Brainstorming team growth.

[neoliminal]

I'm starting this thread to brainstorm idea's on resolving what I see as the core problem in BB right now. It revolves around team growth and it's why Ageing exists (although I don't think ageing in it's current form resolves the problem.)

Team growth is the result of several factors but it boils down to SPPs, Winnings, and FF gains. Ideally what we want is a system that will reduce team growth at roughly the same rate that it's gained. In otherwords, at some predefined level of team strength the teams should stop routinely getting better.

I don't want to get into debates about what that level should be. That's a completely different discussion.

What I am interested in hearing are mechanics that could achieve this goal. The best system would have an increasing effect as you reached the cap point, so that team growth was slowed as you reached the apex of team strength. It should also be simple.

Some terms to use (so that we are all speaking the same basic language):

Team Growth: The effects of SPPs, Winnings and FF gains on a team, including skill gain, RRs and treasury.

Cap Point: The arbitrary TR level where team growth would theoretically be halted. (We are NOT debating what level this should be set to. It's a holy war and will derail the brainstorming.)

Team Shrinkage: The effect of reducing TR and Team Strength.

Team Strength: The ability of a team to be effective on the pitch, includes Skills, Players, RRs and to some extent FF.

For the purposes of this thread, nothing in BB is sacred. If your idea needs to rewrite anything in the rules, go for it. Just try to keep things simple. Complex solutions are unlikely to work.

And you don't need to have a complete solution. If you have an idea that would resolve only part of the problem (like a way to keep SPP's in check) then just explain that idea.

[Mirascael]

Team Growth: The effects of SPPs, Winnings and FF gains on a team, including skill gain, RRs and treasury.

Cap Point: The arbitrary TR level where team growth would theoretically be halted. (We are NOT debating what level this should be set to. It's a holy war and will derail the brainstorming.)

Team Shrinkage: The effect of reducing TR and Team Strength.

Team Strength: The ability of a team to be effective on the pitch, includes Skills, Players, RRs and to some extent FF.

1) The current winning and FF tables are good, as is the TR-calculating. Keep them.
2) There is no way a team can lose RRs. I would suggest, that a team has to pay negative winnings from its treasury. If it can't pay, it should lose 1 RR due to the decreasing morale of its players. No money is rewarded. This would force high rated teams to either keep their expensive high-end Star Players or to keep its accumulated RRs. Low-rated teams will have no difficulties as they get cash all the time whereas higher rated teams will be affected considerably.
3) Raise the levels for later skills, i.e. 6, 16, 31, 61, 101, 201, 301.
This should tweak the Team Strength of high rated teams and might keep stat-increases in check.
4) Replace injury-punishment for SPPs ("ageing") by either a realistic game/season based ageing, peaking or both.
Game-based ageing might only take effect at the end of a particular season. The advantage would be that players wouldn't be required to roll during the season. Furthermore it would be quite realistic if teams would get worse after a particular season (e.g. Chicago Bulls).
Basically, real ageing could be based on the current "ageing"-table (i.e. after each 5 or 10 games you have to roll for a possible effect with progressive chances of ageing). As an alternative, a simple D6 could be used. For peaking (skill-related): 2nd skill on a 1, 3rd skill on a 1-2, 4th skill on a 1-3, 5th skill on a 1-4, 6th skill on a 1-5, 7th skill automatic peaking. You could use a similar pattern for game-based ageing (every ten games, determined after a season perhaps), except that a 6 will always avoid ageing. The exact numbers should be based on how many games an average player is expected to play until he is to be replaced. The great advantage I see with a game-based ageing rule is that new teams would not be effected at all whereas old-timers (most likely high rated teams) would suffer serious consequences if they don't replace players with many games (the uberplayers among them) regularly. Furthermore, no player could escape ageing by lucky dice rolls. The disadvantage might be if this solution requires too much bookkeeping.
I think it is imperative that new teams are neither effected by ageing nor by peaking. That's especially important as long as you don't want to distract new players to play Blood Bowl.

[neoliminal]

Thanks Mirascael, that's a great start.

In our debating different system we decided against season based ageing because not all leagues have seasons and season length can vary quite a bit from league to league.

I'm curious what you think might work for a game based "ageing" system.

[Mirascael]

Thanks Mirascael, that's a great start.

In our debating different system we decided against season based ageing because not all leagues have seasons and season length can vary quite a bit from league to league.

I'm curious what you think might work for a game based "ageing" system.

Thanx neoliminal!

I see your point, with season-based ageing I meant that the ageing-roles would be made after a particular season, they would still be game-based. For teams which do not play in a league these rolls would have to be made immediately of course.

