Brainstorming team growth.

[Redfang]

1. Check every X games for AV reduction. Roll an Armour roll. If they pass then lower their AV. Example: A player with AV 7 rolls an 8, so their AV stays the same. If an AV 9 player rolled an 8, then they would go down. This is a self resolving system because if a player starts losing AV, then it becomes harder for them to lose more.

Maybe you could roll after each game for each player; representing also wear and tear of the armour, but then also add a possibility to buy new armour for the player (+1 AV, for x0,000 gps, maybe more at higher AV). Of course this would never increase AV above starting value...
Also, this may interfere with AV decreased by injuries (the buying back AV part) so it might be a bad idea after all...

R

[Munkey]

AV aging is definately more interesting on the pitch than most of the other methods.

AV and MA stat losses can make a player interesting without meaning instant retirement (or no effect occasionally) like AG and ST losses. This means more team management but eventually the player will be killed in action or have to be retired.

I like Neo's idea of passing an armour roll to reduce the age, it provides a balance mechanism without giving the lower AV teams too much chance to pass OK and not be affected.

How about using the current SPP aging points but making an armour roll instead with modifiers to the roll to reduce aging at the lower levels, then failure means losing an AV.

Eg.

6 SPPs +3
15 SPPs +2
etc...

[SBG]

What, people with more than four skills?

Ageing. There is enough player rotation without it.

Fred

[tchatter]

Why not have a chart much like the winnings table that has # of games played on the left and # of skills along the top? Which cross reference the target that is needed to roll.

This solves the problem where different positions gain skills at different rates. You could easily have a no skill lineElf that has played 20 games, and at the same time have a 3 skill Wardancer that has played 20 games. Should one age differently or not at all compared to the other.

With the above table the LineElf would still age based on games but it would be at a slightly slower rate then the Wardancer who you have 'used' much more in those games.

Say the lineElf has 0 skills but 20 games... maybe its a 2+ roll. But the Wardancer who has three skills and 20 games has a 5+ roll.

Of course now you have to track number of games.

I think ageing needs to be based on how much a player is used and how many games played. It can't just be tied to one thing... otherwise your LineElf could play 3 times as many games and never age.[/code]

[Grumbledook]

yer but then you get players aging who have no skills, i suggest you read back through the various arguements on why things won't work

(though you could have the table saying they have no skills no age but its still not as simple as could be done)

[Circular_Logic]

Sorry for reviving the whole thread, but after reading numerous threads I finally decided to write something...
First of all, I don´t see the need to stop realy good teams from developing... but as ageing is a really bad thing (just punishment for a good play) I come up with another possibility...
Lets call it micro-aging:
The basic idea is, to increase the ingame-player-turnover, which goes like this:
Every game, every player meeting a certain requirement (x SPP, x games, x skills etc.), that has been on the pitch at least once, has to roll a 3+, or they will get an Exhaustion-Counter. For every exhaustion counter, +1 is added either to the injury roll or to the siguards (correct spelling?) roll. The coach of the player being injured has to decide, where the +1 is added. This represents the players getting tired from getting constant hits during the games and the training.
All counters are removed from the player, when he misses a match, either because the coach decides to leave him at home for recreation or because he´s injured.

This should increase the ingame-playerturnover. In combination with peaking on a failed agingroll (with peaking as the only ageing result) a coach would be forced to bring in fresh players to retire the old ones.

EDIT:
For those reality freaks there could be an exhaustionroll-table, modifiing the targetnumber according to injuries suffered on the pitch.
e.g.
4+ as normal TN
3+ if stunned/KOed
2+ if BH
-1 modifier on the roll if played under sweltering heat/blizzard/pouring rain
etc.

[Mestari]

I wonder how have I missed this thread so far. Anyhow, here's my take on the subject:

1. Check every X games for AV reduction. Roll an Armour roll. If they pass then lower their AV. Example: A player with AV 7 rolls an 8, so their AV stays the same. If an AV 9 player rolled an 8, then they would go down. This is a self resolving system because if a player starts losing AV, then it becomes harder for them to lose more.

This is a system that stands in contradiction to what JJ said about the desire to create a ruleset where one could essentially continue playing forever.
The teams with high AV got that high AV for a price. Low MA and AG for example. If you make the high AV just a "start-up bonus" as it essentially is under this kind of a ruleset, high-av teams are indeed going to be nearly unplayable after a set amount of time.


