Talk Fantasy Football

This is the last proposed version of the rule: Well, it IS a really good rule. It´s not the father´s pride talking here, cause it is not my rule. Marcus had the original idea of EXP in order to replace MVPs, and this EXP rule was slightly modified by Chet, then I just came up with the idea of a new Ageing system linked with EXP, not skills. Chet appeared again with a brilliant twist that was thoroughly modified and polished by Neo and Galak. That´s it.

That´s enough for history. Now onto the discussion.

My only concern on this rule was the fact that Ageing will have more impact on players that earn SPPs at a slow pace under current rules. Think that Ian was the first to point this out. But this could be so easily solved awarding SPPs to fouling CAS again, that I think it is, ehem, perfect.

manusate wrote:My only concern on this rule is the fact that Ageing will have more impact on players that earn SPPs at a slow pace.

No, I think you are wrong here. It will affect all players equally, just the old version of aging had greater effect on players who earn their SPPs faster. (You concern only applies when you compare this version relative to the old version.) It means that the players that suffer from aging aren't necessarily going to be your stars who you have developed alot.

But this could be easily solved awarding SPPs to fouling CAS again.

Bad Manusate! Don't go saying things like that.

Cheers,
Martyn

I have been following this thread lately, but I can't say I really like the idea. The rule seems very cludgey to me and will take too much time to do after a game... IMO the less dice rolling the better!

I think the best fix for ageing is simple: Rename it to "Wear and Tear" or something similar. It make sense the ones doing all the work will wear out faster. On my current league team I have suffered what I think is just the right amount of ageing (in 27 games), and from what I can see from the other teams it's having just about the right affect on them as well. I'm all for keeping the current system.

If your TR continues to climb, it's not enough ageing.

Because I think its important to have it in the thread here are the PROs of the EXP system vs the CONs that have been stated:

PROS CONS I have to say that right now the Pros way outweight the Cons. That probably because personally I don't think either Con has any actual weight in the argument to date. But that is my personal opinion.

Marcus said it very well in another post:

I understand your desire to reduce complexity but rejecting this idea on the basis of dice rolls is a false economy. This system removes two disparate mechanisms and unifies them into a conceptual whole.

By putting together experience and aging you are essentially reducing by one the items on the post game checklist. The physical act of rolling dice is not an additional "complexity", making use of a number of disparate concepts is. This suggestion removes the MVP from the equation altogether, removes the counterintuitive link of skills to aging and replaces both with a system to simulate age and experience. That is a reduction in complexity regardless of dice rolled.

Galak

Anthony_TBBF wrote:I have been following this thread lately, but I can't say I really like the idea. The rule seems very cludgey to me and will take too much time to do after a game... IMO the less dice rolling the better!

Cludgey how? Its follows the same rules as the MVP for who can roll and really all its doing in spreading out the points. I'm honestly trying to understand the negatives here and Anthony usually has good thoughts, but I just don't see how several dice rolls equates cludgey. If that's true than Sweltering Heat is cludgey as well ... ie I don't link dice rolled = cludgey.

Also I really don't get the takes to much time. Let me go roll some dice and see what we are talking about here.

Okay I'm done ... I used Neo's 13 player team and added 3 rookies to see how long it would take to update the roster.

So his team had:
10 EXP 6 players
2 EXP 5 players
1 EXP 3 player
and I added 3 EXP 0 players

I rolled 3 sets and update the roster each time.

The first time I rolled 7 rolls which required recording (no aging rolls were made). It took me about 75 seconds to update the roster.

The second time I rolled 7 rolls which required recording (including 1 aging roll that came up Miss Next Game). For this one it took me 80 seconds to update the roster.

The third time I rolled 6 rolls which required recording (including 1 aging roll that came up Miss Next Game). It took me 65 seconds to update the roster.

So I'm thinking on average for an experienced team that it would require no more than 1 1/2 minutes total to do the EXP rolls and roster updates. I spend a lot more time than this when I roll a skill trying to decide what I'm going to take and I have a plan usually like Zombie suggests you do for skill advances.

I just don't think 1 1/2 minutes are too much time to ask for all Pros this system offers.

Galak

In relation to the current aging system, Bash teams will age faster and Agility teams slower

Ok, Martyn. Forget about the SPPs to fouling casualties. But some change should be made in that direction.

Awarding 3 SPPs to CAS could speed up their developement, thus balancing this.

I don´t even consider the extra dice rolls being a con. Couldn´t care less.

