Its fine to say that you'll miss a game 9.7% of the time, but the other side of that is 9.7% * 16 players means that you'll lose only 1 to 2 players if you have an entire team at 6 EXP. IE we are not talking about whole sale removal just a little bit of stiff backs and sore knees interfering.
This comes down to a point that Zombie made about stats on a player and stats on a team. While the average player will reach 6 at game 15. The test models we did had players not hitting 6 until game 20, 23, 25 and 28. IE it will be staggered. ALSO, I know of very few players that actually retire players with a single Niggle ... I NEVER have retired a single niggle player. So yes team management is important, but I don't see everyone rushing to replace their entire team after 15. Most of the MBBL teams will be close to 15 games at the end of this season and I don't expect to see massive retirement to be honest.
One of the complaints about the old system of aging was that no one cares about a single Niggling Injury. I don't think that has changed.
Galak
New EXP/Ageing Rule
Moderator: TFF Mods
-
GalakStarscraper
- Godfather of Blood Bowl
- Posts: 15882
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
-
martynq
- Super Star
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:21 am
- Location: Cupar, Fife, Scotland
I think it depends on the particular player. OK, if its a lineman, then you probably wouldn't worry too much about a niggle, but if you were coaching High Elves and your Phoenix Warrior developed a niggle, you would probably consider grooming a replacement so that your main offensive strategy wasn't going to be thrown out.
As another example, consider Dave's khemri team. There is a world of difference between two mummies missing a match and two skeletons.
It was for this reason that I was focusing on a particular player, namely, not all players are exactly the same nor used in the same way.
I agree that the EXP system does a good job of removing the link between skills and aging. I think, however, that the MNG part of the table needs thinking about. It seriously muddies the water about when a player should be retired. I can see very good reasons for not wanting any players with EXP6, but maybe it is just me that wants to be able to rely on his best players actually turning up.
Dunno if I'm making any sense or barking up the wrong tree, but I'm trying!
Cheers,
Martyn
As another example, consider Dave's khemri team. There is a world of difference between two mummies missing a match and two skeletons.
It was for this reason that I was focusing on a particular player, namely, not all players are exactly the same nor used in the same way.
I agree that the EXP system does a good job of removing the link between skills and aging. I think, however, that the MNG part of the table needs thinking about. It seriously muddies the water about when a player should be retired. I can see very good reasons for not wanting any players with EXP6, but maybe it is just me that wants to be able to rely on his best players actually turning up.
Dunno if I'm making any sense or barking up the wrong tree, but I'm trying!
Cheers,
Martyn
Reason: ''
-
XaderVartec
Neutral Observations
Ok, Um....I have never played this game. I have recently started looking at 40K and saw a couple of people Playing BB at the local hobby store and started looking around for information on it. I found this thread and read all 12 pages of it and I have noticed a couple of trends.
The people who have voiced their opinions against the new "EXP" rules have not given valid arguements (IMO) as to why they are against them. They all seem to boil down to "because I don't want change". Some of the false arguments that are being used by the Non-EXPers are:
1) Worse case senarios.
This is the worse false argument being used. The arguments about "well, my two best players could miss the next game" and "6 of my players can be taken out" fall into this catagory.
While it is statistically POSSIBLE (which means a non-0% possibility) for this to happen it is so unlikely that it cannot be used a valid reason against this new system. Although going from 0% to 0.0000000005% means going from impossible to possible it doesn't mean going from impossible to likely.
Not only this but you are comparing the worst possible result from the "EXP" system with the known practical results of the old system (LBG or LRB or something like that). This is comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing what happens most of the time in the old system with the worst that can happen in the new system. You just can't do that.
2) "You must playtest this system first!!"
If I read this reply one more time I am gonna puke . Are you illiterate or ignoring every other sentence? They are currently testing this system in leagues. One guy actually stated something like "running the numbers are one thing but you have to actually test it in leagues first" after it had been posted several times that it was currently being tested in leagues.
3) Not understand the results of the new rules.
I have also seen arguments against the "EXP" that describe a result that is the exact opposite of what the system will obviously (at least to me) do. For example: "new teams will have it harder against experienced teams under the new rules since teams advance faster" This statement is logically false. Since, newer teams advance faster then will have it easier against more experienced teams. In other words they will have LESS "ramp-up" time. And there are more than just that one.
