What should an aging alternative be based on?

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:14 pm

Actually in several us sports, rookies have suffered downgrades in performance in their early years. Due to both injuries and increased comptetition showing previously unseen defects.

Dark Lord (retired) · Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:10 pm

So it's a realism reason? Game balance has nothing to do with it?
In several sports teams last longer than 2 seasons too.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 12:01 am

sean newboy wrote:So what are the other game based aging systems?

This poll is not to vote on existing systems. What i'm asking you, and if you'd read the initial post you would have found this to be clear enough, is if you were to design the perfect system, what would you base it on. The systems i put in parenthesis are just to provide examples of what i mean by those basic concepts.

People could easily believe that aging should be based on games played, but that EXP is not the way to go, no matter how you tweak it.

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:03 am

This was originally going to be posted in the Stiff Arm/Jam topic but should be posted here so. . .

As did i, at the time i wanted a game played system, however i now want an spp based system modified by team rating. I based my vote for the system i wanted on what i knew of each system tho, since at that time i had not seen the spp based system now under a vote for mbbl2, and did like the exp system i said game played. Many of the comments under that poll most people voted as i did based on what they thot of each system under a particular fundamental theory, i.e. if they liked the lrb system they voted for skill gained. I doubt many who voted really forgot totally about the examples and voted entirely on the basic idea but were voting based on their experiences with the various systems and what they thot of them.

Dark Lord, i know of many bb leagues with teams far older than 2 seasons. I had 1 lizzie team 4 seasons long (over 100 games). That league has a Dwarf team over 8 seasons long (not all seasons were equal length). It had about 6 teams active from the 1st season, for a total of about 6 years. My point was that although it should be small, there should be a few players that would age quicker than others or rapidly once a certain set of events happened (i.e. Dan Marino once he started his concussion series).

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:39 am

I was talking about 2 seasons under the EXP system. 25-30 games is the point they are going for, I believe. Most leagues play 10-12 games. 2 seasons = 20-24 games.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:40 am

Well, we must have read a different set of replies, because from what i read, the vast majority of people understood the question. And it was clear as can be, so give people the benefit of the doubt.

Icedman · Post by **Icedman** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:45 am

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what basic concept we should base "aging" around, because as Zombie said in the initial post of the thread, each concept has merits and flaws.

That said, to me SPP-based aging seems to be the best alternative available (it's what I voted for). It does what I believe an aging system should do: curb, but not necessarily prevent, the development of the uber-player. It does not target those players slow to develop, and as was said earlier, it allows for a kind of "level-up" style (ie: you know that player X is getting close to potentially "aging" so you train a replacement/slow his SPP influx/etc).

Capping-style ideas (Salary, TR, etc) seem to me to be quite artificial, and not a terribly good solution to the problem of the uber-player: yes, all your eggs may be in one basket, but how many people complain about the likes of Griff (referred to as "I can win the game by myself" in another topic). Simply put, if you've invested in a very stong basket, there's not alot the Cap system's gonna do.

Games played, while certainly a "realistic" system, can hit every player at some point. I think this is the idea's strongest point, but it is also its greatest failing. Targetting unskilled linefodder is not what I think needs to be done.

AFAIC, skill-based aging is similar enough to SPP-based aging that the same points used above apply.

Perhaps, to steal Sean's idea and modify for my own use (you can kill me later Sean

), an SPP system modified/tweaked by #games? I dunno really....

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:11 am

(Disclaimer: Didn't read entire thread.)

Don't like game-based Ageing because -- for example -- my Chaos team just got its last two Beastmen their first skills...how long did it take? Their fourteenth and fifteenth games, respectively.

If there was game-based Ageing I probably would have retired them twice over before they ever MADE it to their first skill. Which isn't exactly fun.

I like SPP-based Ageing, but the problem is that it hits new players too often (that is, ever) and with a bit of luck (the same kind of luck that keeps them ALIVE that long) it'll never touch a hugely-good player.

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:13 pm

So basically aging sucks DK. I agree. Bring on a TR limit.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:28 pm

there's already a tr limit built into the rest of the rules...with the new winnings table, ff - mods, no $$ special play cards (or any of the others for that matter), there's no way to get a team beyond 300, and more likely 230-ish.

you don't need some artificial ceiling.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:31 am

Do we even need ageing at all? Something tells me we don't.

Princelucianus · Post by **Princelucianus** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:13 am

I love ageing. Great rule. Has hurt my team several times but so did it to my compadres. Best example remains my 5 3 3 8 lineelf

Sometimes you just buy crappy players. Some players have their ST increased, some have theirs decreased. Both chances are slim.....
I hope the BBRC will keep the ageing as it is, or change it to a roll after the second skill roll instead of the first.

Lucy

Relborn · Post by **Relborn** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:22 am

At least the Poll shows us that no agreement could be found (at least not here on the board).

So why bother any further with ageing ? Move it to the houserules area as it is really apparent that no majority could be agree on a solution.

Is that really bad ? Not to me as the official tournaments won't be affected from league-rules and every league could choose their private rule for ageing.

Redfang · Post by **Redfang** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:52 am

Attrition, that way when your players get injured, at least they'll have a story to tell about the scars

Makes for a lot better Rolepalying-experience than the "My player got more experienced and then I made a bad dice-roll and totally !censored! him up." that we have now.

BTW, and slightly related, why did Mighty Blow ever become +1 on AR or +1 IR instead +1 on AR and +1 on IR?

R

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:08 am

Relborn wrote:At least the Poll shows us that no agreement could be found (at least not here on the board).

So why bother any further with ageing?

Because the poll also shows that 82% of people believe that some system should be put in place.

Talk Fantasy Football

What should an aging alternative be based on?

If you were to design the perfect aging replacement system, what would you base it on?