Thoughts about the EXP system

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:01 am

Milo wrote:
Pariah wrote:I still say there should be a peaked result! Nothing wrong with a few players never getting any better. Hell, I wouldn't mind if it happened to alot of players.
If you're talking about an SPP-based aging system, peaking an already good player would only make them immune to future aging. It would only be effective if it hit a player when they had few or no SPPs.

Milo

What if you still have peaked players earn SPPs for the things they do, but because they are peaked, they can't gain any more skills. Thus, they will take away SPPs from other players if they aren't retired right away, so coach gets to decide whether it's worth keeping him around or not. Also I would have it so that all players age even if they are peaked, they would gain SPPs (but not skills) but would have to roll for aging when they hit the appropriate level in accumulated SPPs. Just an idea.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:09 am

Peaking? We hear people complain enough about gaining niggling injuries through the aging table, don't we? Peaking was one of the things I was happy to see go with 3rd edition.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:31 am

I agree with Torg.

I've heard that before Milo but the plain fact is that most players hit some sort of ageing effect around their 3rd skill. That's pretty low on the totem poll. Make it a rare result, like double 6's or something! What is wrong with that? How can a few players who don't get worse or better ruin a league? The current "low cash" system does a half way ok job with curbing growth already. If you don't want your team to grow at all then play one offs and tournies forever. I build my teams to make them better, not watch them get worse. I'm not saying that Peaked should be the only result on the chart but I think it would be nice to have at least on result that doesn't crap on my player! Right now we have system that slows growth and accerates atrophy. That is not an environment worth building in! Why would I even want to try to build a team up? There's no reward in it. As soon as my best player gets bit in the ass by ageing my team takes a downward spiral and currently that happens after about one 10 game season. So you get one season on the way up and one season of a downward spiral. And that's if you are a winner!
You can't see a problem in that?

Look, players should age gradually. Not just wake up one morning and suck ass so bad that the coach retires them! It's NO FUN that way! Don't you get it? Nobody likes it cuz it's not any fun!!! Do you think it's fun to lower your blitzer's ST? If you do then you need to realize you are a serious;y small minority. It would be nice to have an ageing system that curbs my team's growth without ripping them to shreds.

I would love to see the data on a league with the +1 to injury for each niggle rule!

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:07 am

Actually, I'm not entirely opposed to Torg's idea. I think it's somewhat complex, but if a player were to peak and cease getting better, and still hit SPP breaks for aging, I think that's a workable possibility. It doesn't solve the problem with all aging happening at what, essentially, should be a happy time for a player.

First, though, I'm going to test EXP in my local league and see what the coaches think of it. I might be able to test the +1 to inj for each niggling injury next season, but I don't want to corrupt the EXP results by adding it in right now. (Besides which, early feedback on EXP has been positive from my coaches. We'll see what they think after 15-20 games.)

Pariah -- you've mentioned that you don't care for the MBBL as a playtest group. What would you say to a 40 team league playing LRB rules with EXP, several of the experimental teams, some modified Halfling and Dwarf wizard rules, and the Secret Weapon rules? Is that still a reasonable playtest group, do you think? Would you be willing to consider the results from it as valid?

Milo

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:35 am

I think that's too many question marks to get fair data on any of them unless you played several seasons.

Hard hitting teams can cancel data not only from each other but from secret weapons and can mess up the growth of other teams. That makes it hard to tell if you EXP system is working or if the Nurgles Rotters and Chaos Pact are giving inflated plater turn over.

Honestly, didn't any of you take 7th grade science and learn the scientific method? I'm not saying you should only test one thing at atime but how on Earth can you tell me that you get clear results on a team's potential when, in the first game it plays it loses 3 players to a Nurgle Beast? I hate the fact that the Ogre team got it's clock cleaned by that Nurgle team first thing. I have no idea if I'm losing to the humans because my other blitzer is out and I'm short on goblins or because they need access to rerolls. How can you tell?

Like I said to Chet, I don't have any problem believing that a Chaos pact team with no big guys in a league with 20 other experimental teams that only plays 6 games and does it;s best to minimize handicaps will show the Chaos Pact as balanced. What i worry about is the guy who organizes a league of 6 teams, 4 of which are AV 7 or 8 teams, and has a Chaos pact team show up with 3 Big Guys on his starting roster. How on Earth ishe not going to crush that league? It will ruin the fun for those people because Galak and Chet said, "We see no problems in our mega league"

I'm not gonna bother editing all the typos cuz I don't have my specs in but I do want to say that I admire Galak's work on BB in general but the more I look at the MBBL the more I think it's not a fair testing ground. It's doesn't play like the normal table top leagues. It's not the same thing.

Your 40 person league might be able to do some testing but I think with that many variables I would be suspicious of your data. Especially when you allow Chaos Pact, Khemri, Nurgles Rotters, and the new Ogre team in.
Those teams right there take all your player turnover data and flush it right down the toilet.

