MVP vs Experience Rolls

[Snew]

Dave,Pro was proposed at 5 or 6 EXP points, not SPPs. The way the EXPs look like they'll work, it may be 10 or 12 games before a player accrues that. That player, may, in my opinion, be a PRO. Many players get that skill way before that many games. Sure, with some luck rolls, a player might get it at 5 games but I don't see too many getting that lucky.

One thing I may have missed on this proposal, what players get EXP points? Is it everyone on the roster or just players that were set up on the pitch at some time during the game?

[manusate]

Everyone

[GalakStarscraper]

Sorry guys I really screwed up on my post above enough so that I'm deleting it.

I re-ran the number using the roll for possible aging on a 1 or 2 if you roll a 1 for EXP roll after you reach 6 for Neo's team again. The results that I get are very nice and I think its a fair comparison to the current aging system. (see if Chet and Dave agree)

Here the RIGHT data for my run at JKL's team using the 1 or 2 aging failure and replacing the MNG effects with Niggles.


Player 1, Zarg, 61 SPPs, 4 skills, 23 games, 6th exp game 11, Total exp: 7, Pos. Aging roll games 12, 15, 18 / Aging: No Effect
Player 2, Blur, 5 SPPs, 0 skills, 4 games, Total exp: 3 / Aging: No effect
Player 3, Ram, 74 SPPs, 4 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 24, Total exp: 7, Pos. Aging roll: None / Aging: No Effect
Player 4, Pow, 23 SPPs, 2 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 17, Total exp: 7, Pos. Aging roll game 21 / Aging: No Effect
Player 5, Zam, 46 SPPs, 3 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 8, Total exp: 9, Pos. Aging roll games 11, 16, 26 / Aging: -1 MA game 16
Player 6, Smash, 54 SPPs, 4 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 7, Total exp: 8, Pos. Aging roll games 14, 22, /Aging: No Effect
Player 7, Bash, 19 SPPs, 2 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 12, Total exp: 8, Pos. Aging roll games 13, 14, 15, 23, 25 / Aging: 3 Niggles games 14, 23, 25
Player 8, Crush, 18 SPPs, 2 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 21, Total exp: 7, Pos. Aging roll games: None / Aging: No Effect
Player 9, Grunt, 14 SPPs, 1 skill, 17 games, 6th exp game 17, Total exp: 6, Pos. Aging roll games: None / Aging: No Effect
Player 10, Warrior, 25 SPPs, 2 skills, 15 games, 6th exp game 10, Total exp: 6, Pos Aging roll games 12, 14 / Aging: Niggle game 12
Player 11, Smug, 11 SPPs, 1 skill, 26 games, 6th exp game 18, Total exp: 9, Pos Aging roll games 19, 20, 25 / Aging: Niggle game 25
Player 12, Bug, 4 SPPs, 0 skills, 26 games, 6th exp game 18, Total exp: 6, Pos Aging roll games 24, 25 / Aging: Niggle game 25
Player 13, Thug, 33 SPPs, 3 skills, 24 games, 6th exp game 16, Total exp: 9, Pos Aging roll games 19, 20, 21 / Aging: Niggle game 19

Okay, there's the data ... I like what I see. After game 20, the aging effects are really starting to ramp up as they should. BUT, no so overwhelming as to require Dave's suggestion that more money would be needed. Because of fortunate rolls, Neo's 3 big stars are currently untouched, but their time is coming. Since one in every 3 possible aging roll should fail, Zarg is living on borrowed time having passed 3 already, Ram hit his 6th exp so late in life that he bought his extra time that way, and Smash is "scheduled" to fail his next possible aging rolls with 2 passes under his belt.

On the flip side, Neo's team has accumulated 7 Niggles and 1 stat decrease with half of these effects after game 23 of the team's career. So some management decisions are soon due and Neo will have to start coaching to make those decisions.

On the flip side, just for extra info, if you only failed on a subsequent roll of 1, then I only had ONE aging effect in my test run. Bug would have failed his game 25 roll with a result of 7 (Niggle per me, MNG per Chet) ... so clearly to me the 1 followed by a 1 is way too lenient.

