We replaced ageing with peaking

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:01 pm

BlanchPrez wrote:Mirascael, let me ask you a question. Your main point against Ageing seems to stem from the fact that it's related to SPP's. If it were connected to the number of games played, would that make it better? Same chart, same rolls, but connect it to the number of games a player has been in rather than SPP's.

Chris

Of course, any ruling that would stop punishing players for merely being successful and eliminates that stupid element of the game would be fine with me. I'd even go with the current ageing table if it would be, let's say, force a roll every 5 or 10 played games or so (and no, teams would not age at once, since the rolls start at a low level).
Just get rid off that punishment-thing!
As mentioned before, a game of Blood Bowl should be an intensive fight between two teams who want to win gloriously, Age Bowl (i.e. checking the SPP-status for each single player prior to an action to avoid what is inproperly referred to as "ageing") has no place on the pitch IMHO!

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:02 pm

Mirascael wrote:OK:
You have a player on the pitch who could score easily. You lead. But he is level 4 already, you like him the way he is, thus you avoid to score. Simply because he might "age" (i.e. get punished for scoring that TD). I can't think of anything more silly and retarded (with the exception of interceptions prior to throws, which is only a minor issue). "Ageing" makes for boring games, and, even worse, "ageing" causes players to abandon Blood Bowl altogether.

I've had those situations. Then I think, what are the odds he'll not make his ageing roll. If I wanna win, that dude will score anyway, when I'm leading, then I might reconsider, but I can't recall ever doing that. He'll probably make his ageing roll normally, som why not scoring.
So my good players might age, well, I can live with that. My teams consist of several aged players. But so do those of my opponents. They still progress and it's a 1 in 6 chance they don't show up. I can live with that.

Lucy

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:41 pm

Mirascael wrote:checking the SPP-status for each single player prior to an action

Don't you do this already to decide who is going to make the pass, block or score? Because there are some players who want the SPPs more than others.

Personally I'd prefer not to have anything, but we need to play a few long leagues to see how that works out.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:22 pm

ianwilliams wrote:
Mirascael wrote:checking the SPP-status for each single player prior to an action
Don't you do this already to decide who is going to make the pass, block or score? Because there are some players who want the SPPs more than others.

Sure, but that it's a different issue and not simply annoying.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 7:28 pm

it's not punishment, it's balance! players with skills are the ones that tend to dominate the games and live forever. Aging balances this out with possible niggles.

littlemute · Post by **littlemute** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 8:48 pm

I'm chatting it up with my league and I think we're going to make the switch to peaking. I want people to say: Hrungnir Bung gave my best player, Lassy Leetlegs her damaged back, and so on. Not, oh, I got old.

I talked to my insane friends that play rugby about what stops them from playing, getting old or injuries. They said: their girlfriends and injuries that don't heal.

I think Peaked players should still gain SSPs though.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 8:49 am

Well we HAVE played a long league in 3rd ed, 6 seasons with the same teams. The rate at which teams improved reduced as teams got better, but yes, they didn't stop. Eventually we came up with rules to cater for this - including the 22 man "squad" (pick your 16 before the match and calculate team rating) which was fun.

Now with less money (with the new winnings table) deaths etc actually matter to big teams...

We have also found that the best players in our league tend to die quicker - I wonder why...

We will use peaking, for now, not ageing. Also our peaked players will earn SPPs, but the extra ones will not contribute to team rating.

I am a team rating purist. Your rating should ACCURATELY reflect your team... If you have a player who is worth 50 on your rating, he should be worth it!

Mainly because we still use special play cards in our league - and handicap (and we use % difference, not raw difference) needs to be accurately calculated...

These rules are the result of 6 years and 3000 games of Blood Bowl. It works for us...

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:41 pm

noodle wrote:I am a team rating purist. Your rating should ACCURATELY reflect your team... If you have a player who is worth 50 on your rating, he should be worth it!

In a way I agree with this but it would involve too much bookkeeping for most players tastes, if a player was injured his TR contribution would have to be adjusted to reflect this.

This does not even begin to reflect subjective measures like how much worse -1 ST would be on a Blitzer compared to a Thrower and how valuable certain combinations of skills are.

In short although this may be the ideal I do not think it would be practical.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:32 am

Munkey> True - but making it worse with ageing doesn't help matters

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:05 pm

Agreed. I think thats partly how aging is supposed to work, the player gets worse but still 'costs' the same in team rating.

Extra incentive to retirement but not in keeping with using TR as an accurate rating of team strength.