4) "I'm tire of rules changes"
I understand that constant rule changes suck but this is one of the weakest arguments. In other words you would rather have a broken game and not worry about new rules then a better game. Now put this in the proper perspective. If you only play at home with your buddies then you shouldn't care because you can play by whatever damn rules you please. BUT, you need to think of it from a perspective of playing in a tournement with people you have never met. Due to reasons I won't get into here, all those people need one common, FAIR set of rules to play by. And it's not fair to them to argue against a rule that will make the game better just because you don't want to change the rules any more. Don't get me wrong, I know that we DON'T KNOW if these rules will make the game better but in order to help out you HAVE to give better reasons than "I am tire of changing the rules". Otherwise you are doing the people who DO want better rules an injustice by not pointing out valid arguments that they may not see until it is too late.
The most valid argument(s) I have seen are related to teams strategies. Like the one about "AG" teams aging faster than "bash" teams. I have not clue what that means. But I have infered that they are different stategies to playing. So, if this system hurts one play style over another then THAT is a serious problem and valid argument.
Ok. I realize that I have 0 credibility here. Not only have I never posted here before but even worse I don't play this game and don't even know the rules. However, my observations are based mostly on mathematics and logic with the stated desired goal (the one about encouraging retirement) as the conclusion. I don't expect you to believe me. especially if you are arguing against the "EXP" system. But I do hope that if you are against it that you:
1) Pay better attention to what is being said.
Even believe it at first until you have proof other wise (such as running that stats yourself or playing your self, and don't bullshit but it has been obvious that a couple of people who have "run the number" don't know how to "run the numbers".)
2) Really try and find problems with the system. No system is perfect and there are improvements that can be made to even good systems. Don't cop out and and say to yourself "Hum, I am tire of changes and too lazy to do real research" and BS your way through. Work it out. There is too much "um....this proposed new system doesn't feel good."
The people who have voiced their opinions against the new "EXP" rules have not given valid arguements (IMO) as to why they are against them. They all seem to boil down to "because I don't want change". Some of the false arguments that are being used by the Non-EXPers are:
1) Worse case senarios.
This is the worse false argument being used. The arguments about "well, my two best players could miss the next game" and "6 of my players can be taken out" fall into this catagory.
While it is statistically POSSIBLE (which means a non-0% possibility) for this to happen it is so unlikely that it cannot be used a valid reason against this new system. Although going from 0% to 0.0000000005% means going from impossible to possible it doesn't mean going from impossible to likely.
Not only this but you are comparing the worst possible result from the "EXP" system with the known practical results of the old system (LBG or LRB or something like that). This is comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing what happens most of the time in the old system with the worst that can happen in the new system. You just can't do that.
2) "You must playtest this system first!!"
If I read this reply one more time I am gonna puke
. Are you illiterate or ignoring every other sentence? They are currently testing this system in leagues. One guy actually stated something like "running the numbers are one thing but you have to actually test it in leagues first" after it had been posted several times that it was currently being tested in leagues.3) Not understand the results of the new rules.
I have also seen arguments against the "EXP" that describe a result that is the exact opposite of what the system will obviously (at least to me) do. For example: "new teams will have it harder against experienced teams under the new rules since teams advance faster" This statement is logically false. Since, newer teams advance faster then will have it easier against more experienced teams. In other words they will have LESS "ramp-up" time. And there are more than just that one.
4) "I'm tire of rules changes"
I understand that constant rule changes suck but this is one of the weakest arguments. In other words you would rather have a broken game and not worry about new rules then a better game. Now put this in the proper perspective. If you only play at home with your buddies then you shouldn't care because you can play by whatever damn rules you please. BUT, you need to think of it from a perspective of playing in a tournement with people you have never met. Due to reasons I won't get into here, all those people need one common, FAIR set of rules to play by. And it's not fair to them to argue against a rule that will make the game better just because you don't want to change the rules any more. Don't get me wrong, I know that we DON'T KNOW if these rules will make the game better but in order to help out you HAVE to give better reasons than "I am tire of changing the rules". Otherwise you are doing the people who DO want better rules an injustice by not pointing out valid arguments that they may not see until it is too late.
The most valid argument(s) I have seen are related to teams strategies. Like the one about "AG" teams aging faster than "bash" teams. I have not clue what that means. But I have infered that they are different stategies to playing. So, if this system hurts one play style over another then THAT is a serious problem and valid argument.
Ok. I realize that I have 0 credibility here. Not only have I never posted here before but even worse I don't play this game and don't even know the rules. However, my observations are based mostly on mathematics and logic with the stated desired goal (the one about encouraging retirement) as the conclusion. I don't expect you to believe me. especially if you are arguing against the "EXP" system. But I do hope that if you are against it that you:
1) Pay better attention to what is being said.