Okay, for those of you who like to crunch numbers consider the above. I REALLY like what this system has to offer. Aging based on the "age" of the player makes a whole lot of sense. Both Neo and Chet have repeatedly said that it wasn't used because an mechanic to do so was too cumbersome. This one isn't at all (no more so then the current one). It helps beginning teams ramp up and slows down the SPPs growth of larger teams. It makes it so that aging has virtually no effect on leagues that play a season and then start all new teams, but kicks in around game 20 for teams that continue forever.

This is a great system. I'm hoping that these numbers show you that it could work. This idea more than any other I've seen (and that includes the kicking rules) is one that I would very much back. Its solves so MANY of the complaints with the current aging system and I really think it would work.

To restate, the above data was run against Neo's team with the following rules:

After a player reaches their 6th EXP, any subsequent rolls of 1 for the EXP roll requires a possible aging roll.
On a 1 or 2 on the possible aging roll, the player has aged. Roll 2D6, to determine the aging effect.

2-8: Niggle
9: AV -1
10: MA -1
11: AG -1
12: ST -1

Look over the data guys ... but again ... this is the best new idea I've seen in the last 2 years ... congrats to Manu for the idea and Chet for baking some thoughts of linking aging to it.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

What's proposed does move the link of aging from skills to games played. However this means players that acquire skills more slowly suffer more from the changes than those who acquire skills quickly, or if you prefer players who acquire skills quickly benefit more from the change.

Ian and Manu for agreeing with him ... this is overreactionary to me completely. John's team is an Orc team ... the High AV type team that you refer to. I don't think 8 aging effects in 26 games with 4 of them AFTER game 20 is PUNISHING in the least.

I thought the purpose of aging is to reduce the number of highly skilled players in the game and make teams contain more rookies. This just punishes coaches who manage to keep their team alive, so is in effect a penalty on high Av teams.

I believe this to be fairly incorrect. The idea was to provide an overall system that would reign in overall long term TR. I know that was also what was talked about. Most of the folks agreed that in order to reign in TR you have to have some extra system to "encourage" coaches to retire players (not the generic). I don't believe that this system HAS to target the stars. It just needs to encourage team turnover which will control TR.

This system does that and does it in a way MUCH easier to mentally come to terms with then the current aging system. Your whole this is a penalty to high AV teams is a crock to me Ian. At 20 games out, Orc and
Dwarves start to become casualties machines. Maybe they aren't racking up TDs like Elves but its not like they aren't getting SPPs. So I firmly reject the notion completely that this is a high AV penalty system.

Even if it is lets look at Pro vs Con ... with this system vs the current aging:

Con:
1) Impacts high AV, bashy teams more than current aging. Effect on high AG, scoring teams reduced.

Pros:
1) Aging has virtually no effect on leagues that restart at the end of 1 or 2 seasons
2) Links aging to the age of the player ... a conceptual easier concept
3) Removes the penalty of gaining a skill that SO many coaches hate
4) Adds more SPPs early to rookie teams, but slows the SPP gain to experienced teams.

Now, Ian and Manu ... feel free to edit my Pro vs Con list. But to me this is a system which bottom line to me has Pros that make any possible Con completely and utterly entirely insignificant.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

It takes 6/5 games to get your 1st EXP, 6/5 games to get your 2nd, 6/4 to get the third, 6/3 to get the 4th and so on. That makes 5.9 games to get 4 EXP, 8.9 games for 5 EXP and 14.9 games to 6.

These figures are low estimates (because of the very small chance it takes 10 games to get your 1st SPP) but should be good enough to reach decent conclusions about pace.

Actually if you look at the results I posted about Neo's team the average came out 14.92 games to reach 6 EXP .... so aren't statistics wonderful.

And no it wasn't a low estimate at all ... because while 4 folks made it to 6 in 11 games for less. Two of them took over 20. So 15 games is a good generic number for the average time to 6 EXPs.

I would like to remind the detractors that there are a LOT of leagues that retire all the teams in the league around the 15 game mark and start over. For these leagues, the aging rules suck and have no purposes. This change makes the aging rules work for those leagues incredibly well.

Galak

[Furelli]

The only thing that would sticks to me about these rules is the sheer number of dice rolls. However, saying that I really like this idea and if dice rolls is the way to go then run with it. A big thumbs up from me.

