Brainstorming team growth.

[Sushé Wakka]

Just curious... Can somebody tell what's that "drunk punch" stuff?

[Princelucianus]

But ageing isn't frustating. (we don't agree much, do we )
So, a player gets a NI. He will still play most games. It's not that bad. If he's peaked, he will become useless, dragging his SP's with him, but not getting anything in return.
So, he gets a statt decree. This genuinly is not good, but it does lead to fun players. Normally when they age they have already gathered some skills. So his decrease is somewhat compensated. If you're unlucky and the player ages to quick: well, sack the lying bastard straight away (unless he rolled a double for his skillroll).
Both my Bullcentaurs aged. One has 5 3 2 9, the other is 6 3 2 8. I think this is funny, most of you seem to think god punishes you or something.

Lucy

[Redfang]

Ageing with a stat decrease is indeed more fun, and I wouldn't mind it so much, but I always get Nigglings, which don't do anything until you need the player, and I don't think I've never got a player past his fourth increase without ageing...
It's really annoying when you have a Pass + Accurate Ghoul, you get a third increase you roll a normal skill and then you pick up the dice knowing you're going to roll a 4, and indeed rolling a 4 and seeing the player age!!! It still pisses me off! Any player but him! I also tend to age at the first increase quite often.

I wouldn't mind ageing so much if it wouldn't just strike every time a player of mine is developping into a character and becoming interesting. Now, every time something like that starts to happen I know the next increase will mean his end.

R

[Mirascael]

If you take an average team and add up the number of additional skills on the team, it's very close to one skill per game.

If you then said that a team at the cap point would lose enough players to compensate, then in 10 games they would lose players who had gained 10 skills. That might be two players with 5 additional skills or 5 players with 2 additional skill. That would be zero growth.

It's worth repeating that this would happen at some team level (that we aren't defining) Perhaps teams would reach this point after playing 15 games, or perhaps at some specific TR level. But before this point the mechanic doesn't have to do anything. Rookie teams could be completely unaffected.

Another less annoying approach might be to force players to make succesful skill rolls if they reach a new level dependent on the number of skills they've already got by experience:

Code: Select all

           A1   A2
0 skills:  --  --
1 skill :  2+  --
2 skills:  3+  2+   
3 skills:  4+  3+
4 skills:  5+  4+
5 skills:  6+  5+
6 skills:  6+  6+
two alternatives shown, --: player doesn't need to make a roll

If a player fails a skill roll in this system a coach just adds an "NS" (no skill) to the skill list.
This would mean that it would become harder for players to get new skills progressivly. Combined with negative income this would inevitably lead to zero growth with regard to TR and skill net gain/loss for high-rated teams, whereas the development of new teams would almost be unaffected.
The impact of such a system would target uberplayers and uberteams most. Furthermore, less league dominating uberplayers would develop. Realistic, and no ageing or peaking involved.
Though I strongly assume that a following posting will state how bad it would be if some players couldn't get up to the sacred number of 7 skills once in a while (as though that number came by naturally).
What I really dislike about all systems which can cause NIs is that NIs can turn many games in mere gambles which are decided by NI-rolls prior to any on-pitch actions (and therefore by lucky or unfortunate "ageing" rolls). Coaching and team management skills should dominate the outcome of games IMHO.

[Redfang]

No skill, when I come to think about it, seems to possibly be even harsher than ageing; ageing either gives you a stat decrease or a Niggling; no skill means you either miss a Stat increase (comparable to getting a stat decrease) or miss out on a skill (worse, possibly, than gaining a niggling)

This is a difficult issue...

R

[Grumbledook]

OK most of the moaning about aging was that it takes away the fun of getting a skill roll.

So skipping skills and peaking are both far worse than aging cause you don't even get the skill, which takes even more fun out of the game. I would be most rightly very pissed off if these options are used.

[noodle]

I don't like missing a skill - just because its like getting a christmas present - and opening it up to find an empty box...

I'd prefer a stat decrease to that!

Maybe we should MOVE the ageing rolls so they AREN'T at the same levels as skills - then the two wouldn't be associated (and they shouldn't be!)
Maybe - Make an ageing roll for every 30 SPPs or summat....

