New EXP/Ageing Rule

[DoubleSkulls]

The chances of rolling 2-7 on 2D6 is 21/36 or 58%. 8-12 account for the remaining 15/36 or 42%.

So the chance of a 6+ EXP player of getting any sort of penalty is 1/6 * 21/36 = 21/216 or 9.7%.

So if you have 16 experienced players on average 1.5 will suffer some ill effect each game - and 28% of those are just MNGs.

This does not support the case that the EXP rules will have a crippling effect on even highly experienced teams.

[GalakStarscraper]

Actually Heiper, correction. I have a team that I am playing currently that I plan on playing waaaayyy past the 20 and 30 game point, so you are incorrect in your assumption that I like EXP because it will not effect me.

And Pariah, I cannot win with you. The rule just came out ... multiple leagues are trying it, give us all a break okay ... (I mean for pete's sake I broke out dice and rolled for the MBBL's EXPs to date just to satisify only you and you're still bustin' my chops). But why I challenged SgtC. was that we took a game that had been playing for 29 games and rolled all the EXP rolls for that team from its start and we never saw more than 2 failures on any given game and we definitely did not see 12 players with 6 at 18 games. If you had an entire roster 16 players with 6 EXPs each, statistics say that only 1.5 players would get hit each game (or 3 players every 2 games): (1/6)*(21/36)*(16)=1.5. Can there be games where you roll badly yes. I just wanted to challenge SgtC's method to see how he came up with his results.

So I will definitely have a team playing very long term that will be effected by the EXP aging and I'm already watching my team and planning for what I will do when that time comes like I hope any good coach would.

Galak

[Icedman]

Hey all,
Thought I might have another go at this 1;

Earlier, I said that a possible "fix" for the current system might be to try the EXP effects table with the LRB Aging rules, so that you might not suck by failing your Aging roll.

Fundamentally, I like your idea but it is the ageing table that I actually have an issue with. It is the miss next game threat (which is very liekely on that table) that bothers me.
I think that a stat decrease is brutal enough without missing a game on top of that and statistically, when you make those rolls, you will be missing games.

Perhaps, like the current system, you could delete the MNG result from the Nigglers and stat loss results because, as you said, they are a little too much on top of the other effects.

A little later...

Sorry, SgtCaples, every test of this system that we've done doesn't support these statements.

Now, I don't want to start some kind of flame war over this one, but what exactly makes SgtCaples' test results any less important than the numbers and statisics that Galak has run? As an example, we are currently running the Kicking rules in my league (I'm planning on posting stats when the league's over; watch some space ), but atm, there's been 10 matches played, and 4 FG's have been scored (3 of the 4 have been made by AG teams), which I could argue doesn't support Galak's numbers of 0.21 FG/game. However, I see Galak's numbers as being just as important as mine. Again, I must stress that I don't want a flame war over this, but I DO see valid points with SgtCaples' stats.

Heiper, I have to agree totally with your first post to this thread; the division does seem to be the short- vs long-life league players, and the lucky vs unlucky rolling within those leagues (FYI, I'm in the long-lifers; 20 games with my Skaven, and at least 10 more). I don't put very much faith in statistics, especially for BB; my AG5 Gutter Runner has failed more 2+ dodges with re-rolls than I care to remember, whereas my AG3 Linerats with absolutely nothing can get out of a TZ and into the most annoying places! By this line of thought/example, believe me, if something can happen (eg: missing multiple players due to EXP aging), it WILL! The question is, will you accept it as the vagaries of Fate, or will you suddenly find a "problem" with the rules?

So, to wrap up this mini-essay (jeez, I feel like I'm back in High School!!!), I do see some genuinely good points with the EXP system, but I also see reasons to keep/tweak the current "Aging" system. 4th Ed, while it was hated pretty much universally (myself included), did curb the uber-player (OSPA and App. Fees), vs 3rd Ed doing absolutely nothing about it. I see reasons why the Uber-player should be curbed, but I VERY much like the reward of running a player through the Gauntlet (both on-pitch and "Aging") to see him emerge (relatively) unscathed on the other side.

[martynq]

I'm already watching my team and planning for what I will do when that time comes like I hope any good coach would.

This average coach is also watching his team and planning for what to do when players need retiring. The problem is that players also keep dying and it's currently more important to replace those than the ones with high EXP values. Hmmm....

Martyn

[Dave]

Agree, I am looking forward but deaths do come in between quite some times

[High & Mighty]

This average coach is also watching his team and planning for what to do when players need retiring. The problem is that players also keep dying and it's currently more important to replace those than the ones with high EXP values. Hmmm....

Martyn

But this statement is more true early in a team's development, when you are playing with a large number of unskilled players. But once your team has gotten to a point when you have 5 or 6 rerolls, a full roster, everyone's got block and many have dodge, etc., the death rate slows and you can start strategically retiring players.

