Thoughts about the EXP system

[Balrog]

Pariah has been hammering at this topic for a while now, but his last post is by far his best. I agree with everything he said, although I personally don't mind stat decreases, as long as it doesn't mean immediate firing (i.e. you get to choose which stat gets decreased).

Edit: AV decreases are probably a very good way to go (the player get hurt easier, and his usefulness on the field doesn't change).

-Balrog

[High & Mighty]

I play in FUMBBL enough to know that the only reason the teams can get above 300 is from good coaching and no handicap. If you chat with some of the more average coaches (ie, not Evo, Grum, or the high ranking ones) you will find out they have a hard time maintaining 200. I peak around 250 usually and plumit in a few short games from ageing and injuries, then make my way back up to 250 again.

I think that's also part of the issue that has to be taken into consideration. As it probably should be, teams that win are rewarded.

They earn more money on average than an equal TR team. Their fan factor increases faster and they can maintain a higher level of fan factor. It's not huge, but it is something.

That brings an added issue though. It means a better coach is not only a better in game coach, but can have more weapons in his arsenal because he can maintain a higher TR team. No amount of fidgeting with charts and handicaps is going to do anything about that. But with enough blood, you can keep that upper cap in check.

Winnings charts and aging/EXP/wearandtear/washingmachineonthehead should handle the dynamics but cannot elegantly, or as Pariah always points out, enjoyably handle the cap. That has to come through in game attrition.

Tweak the winnings table to break by 20TR increments (and maybe lesser fans) to pump more money in early but cut out faster at the higher levels. Use EXPs to get more SPPs to younger players or teams and less to older teams. Let the aging rolls just tack on niggles and then use the +1 mod to injury or armor rolls for each niggle.

Why do something in a table when you can get the same effect by letting it happen on the pitch?

[Skummy]

The upper barrier should be somewhere around 250. The current aging caps it off right around there, and if aging is toned down any, I'm sure we'll see teams go above 300.

[DoubleSkulls]

Well said pariah

Oh no, the universe will collapse. Even worse, I agree with Pariah too

[martynq]

I also like the fact that it has relatively little effect on teams which play for only a single season, which is for most leagues about 12-16 games, I believe. I've run some numbers, and the average number of games to reach 6 EXP seem to be about 14-16. Some players will age faster, of course, but assuming the average player takes that long, you'd only have roughly half your team even hit 6EXP by the end of the average season. That's not going to be a tremendous amount of aging effects over the course of the average first season.

I don't think this is right, Milo. My MBBL team is in its 12th game and I have one player on 6EXP and one player on 7EXP. The player on 7EXP is missing the current game due to the aging affecting him. Now this might not seem like a huge problem - but I only have 13 players in my team and one other is missing the match through a SI suffered in the previous one. So the aging means I have no reserves for this match - which is a considerable problem IMO. This illustrates the problem that aging can affect a player quite early - my team has TR174 and even if the promised MVPs were added in this will only increase it to 185, somewhat below the suggested 200 where aging is supposed to begin to kick in.

In addition, it makes little sense to talk about the "average" player. What do you mean by this terminology? Furthermore, it is not the average player that causes problems for your team through aging - it is the players who age earlier than average. By the nature of "average" some will age earlier than average and it will be these that have negative impact on your team development.

Martyn

[Dangerous Dave]

Martyn is exactly right. We should be looking at the number of games for 95% or 99% confidence.

This is obviously a much lower number of games.


Statos out there?



Dave

[Milo]

I also like the fact that it has relatively little effect on teams which play for only a single season, which is for most leagues about 12-16 games, I believe. I've run some numbers, and the average number of games to reach 6 EXP seem to be about 14-16. Some players will age faster, of course, but assuming the average player takes that long, you'd only have roughly half your team even hit 6EXP by the end of the average season. That's not going to be a tremendous amount of aging effects over the course of the average first season.

I don't think this is right, Milo. My MBBL team is in its 12th game and I have one player on 6EXP and one player on 7EXP. The player on 7EXP is missing the current game due to the aging affecting him. Now this might not seem like a huge problem - but I only have 13 players in my team and one other is missing the match through a SI suffered in the previous one. So the aging means I have no reserves for this match - which is a considerable problem IMO. This illustrates the problem that aging can affect a player quite early - my team has TR174 and even if the promised MVPs were added in this will only increase it to 185, somewhat below the suggested 200 where aging is supposed to begin to kick in.

Okay, so on a team of roughly 13, after 12 games you have one player at 6 EXP and one player at 7 EXP. That means you have two players who potentially can age at the end of each game -- given the average one age in 6 rolls, that means that every three games one of these would age. Half of those results will be MNG, so you're looking at one out of every six games sustaining a lasting effect.

Now, I know that's not the whole story, because over the course of the next six games, you'll likely have a couple other players who get to 6 EXP as well. But still -- is two or three missed games and maybe a niggling injury over the course of an 18 game season going to be that disabling?

Compare that to the current system where you almost certainly will pick up 2-3 niggling injuries over an 18 game season, and that will cause additional game loss. Add to that the additional SPPs you got from EXP, and I think it helps new teams more than it hurts them. I think the current system hurts a new team worse, but clearly EXP will add up in the long term.

In addition, it makes little sense to talk about the "average" player. What do you mean by this terminology? Furthermore, it is not the average player that causes problems for your team through aging - it is the players who age earlier than average. By the nature of "average" some will age earlier than average and it will be these that have negative impact on your team development.