A raw suggestion for game-based ageing/attrition:

Code: Select all

after x played games    ageing roll required to avoid ageing (D6)

        10                      2+
        20                      3+
        30                      4+
        40                      5+
        50/60/70...             6 

or, alternatively

        10                      2+
        15                      3+
        20                      4+
        25                      5+
        30/35/40...             6

Might be quite tough though. You also could use the current 2D6 system. Actually, I don't know what the exact numbers should be, they depend on the level you want teams to peak at. But I strongly suggest that new teams would not be affected by ageing at all and that teams with players who have made many games would be affected significantly.

[neoliminal]

One thing to try with any new system is to take an existing team and retro-actively apply the results. It's not going to give you the exact team that would have been produced with a given set of mechanics, but it's a good estimation of the effect that a rule may have.

Most teams seem to gain one skill a game from SPPs. Does your system start removing an average of a skill a game?

[SBG]

Hi Neo!

First of all, thanks for letting us the opportunity to share some input on the ruling of BB, I find it very "democrative" that the rulz gurus take time to listen to the playing community.

I'm quite new to the BB community: I played a few games back in 1990-91, but really got involved with LRB 2K1. I wish I could take part in some tourneys, I'm sure I will eventually!

I've never created, invented, took part in the creation of any game. So what I'm about to say might sound absolutely gibberish. Just a little disclaimer!

I really, and I mean REALLY, enjoy Blood Bowl. It rapidly climbed my chart and I can't wait for my next game. There is only one thing that leaves a sour taste in my mouth when playing BB: Ageing.

I know that it serves a purpose; I just think it could serve it in an other way. The first that I think needs to be changed: the link between ageing and skill progression. This is ridiculous. Peaking is maybe a little harsh. But "season" ageing would be the best way to go.

Either an amount of games is set in the LRB (10? 15? 6?), or you leave a blank to the commish to decide. I'll take my league for clarity's sake.

We play a 12-game season. Let's not argue here to wether it's too long or not, that is not the point. We like it this way! What we plan to do starting next season is to roll on the ageing table only after the season, changing "Skills" for "Seasons played".

Then, I don't think that you should gain Niggling Injuries when ageing. There's already enough chances for your players to gain NI through Blocks, that you don't need more! I would replace that so that each time a player ages, he loses ability points. Just like you can't add more than 2 points in any ability, you wouldn't be allowed to frop more than 2. If the same ability is reduced a third time, that means retirement for that poor fellow who just can't follow anymore.

By playing with the abilities, I think it allows two things:
a) even though they aged, your players will show up for your games;
b) it'll add a lot of flavor fielding an AG 3 Wardancer, for example. This guy is less neat than he used to be, and the coach may elect to throw more often to that new guy, the 6 SPP wardancer that used to be the back-up plan.

This is what I think would make the game funnier. It might not be what everybody thinks.

Fred

[Sixpack595]

I dislike any system that can hit players early in their careers, we have on field injury for that. Any system should hit the high SPP guys, not the 1 skill lineman.

If an off pitch solution is needed I think it should be a roll based on TR to determine if your highest SPP player leaves/Ages/holds out for more cash... whatever. Say TR 175-200 your top guy gets hit on a 2 on 2d6, at 200-215 its a 3, 216-230 its a 4, 240-250 its a 5...

The bands could get smaller the higher you go to tweak the TR you want to hit the hardest. This makes sure its the block, mighty blow, piling on, break tackle, Str increase mummies or OTS Gutter Runners getting hit... not the Orc lineman with Kick.


I believe SPPs for fouling will encourage more fouling giveng more on field player turnover. To keep "Foul Wars" from developing the IGMEOY roll could become a 3+ for example. I know this is a touchy subject, but it seems the ones who dislike SPPs for fouls are concerned about the foul wars...a lower IGMEOY roll means that if you don't foul back, the fouling won't continue very long. With a harder IGMEOY roll you will foul the big threats, and SPPs mean you are more willing to do it... but you better use it wisely, cause 2nd or 3rd chances are likely to bite you in the ass.


Changes to the handicap table could also help. "Personal Vendetta" could allow you to chose one of your opponants players they must set up on on the Kick off of your choice. The chosen player has been running his mouth to the media about how sad your team is, now he has to back up the talk...you just called him out. This means OTSers, or others who can be hidden away when things get ugly will be vulnerable. Maybe make Bad Habits, or Appearance Fees perminant if played on a high enough TR team.

