it would not be until the 16th game before each started having aging potential. I'm pretty sure I did the math right on this one.

Galak

No you didn't, because <i>statistically</i> not every player would be at 6 EXP after game 15. You need to take that into account in your math and figure out how many of the 16 would be there. I will then decrease the percentages a lot, by more than a factor of two.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 7:35 pm

Zombie wrote: No you didn't, because <i>statistically</i> not every player would be at 6 EXP after game 15. You need to take that into account in your math and figure out how many of the 16 would be there. I will then decrease the percentages a lot, by more than a factor of two.

Couple notes:
1) I was saying that if every player followed the statistical average perfectly than the entire team would be rolling for aging on game 16. I 100% agree that these numbers are greatly inflated compared to "real life" if you focus on the 16 game number as it can take a long time for the entire team to reach 6 EXP, but if stats were perfect 16 would be the magic game. When I ran the 2nd test set on Neo's team I had one player who had played 25 games who still wasn't at 6 EXP so it can definitely happen.

2) Pariah was greatly concerned that a team could be "wiped-out" in a single game from this system. ... what the numbers are meant to show is that even if you had an entire 16 player team at 6 EXP that only in less than 1 in 12 games will more than 2 players fail an aging roll. One in around 200 games will have 3 players fail. The 16 games was added here as a reminder to everyone that we are taking about an effect that occurs later in a team's life. There are a lot of long term BB players that don't play the same team much past 20 games. So the numbers are there to help ease the fear that "this system will wipe out my team".

So bascially the 16 games assumes statistical perfection, the numbers are correct if you have an entire team of 16 players with 6 EXP, and yes in real life, odds are your team will be 20 to 25 games out before you ever see 16 players with 6 EXP so the percentages shown are truely worst case scenarios.

Galak

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Tue Oct 15, 2002 10:34 pm

I don't like the idea of 16 goblins with 2 spp's each by the second game. How many will have 3 by the 3rd game?
This seems like alot of team growth for next to nothing.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 1:13 am

My point is that it's not statistical perfection at all. Statistical perfection, if such a concept existed, would be the average amount of game it takes for all 16 players to reach 6 EXP. That's different from the average for one player, it's much higher, but it's still relatively easy to calculate.

With statistics, you should always be careful how you present them.

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 1:42 am

I still don't like how easily players would be able to earn SPPs from the bench. Yes, somtimes the MVP goes to a player with no real participation, but these experience rules would be a whole new level. Also, as I've said, you should be able to do something to slow down the wear & tear process.

I was thinking about splitting up the rolls over the course of the game, but that would be a little too annoying for me - more annoying than the all-at-once rolls in the postgame.

Pink Horror

gallowin · Post by **gallowin** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:27 am

I'm not a fan of MVP or this new Experience system. Two complaints:
1) players just have to step onto the field
2) after 1 season most of your linemen should have a skill

Why is this bad? Because there's no real coaching ability involved with it. Plus you're creating a deeper wedge between new teams & experienced teams if more lineman start skilling up.

Leave the SPP for actual actions and be done with it.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 4:38 am

Yes, exactly gallowin.

If this system goes through we'll suddenly be hearing that new teams can't compete and that linemen have become too powerful on the mid level teams.

manusate · Post by **manusate** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:53 am

If this system goes through we'll suddenly be hearing that new teams can't compete and that linemen have become too powerful on the mid level teams.

Nah, give the system a try and stop guessing the way it will affect the game.
Toying with numbers and statistics is ok to build up the rule. If you really want to know how it will work, then play it.

It´s playtest time, guys!

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:26 pm

I think that's my point, man. I don't give a crap how it will work. Do we need this rule?
Personally I'd like to see the year old promise of Dwarf Runes fulfilled. Or the handcap table fixed. Or the weather and kick off stuff that neo is working on.

Why not let the ageing rules age and work on the stuff we were promised almost a year ago?

Is everybody out there satified with the Dwarf Alchemist and the Secret Weapons rules? You must be because we haven't heard baout them since last November.

I'm had enough of "Try it you'll like it!". I've heard that since 4th edition.
Usually "try it and see" means we haven't tested these rules and we don't plan on messing up own leagues so you do it.

Deathwing · Post by **Deathwing** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 6:52 pm

Pariah wrote: Is everybody out there satified with the Dwarf Alchemist and the Secret Weapons rules? You must be because we haven't heard baout them since last November.

viewtopic.php?t=1460&highlight=fish

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:09 pm

Blood Bowl Magazine #5 eh? lol Well gee. Seeing as how that was in July and I have yet to see #3 yet I'll hold my excitement back for awhile.