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:47 am

Pariah wrote:I think that's too many question marks to get fair data on any of them unless you played several seasons.

You are quite possibly right about that, but I don't believe I would have time to run individual separate seasons for each set of rules, yet I want to have some personal experience with them so I can vote knowledgeably when October comes around.

Honestly, didn't any of you take 7th grade science and learn the scientific method? I'm not saying you should only test one thing at atime but how on Earth can you tell me that you get clear results on a team's potential when, in the first game it plays it loses 3 players to a Nurgle Beast? I hate the fact that the Ogre team got it's clock cleaned by that Nurgle team first thing. I have no idea if I'm losing to the humans because my other blitzer is out and I'm short on goblins or because they need access to rerolls. How can you tell?

I suppose I could say that playtest teams could only play against teams from the original 12/15 rosters. That might make the test results more reliable, but I'm not sure my players would go with it.

Like I said to Chet, I don't have any problem believing that a Chaos pact team with no big guys in a league with 20 other experimental teams that only plays 6 games and does it;s best to minimize handicaps will show the Chaos Pact as balanced. What i worry about is the guy who organizes a league of 6 teams, 4 of which are AV 7 or 8 teams, and has a Chaos pact team show up with 3 Big Guys on his starting roster. How on Earth ishe not going to crush that league? It will ruin the fun for those people because Galak and Chet said, "We see no problems in our mega league"

For the record, I'm not testing any of the Allied teams. I'm including the following: Ogres (TBB), Nurgle's Rotters (modified), Khemri (modified), Vampire (using COFAB), Necromantic, and Elf (current playtest).

Milo

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:02 am

Milo wrote: I suppose I could say that playtest teams could only play against teams from the original 12/15 rosters. That might make the test results more reliable, but I'm not sure my players would go with it.

I'm not saying that is the way to go either. That's what galak thought too! No. I just think that maybe when you are testing 40 teams and want to get an idea on player turn over you shouldn't throw in the Nurgle Killing machine. It's silly.

The best way to judge a new team's power is in a smaller league. Haven't you ever been in a league with only 6-10 teams? (I'm pretty sure that's the average table top size) Did you ever introduce the Vampire team into a league that small? Or ever have an experiemntal team that is over powered come into a small league? I can tell you exactly what happens. Most leagues of 6 or teams play around 10 game saeason. Each team playes every other twice. The Uber team coached by Crybaby flower of an undescript sort will spend the first games with each opponent smashing the crap out of them. He'll win roughly half of those games, maybe more. Then the second time through his team is usually leaps and bounds above theirs and he can easily walk it in. You just can't do that in a league with 40 teams and 6 or 8 matches. Galak's test results are that tupe of league but I have yet to see a table top league like that. So IMO Galak is testing rules for PBeM and not the average table top league.

I think if you are going to test rules for the rest of us then run the league like the rest of us. YOu have 40 coaches? Good, make 4 leagues. Have each one test a new rule for one season.

You never told me if you use the challenge system or is that another house rule?

sorry for all the typos but I don't have my contacts in and I'm blind

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 7:00 am

I dislike the EXP system.

Some time ago I've finally reached the conclusion that the aging system should:

-Affect the team only when it gets better.

1.The current system works

Secondly, contrary to some peoples opinions, the teams I've seen in FUMBBLE and some other longer term leagues show that the current aging system actually works. Why? Let me explain:

Many of the arguments saying that it doesn't work concentrate on the fact that good players still emerge unscathed. I, on the contrary, think that this is a good sign. Probabilities dictate that the teams as a whole have gathered a fair amount of aging results when they hit the 300TR mark for example. Those stat decreases and niggling injuries do have an impact. They have made the teams generally less good than what they would be without aging. Bundled with the handicap system, wise coaches will retire players.
The fact that it isn't so spectacular a system makes it good. People bear with it after the initial dismay.
That dark elf team of FUMBBLe is a perfect example of the fact that the system works. The amount of niggles and stat decreases from aging is sufficient. If they used the handicap system, many of them would've been retired already, just to keep the team competitive.

2.The exp system doesn't

Because the exp system is somewhat realistic and makes sense.
It attacks all the teams equally, which is against the idea that aging should effect teams whenever it gets better. That's why I don't like it. Teams get better at different rates, and as long as the aging is connected to that rate, the system is fair. When the rate of aging is different, teams are not treated fair.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:04 am

First of all why do we need ageing? With reduced income, and stopping FF growth, high end teams don't really progress once they hit TR 300+. One of the few things high end teams have to look forward to is getting new skills.

No one has really made a good argument for why ageing is necessary under LRB. "We want to increase player turnover so that teams don't get so good." Well that isn't happening TR 600 teams are a thing of the past. Nor to teams have enough money to cycle players (I haven't got a double by the 2nd skill so I'll retire him) meaning the really nasty players are rarer.

