I hate aging!

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:00 am

Actually there is no tracking games with the exp system. So they havent changed their tune. There is only tracking total exp points, u roll versus that, total games played with that player has no value whatsoever.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 1:11 am

Here's a couple quotes that don't make sense with what is going on...

Galak said:

Chet, JKL, and I fully reviewed all the teams that have played under LRB rules for more than 20 games and those teams would be topping out a really good TR level if the Niggled/Aged players were begin retired (which they clearly were not).

Basically this means that the new SI table and the aging rolls are working perfectly. The effects of these changes just need more UMPH! .... so which UMPH! would you prefer to have made.

Chet said:

1. Not every league uses seasons. And some play longer seasons than others. The BBRC couldn't use seasons as the basis of the aging system. (We tried. Really, we did.)

2. Per-game rolls are too intrusive. Imagine making 12 or more rolls after every game! We tied the rolls to the skills because that's when a player gets more powerful, and that's when you might need to take him down a peg.

3. Aging players based on the number of games played doesn't work very well on a game-system level. For example, a do-nothing Lineman who gains 0 SPPs in 12 games doesn't "need" to get any worse. The SFirm/Pro/Guard Blitzer, on the other hand, is a prime candidate to get a little worse.

4. We're talking about niggling injuries for the most part. Most of us can deal with them. And the rolls are rather simple to make, for the most part. Half of all players can still get to 4 skills without aging at all! Most of the rest have an additional niggling injury.

Is the system perfect? Well, it won't ever match the tastes of every coach; no rule will. But I think it's pretty good at what it does. (Some feel it's too weak, some feel it's too strong, many feel it's just right...that's a pretty good measure, isn't it?)

The ageing system works? The idea of rolling on 12 players each and every game is intrusive? The fact that most of us didn't like it was a good thing? If it works perfectly why do you want it changed? And if it must be changed why are we retesting methods that the BBRC already said they don't want? Why aren't we trying new things? Alot of people don't like the ageing system but want some way of curbing player growth. That doesn't make us "power gamers" it just makes us realists. Personally, I find it distateful that so many of the polls and threads on this bored aren't being looked at without bias. The polls showed that people don't like the current system. The polls showed that people don't like stat decreases. the polls showed that people don't like the ageing system tied to player progression. Why then is it so hard to test out the other systems presented? Why go back over stuff that was already tried just because somebody with an inside to the BBRC suggested it? The whole things stinks if you ask me.

Let's all get real Galak. I found these quotes with very little searching. Something has changed the BBRC's tune lately. Suddenly the systems suggested by other people are okay when they are suggested by Galak.

The fact that this system wasn't liked before and is close to an ageing system that polls showed most of us didn't like is enough evidence for me to say, "Give it up! Let's try something else. Your iea fell flat. It happens. Get over it."

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:04 am

Pariah wrote:Suddenly the systems suggested by other people are okay when they are suggested by Galak.

Pariah pulls a page out of Zombie's book of debating with Galak. Wasn't my idea, my friend, and last I checked I haven't see the BBRC making very many changes based on ANYTHING I've said or supported. In fact, the only real changes I've had on the game were helping Chet work through a better version of the kicking rules and I seriously doubt they'll ever be official.

The fact that this system wasn't liked before and is close to an ageing system that polls showed most of us didn't like is enough evidence for me to say, "Give it up! Let's try something else. Your iea fell flat. It happens. Get over it."

Must be why the RABBL league just voted to switch over to it and several other league commishes that have emailed me through blood-bowl.net to ask questions about switching to EXP. Yup its hated and fell flat. What's hated and fell flat was skill based aging Pariah ... H*LL even I hate and dispise the ground that skill based aging walks on. That's whats was tried and I agree the idea fell flat; let's try something else. The difference between skill based aging and EXP based aging is literally night and day.

Bottom line, I'm glad to see we agree. Skill based aging didn't work ... get over it and move on. Like I said ... glad to see we agree.

Galak

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:40 am

Skill-based aging and EXP are one and the same. What people don't like with aging (-1ST on a troll, for instance) is still there. The only difference is added complexity that nobody needs.

