Aging Replacement: Intensive Training

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:12 pm

When a team reaches a rating of 200+, the top players need extra training to keep them at the highest level. Unfortunatly this extra training can lead to some extra injuries, like strained muscles, sprained ankles, or sometimes worse.

So when a team is is TR 200+ at the start of the match, at the end roll a D6 for the top 3 players ranked by spp (the team owner can choose on ties). On the roll of a 1, they suffer an injury in training, so roll on the SI table for them.

Advantages:
Its simple, no maths involved at all (well apart from looking at the top 3 spp)
Targets only the best players and leaves rookie players alone.
Only affects developed teams, so no suffering from aging in the first match.
Not tied to gaining a skill, so leaves gaining skills a good thing.
Few dice rolled compared to other suggestions
No extra bookkeeping, recording matches played or any other extra statistics each match
Eventually every player will get too bad to keep on (ie one turners)
Its flexable, changing the tr limit or the number of players you roll for means it can be made more severe or less harsh depending on a leagues taste.
Doesn't introduce any extra tables and does away with the aging table as well.
Teams that suffer a bad run of luck through player deaths or what ever don't have to worry about "aging" until they have recovered and built their team back up to over tr 200.
Training injuries can and do happen in real life, so its not an "artifical mechanic"

So any comments or pointers why it won't work, whats bad, whats good, why other systems are better etc post away!

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:28 pm

Seems a simple system - basically a simplification of the EXP system without the bookkeeping which also only targets the high SPP players.

I have the same reservation as for the EXP system - I think all the MNG results might make it difficult to field a full team regularly, but probably less so with this system than the EXP one.

I would rather say that you ignore all the MNG results on the SI table when rolling for the aging, BUT this might not cause quite enough turnover... so I might change the aging roll to be 1 or 2 on a d6 roll rather than just 1 if necessary. (It would need some testing to be certain!)

Missing a game is annoying but not enough to ensure a player is retired. Instead, actually having something happen to the player would encourage you to retire him.

Martyn

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:38 pm

Yer thats fair enough but if you remove the MNG then you are either changing the table altogether (which could be done) or its not going to effect enough.

As that stands you should at least miss one of your best 3 players every 2 games, sometimes more sometimes less.

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:53 pm

Grumbledook wrote:As that stands you should at least miss one of your best 3 players every 2 games, sometimes more sometimes less.

Yes, exactly - I don't think that's much fun. A coach develops his team reaches 200TR and then finds that one of his best players misses every other match. This basically spreads a niggle out between his best three players. It encourages him to retire enough players to take his TR down below 200 and so effectively puts a 200TR cap on teams.

I really think an aging system should encourage you to retire a player because he is no longer helpful to the whole team. It should affect a single player and potentially cause a difficult decision where a formerly good player is no longer quite so good.

I really do believe that these MNGs are a problem - and we should be willing to remove them if it makes a system work, rather than say "it changes a table". After all, we would be removing at least one, possibly two tables, anyway from the LRB.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm

yer fair point, so just ignore he mng

that would mean a niggle or a -stat evry 6th game on average?

roll a 1 on average every 2 games
then on a 5 or 6 an "aging" effect so thats 1 in 3

is that too much or not enough?

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:22 pm

Certainly a lot more elegant than Aging. And doesn't add something negative to something positive.

Doesn't have the potential for team havoc as EXP has, (although unlikely)

Lot simpler system, easy to keep track of.

But I see the potential this has for people keeping their teams just under 200 in rating. Could be a flaw, BB coaches are easily devious enough to exploit the limit.

It's still a post match mechanic, and I'd still prefer getting my damage on field, but for a post match mechanic, it's fair enough. The intention is afterall to keep power players in line. and it does that.

I'd much prefer the system over aging. Also, it involves alot less bookkeeping then the EXP system does, so that's cool to. (and the EXP system does give out alot of free SPP)

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:34 pm

if teams stay at under 200 they will quite likely just lose to the higher rated teams

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:12 pm

I think 200 is too low, but I think it is better than aging.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:17 pm

what would you start it at, i only picked 200 as a starting value like i said its a flexable system

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:01 pm

I would say 250-300, but it would probably need play testing. I am going to start a cap next season as I see this is the fairest way to go, but have been undecided as to the limit. I'm thinking 300, and your sugestion could fit in nicely with this. It's getting the right balance of allowing teams to develop, but not get too powerful.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:08 pm

Yep tr 300 teams are a LOT of fun to play. I miss that.

My favorite team ever spent most of its time around tr300. It retired at 396 irrc, but that was the highest it ever got, and most of that was BB tourney winnings

I had the "merchandising" card that game (24ff)!

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:17 pm

What team was that friend? Guessing Elven. I agree TR 300 teams have real class and evenly matched games are great at that level.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:24 pm

Never had a team that reached TR 300. Most leagues I played in never lasted very long. How many games are we talking about here as far as getting up to that level (apprpx)?

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:29 pm

In my experience you are only talking about 4-5 seasons depending on how many games in a League and Cup runs and ofcourse what team you start with. Rat scum and Undead take a long while as they are cheaper.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:34 pm

Jerivs wants it hard to be at 300 and thats around the area teams should be topping out, not everyone will reach 300 and some will go over 300 a bit. With that in mind maybe tr250 would be a better trade off, if maybe a bit high. Possably 230 might be the sweet spot, but that would be what testing would show.

There aren't many teams in FUMBBL that have reaches 300 and there are some teams that have played a lot of matches, go look at the tables and order by team rating to have a look.