[Relborn]

One moment ... peaking has nothing to do with not gaining a skill. After your player peaks he just could not get any better. With a long league in mind it is good IMO that not every player could attain the highest Starplayer rank.

If you ditch him and try your luck on a fresh rookie, well that's your choice then ...

[Mirascael]

OK most of the moaning about aging was that it takes away the fun of getting a skill roll.

So skipping skills and peaking are both far worse than aging cause you don't even get the skill, which takes even more fun out of the game. I would be most rightly very pissed off if these options are used.

Really? Amazing!
I can't think of even a single case in which I would have preferred a skill and a niggle over no skill or even peaking. This is true even for players who aged on their first skill roll.
ST-1 is almost like a kill most times anyhow. Only AG-1 and AV-1 can be acceptable on certain players sometimes.
I think it is unfair to say the game would be no fun anymore if it became harder to get the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th skill, which would exactly adress uberplayers and uberteams.

[Grumbledook]

no put people are saying you still collect spp after peaking, otherwise peaking does not a lot for turnover, every time you get to a skill roll and your peaked you don't get the skill rolls, or even if he is peaked and you don't get spp for him, then you would still be missing out on the more skill rolls cause they still can be used to do spp gaining stuff.

peaking has everything to do with missing skill rolls

and i am yet to see a team (under current rules) that has a team full of star players, not many players get to have 4/5 skills let alone 7

as for ditching them and taking on a new rookie thats what i see the whole idea of affecting the better players on the team for, the better the player the harder it is to injure them so they tend to play far longer, which is totally unnatuural

thus once a team is good enough and you start rolling for the best players every match to get affected eventually the team will start getting crippled by this as its affecting their growth/strength because either their best players are picking up injuries or missing games.

if thats the case at high tr it will slow up development becuase they have to use weaker players against either a better team at same tr or a weaker team with handicaps

so this system ignores the skill rolls as punishment and leaves them in which leaves the fun thing in there and untouched, while it (i believe) achieves the desired affects, of slowing team growth and reducing it at higher ratings, whilst leaving the lower teams totally untouched

it leaves the team mangement in the hands of the coach and prevents "age bowl" where you won't score with someone cause they will reach a spp level that means they have to make a roll, if there is no set level for a roll then it can't be played against to avoid it unless you are controlling your tr but thats a team issue not a player one

[noodle]

One moment ... peaking has nothing to do with not gaining a skill. After your player peaks he just could not get any better. With a long league in mind it is good IMO that not every player could attain the highest Starplayer rank.

If you ditch him and try your luck on a fresh rookie, well that's your choice then ...

I agree - thats why I like the idea of peaking.

[Redfang]

thus once a team is good enough and you start rolling for the best players every match to get affected eventually the team will start getting crippled by this as its affecting their growth/strength because either their best players are picking up injuries or missing games.

Then you'll be punishing players for being good, and your favourite players may never be safe. I think this will be even more frustrating than ageing as it is now.

it leaves the team mangement in the hands of the coach and prevents "age bowl" where you won't score with someone cause they will reach a spp level that means they have to make a roll, if there is no set level for a roll then it can't be played against to avoid it unless you are controlling your tr but thats a team issue not a player one

In your system, once one player has had a few injuries for being the best, and another player is coming close to him in SPP's, coaches will prevent scoring with this other player because then he'll have the most SPP's and get to roll each single match. Then not scoring not just prevents one ageing roll but a series of ageing rolls. No thanks

Oh, and of course, people may keep this high SPP player because if he plays he's still good, and if he doesn't play he still soaks those ageing rolls, keeping the other players safe

R

[Grumbledook]

Yes but its a system where with good tr management you can totally avoid the affects should you want to but if you choose to risk them then it is a risk

[Redfang]

That may be so, but this system is a lot easier to work with for el cheapo teams than for teams with expensive players; a full amazon roster only costs you 1,040,000... whereas a full DElf roster costs 1,360,000gps. That leaves more development possibilities for the cheaper teams than for the more expensive teams, making more expensive teams difficult to handle. Add the fact that replacing players also is a lot easier for el cheapo teams, I think it would hit harder on expensive teams

R

[Grumbledook]

expensive players are better to start with, so can get spp easier and doesn't hurt the team so much when you have to bring in new players, i good cheap player is worth more imho

so it works both ways