I initially liked the MVP/EXP system. But what I've realised since is that it is too much work for too little return. I don't like having to make over a dozen rolls during post match, especially when the vast majority have no effect. Everything I've seen since the original proposal feels like desperate attempts to patch it to make it work when there are fundamental problems.

The current ageing rules - although I don't like them - I think are actually better rules than MVP/EXP. They are easy to understand and don't involve lots of pointless dice rolls. Maybe, if you are determined to keep ageing in some form, the answer is to make the first ageing roll for the 2nd skill.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:17 am

ianwilliams wrote:The current ageing rules - although I don't like them - I think are actually better rules than MVP/EXP. They are easy to understand and don't involve lots of pointless dice rolls. Maybe, if you are determined to keep ageing in some form, the answer is to make the first ageing roll for the 2nd skill.

That's how we play it, we just scraped the 3+ roll for the first skill and start rolling for ageing with 4+ for the second one. It's just too embarassing that you can get screwed with a lineman dude who usually never gets a second skill anyway. Ageing on your first skill is just senseless punishment

Heiper · Post by **Heiper** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:47 am

I agree somewhat with Ian on this. If we bring the EXP system (that I don't like) under the LRB rules, you would never have the chance to get your money to actually do the turnover that you so much want. The new money system in LRB is perhaps the best part in the LRB, as it does a very good job preventing super high TR teams. (yes i've seen that 400+ team, but they didn't use Handicap)

I feel that the current system works well, perhaps as someone else said cut out the 1st age, and make it a bit harder to avoid age later? Anyways, with what I can see from the EXP rules, you would be better off starting a new team after 15-20 games than try to do some turnover with the players, with the money you just don't have. IF that is what they want, bring in the EXP, but I sure hope that is not the case.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:23 pm

I've wanted aging in for years and was glad when it was added.

Also it is needed at to keep tr caps down, like mentioned there is/was a 400+ tr dark elf team. It was full of niggles and they were on the whole from aging. Without aging they would have got to 400 and quite happily stayed up there.

FUMBBL would make a fantastic testing ground if only we had the handicap table implemented. The problem here is skijunkie doens't want to spend his time coding it in because he (correctly?) believes that the handicap table is going t be changed. So he doesn't want to code something in that will need changing.

So maybe milo, or another BBRC member can tell us what the deal is with the handicap table.

Quilwood · Post by **Quilwood** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:31 pm

I don't understand why everyone hates ageing rolls. The major reason I hear is "it penalizes skill rolls, and how does an undead player age?". Well why don't we just change the names to wear and tear rolls, and... change Star Player Rolls to erm, well hay Star Player Roll is a good name. We could even give the Star Player roll ranks names, erm well they already have names Experienced, Veteran... To me a Veteran player on most Sports teams are the guys who have been around for a while and know what there doing, but may not be in there prime anymore.

Why I'm obviously trying to get at is I think it's fine and makes sense the way it is. Out of all the reading I do on this board I've never seen a good arguement agenst ageing. I hear plenty of "my poor rookie Bull Centaur got a -1 ST on his first ageing roll, whaaah". To me this is just a bad case of misfortune that hit a promising player; there are plenty of examples of promising college graduates going into a sport and ether losing there funk, or tearing some small muscle somewhere unimportant but still benching them for there career.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:39 pm

You not been in the FUMBBL chat room when roy goes off on one about it then have you ;]

Players don't like their new guys aging on the first skill roll, personally I can live with it but if you are unfortunate to have it happen to a few of your players, it can take the fun out of the game.

martynq · Post by **martynq** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:43 pm

Pariah wrote:I really didn't mean that I thought Zombie was a math authority.

Of course not, I am the maths authority round here!

Anyway back on topic...

As I see it, the EXP system has the following advantages:

(1) Players can gain skills without one worrying each time about whether they are about to age.

(2) Even a player who has got to seven skills without aging might still suffer aging at a later point.

The disadvantage that I perceive is that the missing the next game part of the aging consequence can cause your team problems with actually managing to get a full team on the pitch. I really do honestly believe that the aging table should only involve negative effects that do not involve missing the next match. The player becomes worse but is still available. A coach will then desire to retire him (depending on how the negative effects affect the player) but can at least use him to field a complete team while attempting to afford and/or groom a replacement.

In this latter way, the LRB aging is better - for example, my MBBL2 high elf team has a thrower who suffered a Niggle through aging on his second skill. I've kept him but bought another thrower who I'm slowly developing as a replacement. Once the second thrower has his first skill, I will probably retire the first thrower... unless the second thrower fails his aging roll in which case he will be retired and I'll try another replacement.

This is what the current table for the EXP system is missing - a chance to groom a replacement once you know there is a problem. The aging just kicks you immediately... and if I never roll another 1 for the aging roll of this particular player I don't need to worry about retiring him anyway.

Martyn