In fact, an average coach can start with an average ff and have a player die every other game and still manage to maintain a roster of 11-12 players. Obviously not ideal, but if you figure to do a little better, you can get to retiring before the EXP bug bites too bad. If you download my team development spreadsheet here you can see the relevant info (doesn't factor EXP per se, but you can still see how the team will develop):

http://www.geocities.com/ttocont/Excel/index2.html

[Ghost of Pariah]

Galak-
I'm not busting your chops or the EXP system. I'm just pointing out that you are claiming playtesting that doesn't exist.

You know that I'm unhappy with what passes as playtesting recently. Figuring the odds of some thing is not playtesting. It only presents a hypothesis that you think playtesting will prove. Saying that you sat down with a set of dice and a calculator and proved it is horribly misguided.

[Dave]

High and Mighty:

I don't agree with you.

It depends on the team and the cost of basoc players of that team.

It is extremely hard for, say wood Elves, to refill their roster.

Deaths are quite common and the players rather expensive. Injuries and deaths make for less players on the pitch, resulting in more casualties, resulting in more matches lost resulting in less money, resulting in ...

I know that this can go the other way around as well, but still it can be quite hard to 'restock' your team after each match

[DoubleSkulls]

But once your team has gotten to a point when you have 5 or 6 rerolls, a full roster, everyone's got block and many have dodge, etc.

I'm not seeing teams reach this state anything like as quickly as they used to.

[High & Mighty]

Deaths are quite common and the players rather expensive. Injuries and deaths make for less players on the pitch, resulting in more casualties, resulting in more matches lost resulting in less money, resulting in ...

But once your team has gotten to a point when you have 5 or 6 rerolls, a full roster, everyone's got block and many have dodge, etc.

I'm not seeing teams reach this state anything like as quickly as they used to.

Very true, but under the EXP system, the issue is if your team has players that are dying that frequently, the EXP bug is not likely to bite because you already have player turnover. The EXP system now only hits the teams that aren't turning over (rather than aging hitting your player on their first skill).

Since you don't have players aging with skill rolls under the EXP, you lose some of the incentive to retire players early, since now it is only the niggles or stat reductions from injuries that you might want to retire.

But since EXP doesn't have any effect on the blocking dice (Not to give anyone any ideas ), if you were able to retire players under the aging rules, you still have players you can retire under the EXP rules, whether you are wood elves or orcs, you just now have less need to do so early on.

But under the EXP system, once you do manage to bring that casualty rate against your team down, whether after 6 games or 60 games, that is when you will need to selectively retire to manage the EXP bug. That's one nice equalizing factor of coaches under EXP. It doesn't hurt until you've managed to get a nice team together so a team that performs better will feel it before a team that's having a hard go at it.

[DoubleSkulls]

To be honest I don't believe in "bringing the casualty rate down". In my experience teams get better at causing casualties than their opponents get at avoiding them.

Overall in the league casualty rates have risen from 1.95 to 2.35 casualties per game over the last 2 seasons. The 1st season was 56 games, and 44 so far in this one. That's a 20% rise over a significant number of games.

[Marcus]

Another factor to consider is that as teams get more experienced, key players tend to get "hunted down" in a way that rookie players on rookie teams simply do not.

[martynq]

After 11 pages of discussion, I'm afraid that I've lost track of what we have discussed and what we haven't discussed. I hope the following isn't going over old ground.

I'm rather concerned about the numbers being thrown around. As far as I see it, as soon as you have a player hit 6 EXPs he is a risk. If he's a vital player then you don't want him to miss any matches, but there is now a

Code: Select all

1/6 * 21/36 = 7/72 = 0.09722 = 9.7%

probability that he will miss the next match. What I'm saying is that reaching 6 EXPs is a bit like receiving a niggling injury, with the following differences:

• 1. the probability is slightly smaller
  2. you know after the previous match that this player will be missing
  3. there is the possibility of additional stat decreases
  4. you can't use an apothecary to enable the player to play.

In view of this, ideally you would like to retire players on 6 EXPs as soon as possible. However (unless I've calculated incorrectly) the probability of reaching 6 EXPs within 13 matches is 0.4984; i.e., you'd expect half your players to have reached the point of being due for retirement after 13 matches.

Does anyone else agree that there might be a problem here, or have I missed something crucial?

Cheers,
Martyn

[Grumbledook]

I think playtesting has shown that injuries due to the exp system don't start to occur on average till game 23? I tihnk 23 games per player is fine myself.

[DoubleSkulls]

However (unless I've calculated incorrectly) the probability of reaching 6 EXPs within 13 matches is 0.4984; i.e., you'd expect half your players to have reached the point of being due for retirement after 13 matches.

Does anyone else agree that there might be a problem here, or have I missed something crucial?

Cheers,
Martyn

Well I calculated that 6 EXP will normally be reached at ~15 games (6/5 + 6/5 + 6/4 + 6/3 + 6/2 + 6/1). As you said, after that you'll miss 9.7%. I'd rather see the MNG's replaced by niggles.