New EXP/Ageing Rule

[SgtCaples]

Actually, there are several leagues that are now testing this system which is better than taking a poll anyway. It is the possibility that all your players age at about the same rate that concerns me. My team for Galak's MBBL now has about four or five players with 5 EXPs, so I guess one or two of these might well have 6 EXPs after the next match. We'll just have to see what happens by the end of the season and whether teams are becoming unplayable due to these aging effects.
Martyn

I don't agree about the testing being better than a poll. I think both should happen and that both are needed. It is a classic game designer mistake to think that "testing" with what inevitably turn out to be the small top percentage of fans is enough. I am a HUGE BB fan but not exactly a computer wizzard so I am not playing in any online BB leagues. The testing limits the BBRC to the input of hard-core BB fanatics that also have computers, and the time/capability to play in online games.

I just have the hope that no decisions will be made until the testing has gone on long enough to see the long term issues and that we are not walking down the same old road where the rulez get changed every year.

[GalakStarscraper]

I faked progression and after a certain number of games, all of a suudden I was missing 5 guys for my next game.

How did you fake it ... at what game did this 5 player miss result occur ... and if you rolled 5 1s and then fives 2-7s ... well that's REAL bad luck .. not an indication of a hole in the system. My rolling only 2 POWs results in an entire game with Anthony at U-Con doesn't mean that the blocking rules are broken necessarily.

Also I would take the stance that if you had that many players at 6 EXP that you should have probably thought out retiring some to avoid the risk of such an event however rare it might be. The fact that you didn't means the EXP system did exactly what its designed to do. Burned you for not retiring your players and bringing in new blood. By the way, I make this comment because unless you did something majorly wrong I'm guessing this 5 missing players occurred in something like the 30th+ game of a full team. Well beyond the life span of most normal league teams. If you have the data still, I'd love to see it.

I was behind this idea when I read about it some weeks ago but now I am not too sure. I reccomend that a poll be put up before any decisions are made.

A poll was put up.

http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB/view ... 62&start=0

EXP is currently winning by a decent margin. Also its not just online leagues that are trying it. I know of at least 5 tabletop leagues that are using EXP already as well.

Galak

[GalakStarscraper]

It is also very liekely that your better players will be missing games sooner, and that by your 20th game, you will be in a position to see your team evaporate en-mass after a game.

Sorry, SgtCaples, every test of this system that we've done doesn't support these statements. The 20th game is just the average point where players on the team would be making their first aging roll, but in all our re-enactments mass aging on any given game until around 30 (and then only 2 to 3 per a game) did not occur.

Also since EXPs are only worth 1 SPP there really is no correlation between your better players and EXP to cause them to miss game sooner. A star Gutter Runner could rack up a heck of a lot of SPPs and still have an extremely low number of EXP points. In one of the model tests that we did, one player had reached 30 games and was still below 6 EXP points. So this statement of better player missing game sooner is just not true. These better players would have had a far better chance of getting a Niggle from the LRB 1.3 aging rules from all their skill rolls and missing multiple game from that than the EXP.

I'm very very open to arguement on this if you have the data to support your position since your statements say you tried to test this system.

Galak

[Ghost of Pariah]

The fact that you didn't means the EXP system did exactly what its designed to do. Burned you for not retiring your players and bringing in new blood.

Yeah, this is what I don't like! I hate retiring my stars. It sucks. I build the guy up from scratch; for what? So he can retire as soon as he's worth something? Thanks. reat system.
I'd rather he died with his boots on.

And to be fair Galak where is the 20+ game league that supports your results anymore than his fact support his? You are extraplating the same way he is.
You did the same thing in the MBBL.

[SgtCaples]

OK, the way I went about this was to start with my TR1-- team and then go right to post game. I added points to the team for TD's, Casualties, etc based on what I think were conservative figures for an average game. I gave those points out to the players based again on what I thought was a safe estimate of where they would come from. (For example, 1st TD to getter runner, 2nd td roll a die, 1-4 gutter runner/5-6 other random player, 3rd TD random non gutter runner) doing the same for passes (weighted for thrower and gutter runner) and casualties. I also gave myself a variable estimate for casualties suffered so that guys might miss games and therefore not get the exp rolls.
I admit the idea isn't scientifically sound and that small changes in dice rolls could dramatically change the outcome but the way I did it, the first time by game 18 I had 12 players with 6exp and 2 with 5. 12 players at that level means 12 rolls producing 2 1s. 2players out from that plus my 2 that were injured. 2nd time through, I had 12 players at exp6 by game 19 but no other players over 4. Third time through at game 20 I had 10players at exp6 or more and 3 at exp5.
I am sorry if it seems like I am coming off half-cocked but I truely intend these comments to be constructive criticism and want only to see this game be good, and succeed. I am so tired of rules changes and general GW/Fanatic "errors" that I am becoming very sensitive to this sort of change. This would be a BIG change in the BB rules and I just want to make sure if it happens, that it isn't because it wasn't put to the test but rather that it happens because everyone that could tested it aggressively.
I have mostly played in leagues where 12 games per season was the upper limit but with the potential now for it growing and leagues to get bigger, I don't want to find out later that it was broken.

[Grumbledook]

Pariah, you don't have to retire your star players, there is nothing forcing you to do so. The more players you have with 6exp, the more chances of rolling a 1. All you have to do to reduce this is to retire players with 6exp. This can be any player not just a star player.

SgtCaples, I have had 6 players missing a game all through on pitch casualties. The chances of getting more than 1 or 2 players missing the next match through exp is rather slim. Having to roll a 1 followed by 2-7 on 2d6 on more than 2 players, is very rare. Just because a player has 6exp doesn't mean he will suffer. Don't forget all of these players will also have gained their first skill, without any chance of aging. Ive played teams who get to 20 games and have had players who are still on 0spp and then had a player who got 5 mvps get killed. Exp also balences out the spread of skills, which imho is a great benefit.