Even believe it at first until you have proof other wise (such as running that stats yourself or playing your self, and don't bullshit but it has been obvious that a couple of people who have "run the number" don't know how to "run the numbers".)
2) Really try and find problems with the system. No system is perfect and there are improvements that can be made to even good systems. Don't cop out and and say to yourself "Hum, I am tire of changes and too lazy to do real research" and BS your way through. Work it out. There is too much "um....this proposed new system doesn't feel good."
Reason: ''
-
Dangerous Dave
- Super Star
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
- Location: Surrey
Good post XaderVartec - especially since you don't know the game - I think you should give it a whirl.
I agree with most of what you say. Basically without play testing, none of us can say whether EXP works or not. Personally I have my doubts and even if it works, it does change the balance of the game - is this good or bad - who knows? The point is it needs to be tested.
I put the EXP system up for a vote on my PBEM League. Last time I looked, EXP was winning so it looks like another League will test it.
Hopefully I am a "considered" vocal gamer - ie I mainly think before shouting - none of "That's cr@p" without considering it.
Having said that, I think that the best fix may be somewhere down the middle. Stop aging at the first skill roll - delay its impact to later (perhaps beef up the effect later on). If this doesn't slow the development of high TR teams sufficiently, then lower their income down a notch once more. However, doing this will mean slower player turn over since there is less income to replace the aged and infirm (this begs the question - is aging there to limit TR or to kill off experienced players?).
Alternatively the EXP system could be amended so that no aging rolls are made until a player has 3 skill rolls even if he / she has 6 or more EXPs. That way aging only impacts the more experienced players rather than the unlucky (?) few players who keep rolling 6s at the end of the match. Sure the impact may need to be "upgraded" but at least each player has a run in this scenario.
Overall this is a very difficult subject. IMO EXP changes game balance a lot - lineman earn skills faster and once a team is experienced, a series of rolls after one game could change their competitiveness significantly - sure this is unlikely even if all 16 players had 6 EXPs - however, it WILL happen - how many times do players complain about double skulls rerolled to double skulls or the Elves 1 reroll 1 problem.
The only way is to test the system - that is why I am happy for my League to test it if that's what the coaches want.
Dave
I agree with most of what you say. Basically without play testing, none of us can say whether EXP works or not. Personally I have my doubts and even if it works, it does change the balance of the game - is this good or bad - who knows? The point is it needs to be tested.
I put the EXP system up for a vote on my PBEM League. Last time I looked, EXP was winning so it looks like another League will test it.
Hopefully I am a "considered" vocal gamer - ie I mainly think before shouting - none of "That's cr@p" without considering it.
Having said that, I think that the best fix may be somewhere down the middle. Stop aging at the first skill roll - delay its impact to later (perhaps beef up the effect later on). If this doesn't slow the development of high TR teams sufficiently, then lower their income down a notch once more. However, doing this will mean slower player turn over since there is less income to replace the aged and infirm (this begs the question - is aging there to limit TR or to kill off experienced players?).
Alternatively the EXP system could be amended so that no aging rolls are made until a player has 3 skill rolls even if he / she has 6 or more EXPs. That way aging only impacts the more experienced players rather than the unlucky (?) few players who keep rolling 6s at the end of the match. Sure the impact may need to be "upgraded" but at least each player has a run in this scenario.
Overall this is a very difficult subject. IMO EXP changes game balance a lot - lineman earn skills faster and once a team is experienced, a series of rolls after one game could change their competitiveness significantly - sure this is unlikely even if all 16 players had 6 EXPs - however, it WILL happen - how many times do players complain about double skulls rerolled to double skulls or the Elves 1 reroll 1 problem.
The only way is to test the system - that is why I am happy for my League to test it if that's what the coaches want.
Dave
Reason: ''
-
High & Mighty
- Veteran
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 9:56 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Interesting. Two questions. 1) This is the total game casualty rate in your league (ie from blocks, fouls, failed dodges/gfi, etc)? 2) Are the teams the same from season one to season two, or do you have experienced teams from season one playing against some new teams just started in season two?ianwilliams wrote: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.
Don't forget about the player turnover already occuring via casualties. So not only will EXP development be statistically spread out by the luck of the dice, but buying new players and replacing dead ones will also spread things out.martynq wrote: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.