Furelli

[Lucien Swift]

2-8: Niggle
9: AV -1
10: MA -1
11: AG -1
12: ST -1

what's missing here is the simple "miss next game" effect that i considered to be the best addition under the original suggestion... why must aging be all or nothing? i liked the fact that a player could just not be available for a game...

perhaps if the system were to be any aging-qualified player rolling a 1 on the first roll misses the next game automatically, and then a subsequent roll of 1 has a lingering effect...

this way, old players miss games with some regularity, which is in and of itself a limitation, and occasionally deteriorate, which is a major effect...

[DoubleSkulls]

And no it wasn't a low estimate at all ... because while 4 folks made it to 6 in 11 games for less. Two of them took over 20. So 15 games is a good generic number for the average time to 6 EXPs.
Galak

I agree, what I meant was that those numbers are rough guides and the actual probablilty is slightly higher - but 15 is going to be the closest round number.

The argument against it hurting high Av teams is that natural wastage effects low Av teams more - more players die or get stat decreases and niggles from casualties - therefore their player turnover is higher.

Can you do your numbers on a low Av team (Woodies or Skavs for preference)? It would be interesting to see the comparison and see if it bears out my concerns.

I'd not trying to rubbish these rules. I think they are better than the existing aging & MVP rules. I'm trying to ensure they are as good as possible and get put out as experimental rules.

Ian

[GalakStarscraper]

I hear where you are coming from Lucien ...

But a MNG every six games (ie a 1 on the EXP roll) is the same as saying the player gets an automatic Niggle upon reaching 6 EXP.

What if you did the following:

EXP roll of 1, roll another D6:

On 4+, nothing happens
On 3, player Misses Next game
On a 1 or 2, player suffers permantent effect:
2-8 Niggle
9, 10, 11, 12: -1 AV, -1 MA, -1 AG, -1ST

If this was made true than Zarg would have missed games 16 and 19.
Zam would have missed game 12
Smug would have missed game 21.

I think would work and means that one a full squad of 16 players that about 1 player every two games would miss the next game and a little under 1 player every game would get a permanent effect. Note: this is on a full team of 6 EXP players. Most teams will not have this be the case.

Galak

[Snew]

Galak,

That doesn't look too bad. 3 players would have missed a total of 4 games.

Things are starting to get more and more complicated, though. At least charts-wise. We kind of want to start polishing this thing up and stop adding to it at this point.

[Lucien Swift]

see, i just think that that should be flipped around... you should have frequent MNG's, and infrequent lingering injuries... see my previous post about the aging system's focus needing to be shifted away from crippling players and onto handicapping matches with shortened benches... i think that there's a lot of systemic control in a couple players being expected to miss a game every week, but more fun for the coaches in not expecting thos same players to fall to pieces in the same timeframe...

...initially, i advocated a firm degenerative aging system because i was enthralled byt eh simulation aspect... but i've seen the opinion of the grass-roots coaches is very much against this type of system, "simulation-schimulation" they say, "it took me 20 games to get these players and if they're just going to fall apart, why do i bother playing?"

the masses don't care for simulation or reality, they want their uber-players... sorry, kids, that's the human condition... for the mass of coaches this game is not about enjoying an afternoon with your buddies and creating an ebb-and-flow dynasty team, it's about loopholes, edges, cheating, building the "killer team" and winning winning winning winning winning winning.... that's life, our job as rules consultants is to figure out a way, given the reality of the game, and not 'the way it should be' to figure out how to impose our agenda (of control) and still keep the avarice-driven interrested in the game with those rules intact...

those flower of an undescript sort coaches in leagues who are ignoring the current aging roles, or are quiting leagues with them now will just ignore the new ones or quit those leagues too... by reducing the punitive effect of aging while increasing the handicapping aspect of it, you run a much better chance of keeping the core of the rules intact accross the spectrum of leagues, and not alienating players of the most common variety...

thus, the focus of aging needs to be shifted away from destruction and onto bench-clearing... a system that merely sits veterans will not be so poorly-met out in the weeds, but makes lasting injuries a possibility but not a common occurrence still has a destructive effect over a very long term... BUT, by sitting players with frequency, 1-2 a game on average on an average team, you further limit and contain veteran teams, and make a matchup of veteran to rookie teams slightly more feasable and balanced...

there is more to gain in limitiation than destruction, of this i'm convinced...