I wrote a program to roll EXP rolls for a team full of 16 players and calculate the minimum, maximum, and average number of rolls required to get to 6 EXP. Most of the time the minimum is about 6-9, the average is 14-16, and the maximum is in the mid- to high- 20's.

You can test it yourself at http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/default.asp?p=et

Milo

[Ghost of Pariah]

Okay, so on a team of roughly 13, after 12 games you have one player at 6 EXP and one player at 7 EXP. That means you have two players who potentially can age at the end of each game -- given the average one age in 6 rolls, that means that every three games one of these would age. Half of those results will be MNG, so you're looking at one out of every six games sustaining a lasting effect.
Now, I know that's not the whole story, because over the course of the next six games, you'll likely have a couple other players who get to 6 EXP as well. But still -- is two or three missed games and maybe a niggling injury over the course of an 18 game season going to be that disabling?

Once again a number cruncher totally misses the boat...
Sure this is what will happen ON AVERAGE. What about the teams that get twice that amount? Or the teams that get stat reductions right away?
Bottomline is not whether or not it's crippling too soon. The problem is that it sucks! It's not fun and we don't like paying 80K for a player to play 8 games and crap out!

Compare that to the current system where you almost certainly will pick up 2-3 niggling injuries over an 18 game season, and that will cause additional game loss. Add to that the additional SPPs you got from EXP, and I think it helps new teams more than it hurts them. I think the current system hurts a new team worse, but clearly EXP will add up in the long term.

Yeah, we don't like either system, get it?

In addition, it makes little sense to talk about the "average" player. What do you mean by this terminology? Furthermore, it is not the average player that causes problems for your team through aging - it is the players who age earlier than average. By the nature of "average" some will age earlier than average and it will be these that have negative impact on your team development.

I wrote a program to roll EXP rolls for a team full of 16 players and calculate the minimum, maximum, and average number of rolls required to get to 6 EXP. Most of the time the minimum is about 6-9, the average is 14-16, and the maximum is in the mid- to high- 20's.

You can test it yourself at http://www.chubbleague.com/chubb/default.asp?p=et

Milo

That's nice but you STILL ARE MISSING THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO START AGEING AT 6 or 8 games. The system may work. Nobody disputes that. It's keeps TR down. I'll say it agin in case you missed it. EXP works. SO does Ageing. We just don't like HOW it works and until you open your ears and hear that you aren't gonna convince us with numbers.
Did you even read the replies following my post?

Go back and read what High & Mighty Wrote. Read what I wrote. Nowhere do we dispute the effectiveness of EXP. We just don't like how it works.

[Milo]

That's nice but you STILL ARE MISSING THE FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO START AGEING AT 6 or 8 games. The system may work. Nobody disputes that. It's keeps TR down. I'll say it agin in case you missed it. EXP works. SO does Ageing. We just don't like HOW it works and until you open your ears and hear that you aren't gonna convince us with numbers.
Did you even read the replies following my post?

Go back and read what High & Mighty Wrote. Read what I wrote. Nowhere do we dispute the effectiveness of EXP. We just don't like how it works.

Cut the invective, Pariah. I am not missing the fact that you don't like it. I've read every post on this thread, and in some ways I agree with virtually every one.

I will say this, though -- you, Pariah, do not represent all Blood Bowl coaches. There are some out there who really like EXP. There are some that don't. There are some who think we should leave well enough alone. There are some that disagree. I know we can't please them all, and I feel no special obligation to please you if it means I'd piss someone else off.

I've said it before: I think EXP is a reasonable system on paper. My league is going to playtest it this next season so I can have some real-life experience with it. It may be that most of my coaches end up hating it. They may love it. I'm not going to try to guess what people will think and vote based purely on my expectations -- at least, not if I can help it. Even many of the critics of EXP admit that it will probably be effective. Nothing that has been said here has convinced me it's not worth at least a TRY.

Let me also add that just because I do not respond to every message or every message immediately does not mean that I don't read them and consider the arguments. To be honest, High and Mighty's idea struck me as a very sound one, and I was considering proposing it to the BBRC. (Still may, in fact.) I hadn't responded to it because I was still mulling it over and trying to find any holes I could poke in it (I know other members will, and I need to be able to respond to them intelligently if I want any hope for it to succeed.)

In this case, I was responding DIRECTLY to Martyn and his comments, not ignoring the other reasonable arguments made on this thread.

Milo

[Grumbledook]

Indeed which is why if you only have to roll for aging affects based on the team rating and also then on the top so many players, the early aging will not happen.

New players will get the time to develope and teams that are going through a rough patch from injuries/lack of money whatever, don't have to worry about aging until they hit the team rating aging barrier.

This will only affect the big teams and then the big players on the big teams. Thats the whole aim of aging isn't it? Well it is they way I see it should work.

[sean newboy]

The question is tho how to do this tr based aging? By the way after about 5 games (2 teams) in the exp system, i like it (even if i do still have a guy after 3 games with only 1 exp). So far it seems to be doing its job, giving a lil help early on for the 1st skill, too early to tell if it will properly age my team.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Like I said, Sean, it will do it's job. It will boost your team and then ageing will take effect and you will decline and retire the team all in about 1 or 2 seasons.

Milo, I'm not saying that you should do anything for me.
I'm wondering where all these people are who like Ageing and EXP. I only see a few. And they happen to be the creators of the systems. I think a poll is in order.

[sean newboy]

I think more time is needed Pariah. So far i like it and i had little if any to do with its creation, it is definately better than the mvp/advance aging system currently in place.

[Ghost of Pariah]

How so?

[Zombie]

I'll make a poll Pariah, just give me a few days to collect all the different options.