Yet another suggestion to replace aging

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:47 pm

Mestari wrote:But with the anti-bookkeeping sentiment and the widespread support for other alternatives this will probably not gain immediate support.

Well, i'm an anti-bookkeeping guy and i like it. It puts coaches more in control which is a good thing. The only con is the logistic problem of adding a new column on rosters, unless GW make a new PDF roster with the extra column downloadable for free on the net.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:06 pm

Same here. I think I'm one of the more anti-bookkeeping people here and I like this idea (the concept anyway, as already stated the numbers may need to be adjusted over time with playtesting) To be honest you don't really even need a new column. Just to the far left next to the player's name you have a number there. You adjust the number every time something happens. It doesn't take a whole column for that.

Also I would like to propose that you each player gets a +1 before the game to represent normal healing/recovery that occurs naturally. That way getting knocked out once in a game is balanced over time. If you continue to get KO'd or worse then it starts adding up.

This is certainly better than people being forced to retire their most loved and favorite players just because they happen to be good.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:52 pm

wesleytj wrote:Also I would like to propose that you each player gets a +1 before the game to represent normal healing/recovery that occurs naturally. That way getting knocked out once in a game is balanced over time. If you continue to get KO'd or worse then it starts adding up.

Good idea!

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:24 pm

You could actually put it in the INJ column. I don't know about any other coaches but I don't really use that column except to mark an M when a player is going to miss a game. I mark niggles in the skill column. It's too hard to write NX2/MNG in that little space. Once they get a niggle I just add it to their list of skills.

I like this system for a number of reasons, not the least of which the fact that this system would be the easiest modify for different tastes. If my league wants players to last a little longer then we just up the starting number. If Indigo's league want high turn over they could just lower the number!

Good job!

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 9:21 pm

I don't like or want any aging system thats related to injuries in any way. It simply favours higher av teams. I just finished a match where i suffered 2 rip 2si 2bh and about 12kos whilst i caused the grand total of 1ko all match. In fact my skaven have suffered in 24 matches 25bh 21si 13rip. If thats not hard enough to cope with I am just going to have to cope with them aging a lot quicker than lots of other teams players who didn't have hardly any injuries to deal with.

I didn't think this was possable but it would both suck and blow at the same time ;]

Just to make it clear injury based aging would just be unbalenced.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:45 am

Uh huh. I've heard that before Grumbledook. Let me just say this...

The high AV teams are already "favored" in the current system. The ageing system wokrs on # of SPP's. Low AV teams earn SPP's quicker. It's just a fact. A Gutter Runner will reach his 3rd skill way before a Dwarf Blitzer. The Gutter Runner will age sooner. The skaven team doesn't earn any more money than the dwarf team but they lose players faster.

All systems will "favor" high AV teams because they last longer. There is no way to get around that fact. The way it's balanced is by making the low AV teams better Blood Bowl players. What would you rather have? A Dwarf Blitzer who has 31 SPP's or a Wardancer with 31 SPP's?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:02 am

Doesn't take away from the fact that your going to cripple any team that suffers a lot of injuries a lot more than teams that aren't. Teams that aren't getting hurt a lot will develop a lot more than ones that do.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:02 am

That already happens. It's called balance. It;s the reason why High Elves are so expensive and so easy to injure.

The inuries under this system aren't going to increase for any teams in particular. they will increase evenly across the board. The ratio of injury between high AV teams and low AV teams will be no different than it is now.

If the system was to make the WooD Elves +1 injury and nobody else then I would be with you but it's not. The wood elves suffer the most injuries because they increase in ability faster than anyone else. Nothing in that system changes the ratio.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:24 am

What about skaven linemen, they don't gain skills at any god given rate of speed, yet they will be crippled more by needing to be rested. I didn't say it would increase injuries in particular. What it will do is affect the teams that suffered injuries. Say a team suffers hardly any injuries. They won't have to worry about this at all, at least no in any way thats fair on teams that got hit hard. If your team suffers injurys they aren't going to get as many spp, they will have players missing games and those players that missed games will then be more likely to age or miss more games to get their fitness levels back up. Tell me how this is fair?

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:34 am

Bashing teams (hereafter called B) will be affected as much as agility teams (called A), if not more so. When A plays against B, A gets hurt more. When A plays aginst A, nobody gets hurt and lots of TDs get scored, and lots of SPPs flow in. When B plays against B, both get hurt quite a lot. Remember that even KOs contribute to this system.

Besides, like Pariah said, the current aging system already favors B, by affecting A a lot less. But A develop faster, which compensates. And even under the current system, if anything, it's A that wins most games (at least where i play).

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:35 am

If you want players to be missing games and such, you'd almost have to increase the roster over 16 players to allow more "backups" and maybe reduce player costs so you could have one or two more, just in case.

Otherwise I like the idea.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:48 am

Zombie, we gotta stop agreeing or I'm gonna get really scared!

If anything Indigo's system will help A teams. Early on it would be rough but a developed team could keep it's players healthy longer by skillfull management of this system.

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:02 am

Indigo -- Those sound like some neat house rules, they really do. I'm not sure they're the right solution for aging in general, but I bet they would be a lot of fun in a league with a bunch of statisticians/number-crunchers.

We try to follow the KISS rule whenever possible, and so these wouldn't be my first choice for aging changes. That doesn't mean they're bad rules by any means, but they might not be widely accepted by Blood Bowl coaches.

Milo

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:00 pm

Well, it's already more accepted than aging or EXP. The real beauty of this system is that even though players are gonna miss games, it's up to the coach which games they'll miss.Putting the coach in control is always gonna score you some points when you want a rule to be accepted by the community.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:44 pm

I think Indigo's system looks like a nice set of rules, but it puts too much emphasis on off pitch management for my liking.

I used to play in a 2ed league and there was too much team management and off-pitch activity for my liking. One of the main improvements in 3ed IMO is that the league rules are kept simple and most of the action is kept on the pitch. I would prefer it was kept this way in the official rules.