[DoubleSkulls]

see, i just think that that should be flipped around... you should have frequent MNG's, and infrequent lingering injuries...

But the lingering effects in most cases is going to be a niggling injury. More niggles effectively means more MNG's and slims down the benches.

I don't believe there is any necessity to add MNG's into the aging effects - the niggles take care of that already.

Ian

[Lucien Swift]

that's true, i suppose a niggle is about the same as what i'm talking about... i havn't sat down to think about the specifics of the math yet (or, more specifically had chet or tom do it for me since i can't do simple addition right these days)... my point is just that i don't want to see aging continue to be disliked by the majority of coaches because it is being ignored... i would prefer a system that perhaps traded the ability to cause lasting injury for one that simply set players aside, thus achieving greater league balance without discouraging the lowest common denomenator types from using aging... i do want degenerative effects, i don't want them to be dominate, i do want absent players, that should be a focus...

[GalakStarscraper]

Galak,

That doesn't look too bad. 3 players would have missed a total of 4 games.

Things are starting to get more and more complicated, though. At least charts-wise. We kind of want to start polishing this thing up and stop adding to it at this point.

Agreed completely, however, I don't think its that bad.

With the current aging, you have the following:

Skill Roll
Aging Roll (always rolled)
Aging Effect roll (if aging roll fails (variable chart for failure))

With this system you have
EXP Roll
Aging Roll (only if EXP roll is a 1)
Aging Effect roll (only if aging roll fails (ie 1 or 2)

Basically the system is still the same concept wise (in fact if you look at it this way, the new EXP type system has more dice rolls, but is easier to remember actually). I agree on trying to keep this simple. I was proposing the 3 roll MNG effect to see what folks thought. Personally I'd like to keep it simple. Your average player will pick up 1 Niggle from this system during his first 33 games. That's fine by me. Its a minor enough effect and for most stars is probably less than the current system.

See Lucien in my opinion, you still need some type of long term cap on star players and this system is nice. You can build a h*ll of a player in 33 games and one Niggle isn't going to slow that down by much.

As you can see by me running the number on Neo's team his 3 best stars were untouched by aging on a team that's seen 26 games. To me, this system is simple and while it effects teams long term it doesn't specifically target their beloved stars. Like I said ... a heck of a lot of Pros ... without almost zero Cons compared to the system we have now (ie EXP + Aging vs MVP + Skill Rolls + Aging)

My concern Lucien is that with a permanent effect on a 1 and a MNG effect on 2 or 3 wouldn't have enough long term balance effect. On the numbers I ran for Neo's team only 1 player on an entire team where several players have played 26 games would have picked up a permanent effect. That's just not enough ... this is just my opinion, but I think even Neo would agree with this (and its his team I'm saying should be hit harder).

Galak

[Lucien Swift]

and what i'm saying galak is that you're going to attract more flies with honey than vinegar...

i'm not arguing the numbers of games or percentages or any of that because i don't have the patience to do the math... i'm arguing _philosophy_ of the aging system... deterioration vs. handicap...

deteriorating players at a substantial rate will only encourage people to set up leagues that don't use aging at all, and in that case you're not getting _any_ benefit... skewing aging toward non-niggle mng effects is not going to cause as many leagues to ignore aging because if the worst that usually happens to some guy's favorite player is that he misses a match, but shows up for the next one, that's not going to be enough pain to either cause the guy to give up on the game or to lobby for aging to be removed... if a lingering effect is there but is rare, it's seen as bad luck, and not as the system being out to get you...

in the long run, if aging were not used to rid the peagues of players, but rather to make it likely that a portion of those players were inactive from week to week, the long-term balance on a _team basis_ is there... the psychological damage of deterioration is lessened, and the likelyhood of the most leagues possible using this portion of the control system is increased....

like i keep saying, i agreed with the idea of forcing players into retirement when this all started, but i've seen and heard enough people just not using aging at all.... AND I CANNOT EMPHASISE ENOUGH that this is the problem, people are ignoring aging rules tehy consider too punitive... aging has to be changed to be controlling but not punitive if you want people to use it...

there is the potential to control teams but not cripple players... take it, and i think you'll find that the big-picture machiavellian goals will still be well-served...