We replaced ageing with peaking

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:08 pm

aye squiggoth, i think its way better than peaking

i for one thinkinh peaking is totally less fun and like a players spp after wouldn't count for tr, players still gain experience from playing even if they don't get more skillful

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:16 pm

I'm in the pro aging camp on this one, I do agree that it's not much fun to have a player age but I've not seen a huge problem with it and I've had a couple of premature ages in my own team.

After considering the alternatives the current system seems the most reasonable, perhaps with a couple of tweaks.

I would consider dropping aging entirely on the first one or two skills and maybe dropping the stat decreases would make the table less harsh (perhaps adding Bonehead, etc instead).

I do think a name change would help though just to stop the constant posting about how Undead (Elves, Dwarves, etc, etc) shouldn't age.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:20 pm

I agree how people can think its not fun and that it needs some work, but it serves a purpose.

MickeX · Post by **MickeX** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:41 pm

I'm anti-aging mostly because I'm anti-nigglers. That goes for SI:s too.

If a player of mine gets -MV, -AV or -AG (or even -ST at times!) it's an interesting decision on whether to keep him or not, and whether to keep feeding him SPP:s in the future. Changing the stats makes players stand out: "Damn, he's never been very fast since he got that blow by Ramtut III."

If he gets a Niggling injury, on the other hand, it's just irritating.

Get rid of niggling injuries altogether. That would make aging OK, even though I'd prefer a solution with peaking.

Perhaps this could be a nice houserule:
- everytime a "niggled" result comes up on the aging table, the player has peaked instead (but is still collecting SPP:s).
- a "niggled" result on the SI table is replaced with a stat decrease (For example, a D6: 1-2 -AV, 3-4 -MV, 5 -AG, 6 -ST)

Micke

SBG · Post by **SBG** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 1:09 pm

I think that ageing is the worst thing in the game of Blood Bowl. It makes a fun part of the game (gaining a new skill) not fun anymore because of the risk of it. I have a player who is 3 SPP's away from his 5th skill, and I don't feel like feeding him the ball for a TD. That 7+ roll isn't looking easy, especially the way I roll the dice nowadays !

Peaking, on the other end, is quite interesting. I'd really like to see the table for retiring as well !

Fred

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 1:17 pm

I certainly agree with SBG. A lot of our coaches really enjoy building the team. To get this ruined over and over by ageing just makes themn less enthusiastic, which can only be a bad thing...

Of course I would go with the ageing rules if I was in someone elses league, but not in mine...

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:01 pm

I love the ageing rule. It's beautifull.
I've had my fair share of ageing mishaps, but that's just like the real world isn't it.
I hope they keep it. It's much better than most other options I've seen.

Ageing keeps me working on my team the whole time (managing that is) and keeps it much more alive, instead of (f.i) dwavres who keep the same team for 3 years in a row.

Lucy

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:04 pm

anyone I know Lucy?

actually, I like ageing too.. I now have an S4 dwarf with an NI (the only NI in my team came from ageing!) so I have gained and lost simultaneously...

what is good is that the better players become, the less reliable they are..

I like it, why change....

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:08 pm

I'm not saying change - I'm just saying we don't use it because we DON'T like it. Its doesn't strike US in OUR league as a beneficial or characterful or useful rule addition, so we don't use it!

League rules aren't set in stone - Who else remembers JJ's famous "its your game" editorial in 3rd ed? I do....

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:48 pm

Agreed......

But from a working perspective... It works.
Our group dislikes the turnmarker rule, so we skipped that one. We don't time rounds either.
Everyone has to make the league the way they want it.

Lucy

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:11 pm

OK:
You have a player on the pitch who could score easily. You lead. But he is level 4 already, you like him the way he is, thus you avoid to score. Simply because he might "age" (i.e. get punished for scoring that TD). I can't think of anything more silly and retarded (with the exception of interceptions prior to throws, which is only a minor issue). "Ageing" makes for boring games, and, even worse, "ageing" causes players to abandon Blood Bowl altogether.
I see the need for preventing uberteams, but, from my experience, "ageing" does not achieve this because it is a gamble whether an uberplayer misses a particular game or not. With peaking, this uberplayer wouldn't become even more stronger (except for those odd game he niggles), he would be most likely to stop at a reasonable level.
Personally, I would be fine with any rule (peaking, realistic game-based ageing, whatever) that doesn't punish players for playing successful and doesn't make for silly situations on the pitch (i.e. trying to avoid SPPs with particular players). A good "ageing"-rule should have no effect on on-pitch actions and neither should it penalize players for simply playing efficiently.

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:16 pm

Mirascael, let me ask you a question. Your main point against Ageing seems to stem from the fact that it's related to SPP's. If it were connected to the number of games played, would that make it better? Same chart, same rolls, but connect it to the number of games a player has been in rather than SPP's.

Chris

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:25 pm

That would make more sense to me....

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:26 pm

game based aging is worse for reasons said many times on this board

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:44 pm

Peaking as a result was considered for a long time in the BBRC. The main objections to it were that an uber player who peaked basically became a star player. You weren't paying a very heavy price for having him on the team because he wasn't going to get any "older", and the SPP's he contributed were frozen. The teams that suffered the most under this type of system were the younger teams who got unlucky when a few position players peaked early.

The goal of ageing (and I'm not saying we've hit the mark yet) is to eliminate team growth after a certain point. The idea is that at some point the team should be getting worse at about the same rate it's getting better. Opinions differ on when that should happen, and how it should work, but that's the goal.

You can see that peaking doesn't do this long term. There's nothing in peaking that makes a team worse. You could hope that normal attrition would eventually take it toll, but when you look at real world numbers you see that the best teams take the fewest casualties. Rookie teams are the ones that take it on the chin.

Again, I'm not suggesting we have a working system yet, but peaking has been considered and rejected for the reasons above.

But if you local leagues likes the system, stick with it. That's really the final goal here, for everyone to have fun.