Thoughts about the EXP system

[Quilwood]

Well having more than one player get an ageing roll in the first two rolls is horrible luck, but not any worse than 30% luck (almost forgot tabletop doesnt keep track of this ). If my TR150 team gets 3 players SI or killed in a game thats some retched luck, but its happend to almost everyone. I don't see haveing unlucky ageing rolls any worse than that kind of game, theres nothing you can do about it.

I'm also sure anyone who makes a big fuss over there +1AG beastman ageing on his second roll is also going to throw a fit if they fail every pickup roll in the game too. Some people just complain to much. I'd still like to hear a sound factual logical staitment as to why ageing isn't needed to get rid of those crazy 5 skill gutter runners, and wardancers (as a note, I'd like to say I play skaven alot and don't mind the turn-over rate).

[Milo]

I'm not saying that is the way to go either. That's what galak thought too! No. I just think that maybe when you are testing 40 teams and want to get an idea on player turn over you shouldn't throw in the Nurgle Killing machine. It's silly.

What makes the Nurgle team a "Killing machine" more than a normal Chaos team? Is it just the Beast you have a problem with?

Milo

[Milo]

I dislike the EXP system.

Some time ago I've finally reached the conclusion that the aging system should:

-Affect the team only when it gets better.

1.The current system works

That dark elf team of FUMBBLe is a perfect example of the fact that the system works. The amount of niggles and stat decreases from aging is sufficient. If they used the handicap system, many of them would've been retired already, just to keep the team competitive.

Unfortunately, some members of the BBRC have used exactly that team as justification for why the aging system DOESN'T work. Others have pointed out that under Handicap rules, that team would never be viable, but that hasn't dissuaded what I consider a vocal minority.

2.The exp system doesn't

Because the exp system is somewhat realistic and makes sense.
It attacks all the teams equally, which is against the idea that aging should effect teams whenever it gets better. That's why I don't like it. Teams get better at different rates, and as long as the aging is connected to that rate, the system is fair. When the rate of aging is different, teams are not treated fair.

So, let me get this straight:

You agree that the EXP system is realistic and makes sense, but you don't like it because you feel it doesn't accomplish the goal of the aging mechanic -- to target specifically the players who earn many skills and hence become harder to target for attrition by injury?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with that, I just want to make sure I understand the point you're making.

Milo

[Milo]

First of all why do we need ageing? With reduced income, and stopping FF growth, high end teams don't really progress once they hit TR 300+. One of the few things high end teams have to look forward to is getting new skills.

No one has really made a good argument for why ageing is necessary under LRB. "We want to increase player turnover so that teams don't get so good." Well that isn't happening TR 600 teams are a thing of the past. Nor to teams have enough money to cycle players (I haven't got a double by the 2nd skill so I'll retire him) meaning the really nasty players are rarer.

Here's why: Jervis wants a system built into blood bowl that allows for what he calls "Perpetual Blood Bowl" -- i.e. a local league that plays games endlessly, with no breaks for seasons (and hence, no mechanics that rely on season-endings.) His dream (and, to some extent, that of the rest of the BBRC) is to have a team development system where the following will happen:

1) Initial team growth (should be relatively unimpeded)
2) Team peaks/plateaus (at some point, growth should slow or stop, preventing the team from becoming uncompetitive)
3) Team declines (whether from injury, forced retirement, team infrastructure problems like loss of re-rolls, etc.)
4) Team rebounds (once a team falls below a certain breakpoint, team can recover and move back towards the plateau point)
5) Repeat steps 3-4

That is, as I said, the ideal. There is currently disagreement about at what points the step 2-3-4 should occur at. Personally, I think teams should be able to grow up to about TR 200 without too many problems, have more trouble getting to 250, rarely reach 275-300, and occasionally dip back down to 200-225. I think that allows for a nice range of developed teams to be built, and the cycling affect should allow the chance for new teams to break in more easily.