Of course more people are currently switching fom aging to EXP than the other way around. More people currently play with aging than anything else, since it's the current official rule. Even if everyone who tried EXP switched back, that would still be as many people switching in both directions.

Forget giving players negatives and let's really try something new. I haven't heard too many people who have a problem with salary caps for instance.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 4:21 am

Like I said, I think it's a good system. It works but I also think the other system works just as well. Even you said it "worked perfectly" Why is the change so necessary? I didn't say it sucked. I even told you that I thought it worked for PBeM. So the RABBL is gonna use it? Good, but if the system works why do you want to change it already? Is the RABBL using the original system or the modified one you are proposing? If it works why are you modifying it? Why did you change the old system that "worked perfectly" before this system that works?

I just don't what makes this system BBRC approved all of a sudden when it wasn't before. The only difference I see is that you tested it and now say it doesn't work, or it does work but you want t "fix" it or something like that.

All I'm saying is that the idea doesn't seem to be working as well as you want it to. Why else would you ant to change a system that "works perfectly" I can hear all day long that "so and so" likes it or that if I try it I'll like it, or that testing showed this is the best thing for the game, but in the end I've heard that for every bad Blood Bowl idea in the last 3 years anyway.

I'll say it again, I don't think it's a bad system, it works just as well as the old system. Adding MVP's in isn't going to fix it and claiming that every system is working while you change them doesn't help lend you credibility.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 9:47 am

Good, but if the system works why do you want to change it already?

U have more on this line but i think it only needs copied once. So what your saying is systems are all or nothing? They either work 100% flawless the first time or they are considered not to work at all? Lots of peoples cars work fine but they still put better carbs and intakes on them to make them run better, doesnt mean the car dint work, just means they wanted even better performance. When something is experimental u test it, if its not working like u want it, u change it and test that. We cant all have your gift for perfection rite off the bat the first time.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:18 pm

No, my point was that Galak wrote that the Ageing system "worked perfectly" then he changed his mond. He tried the EXP system and wrote that it worked too. Now he wants to change it. I think there's a problem with this.

Okay, I think I have an idea. What's the problem with Ageing? There is nothing fun about making your players worse! It's going to be hard to gain support for any system. Especially if there is only negatives. Even the creators of the system won't enjoy and will want to change it. Personally I think they all have worked. I think the problem is that they aren't fun.

I don't like to pick at other people's solutions without suggestiong improvements or my own set of rules so here goes.

I suggest we have all niggling injuries give a cumulative +1 to injury rolls. IMO opinion that's gonna go a long way to help player turn over. But in addition I wrote up this...

Veterans of the rough sport called Blood Bowl can tell you that it's a young man's game. Careers are short and it doesn't matter how your species ages. After a few years most players begin to feel to the effects of the game; even the immortal undead start to fall apart from the abuse. To represent this a player who reaches 31 Star Player Points (and every skill roll afterwards) must make a roll on the Wear & Tear Table.

Wear & Tear Table
Roll 2D6

2. Oh, my aching back! This player’s back and joints are out of whack and missing a lot of cartilage. He is easily injured. Subtract 1 from his Armour value. (If this will take his AV to less than 2 below its starting number then the player gains a Niggling Injury.)
3. Too many lumps on the head! This player has had one too many Knock Outs. He’s been stunned and K.O.’d so much that sometimes he needs a little more direction than the other guys. Player acquires “Bonehead” trait. (If this is rolled a second time the player gains the “Really Stupid” trait. If you get this result a third time then roll again.)
4-5. Peaked! This player has learned all he can learn. Some players are better than others and that’s just life. The player gains this last skill but can’t earn any more Star Player Points and MVP’s are wasted on him. This last skill roll may be considered a “doubles” result. (I.E. the player may choose any skill or a trait from his categories)
6-8. Niggling Injury! The player gains a niggling injury and must miss the next game.
9-10. Inflated Ego! This player demands an appearance fee of 30,000gps at every game where the opponents have a lower Team Rating than your team. (If this result is rolled again then the fee increases by 10,000gps)
11. Post Game Injuries! Once in the locker room the player feels woozy and out of sorts. The next day it’s discovered that he has a concussion and must miss next game. In addition, he may only select normal skills for his roll, no matter what the dice result. (No traits, physical abilities or stat increases!)
12. I’m like fine wine, Baby! That’s right! This player just gets better with age. Choose a result from below.
I. Nuffle cures the sick! Remove one niggling injury!
II. Player inherits a magic helmet. +1 to Armour Value
III. Osmosis! Pick any trait or skill for this roll, even those not normally allowed to you.
(Only Skaven and Chaos player may choose physical traits, however)
IV. Endorsement! The player is sponsored by Bloodweiser, Reeborc or some other big company and adds +1 to the team’s money rolls as long as he lives.