[SgtCaples]

I actually made al of my assumptions about the rolling of a 1 based on factors of 6. 6 players makeing the roll has a probablitity for producing a single 1. Also, once that roll of 1 shows up, statistically, the most common result of 2d6 is a 7. That is because there are the largest number of possible combinations. So, it is VERY likely that if you roll the 1, you will be missing a game.
As I said though, I am aused to playing in smaller leagues and so it may just not matter to me. particularly since there seem to be no more than 5 people in all of the Phoenix metropolitan area that play BB.
The improvement over the current ageing system (which is lame in the extreme) is not lost on me.

[Heiper]

To me this thread is getting a bit silly tbh. Those that don't like the current AGE system, and play more than 15 games, won't like the next one either. Those that don't like the AGE system are usually those that want to have their old star players they could have back in 3rd Ed, and hate to see them get niggling or lose a stat or two. That't how it seem from my point of view.

On the other hand, all those that only play up to a max of maybe 20 games will love the EXP rule as they avoid it by starting new teams all the time. Galak, you seem to be in this category, play with one team for a max of 18 games you said in one reply in this thread. To me it seems like all those that play with one team that little (sorry, for me thats not many games) and want the EXP system, you could just as good just forget the AGE rule, as it will have little to no effect on you guys with that system (probably why you love it so much), why even have it then? So that you will have about all the linemans with skills in the last game? Sorry, but i just can't see why you guys would have a system to "age" when it affects you so little, but those that play more than 20 games get affected big time. To me these ppl sound like ppl that don't like to see their players age, and with this new system it won't happen to them so they love it.

IMO the current LRB AGE system works perfectly. I've seen leagues develop (my own included) and the TR is stopping to rise, they get to around 250 and its very rare you see a 300 team (and that team retires players so they go down in a few games anyways). The only league I've heard where it doesn't stop is MBBL2, could it be all the house rules? I don't know as i don't play there, but from what I've seen the current rules work very well all places but this.

This might seem like a flame post to some, but take your time to read through all the 10 pages of this thread again and you will see my points (at least i hope so)

Thats all i have to say in this thread.

[Grumbledook]

I do believe the point is people do not like relating age to gaining skills. In that system it targets the star players more than any other. The EXP system targets every player equally based on the number of games they play, which is more how aging should work.

People who don't like aging can just not use the rules in their league. I like aging but i would prefer it to be in the EXP form.

[Heiper]

I, like Anthony, think that age was the wrong word for the rule. It would have been much less complaint if it had had an other name. And I'm one of the few maybe that think its right to target the problem players, they tried it first with App. Fee, and then changed over to the age rules. EXP target every player the same, thats right, but I don't think thats the right way to go. From what i can see, EXP will make it alot harder for new teams against experienced teams, the current rules work better there imho, where you target the problem players.

[Furelli]

Also, once that roll of 1 shows up, statistically, the most common result of 2d6 is a 6.

Actually the most common result on 2d6 is 7 not 6. Andbeside it is still a (close to) 50/50 chance of missing the game after the roll of a 1 anyway - by no means VERY likely.

Furelli.

[Grumbledook]

Why should a coach not be able to build up star players, its a fun thing to do and satisfying. Also with the current rules, if a player managed to to "age" on any of his skill rolls then that player is immune to it when he gets good enough as he will never have to roll again Then you have to rely on a cas getting him killed and a coach can save his apoth just for that player. If you look at it like that EXP system is better because eventually if they play enough games the player will get caught.

[Heiper]

You are talking against your self here. First you say can't build a Star Player, then you say with the current ones you can get a Star Player that doesn't need to roll anymore. It is harder to get a REAL star player with the current ones as the age will almost certanly take effect (but still a chance it won't as you said), but you can't really say its alot more easy to do that with EXP rules either, as it will hit you harder than the current when you get more games, and trust me, you need many games to get that 7 skill guy.

If you manage to get a guy to 7 skills without age, yes you are lucky, but he will also be the nr1 target for most of the block/blitz and fouls. To get a 7 skill player with EXP without age is about just as hard, and he WILL get it anyways after some. And there it comes what i don't like. EXP target every player like this, not just the ones that are the problem, and thats where it becomes wrong IMHO

[Grumbledook]

How am i talking against myself, its possable in both systems to build a star player, I didn't at any point say its easier of harder to build one under the EXP rules, it is certainly harder to keep one.

Why should one type of player become more of a target than any other off the pitch? What it comes down to is that you feel it should target players with more skills more, whereas I think it should target players based on the number of games they play. I think the winner in terms of EXP are the extra benefits it brings to the table compared to the current system. I don't have that big a problem with the current rules but I prefer the EXP system against it.

(If anyone wants to see the benefits they are on an earlier post)

[SgtCaples]

Actually the most common result on 2d6 is 7 not 6. Andbeside it is still a (close to) 50/50 chance of missing the game after the roll of a 1 anyway - by no means VERY likely.

Furelli.

Oops, wrong key, LOL, guess I better read my posts more carefully before posting them.

That said, it is still true that it is much more liely as 7 is the most common probability, and 8-12 do not account for 50% of the possible combinations. 60% of the possible outcomes (on the chart) result in a missed game and since you are dealing in probabilities, and 7 is the most probable, it is something like a 65-70 percent chance of missing the next game.

I would like to see a chart more like this:

Ageing roll:
2-3 -1 stat and niggle
4-6 -1 stat and Miss Next Game
7-8 -1 random stat
9-12 No Effect

I like it better because it is more varied, the other chart is suck or nothing.