What should an aging alternative be based on?

[D'Arquebus]

Pariah said

Ageing players with no skills just because the system is called "ageing" is just foolish. Change the name, not the system.

Exactly right! I also think that the relative ease with which the ageing system can show when it is about to possibly affect players is a major pro. If your main star is getting closer to his 4th or 5th advance then it may be time to seriously consider a replacement if an ageing roll cuts him down. And with only 1 roll it is an obstacle that can be met and forgotten at each advance. Any system of time or injuries will create a constant uncertainty as to who will remain a viable team player, beyond the already present threat of onfield damage.

I voted Skill gained, as the current system is a very good starting point. Change the name (and the reasoning) to EGO, that is where the player gets a big head and, stops working out (-1ST), or decides s/he doesn't need this poncy armour anymore (-1AV), or that he has a publicity event (NG), etc.

That said, as Zombie suggested earlier, this is about the concept more so then the specifics of the system. I think a tweaking of the 'ageing' rules is better then a complete scraping in favour of something new which may not be much better received and be looked to be changed in another year. I would not be against a change of the ageing results table in particular, but I think the rolls to see if you do age, under the current system, are the best bet. It allows unlimited freedom to the coach (within other boundaries of course) to build his/her team to the level they feel comfortable with, or at least that they can maintain.

[DoubleSkulls]

I don't particularly like the question. Ideally ageing should be based on the number of games played - that doesn't mean we can come up with a good mechanic for doing it.

[Zombie]

The question is not what aging (as in the player getting older) should be based on. It's about what an alternative to the current aging system (meaning some other system to keep players/teams in check) should be based on.

[Munkey]

I voted TR, as far as I can see 'problem players' aren't really a problem if the team is kept in check overall - it's called putting all your eggs in one basket.

If the handicap table were a little more selective these players could be targeted there as well.

Besides I'm not so sure that the other systems deal with the problem players, a Wardancer is pretty much always a problem player, at what point should we deal with him.

I don't like systems that age by games played as slow developing players get penalised. Whilst I don't feel the need to 'overly' penalise the problem players I do have a problem with penalising the rookies too early on.

[MickeX]

OK, Ill have a try:

Superplayers isn't a problem per se. They give you quite some extra TR for a few extra skills.

High TR-teams is the problem. I agree with JJ that the limit should be somewhere around 300. That's an argument for basing aging on TR.

However, how do we want to limit the TR 300-teams? Maybe targeting their superplayers is the answer. In that case, we should impose WAT or WAT2 - but only on high TR teams.

So how about this one (sorry about the bad english ):

Code: Select all

If your TR is above 200, you have to roll for aging. After every game, roll 1D6 for each 20 TR you've started on above 200. (For example, TR 264 means you roll 4 dice). One player will age for each "1" that comes up.

Roll those dice again: The player with that ranking in the team, based on SPPs, will have to roll for aging on Zombie's table. If there is a tie, choose between them.

I'll call it WAT3. The numbers 200 and 20 are easily changed to balance it and adapt it to anyone's preferences.

Micke

[sean newboy]

Just putting this poll back in the mix to show Pariah that more than 3 people support exp aging in one form or another.

[GalakStarscraper]

The system I've seen that I liked:

1) Games based aging but definitely with the more complexity. I like EXP's method a lot. Using an aging point of 6 or 7, MNG effects or not, or a D6 or D8 table are all things that the testing can show.

2) The other system I like that I've seen proposed was one where every 20 SPPs a player rolls for aging. Table to be determined, but the one that I saw that I liked on first glance was like this: 1-3 -1 AV, 4-5 Niggle, 6+ no effect.

So I'd have voted for 2 different categories, Zombie if I had the option.

I think this will shock and amaze Pariah, but I'd GLADLY back the #2 system if it could get legs (especially since its a system that simply encourages the player dying on the pitch). IE ... I really don't care about EXP becoming official; just like I've been saying over and over again.

Personally both of these methods I like equally. I really have never seen a salary cap I liked so those methods I couldn't support.

Galak

[NightDragon]

Go team rating, up there in the lead (joint as I write!). I think any system should be realistic which is why the current aging system should be replaced. If you want a system to curb powerful players dominating a game then TR will be successful at that as they are the most expensive players. Coaches who like high TR teams, no problem, 300 is high enough.
I play with aging, but don't like it at all.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

Sean, I don't see your point.

6 out of 28 is only 3/14th of the vote. If you look at it like Pariah is suggesting...EXP or something else, there isn't a lot of support. And if you look at like you are suggesting there's more support for a TR based system.

I don't see your point.

[GalakStarscraper]

Sean, I don't see your point.

2 things:

1) He's just trying to say that this poll is better wording for getting an idea of what folks are after than his is.

2) I think the majority to me of what the poll shows is that you'll never get agreement on any one aging system.

Galak

[sean newboy]

2 things:

1) He's just trying to say that this poll is better wording for getting an idea of what folks are after than his is.

2) I think the majority to me of what the poll shows is that you'll never get agreement on any one aging system

3) Exp on this poll is the 2nd most common choice of any.

[Zombie]

Just putting this poll back in the mix to show Pariah that more than 3 people support exp aging in one form or another.

Not true. This says that more than 3 people support an aging alternative based on games played. It doesn't have to be EXP or anything close to EXP, and that's not what the poll was trying to determine.

[Zombie]

3) Exp on this poll is the 2nd most common choice of any.

EXP is not a choice on this poll. Game-based aging is. That's a huge difference. This poll is not about rating different systems. It's about stating what a system should be based on in the first place.

[sean newboy]

So what are the other game based aging systems?

[Dark Lord (retired)]

I hate the idea of game based ageing.

Why should my no skill linemen get stuck with ageing results? That's hardly fair. Ageing should be controlling players with 5 or 6 skills not the ones who are just starting their careers!

How stupid is it to have a player age in his rookie season!