What is the best method of curbing team growth?

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:01 pm

Pariah wrote: We don't feel the need to test it as experimental because we don't like it!

Right, it really doesn't matter a hill of beans if it "acheives what the committee is trying to achieve" (to use words I hear them say all the time) if nobody likes it...It kinda takes all the fun out of team building, which to me and plenty of other people is the primary thing that makes the game fun. Like levelling your D&D character. You start with some dorky frail little wizard who runs from a goblin. Then after a few months of playing you throw a fireball and kill 50.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:07 pm

I always liked building the clumsy petty theif loser into the invisible ninja assassin!

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:23 pm

Pariah wrote:I always liked building the clumsy petty theif loser into the invisible ninja assassin!

yeah rogues are one of my fave classes too...I also like the "thmage" which is my name for the guy who uses magic to enhance rogue skills. It's a lot easier to sneak when you're invisibly spider climbing on the ceiling, strange how most traps seem to be on the floor

...etc etc.

2 rogue levels per mage level is a good balance imo....

but anyway we're WAY off topic

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 9:23 pm

Pariah wrote:I'm shocked by the number of votes for the current system but not surprised at the lack of support for EXP.

Many people who voted for aging gave reasons that actually fit another system better. I believe the reason is that they just don't know that the other systems exist. Wait until i get all the alternative systems in one place and start a poll that contains them all, and i think you'll see the support for aging drop considerably.

Pogo · Post by **Pogo** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 2:21 am

Ok, I am just going to say this once, because i hear people say that injuries on the field are the way to curb player development.

There is one player in my league that so needs to be taken out. He is a move 11 gr. Problem is, the only time he sees the pitch is when he pulls off his one turn magic. Boom, he scores, they go on defense, and he leaves the field. The only way to get at this guy is hope he fails one of his one turners and hope that he can be surronded and fouled to death, which is highly unlikely, get a blitz and hop to get lucky, roll an assissan result and hope the apoth fails, or get a rock or pitch invasion, and once more get lucky. ALL THESE ARE UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN!!!! On the pitch damage ain't going to take this guy out, so there needs to be something else hanging over his head.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 5:11 pm

Current Ageing:
"Suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck!"

EXP:
Does work if calculation are made by a computer. In RL-BB I wouldn't like to do up to 16 dice-rolls after each match for EXP.

Alternative:
Ageing dependent on played matches. Examples with arbitrarily chosen numbers:

a) After 10 games on 3-, after 20 on 4-, after 30 on 5-
b) after 5 games on 2-, after 10 on 3-, after 15 on 4-
c) after 10 games on 3-, after 15 on 4-, after 20 on 5-
d) or whatever might be appropriate numbers for such a system.

Perhaps these rolls should be made after the final match of the season, would make for a more realistic fluff.

As far as I know, there is no way a team can ever lose RRs. So negative income should possibly cause a loss of one RR.

Annotations:
The current MVP-system is really really lame. Might be much more reasonable to grant players 1 SPP for each 3 games.

Though some might argue that counting the games of each players might be complicated (it's not IMHO), I'd say that many players do this anyway, since this is a statistical core value. There is a reason why fumbbl counts played games.

Another major advantage would be, that new teams were entirely unaffected by ageing. It would simply be outrageous, if the first Star Player of your team gets a niggle or stat-decrease.

I mean, imagine some guy making his first BB-match ever, one of his players advances and gets a niggle? How stupid can you get?

Furthermore, I like the concept of peaking. Peaked players could possibly still continue to gather SPPs (thereby increasing TR). The chance of peaking should increase with each skill (for example 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6- ,7-, 8- ).

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:30 pm

Pogo wrote:Ok, I am just going to say this once, because i hear people say that injuries on the field are the way to curb player development.

There is one player in my league that so needs to be taken out. He is a move 11 gr. Problem is, the only time he sees the pitch is when he pulls off his one turn magic. Boom, he scores, they go on defense, and he leaves the field. The only way to get at this guy is hope he fails one of his one turners and hope that he can be surronded and fouled to death, which is highly unlikely, get a blitz and hop to get lucky, roll an assissan result and hope the apoth fails, or get a rock or pitch invasion, and once more get lucky. ALL THESE ARE UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN!!!! On the pitch damage ain't going to take this guy out, so there needs to be something else hanging over his head.

See, it's guys like this that make me miss the cards...and having more access to wizards. That was always the counter-argument to people who thought that 1-turn scorers were unstoppable. Now you just have to hope you fail something or get lucky. That's why I keep suggesting that cards come back in a VERY limited way. Maybe allow 1 card per team per game from a shortened single deck of around 30 cards.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:33 pm

If they didn't change the rule so that you don't have to field 11, one-turners wouldn't be such a problem. Another example of the BBRC's lack of foresight. Just change that rule back and people will stop complaining.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 8:19 am

Zombie wrote:If they didn't change the rule so that you don't have to field 11, one-turners wouldn't be such a problem. Another example of the BBRC's lack of foresight. Just change that rule back and people will stop complaining.

I think people will still complain. They were complaining before, the dropping of the must field 11 just made it worse.

Joshua Dyal · Post by **Joshua Dyal** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 2:59 pm

Mirascael wrote:Current Ageing:
"Suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck!"

Sing it, man!

Personally, I kinda like the salary caps concept, at least in theory.

rwould · Post by **rwould** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:28 pm

I voted to currently keep aging as it is.

None of the alternatives at the moment I feel are an improvement on it. Yes, it may not be realistic to do well in the game and suffer an aging effect, but it is a game mechanic that serves well to hinder players becoming too powerful. Maybe a better name for it could be used than aging (self-inflated ego roll?).
There are some of them that could be credible alternatives, but at this stage would require substantial playtesting before any changing of such an important area of the rules could be changed.

I also fully agree with Zombie. Allowing less than 11 players when you have 11 was just open to abuse.

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:34 pm

I hate aging. Under aging, a player could, technically, age without even stepping onto the field. If he is in the reserves box for a few games, collects 2 MVP's and ages on his 1st skill.

I dunno if this is possible with EXP, but if it is, I will hate EXP just like I hate aging.

rwould · Post by **rwould** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:50 pm

But isn't the flaw there that he can collect the MVP award despite not playing at all during the game?

ZanzerTem · Post by **ZanzerTem** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:00 pm

/shrug

Too tired to think right now, running on 2 hours sleep, have 5 hours of work to go, then a 4 hour class after that.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:36 pm

Zombie wrote:If they didn't change the rule so that you don't have to field 11, one-turners wouldn't be such a problem. Another example of the BBRC's lack of foresight. Just change that rule back and people will stop complaining.

Just out of curiousity: Is this really true?
My current impression is that these people who are complaining about one-turners are the same people who complain about "cage-stallers" and want SPPs for fouling back.
With regard to my experiences with Woodie-One-Turners so far I'd dare say that they are far from broken. They just offer you the opportunity to score once in turn 8 or 16 if your opponent scored a TD in his last turn. Maybe I'm wrong, but right now I'd agree with a statement from an ECBBL-member who said he wouldn't believe in one-turners (gutter runners were the issue).
My one-turners didn't seem too impressive to me - I've still won my games with thorough defense not by light-speed offense. But then, I have to admit that my BB-skills are only intermediate.
So again my questions towards the "pros": Are one-turners broken or are they not?

Talk Fantasy Football

What is the best method of curbing team growth?

What is your preferred method?