[gken1]

as much as mirascael whines about ageing being a punishment for players getting spp's it works right now. Look at fumbbl.com players that get tons of skills are the players that become problems and are the reason that we have aging in the first place. Having players age after a certain amount of games would have players age at the same time resulting in the team becoming poor all at once. Also after 10 games some teams --skaven/woodelf can easliy develop uber players so games played will not help. A dwarf team, an elf team and human team do not develop at the same rate. So whatever "ageing" process you choose it needs to be tied to spp's. Peaking would not work because I for one would not get rid of a player if he peaked after a couple skills. So it doesn't promoted team turnover.

I do like mirascael's idea about rr's and $$ tho. the high tr teams are the ones that really don't need the $ but have tons of rr's.

[Mirascael]

One thing to try with any new system is to take an existing team and retro-actively apply the results. It's not going to give you the exact team that would have been produced with a given set of mechanics, but it's a good estimation of the effect that a rule may have.

Most teams seem to gain one skill a game from SPPs. Does your system start removing an average of a skill a game?

I think that this depends very much on when you would retire a player.
This system would enforce an inevitable retirement of any player eventually.
Overall, these effects should correlate roughly with the current ageing effects, though the number of high-end players with many skills would decrease significantly. You might want to tweak the injury table a bit, especially if you combine realistic ageing with peaking. As I said, this is merely meant as a very raw frame.

[gken1]

I dislike any system that can hit players early in their careers, we have on field injury for that. Any system should hit the high SPP guys, not the 1 skill lineman..

rolling a 2 on two dice is a rare enough occurance....I really don't think this is a problem.

I believe SPPs for fouling will encourage more fouling giveng more on field player turnover. To keep "Foul Wars" from developing the IGMEOY roll could become a 3+ for example. I know this is a touchy subject, but it seems the ones who dislike SPPs for fouls are concerned about the foul wars...a lower IGMEOY roll means that if you don't foul back, the fouling won't continue very long. With a harder IGMEOY roll you will foul the big threats, and SPPs mean you are more willing to do it... but you better use it wisely, cause 2nd or 3rd chances are likely to bite you in the ass.

This is a great idea....give back the spp's but make fouling a little more risky at 3+.

[Grumbledook]

I was talking to christer about this a couple of weeks ago and came up with something along these lines:

When a team reaches a certain tr level then they roll for aging for their best player after every match. Then as they progress and get higher trs then they have to roll for more of the best players. So some figures making a table like this:

TR <200 no rolls
TR 201-250 1 player
TR 251-300 2 players
TR 301-350 3 players
TR 351-400 4 players
etc

I believe this to be the best method in achieving the desired results, being simple and upsetting the least players.

Its simple as in no extra bookkeeping is needed in counting matches, recording a new stat, rolling lots of dice. You already have your TR and its easy to see the best player(s) from the spp, which are also already there. Its also easy to remember so adheres to the KISS.

It doesn't affect low teams so allows them to catch/build up easily, while makes it harder to keep up at high levels. This should produce the cycle of team develpment. I also like the fact that it doesn't have an artifical cap point so teams can develop more but the longer they stay up there, its going to be harder for them to stay there. No team stays top forever ;]

Unless I have missed something I don't think there are any inherant flaws, but well I could be wrong.

[gken1]

basing it on tr is not valid either because as long as two equal tr teams play the game should be fine. The problem is when a high tr team plays a low tr team.

[Mirascael]

as much as mirascael whines about ageing being a punishment for players getting spp's it works right now. Look at fumbbl.com players that get tons of skills are the players that become problems and are the reason that we have aging in the first place. Having players age after a certain amount of games would have players age at the same time resulting in the team becoming poor all at once. Also after 10 games some teams --skaven/woodelf can easliy develop uber players so games played will not help. A dwarf team, an elf team and human team do not develop at the same rate. So whatever "ageing" process you choose it needs to be tied to spp's. Peaking would not work because I for one would not get rid of a player if he peaked after a couple skills. So it doesn't promoted team turnover.

Therefore a solution involving peaking and realistic ageing might the appropriate. Peaking would prevent Agility-Teams from developing too many Uber-Players too quickly, whereas realistic ageing would keep high-end basher teams in check.
And I don't think that you can say punishing players for getting SPPs works right now. Any system that causes players to quit playing Blood Bowl is to be classified as dysfunctional.

[Grumbledook]

Thats what handicaps are for, its not for balencing 2 teams of the same tr. I don't see your point?

[Mirascael]

Unless I have missed something I don't think there are any inherant flaws, but well I could be wrong.

Well, might be functional but would still have nothing to do with ageing at all. And it would not be very realistic too. Nevertheless, it might work as a game mechanic.