Reason: ''
-
DoubleSkulls
- Da Admin
- Posts: 8219
- Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 12:55 pm
- Location: Back in the UK
- Contact:
That's from all sources.High & Mighty wrote:1) This is the total game casualty rate in your league (ie from blocks, fouls, failed dodges/gfi, etc)?
There were some changes in the league. The Wood Elf team got replaced by a Chaos team that had played 6 less games, and a Chaos Dwarf team replaced a High Elf team who was only 5 games behind. There was also a rookie Chaos team who joined the league.High & Mighty wrote:2) Are the teams the same from season one to season two, or do you have experienced teams from season one playing against some new teams just started in season two?
Replacing two flair teams with two bashy is going to make a difference - but the increase in casualties caused is ought to be balanced by the drop in casualties received. I don't believe this can account for all 20% of the rise.
Regardless, my stats are for a relatively small sample but they support my own impression and analysis. As teams develop they get better at causing casualties. Block or Dodge reduce your chances of getting knocked over by about 20% each - however Mighty Blow increases the chance of causing a casualty by about 100%.
Maybe someone can come up with some more conclusive evidence either way?
Reason: ''
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
-
martynq
- Super Star
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:21 am
- Location: Cupar, Fife, Scotland
I've been intending to post more on this topic, but life has been so busy that I've not had a chance for a good few days.
All in all, I like the concept of the EXP system of aging. However, I really do believe it muddies the water when trying to decide when to retire players. I would much rather retire a player when they have suffered a real aging injury than when they have reached EXP6. The presence of so many MNG results on the aging table encourages you to remove players at EXP6 rather than when the aging table has actually affected the player. I wonder instead whether the aging table could be altered to the following:
The effect of this would be to make it less likely that EXP6 is a point when you retire player, but more likely for an aging roll to encourage you to retire a player.
I suspect that I've missed the reason why so many MNGs are in the original aging table. Can someone enlighten me why it is there? (My view at the moment, is that if you were to suffer a stat decrease and MNG as well, then you'd probably remove the player. He's not going to help for another game anyway, at which point you might already have managed to begin to groom his replacement. Without the MNG, you might hang on for a little longer.)
Overall, I guess my concern is that team management strategy is rather difficult to find with the aging table as it stands. I've been thinking about it since I saw what my MBBL team looks like now Galak has applied EXP rolls to it and I really am rather concerned about some of my players hitting EXP6 soon.
Given the current aging table, how do you guys see team management stategy working? At what point would you retire players who are fundamentally important to your game play (blitzers, etc.) and when would you retire bog-standard linemen?
Cheers,
Martyn
All in all, I like the concept of the EXP system of aging. However, I really do believe it muddies the water when trying to decide when to retire players. I would much rather retire a player when they have suffered a real aging injury than when they have reached EXP6. The presence of so many MNG results on the aging table encourages you to remove players at EXP6 rather than when the aging table has actually affected the player. I wonder instead whether the aging table could be altered to the following:
Code: Select all
2d6 Roll
--------
2 Miss next game
3 ST decrease
4 AG decrease
5 MA decrease
6 AV decrease
7 Gain niggle
8+ No effect
I suspect that I've missed the reason why so many MNGs are in the original aging table. Can someone enlighten me why it is there? (My view at the moment, is that if you were to suffer a stat decrease and MNG as well, then you'd probably remove the player. He's not going to help for another game anyway, at which point you might already have managed to begin to groom his replacement. Without the MNG, you might hang on for a little longer.)
Overall, I guess my concern is that team management strategy is rather difficult to find with the aging table as it stands. I've been thinking about it since I saw what my MBBL team looks like now Galak has applied EXP rolls to it and I really am rather concerned about some of my players hitting EXP6 soon.
Given the current aging table, how do you guys see team management stategy working? At what point would you retire players who are fundamentally important to your game play (blitzers, etc.) and when would you retire bog-standard linemen?
Cheers,
Martyn
Reason: ''
-
GalakStarscraper
- Godfather of Blood Bowl
- Posts: 15882
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
-
Munkey
- Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
- Posts: 1534
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:31 am
- Location: Isle Of Wight, UK
- Contact:
I was under the impression that players losing a stat or gaining a niggle from aging did not miss next game, is this right?
I don't think that players hitting 6 EXP is a problem, just means that there is a chance they will age, but on the plus side they will definately have a skill at this point.
I thought that the Mis Next Game result was intended to soften the aging table a little given that you may possibly age after every game. I think this may also encourage coaches to buy more players as subs rather than replace those with experience.
IMO anything that muddies the waters with regard to team management is good, so long as it does not upset the game balance. If you have to weigh up the pros and cons of retireing a player, this is better than a clear cut decision as it increases the strategy required in managing a team.