Aging is a necessary component of that because -- and I'm sure we all have experience with this -- at some point the Stars with skills become much harder to put down with injury-based attrition. That happens with ST-teams because their stars are so brutal no one even wants to take them on; it happens with AG-teams because they have so many skills it's difficult to knock them over.

We considered increasing attrition via boosting injuries, but that will cripple the less-skilled while affecting the superstars -- those who are the real problem -- much less. Aging was invented to try to target the skilled players while leaving the joe schmoes (who will already get injured more than the superstars) less affected.

You asked why we feel an aging mechanic is necessary; that's one BBRC members take on it. Others may feel slightly different, but it's a shared goal of all of us.

[Milo]

FUMBBL would make a fantastic testing ground if only we had the handicap table implemented. The problem here is skijunkie doens't want to spend his time coding it in because he (correctly?) believes that the handicap table is going t be changed. So he doesn't want to code something in that will need changing.

So maybe milo, or another BBRC member can tell us what the deal is with the handicap table.

Well, there likely will be changes to the handicap table, although there's still nothing close to consensus in the BBRC on a solution. I've proposed one there which I may post here soon. Others have been bandied about, involving cards, tables, you name it. It may be in this year's RR, but I won't guarantee anything at this point.

But that said, the lack of Handicap really does make FUMBBL unusable for much of our testing, since the Handicap would have a dramatic affect on some of the teams there (and prevent them from reaching the level that they have.)

Milo

[DoubleSkulls]

You agree that the EXP system is realistic and makes sense, but you don't like it because you feel it doesn't accomplish the goal of the aging mechanic -- to target specifically the players who earn many skills and hence become harder to target for attrition by injury?

Well I really don't like the mechanics of EXP. Rolling for every player is tedious, especially when most of the rolls are pointless. Also I think its more complex than a lot of players are happy with.

Also, as you say, EXP doesn't target the most skilled players which was a perceived intent of the old ageing system.

[Grumbledook]

EXP could be made a lot easier, less time consuming if you just rolled for say the top 5 players (ranked via spp) when the tr gets over 200 (or whatever)

Roll a 1 then roll on on the SI table

[Milo]

EXP could be made a lot easier, less time consuming if you just rolled for say the top 5 players (ranked via spp) when the tr gets over 200 (or whatever)

Roll a 1 then roll on on the SI table

What would you do in the case of ties?

[Grumbledook]

make em both roll ;]

[Zombie]

Unfortunately, some members of the BBRC have used exactly that team as justification for why the aging system DOESN'T work. Others have pointed out that under Handicap rules, that team would never be viable, but that hasn't dissuaded what I consider a vocal minority.

That 400 TR team could never win against 100 TR halflings, and that hasn't dissuaded them? What the hell do they need?

[Zombie]

EXP could be made a lot easier, less time consuming if you just rolled for say the top 5 players (ranked via spp) when the tr gets over 200 (or whatever)

Roll a 1 then roll on on the SI table

This looks a lot like my Wear And Tear system. Why not use that one then?

[Grumbledook]

this way is more simple no, no dividing (even if it is by 10)

unless "your" method has something extra this doesn't cover?

[Milo]

Well, there likely will be changes to the handicap table, although there's still nothing close to consensus in the BBRC on a solution. I've proposed one there which I may post here soon.

Here is a link to the post where I have submitted my Handicap changes for discussion and review:

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/vie ... hp?p=71916

[Zombie]

this way is more simple no, no dividing (even if it is by 10)

unless "your" method has something extra this doesn't cover?

With the dividing being by 10 (and that's what the suggested system currently is at), it's simpler than your version of EXP. Dividing by 10 (rounded down) just means dropping the last didgit, and it entails fewer rolls than EXP. Also, WAT is much more gradual. Instead of simply getting a result on a 1, the chance of getting a result increases with the SPPs your player has.

[Grumbledook]

i don't see how its simpler, rolling a 1 on a d6 is about as simple as it gets