If your TR continues to climb, it's not enough ageing.

I don't think TRs are continuing to climb, I haven't made it past 238 after hitting 200 around 12 games ago. Most of the teams in my league (witha few exceptions of teams that didn't fully develop under the new rules) are experiencing the same cap.

manusate wrote:

In relation to the current aging system, Bash teams will age faster and Agility teams slower

Ok, Martyn. Forget about the SPPs to fouling casualties. But some change should be made in that direction.

Awarding 3 SPPs to CAS could speed up their developement, thus balancing this.

I would like to point out Manu that the average player isn't aging until their 22nd game and in my LRB league we've only finished 6 games so far and I have several players that have aged already. My other league has finished about 12 games since starting and has a multitude of aging effects already. Under this system, both leagues would have hardly any aging effects yet. So if we really want to get technical here. Both Bash and Agility teams will age SLOWER than the current system until about game 20. At that point under this system they age the same ... so at THAT point Bash and Agility teams would pick up the pace. So the whole faster aging of bash is untrue until game 20+ ... which for many leagues makes the Con irrelevant.

Galak

Mmmm...

Dave wrote:This proposal also means that it will be harder to develop players who earn SPPs at a slow rate to a Star (51 SPPs).
Now less take some examples:-
A Catcher earning 3 SPPs per game (17 games) - 89% chance of no aging (2 games)
A blitzer earning 2.5 SPPs per game (21 games) - 71% chance of no aging (6 games)
A Thrower earning 2 SPPs per game (26 games) - 53% chance of no aging (11 games)
An Elf Lino earning 1 SPP per game (51 games) - 13% chance of no aging (36 games)
A Lino earning 0.5 SPPs per game (102 games) - 0.7% chance of no aging (87 games)

What about this?

Anthony_TBBF wrote:

If your TR continues to climb, it's not enough ageing.

I don't think TRs are continuing to climb.

They are in the MBBL2. I got several teams getting ready to pass TR 250 who are no where near close to losing members from aging.

Galak

Speaking as someone whose grasp of game balance and mechanics is limited I have to say I'd prefer to play to these rules than to the current aging rules. In fact, when we play our next league sometime next year (boo hiss ) we had already agreed to ignore the aging rule, as we found it to be (or seem) unfair on certain teams ( or specifically Skaven, as they were the only team effected [twice] in the whole league - and no, they weren't the best team).

I have no problem rolling upto an extra 16D6 post game seeing as I probably roll 250+ of them during the game, and if this is the only con for the system then I think it looks a winner.

Well done Guys

Cludgey how?

Becuase this system requires more book keeping and much more margin for errors. Introducing up to 16 more dice rolls in the post game isn't a good solution IMO, not for something that doesn't seem to change things all that much. EXP just seems like a change for change's sake.

Just a few comments - if I leave something out then I am agreeing with your statement:

1) Rookie teams get ramped up to their first skill faster than the current system making it easier for them to be competitive in the league.

The net result is the same isn't it? It just means your team basically is almost never going to have inexperienced players, this seems a tad unrealistic to me. Some punk getting an MVP doesn't seem right either but is there really so much of a difference to warrant a change?

3) Getting a skill roll no longer has a possible penalty associated with it.

I think this system just shifts the timing away really. So what if you roll when you get a skill or when he picks his nose for the 12th time in a season. The fact it happens with the skill roll is a good way of streamlining the process.

5) The average player doesn't get his first permanent aging effect until his 22nd game.

This has been pretty much the effect I have noticed in our league anyways.

6) Maintains the coach's choice as to who retires and who stays (ie doesn't force retirement)

How so? Ageing hasn't forced retirement of an of my players. I can live with the odd niggler, and the AG decrease on my star (Norse) blitzer hasn't been an issue at all in about 8 games or so. Sure sometimes you get a crappy result, but them's the breaks! It seems rare enough to not be a problem.

7) Links Aging with the actual age of the player.

This is the biggest problem with ageing. The current system shouldn;t be called ageing, it should be called "wear and tear". The fact that it's called ageing is unfortuante and shouldn't have been called that in the first place. In my mind my team is playing pretty much in real time, the fact that a player gets a stat decrease or whatever because of the "ageing roll" makes way more sense if you thin of it as taking abuse through playing. In fact, in our league we call ageing "SPOOTEG" which translates roughly to: "Snot Pounded out of them Every Game".

Removes the old problem of freebooters and dead players stealing your MVP.