I don't think that players hitting 6 EXP is a problem, just means that there is a chance they will age, but on the plus side they will definately have a skill at this point.
I thought that the Mis Next Game result was intended to soften the aging table a little given that you may possibly age after every game. I think this may also encourage coaches to buy more players as subs rather than replace those with experience.
IMO anything that muddies the waters with regard to team management is good, so long as it does not upset the game balance. If you have to weigh up the pros and cons of retireing a player, this is better than a clear cut decision as it increases the strategy required in managing a team.
Reason: ''
[size=75]The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".[/size]
-
GalakStarscraper
- Godfather of Blood Bowl
- Posts: 15882
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
Current LRB aging yes ... with EXP aging the aging table has a MNG component to the Niggs and Stats decreases also, but 8 to 12 is also No Aging ... so its better and worse that the current aging table at the same time.Munkey wrote:I was under the impression that players losing a stat or gaining a niggle from aging did not miss next game, is this right?
Galak
Reason: ''
-
tchatter
- Super Star
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 3:44 am
- Location: Salisbury, MD USA
Couldn't MVP's stay as is or toned down to 2 or 3 SPPs.
Then have EXP count as just an EXP point and that is it, no SPP. That way, Ageing/EXP isn't connected to SPPs/Skills AT ALL.
It would keep the team building strategy exactly as it is now, no "free" EXP for playing. I know that it isn't an automatic but for the first 3 games the odds are really in your favor. This adds in the whole "player getting worn out" factor, which isn't tied to skills in any way. Only tied to the number of games played.
Just another thought...
Then have EXP count as just an EXP point and that is it, no SPP. That way, Ageing/EXP isn't connected to SPPs/Skills AT ALL.
It would keep the team building strategy exactly as it is now, no "free" EXP for playing. I know that it isn't an automatic but for the first 3 games the odds are really in your favor. This adds in the whole "player getting worn out" factor, which isn't tied to skills in any way. Only tied to the number of games played.
Just another thought...
Reason: ''
FUMBBL Coach name: tchatter
Ex-Commish of REBBL
Ex-Commish of REBBL
-
GalakStarscraper
- Godfather of Blood Bowl
- Posts: 15882
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
-
tchatter
- Super Star
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 3:44 am
- Location: Salisbury, MD USA
-
Icedman
- Experienced
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2002 4:43 am
- Location: Newcastle, Ozzieland
hey all (again),
1) A player can age on his first skill roll
2) The Aging roll is tied to the skill roll
Now, everyone has been quoting statistics for most of this thread, and in fact...
Anyway, yes, the EXP system means that every player will get a skill before they age, even in the worst case, and the EXP system also removes the tie between skill rolls and aging. Now, is this all you are hoping to achieve with the EXP system, or is there something more?
In terms of coming up with a "valid" reason to "have a bad feeling about this", could one of you number crunchers consider the chance of actually reaching 176+ spps without MVP awards, which are atm one of the best, if most erratic, means of garnering spps. The EXP system does away with this definite 5 spp award handed out to one player at the end of the match, and replaces it with a possible 1spp reward for everyone. The odds of rolling a 1 on a D6 when on 6EXP and aging is the same as rolling a 6 and getting one spp.
As a playtested example, the Norse team's (in my league; I might actually put the teams on the net soon) best player is a Blitzer with 58 spps, 35 of which came from MVP awards. Take away those MVPs, and even assuming that he got 1 EXP point each time he was awarded an MVP (ie: he's on 7 EXP), he'd only have 30 spps, and not have 2 of the skills that make him so effective.
Is this what we want an Aging style system to do? Because as I see it, just using this example, the EXP system is gonna have a bigger effect on preventing the uber-player than the current Aging system, which with luck has a (someone check my numbers please; I don't profess to be a number cruncher)...
1/36 * 3/36 * 6/36 * 10/36 * 15/36 * 21/36 * 26/36 = 1.88e-5 (rounded to 2 DP), or about 0.00188%
... of producing a maxed-out player without any aging effects. What are the odds of producing a maxed-out player in the EXP system? As everyone seems to be for the EXP system as a maxed-out player can still be touched by aging, but can we still get a maxed-out player, or is he gonna get retired to "avoid the EXP bug"?
I gotta apolagise for the length of the post; I'm pretty much putting the ideas down as they come to me, and I've never been good at getting my point across concisely.
