At what TR should ageing begin?

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:06 pm

When should a team begin it's ageing?

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:10 pm

I voted for the 150 range. Aging either has to start early or have a much tougher effect table to have a serious impact by the time a team gets into the 200's.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:13 pm

There was supposed to be a "Never" result but it didn't include it. I didn't realize you needed to leave a blank line at the bottom

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:15 pm

You can always add it now.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:15 pm

Skummy wrote:I voted for the 150 range. Aging either has to start early or have a much tougher effect table to have a serious impact by the time a team gets into the 200's.

I don't see 200 range teams as a problem. I disliked the teams in the 300+ range. I can't remember one single instance where somebody said that a 250 TR team was crushing the league.

Zombie, if I hit edit, it just allows me to edit the text in the post, not the poll options. Oh well, I think the "Never" people would be a pretty small population.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:18 pm

The current system of aging gives a chance of people aging right away, and pretty much caps a team off at the 250 mark. Some teams are able to get as high as 300. If Aging was eased up any, I think we'd see those 300 TR teams again.

mrinprophet · Post by **mrinprophet** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:20 pm

I really don't mean to be difficult, but to answer the question I'd really need to know what the shape of the curve looked like. If the aging system produced a standard bell curve, then I'd think it need to start at about 175 so that the average player affected would be around 200-225 (depending on the steepness of the curve). If, however, the system could produce and artficially skewed curve, which is what I think most of us would want, then I'd say at about 200. Really difficult to answer.....

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:20 pm

I said 200-225 cause that should then start to curb the better players and stop teams getting over 300 (few exceptions allowed)

It also means that you team will never get crippled by aging as you go below this point and not have to worry about it. Of course injuries can still drop you further but thats their job, aging should keep the higher ranges in check where injuries aren't able to do the job (ie 1 turners etc).

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:25 pm

mrinprophet wrote:I really don't mean to be difficult, but to answer the question I'd really need to know what the shape of the curve looked like. If the aging system produced a standard bell curve, then I'd think it need to start at about 175 so that the average player affected would be around 200-225 (depending on the steepness of the curve). If, however, the system could produce and artficially skewed curve, which is what I think most of us would want, then I'd say at about 200. Really difficult to answer.....

Very good point. Personally, i assumed the kind of curve that we have now with the current aging, which is pretty smooth, so i answered that it should start at 150-175 TR.

Anthony_TBBF · Post by **Anthony_TBBF** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:22 pm

I vote never. I think the whole aging system is very artificial and makes little sense. I think there are probably better alternatives to limiting team growth besides nuking players with extra injuries. See the idea I posted in Zombie's alternative to aging thread that I forget the name of

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:52 pm

I voted 200-225 range but on second thot would have voted 150-175 due to Skummy's thot.

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:56 am

I agree with you on this Skummy, voted 150-175 too before I saw the post

AlphaX · Post by **AlphaX** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:46 pm

better to move aging up on the chart. ie, no aging roll for the first 1 or 2 skills. sucks to have a green team get stat loss on first skill rolls.

should be harder to get - stats on an aging roll. I have seen more -stats on a player from aging than from actual game play.

how about "peaked" on the table ? (I think this should be the most common result on the aging table - nigglers and stat loss should be a secondary table.)

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:36 pm

Anthony_TBBF wrote:I vote never. I think the whole aging system is very artificial and makes little sense. I think there are probably better alternatives to limiting team growth besides nuking players with extra injuries. See the idea I posted in Zombie's alternative to aging thread that I forget the name of

Totally agree. I had a major rant on fumbbl, because 9 out of 10 niggling injury results I had gotten on my teams were from aging on 6, 16 and 31 SPP. only 1 from actual on field damage.

I feel it's such a waste gaining injuries on relatively fresh players, hardly beyond experienced, due to an inelegant game mechanic.

But I see the need for containing the power teams, with several super players. I think Grumbledook's posted suggestion isn't such a bad idea.

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:38 pm

AlphaX wrote:
how about "peaked" on the table ? (I think this should be the most common result on the aging table - nigglers and stat loss should be a secondary table.)

That is actually a great idea. That would certainly stop you from developing super players. But there should be a failsafe somewhere, so that players don't start peaking very early on I think.

Talk Fantasy Football

At what TR should ageing begin?

When should ageing start?

At what TR should ageing begin?