Several Issues Adressed

[Toby]

Improvements
Raises the propability to gain traits
Adds the possibility to increase armour
Adds more control over player development
Prevents star player rolls and ageing rolls from ruining a player
Limits the maximum number of niggling injuries to 5 per player
Reduces the propability to gain additional niggling injuries
Limits maximum possible player movement to 13 squares
Raises the difficulty to complete one turn scoring plays
Improves the current team rating system to better reflect team power
Adds the possibility to trade players of equal race between teams

Star Player Roll
50% (1-3) Choose a normal skill and raise the players cost by 10K
17% (4) Pick a trait and raise the players cost by 20K or choose a normal skill and raise the players cost by 10K
17% (5) Chose any Skill and raise the players cost by 20K or choose a normal skill and raise the players cost by 10K
17% (6) Roll for an player statistics increase and raise the players cost by 20K

Statistic Increase Roll (Statistics can increase up to two points over their original value, maximum value is 10)
11% (1-4) Choose to increase MA or AV
06% (5-6) Choose to increase AG or ST

Ageing Result Roll (Players can suffer each niggling injury only once)
17% (1) Roll for an player statistics decrease and lower the players cost by 20K
17% (2) Gain niggling injury (Fractured Leg) and lower the players cost by 10K
17% (3) Gain niggling injury (Damaged Back) and lower the players cost by 10K
17% (4) Gain niggling injury (Smashed Knee) and lower the players cost by 10K
17% (5) Gain niggling injury (Pinched Nerve) and lower the players cost by 10K
17% (6) Gain niggling injury (Smashed Hand) and lower the players cost by 10K

Statistic Decrease Roll (Statistics can decrease up to two points below their original value, minimum value is 1)
11% (1-4) Choose to decrease MA or AV
06% (5-6) Choose to decrease AG or ST

[neoliminal]

If you are raising the player cost, are you removing the TR value for SPP's? A higher cost has a much faster increase on TR than SPP's would, so you are effectively charging double.

By giving coaches a choice between MA and AV for Stat decreases, you're effectively removed any chance for an AV decrease. No one would ever opt for it.

By giving coaches as choice between ST and AG, you ensure they will reduce whichever is less important to them... BOB's will always opt for AG reduction first.

These are good brainstorm ideas, but you need to think them through a little further.

[Toby]

Yes, thats what Da french Coach said as well;
There is a topic in House Rules where we discussed possible player trades - DFC said this would be a good way to get rid of the "SPP/5" Team Rating Factor.

[neoliminal]

But the SPP/5 rating thing is important because it gives a higher value to star players... If you have 100 SPP's, you're at 20 TR, five extra skill (or 4 TR per skill), but at 10 SPP's you contribute 2 TR for one skill (or 2 TR per skill).

This system would put the value of a 5 skill player at 1-2 TR per skill, and ignore the factor that skill stacking presents.

[Toby]

By giving coaches a choice between MA and AV for Stat decreases, you're effectively removed any chance for an AV decrease. No one would ever opt for it.

By giving coaches as choice between ST and AG, you ensure they will reduce whichever is less important to them... BOB's will always opt for AG reduction first.

MA and AV:
I think there are some constellations where MA-1 hurts far more than AV-1.
ST and AG:
As the limit for all stats is 1, you will be forced to reduce ST on an AG 1 player

Please note that this stats decreases only cover ageing; There are still injuries to render a player useless. Since ageing is linked with star player points, i dislike the fact that by GAINING a star player roll your player might SUFFER a fatal handicap.

[Toby]

But the SPP/5 rating thing is important because it gives a higher value to star players... If you have 100 SPP's, you're at 20 TR, five extra skill (or 4 TR per skill), but at 10 SPP's you contribute 2 TR for one skill (or 2 TR per skill).

This system would put the value of a 5 skill player at 1-2 TR per skill, and ignore the factor that skill stacking presents.

Absolutely. The increased cost cannot simply replace the "SPP/5" Factor, but might reflect that a trait or a Stats increase pushes team power more than a normal skill.

So i would opt for "SPP/5" + Raise Player Cost;
This results in higher team ratings but since all teams rate higher, handicap stays the same, doesnt it ?

[Toby]

Rookie (0) / Blitzer / Human / 90K / 7 3 3 8 / Block
Legend (176) / Blitzer / Human / 230K / 8 4 4 8 / Block, Dodge, Leap, Sprint, Sure Feet

Old Team Rating Impact
Rookie 9 (9 Cost + 0 SPP)
Legend 44 (9 Cost + 35 SPP)

New Team Rating Impact:
Rookie 9 (9 Cost+ 0 SPP)
Legend 58 (23 Cost + 35 SPP)

The suggested increasing cost factor would raise team rating by 14 points in this example.

[neoliminal]

So i would opt for "SPP/5" + Raise Player Cost;
This results in higher team ratings but since all teams rate higher, handicap stays the same, doesnt it ?

No.

Assume a rookie team (103 TR) vs. a developed team (180 TR). Your system would be adding TR on top of the developed team, but the rookie team would have no more gain because it has few extra skills.

[Toby]

Assume a rookie team (103 TR) vs. a developed team (180 TR). Your system would be adding TR on top of the developed team, but the rookie team would have no more gain because it has few extra skills.

Thats a feature not a bug
This is to better reflect team power, which was a welcome thing in a vote recently.

"handicap stays the same" is wrong, i agree. However, Handicap between 2 NOW equally developed teams should be almost identical AFTER the conversion.

[neoliminal]

I disagree.