I hate aging!

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:28 am

I can't say I've playtested the EXP system, but from what I've seen (I've said this in an other huge EXP thread) I personally like the current age better than the proposed EXP system. At around 20-25 games, you will have about 2 MNG each game if you havn't retired (maybe more if you have some niggles). Yes this does make it alot more usefull to retire players, but at that time you don't get in a good cash flow either. The new winnings table saw to that. Again, I havn't tested it yet, but to me it seems like 20-25+ game teams will get raped big time. MNG is my biggest concern in this system. Its an extremly friendly age system for short term leagues (10-15 games a season) that don't continue with their teams over several seasons, but extremly harsh on those that have a second season with same team, or even a third.

Agree with DD that to choose your age result isn't the best choice IMO. I liked some of the systems that someone came up with for age. Nothing on the 1st skill, but got harder not to age after a while. I can't remeber this system at this moment, but seemed to me to be the right way to go rather than completly new rules.

My two cents anyways

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 9:51 am

The EXP system doesn't kick in till after your first skill and gets harder the more games you play. Also even if you do age there are no effects on the aging table as well.

Anyway with the current system its possable for players to get to the full 7 skills without aging and then not have to worry about it ever again.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 10:34 am

But that's not the entire story:

That seven-skill player amounts at least '35+cost' points of TR. In addition, with those skills, he is likely to be hoarding up SPP's quickly. This fact causes the TR to increase without any increase in the teams capability. Around 50 points of TR is a significant deal: you get less money and you give out more handicap. So even if he managed to get there without aging, I can't see the big problem. Unless his skill rolls are in the Griff range with doubles and attribute increases, many coaches would consider retiring him just for the sake of plummeting your TR.

BTW: I nowadays prefer the current aging system over the EXP one.

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 11:50 am

There are certainly problems with the current aging - aging on your first skill is just ridiculously annoying.

On the other hand, there seems little point changing it until the alternative is properly tested. Otherwise, we just get into the situation where we constantly change the rules. From comments made, something like the EXP system will be its eventual replacement, but the EXP system needs some tweaking before it is used.

My gut feeling is that aging with EXP might well kick in too soon - reaching EXP6 is like a semi-niggle (though you know in advance your player will miss the match) and my MBBL dark elves have two players on EXP6 after 10 games. There is also the problem that removing MVPs does reduce some rate of skill gaining - though perhaps in the end the system will involve EXP and MVPs.

Martyn

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 11:55 am

Having 6 exp isn't really a semi niggle. You have to roll a 1 and then roll a mng on the aging table to miss a match. This doesn't start till something like match 23 iirc. I can't remeber the exact stats that galak gave but they are about somewhere.

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:10 pm

I hate the aging system. I agree with it's intent, but disagree with how it's done.

First of all, ageing on elves, dwarfs and especially on undead just sounds lame. Also, it strictly penalizes successful players.

I tried out the EXP system, seemed top be fine, but my that league didn't last more than max 10 games, so we never got to see the bad side of the coin.

I could reccomend something like, for every, oh, 150 SSP you have (in total), you must randomly select one player, at the end of the game, and roll on a "wear and tear" table.

2d6

2 Veteran. Player gains pro skill.
3-5 Nothing special
6-8 Miss Next game
9 - 10 Niggling Injury
11 Bone Head (x2 becopme Really stupid)
12 Stat loss (new D6)

1-3MA
4 AG
5 ST
6 AV

This is a very rough outcast. Could probably use some math crunchers to even out and make it more balanced.

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:21 pm

Grumbledook wrote:Having 6 exp isn't really a semi niggle. You have to roll a 1 and then roll a mng on the aging table to miss a match.

I didn't say it was a semi-niggle, I said it was like a semi-niggle. What I mean is that, with the current system, once you have reached 6EXP, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling on the aging table. On the aging table you have a 7 in 12 chance of rolling 7 or less which will result in you missing the next match - so a 7/72 (which is greater than 1/12) chance of missing the next match.

This is why I mean that reaching 6EXP is like a semi-niggle - all your players on 6EXP have a chance of missing the next match... though that chance is roughly half the chance for a niggled player.

This doesn't start till something like match 23 iirc.

No, as soon as you reach 6EXP, you have a chance of having the above affect you. I'm not quite certain what this "23rd match" stat was meant to mean, nor do I really believe it tells the whole truth. I'm afraid it seems to be the usual case that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

No offense to anyone, but you really do need to be careful with statistics. If you really believe that no player will miss any matches until the 23rd match with the EXP system, then you are very much mistaken.

Martyn

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:29 pm

I believe the 23rd match was the average that players would have rolled on the aging table by and it was something like the 15th match before the average palyer got to 6 exp. Though i might be wrong like i said earlier.

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:57 pm

The problem here is what do you mean by an "average" player? Not all your players will be average... and the ones you will noticed aging on will not be the average ones, but the ones which stick out as aging early.

Compare with Zombie's troll. With the current system, the probability of your first aging failure being at a particular skill is as follows:

1st skill: 0.0277
2nd skill: 0.0810
3rd skill: 0.1485
4th skill: 0.2063
5th skill: 0.2235
6th skill: 0.1825
7th skill: 0.0941
never ages:0.0362

So you could interpret this as saying that the average player suffers his first aging at his

4.3316 skill.

So the average player doesn't age until his fourth skill... but it is the ones that age before that which you notice.

If you say

it was something like the 15th match before the average palyer got to 6 exp.

then the question is what does this mean? One interpretation is that of your 11 starting players, the 6th to reach 6EXP will do so around the 15th match. That means five of them will have reached 6EXP before then and you will need to deal with these in order to maintain a decent side. By the 15th match, more than half your original team will have reached 6EXP and could potentially cause problems.

When we discuss aging systems, dealing with the average player is not the problem. Ensuring that you can replace and cope with early agers is always the thing to worry about.

Martyn

roysorlie · Post by **roysorlie** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 1:19 pm

Guess nobody liked my suggestion.

I'll just shut up

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:21 pm

Seriously guys ... the EXP system will get printed up soon.

I really like the EXP system and next season we'll be adding back in the MVPs. I also am really thinking so far that 7 EXPs is a better number for aging to kick in.

I'm going to try and convince Chet to try the following:

Move the aging point to 7 EXP
Add back in the MVPs (note we'll retroactively award the 6 MVPs missed from Season 2).
Any player with 7 EXPs or more gets the Pro skill for free and Pro will be removed as a General skill. (players who have already taken Pro will be allowed to replace it with another general skill)
Replace the Aging table with the Serious Injury table

Now that I'm seeing it in action, I think the above is a better direction to head.

Galak

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:27 pm

Must have missed a meeting....

Why add back in MVPs and why give automatic Pro?

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:31 pm

Yes, I would agree to those suggestions - they seem to reflect my view of what is happening too. Using the Serious Injury table also has the advantage of re-using a facet already present rather than creating a new one.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:31 pm

Yer giving everyone pro sucks.

Care to run through the reasons for the changes?

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 2:35 pm

I've got no opinion of the Pro addition - though it was discussed I think in the context of EXP.

Adding back MVPs is to help development of players. Players do seem to be developing a bit more slowly in the MBBL now that MVPs have been deleted.

Martyn