I'm not married to this but the point I'm trying to make is that there is some fun in this table. However ultra-slim the chance, a player might actually improve a little! Also, most of the results are going to be niggling injuries which when combined with the cumualtive effect rule let the player play without loss of strength or skill, but will shorten his life expectency. This is what we should be doing. Nobody wants their players to get worse! Niggling injuries are good because either he plays or not. You don't spend 2 seasons building a killer thrower just to have his AG drop. You may spend 2 seasons building a great thrower only to have him get killed but that's what the game should be about! I did include some bad results but I included results that I thought would would be fun, funny or would help the cumulative injury process.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:39 pm

Tbh Pariah i like it! (well most of it)

Couple of things, don't like the idea of giving a magic helmet, unless you limit it to one per team.

Same with limiting the +1 winnings to maybe 2 players per team.

The any skill or trait thing, hope you don't mean that a mummy can take jump up or something equally silly. Just let them have that skill roll as if they rolled a doubles normally. If they rolled a double anyway, tough luck ;] Though this would only come into effect if they had no niggles to remove and you had the helmet etc already.

One glaring problem is that you will definatly age on the 3rd skill roll and every roll after that. This is a big no no. Personally I don't like it being tied into gaining skills. Though maybe it could work if you randomised the chance of rolling like now, but make it mmore likely to roll the more skills you got and impossable to get through without ever rolling on it.

The +1 inj for each niggle appeals to me and I like the table but the implemention of it would need some work.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:47 pm

You won't definitely "age" on every roll.

1/3 of the table has no negative effect on the player's ability to play the game.

But like I said, I'm not married to the tabel...you get the idea. I didn't think about the +1 to money thing. But I really don't think there will be any teams that have that many players with the +1 to money.

The jump up mummies...hmmn. They don't bother me too much. Especially if they happened rarely. That mummy would need to get to his 3rd skill at least and then roll double sixes. Maybe we could have the normal rolls count as 'doubles' and the 'doubles' count as 'super doubles'? lol

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:48 pm

Pariah: F-ing brilliant table! This is *excatly* the kind of changes that could be made to the injury table to give aging more of a bite and make it more interesting.

The only things I'd think about changing would be to make the Inflated Ego result be 10,000 to play the game. A slow bleed on the treasury would make it a harder decision than the instant dumping of a 30,000 per game player.

The Fine Wine! had me laughing out loud, but Osmosis strikes me as being too powerful. There's a reason some players aren't allowed access to some skills.

Good stuff!

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:52 pm

Yes i deffo wouldn't want anyone to get a trait they can't normally have

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 6:57 pm

How about on the 3rd skill on a 3+ you don't roll on the table 4th skill 4+ etc and every niggle -1 to that roll

carnage4u · Post by **carnage4u** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:35 pm

I like the Idea of pariah's ruleset.

Mainly its a roll with both postive and negative effects. If there was a system more like that with maybe some small tweaks, I could live with it better. It starts at a nice point 31spp which i think is a perfect spot for it, and it doesnt make a player 100% because the effect is there.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 7:44 pm

Yes but there is the fact that you can't get past a skill roll without aging and that sucks, they will either niggle or peak at their third skill, which sucks ;]

Which is also why i would prefer aging to be related to the number of games played.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:22 pm

How about just replacing the current aging table with Pariah's, and not make people check to age until their second skill? Niggling injuries could give them a -1 modifier on the aging chart as well.