Do I have an alternate solution, then? Hardly, but here are some ideas:

Current aging rules:
As Evolve_To_Anarchism noted, there are teams in FuMMBle that demonstrate the fact that current aging rules work: refusal to retire players will result in disproportionately high TR's, which, when coupled with the handicap table and the high number of niggles will make the team lose a lot of games.
His "Terrifying Anarchists of Naggaroth", could only field 5 players against any team that has a TR of less than 514 (and a sensible enough coach to choose Virus from the list)!

So I've grown to like the system. If I had to ask for something more, it would be "roleplaying" effects in the aging result table. Results that make the player somewhat unique and interesting.


Encouraging retirement
I really like H&M's idea of making player retirement a positive thing. However, if you could simply replace an experienced player with a rookie one, this would result in "my CW didn't roll doubles on his first skill, so I'm taking a rookie CW instead..."-situations.
Therefore, I think it would be a fair system that if you retire a player with more than 4 skills, you get a rookie player of the same position for free.
This would be to avoid those deadlock situations where the team must refuse to retire players as they can't raise enough money to retire them.

This would make retirement a definitely positive thing, and could be considered if something has to be done. Of which I'm not convinced anymore.

Increasing injuries
Neo pretty much shot these kinds of suggestions down already, but I still think that the idea of more lethal BH's would be nice. The point is to keep the game mechanics intact: no decreased AV so no increased amounts of AV breaks which would seriously change in-game balance, no injury roll bonuses etc.
Roll on the Serious injury table for every Badly hurt player as if he was Seriously injured. The only difference is that only niggling injuries and stat decreases apply: the player does not have to miss the next game.

However, I think that this might in fact have a bigger effect on the high-AV teams than the low-AV teams. Because the high-AV teams can now cure a lot smaller percentage of their lasting injuries.
Assume that a high-AV teams receives on average 2 injuries per game, meaning 1 lasting injury. Thus they can save (on average) 5/6 of their lasting injuries. But if half of the BH's are lasting injuries too, they suddenly receive on average 9/6 lasting injuries per game and can only save 5/6, resulting in fourfold increase in the amount of lasting injuries that they can't heal.
Whereas a low-AV team that receives 4 injuries per game used to save 5/12 of their permanent injuries, with these rules 5/18, an increase of a factor of only 1.86!
The more injuries you usually receive, the closer the increase of lasting injuries is to a factor of 1.5

The less lethal fouling and blocking we have nowadays should be offset by this change.


There's a few ideas for now...

[Grumbledook]

Having played with my skaven in fumbbl a fair bit i don't agree with that injurys will affect higher av teams any more, my skaven often finish the match with 4 or 5 players left (of 14-16)

they have suffered a lot of cas and if you take all the badly hurts rolling for injurys as well then i would have had to retire the team ages ago, the goal is player turnover not team turnover ;]

in 38 games i got 62/41/21 bh/si/rip (not sure if the apoth affects those stats)

Now as you can see i have been getting more than one si a match already and ~1.6 badly hurts as well the players I can keep that don't die will be absolutly useless

[Toby]

I want to throw in a different point of view.

There are almost 20 Official Blood Bowl Teams by now.
A game of Java Blood Bowl Bowl takes about 1 hour.

If you played 10 Games with every Race than you have played 200 hours of online Blood Bowl. Offline it would be more like 400 hours. I want to get to a point thought. I think, its different styles of play.

If a coach plays 200 Games with a single team, then by all means this team should be outmaxed. However, Blood Bowl should be encouraging to play multiple teams of different races to experience a wider range of the game's features.

In an massively multiplayer environment, like FUMBBLE.COM, there are so many coaches and teams that there should be something for everybody. The Problem with team power comes up in a small group of players only like Roysorlie said in his recent topic.

Honestly, I don't see any need to regulate team growth / team development. A superpower team should simply become boring to play, and lack (challenging) opponents.

[Dark Lord (retired)]

2 beefs with a lot of the ideas out there...

#1. Whatever the system is it should cap them team and not diminish the team at all. There is absolutely no reason at all that a coach should be forced to stop playing his favorite team. I think some sort peaked result on some kind of skill progression table is much better idea all around.

#2. There is no real need for this kind of rule or system. In a large challenge based league the effects of of a 300+ TR Undead team are hard to see and thus the team needs to be controlled less than it would in a small 8 team scheduled league.
It's an impossible system to catholicize. It should be left up to individual commissioners to figure out.



IMO there are better way to spend the BBRC's time. A better Weather table, Kick Off table, or even a better way to use cheerleaders and assisstant coaches.