Yes this is a problem, but easily solved by adding a line to the MVP rule I would think. Perhaps MVP is not even the best term, maybe it should be called Experience!

10) Actually encourages player turnover of older teams (ie 20+ games) better than the current aging rules ... ie it steps them up a little as was desired by several reviews of older teams (20+ games) under the current LRB rules.

This is true to some extent, but since we use a system at the end of our season to level off highly developed teams (which this year will be teams like mine with TRs around 250). I think that ageing does a pretty good job of making you think twice about keeping aged players though. Although I have kept 2 of mine, my star catcher with a niggler has been teetering on Asstitant Coach status recently.

And for the cons...

In relation to the current aging system, Bash teams will age faster and Agility teams slower

I don't think this is an acceptable con. Any attrition system should affect all players equally.

Anyway those are my concerns and comments. I think if people stopped thinking of ageing as a player's actual age and thought of it as damage accumluated from playing a sport where people die on a weekly basis they wouldn;t have such a problem with it.

They are in the MBBL2. I got several teams getting ready to pass TR 250 who are no where near close to losing members from aging.

Well it seems there is one team with a TR over 250 and a handful above 200, so it will be interesting to see. Still, I'd rather keep an eye on the MBBL's stats that uses official rules over the MBBL2's house rules and extra teams. You have to admit that the 290 TR team in that league has a slightly inflated TR over a team that uses official rules.

You make good points Anthony.

I guess for me it boils down to these items mainly comparing old to new.

1) With the EXP system, a rookie player will on average always get his first skill on his 15th game. I like this a lot. I see teams all the time where one player has somehow managed to get 3 of the MVPs and with a casualty has 2 skills while his teammates have zero SPPs. I like the ramp up effect this has on rookie teams and players every much. In MANY ways its bringing back the old bonus MVPs from 3rd edition that rookies received. A 12 player rookie team will get 10 SPPs from their 1st game with the EXP system. While an Experience 12 player teams that played over 15 games will only get 2 SPPs. This is simple elegance to me. The SPPs (ie experience) are going to the players with the biggest learning curves. I've seen a LOT of teams with several lineman with a single SPP. I really like the idea that under this system that won't be true anymore, and that built in an SPP reducer. Neo's 26 game team would have had earned 37 less SPPs on EXP vs MVP rolls ... to me that a great balancer right there for maintaining an experienced group of players.

2) Leagues that reset at the end of each season gain benefit from the system without getting the negatives. The MBBL has only 6 games under its belt and several teams feel victim to aging (and yes this was still true even if you back out the ones that got hit by the increased table we tried). Under the EXP system, not a single team would have been effected at this point, it would have been impossible. Makes a lot of sense to me. Also aging hitting restarting leagues was one of the biggest complaints against aging by many BB coaches ... yes they could have just house ruled it out but they didn't want to have house rules. I like the idea of an aging system that doesn't need house ruled out for restarting leagues.

3) It removes the other biggest complaint. I've read a lot of emails (even from MBBL members) that hate that aging is linked to the skill rolls. While I can agree with you that the effect is similar whether its the player's 22nd game or 3rd skill. There is no denying in my eyes that currently the skill roll (any skill) has a sense of dredd built into it. Oh no, I got a skill hope I don't age. This marriage has not been met well by most coaches that I emailed or talked to. A lot understand it was the best mechanic at the time, but I usually get the follow-up statment that I wish players would get worse based on the number of games played instead of their skills.

4) It removes the early zap fact completely. The current aging system can nail a player on his very first game with a permanent injury. The fastest that a player can be effected with the EXP system is game 7. At least by game 7, I've had some time to know the player before he starts getting nailed by negative effects.

So understand where you are coming from with your comments. But I don't see the EXP system as a difficult one. It doesn't require a new column on the team roster or special tracking, its just a different way of handing out the MVPs. Marcus stated it best above. I think the EXP system takes what right now is a not so lucky system based on different systems and remarries them in a way that makes sense and is elegant in my opinion.

As for the last comment, see I don't think that is a Con really the whole bash vs ag ... all players are treated equally under EXP. Your comment about an attrition system should effect all players equally. See in my mind EXP does just that. Its the current aging system that doesn't effect all player equally. High scoring Elves suffer significantly more aging effects than bashing Dwarves. To me, the EXP system is fixing the inequality not creating it. I only posted it because some folks are under the mistaken belief that the EXP does this. I don't think it does, I think its the answer to the problem ... not the problem itself.

Galak