I must agree Dave; the EXP system does/will change the balance of the game (more Linemen getting skilled, etc). I'm not saying that its a worse system thatn the one currently in place, but as I see it, the only 2 problems with the current Aging system isDangerous Dave wrote: Overall this is a very difficult subject. IMO EXP changes game balance a lot - lineman earn skills faster and once a team is experienced, a series of rolls after one game could change their competitiveness significantly - sure this is unlikely even if all 16 players had 6 EXPs - however, it WILL happen - how many times do players complain about double skulls rerolled to double skulls or the Elves 1 reroll 1 problem.
1) A player can age on his first skill roll
2) The Aging roll is tied to the skill roll
Now, everyone has been quoting statistics for most of this thread, and in fact...
Now, Xader, I think you could contrbute quite a lot to the game, and I don't want to sound confronting, but the odds of failing the first Aging roll are 1/36, or 2.78%, and I've seen replies saying that if 3 or more of your players will miss a game due to bad EXP rolls then that's just bad luck. Well, failing your first Aging roll could be viewed the same way; its just bad luck, and shouldn't be "valid" as a flaw in the current system, by your own argument.XaderVatec wrote: While it is statistically POSSIBLE (which means a non-0% possibility) for this to happen it is so unlikely that it cannot be used a valid reason against this new system. Although going from 0% to 0.0000000005% means going from impossible to possible it doesn't mean going from impossible to likely.
Anyway, yes, the EXP system means that every player will get a skill before they age, even in the worst case, and the EXP system also removes the tie between skill rolls and aging. Now, is this all you are hoping to achieve with the EXP system, or is there something more?
In terms of coming up with a "valid" reason to "have a bad feeling about this", could one of you number crunchers consider the chance of actually reaching 176+ spps without MVP awards, which are atm one of the best, if most erratic, means of garnering spps. The EXP system does away with this definite 5 spp award handed out to one player at the end of the match, and replaces it with a possible 1spp reward for everyone. The odds of rolling a 1 on a D6 when on 6EXP and aging is the same as rolling a 6 and getting one spp.
As a playtested example, the Norse team's (in my league; I might actually put the teams on the net soon) best player is a Blitzer with 58 spps, 35 of which came from MVP awards. Take away those MVPs, and even assuming that he got 1 EXP point each time he was awarded an MVP (ie: he's on 7 EXP), he'd only have 30 spps, and not have 2 of the skills that make him so effective.
Is this what we want an Aging style system to do? Because as I see it, just using this example, the EXP system is gonna have a bigger effect on preventing the uber-player than the current Aging system, which with luck has a (someone check my numbers please; I don't profess to be a number cruncher)...
1/36 * 3/36 * 6/36 * 10/36 * 15/36 * 21/36 * 26/36 = 1.88e-5 (rounded to 2 DP), or about 0.00188%
... of producing a maxed-out player without any aging effects. What are the odds of producing a maxed-out player in the EXP system? As everyone seems to be for the EXP system as a maxed-out player can still be touched by aging, but can we still get a maxed-out player, or is he gonna get retired to "avoid the EXP bug"?
I gotta apolagise for the length of the post; I'm pretty much putting the ideas down as they come to me, and I've never been good at getting my point across concisely.
Reason: ''
"Probability is a hideous bitch-goddess and doing the math will just make her angry" - BoB
[url=http://www.geocities.com/the_doormatt/Games/BloodBowl/BBIndex.html]My league website[/url]
[url=http://www.geocities.com/the_doormatt/Games/BloodBowl/BBIndex.html]My league website[/url]
-
Heiper
- Veteran
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 7:16 am
- Location: Bærum, Norway
We can defenetly still get maxed out players without age, but it will be more easy with fast scoring teams like Woodies and Skaven. Orcs, Dwarfs will have a harder time without the MVPs to get the Uber-Players before they get that age effect from EXP, as it will take more games, as it has always been for those teams.
We will stil see the "Uber-Players" in the EXP system, but then you have to give up ALOT of SPPs on one guy insted of spreading out. Spreading it out will only make it take more games. Depends really on how you wanna play, but they will still be there. Harder, yes, at least for bashing teams. AG teams have never had a problem gathering SPPs, and won't with the EXP system either.
We will stil see the "Uber-Players" in the EXP system, but then you have to give up ALOT of SPPs on one guy insted of spreading out. Spreading it out will only make it take more games. Depends really on how you wanna play, but they will still be there. Harder, yes, at least for bashing teams. AG teams have never had a problem gathering SPPs, and won't with the EXP system either.
Reason: ''
-Heiper-