Thoughts about the EXP system

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:47 pm

But you do see how being much more gradual makes it better? And you at least agree that it's no more complex?

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:52 pm

not for me, i helped with input to the system remember ;]

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:39 pm

Milo wrote: Unfortunately, some members of the BBRC have used exactly that team as justification for why the aging system DOESN'T work. Others have pointed out that under Handicap rules, that team would never be viable, but that hasn't dissuaded what I consider a vocal minority.

I know, and I consider that to be an extremely bad case of biased proof because of the lack of handicap around there.

It is a clearly evident fact from the team that:
1.There is a sufficient amount of aging results to tone down the most hellish players and to spread a fair number of niggling injuries around the board
2.But there are sufficiently few to make the "Perpetual Blood Bowl" possible! Any more and a teams would have to be retired due to the inane amount of aging.
3. If handicap is added in, the top teams of FUMBBLe are unplayable. Virus with that number of nigglers decides the outcome of the game, clear and simple. That with the lowered income rate would produce a sufficient amount of retirements to keep the teams in the desired TR rage.

You agree that the EXP system is realistic and makes sense, but you don't like it because you feel it doesn't accomplish the goal of the aging mechanic -- to target specifically the players who earn many skills and hence become harder to target for attrition by injury?

Yes. Exactly.
The EXP system is very nice. Aging (or a suitable term for the non-aging races) tied to the number of games played. Great! Except for the fact that mechanic-wise it does not accomplish what it should.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:00 pm

Ok mestari, its all very well saying mechanic wise it doesn't work, care to actually point out why.

I still have some reservations to how well EXP will work long term, so I am interested into why you think it won't work.

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:32 pm

I think Mestari is right in that the current system does work. I, however, think that the EXP system works too. I just don't like HOW they work.

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:00 am

Mestari wrote:
You agree that the EXP system is realistic and makes sense, but you don't like it because you feel it doesn't accomplish the goal of the aging mechanic -- to target specifically the players who earn many skills and hence become harder to target for attrition by injury?
Yes. Exactly.
The EXP system is very nice. Aging (or a suitable term for the non-aging races) tied to the number of games played. Great! Except for the fact that mechanic-wise it does not accomplish what it should.

That's a very valid point. One of the things I *do* like about EXP is that it gives new teams an initial boost in development, which helps when you're running a league of new teams and old teams. (It also doesn't hurt an entire league of new teams, since I think most people would agree that more skills is more fun, at least in early games.)

But you're right -- it doesn't target the problem players specifically. It does target them more than injuries do, since ultimately aging will happen to everyone. Maybe that's enough, I don't know. My league will be testing EXP this coming season, but most of them weren't overly unhappy with the LRB method.

Milo

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:11 am

Thats why i suggested just rolling for the best 5 or ever many is needed once your team reaches a certain level of tr 200/250 or whatever

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:28 am

The EXP system feels too artificial. More skills is more but it really blows to get this shot in the arm only get a terminal illness shortly there after.

It makes no sense to boost team growth and then age them. What? Do you have ADD or something?

Milo · Post by **Milo** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:30 am

Pariah wrote:It makes no sense to boost team growth and then age them. What? Do you have ADD or something?

*sigh* I don't have ADD, Pariah. As I was saying, there are a lot of things about EXP I like. One is that it gives low ranked teams a boost which helps them in leagues that are mixed between experienced and new teams. I'll admit, though, that there may be better ways to do that, though.

I also like the fact that it has relatively little effect on teams which play for only a single season, which is for most leagues about 12-16 games, I believe. I've run some numbers, and the average number of games to reach 6 EXP seem to be about 14-16. Some players will age faster, of course, but assuming the average player takes that long, you'd only have roughly half your team even hit 6EXP by the end of the average season. That's not going to be a tremendous amount of aging effects over the course of the average first season. About half of the leagues I've participated in have a strong propensity for restarting at the end of a season, so that means EXP wouldn't affect them much.

But I'm not saying it's the end-all-be-all of aging. I think it has enough promise to be worth playtesting, though.

Milo

Quilwood · Post by **Quilwood** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:47 am

Okay, could somebody take a few minutes out of there life and explain to me how ageing doesn't work. I cannot for the life of me figure out how it doesn't create "perpetual Blood Bowl". I play in FUMBBL enough to know that the only reason the teams can get above 300 is from good coaching and no handicap. If you chat with some of the more average coaches (ie, not Evo, Grum, or the high ranking ones) you will find out they have a hard time maintaining 200. I peak around 250 usually and plumit in a few short games from ageing and injuries, then make my way back up to 250 again. If thats not perpetual blood bowl I don't know what is. I'll happily listen to anyones opinion on this (not that any of you listen to mine).

maybe i need to get my post count up and get a nice avatar

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:02 am

I don't think its the fact it doesn't work, its just the way it goes about working.

Talk to roy in FUMBBL he hates it so much I have to keep telling him to stop moaning about it ;] A lot of coaches object to failing aging on the first couple of skill rolls. I can see how they consider it not to be fun and then there are those that don't like the fact it happens when you get a skill roll.

Personally I could live with it but there are a fair number of coaches who to put it bluntly hate it.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:11 am

I'd be fine with it if it didn't hit on first skill roll, personally. Linemen with one skill who get dinged are basically fired, period. Once they get up to TWO skills, it's a choice, depending on how they get dinged. But a one-skill Lineman with a Niggle (or worse... -ST or -AV) is generally an automatic firing, to me.

Smeborg · Post by **Smeborg** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:19 am

Hi, guys -

Please could you all be so kind as to rehearse the arguments WHY we need an ageing (or EXP) system? What's wrong with the game if we don't have these mechanisms?

I mean, the systems proposed do not seem universally popular. If everybody can understand what we are trying to do and why, maybe it will be a lot easier to (a) sell the idea, or (b) to find the right design concept.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Ghost of Pariah · Post by **Ghost of Pariah** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:22 am

I didn't mean you had ADD specifically, Milo. I'm wondering what type of person wants to go from rookie to retired in 14 games!

I'm saying that accelerating growth and then ageing teams that grow just encourages teams to reset after one season. You say it does, Galak says it doesn't.

What ever it does it doesn't do what ppl want. Polls on this page showed that a huge majority liked to play games with teams in 150-200 team rating area. I would think that means that ageing shouldn't take effect until after that. Teams shouldn't be retiring at 150...they should be peaking! Then the decline should be slow enough that y9ou can still enjoy playing the team for 100 more points of TR...OR BETTER YET A SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T POTENTIALL CRIPPLE THE TEAM BUT MAKES IT HIT A GLASS CEILING!
I have not see a majority of players who start a new team each season. I never knew anyone rich enough for that!
I don't know about your circle but around here people don't spend $100 and hours and hours painting so that they can retire the team after 12 games!

14-16 Games! You think ageing should have an effect after 15 games!
Good Lord, what is the point of even building a team?! Where are the 200 TR teams that were terrorizing leagues? Iirc I think it was teams with 300+ TR that we wanted out. Why does the bar keep getting lower and lower?
Go play in tournies if you don't like to build a team. I like to build star players and I like to do it by my coaching skill and not because some system artificially inflated him so he would age faster.
The EXP system is not the way to go. Look around at this site. I see more negative results than positive and I doubt that will change if it's made official. That plain fact is that if you are going to fix ageing to something people like you aren't gonna do it with EXP.
LISTEN- What do people dislike about Ageing?
They don't like Stat reduction and early ageing.
That means let us have teams up 175-200 points or so before we have to START ageing. Don't ruin our players before they even have a career!

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:37 am

Well said pariah