I think Blood Bowl is broken in a number of aspects...

Snarlton Heston · Post by **Snarlton Heston** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:36 pm

Niggling or peaking: no matter how you say it, they both suck!

Snartlton Heston
-------------------

Only 13 weeks to the beginning of NUFFLE!

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:46 pm

Snarlton Heston wrote:Niggling or peaking: no matter how you say it, they both suck!

Yet, peaking wouldn't be a punishment for successful play and wouldn't have a significant influence on your on-pitch actions (at least as long as the outcome of the game is open, that is).

The main point remains though:
Please get rid of that punishment for successful players nonsense!
Current "ageing" is simply an euphemism for "success-penalty".

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 8:57 pm

Mirascael wrote: You honestly mean they would prefer a niggling injury over a peak-result?

Yes. You're going to have to replace both of them eventually, and a niggled player can still improve.

dakkakhan · Post by **dakkakhan** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:01 pm

I feel I have to defend my statement, though it may be redundant to do so...but first:

What is the goal of the ageing rules?
I think that the reason they even developed these rules in the first place was to try and limit the development of the Uber-Teams that ran amok in earlier versions, because there was no such tool in place.

How did they go about this?
Well the current ageing rules wold indicate that they went about this very directly and targeted the Uber-player. Each time a player earned a skill roll would indicate that they had been around the game long enough to have picked up some sort of pain/sprain/weakness/etc. By creating this situation, the better a player got the higher the chance that his game would deteriorate...let's face it no one would be able to play this game forever, and eventually these players would reach a level of usefulness whereby the coach would retire him/her/it.

Pretty simple. In that respect I think it does work. Had you read the entire post, Mirascael, I hope you would have gathered that as a game mechanic I don't like it either. I am play-testing in a league run by a BBRC member an EXPERIENCE system that works much better, IMHO.

I also stated that to control an Uber-Team you do not need to target the player with the most SPP's. If they are scoring all the TD's they are already a target for the more direct form of "pest-control". And I feel that the money situation also does wonders for controlling team development. The experience system in fact encourages you to gain as many SPP's as you can, it has no bearing on the liklihood of "aging".

Sorry you don't like it enough to quit the game. Serves you right since you didn't like my support of SPP's for fouling.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:03 pm

Skummy wrote:
Mirascael wrote: You honestly mean they would prefer a niggling injury over a peak-result?
Yes. You're going to have to replace both of them eventually, and a niggled player can still improve.

Agreed. He can always get a second niggle.

I don't understand why I have to replace peaked players necessarily? I think I would keep my Blodgers forever (especially with Side Step) and can't see the reason for retiring my Guard/MB Longbeard (especially if he has Stand Firm). Anyhow, at least the coach could decide when it is time to replace a player.

And your statement proves one thing: The current SPP-punishment doesn't prevent Uberplayers. It just makes them unavailable for a game now and then.

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:04 pm

dakkakhan wrote:What is the goal of the ageing rules?
I think that the reason they even developed these rules in the first place was to try and limit the development of the Uber-Teams that ran amok in earlier versions, because there was no such tool in place.

It's also implemented to encourage player turnover, which is something that I don't see addressed too much here, except by Toby.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:08 pm

I think peaking may not work for that reason, early peaked players will be replaced but the older players who have say 3 - 5 skills are good enough to stay.

Eventually with peaking I could build up enough players with a good range of skills to create an uber-team.

In short peaking does not encourage player turnover, just stunts player growth.

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:10 pm

Okay, just because I am honestly confused, explain to me how peaking is not a punishment for succeding? I have a player that's doing well, and suddenly, he can't get any better? I'd rather get a niggling injury, because then at least I'm not losing SPP's.

Chris

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:11 pm

dakkakhan wrote:Pretty simple. In that respect I think it does work. Had you read the entire post, Mirascael, I hope you would have gathered that as a game mechanic I don't like it either. I am play-testing in a league run by a BBRC member an EXPERIENCE system that works much better, IMHO.

Any system that stops this SPP-punishment-thing would be OK with me.
Personally, I'd say the simpler the better. Though I wouldn't have no problems with the XP-system, I merely fear it might be way too complicated in RL. Might be unjustified though.

I also stated that to control an Uber-Team you do not need to target the player with the most SPP's. If they are scoring all the TD's they are already a target for the more direct form of "pest-control". And I feel that the money situation also does wonders for controlling team development. The experience system in fact encourages you to gain as many SPP's as you can, it has no bearing on the liklihood of "aging".
Sorry you don't like it enough to quit the game. Serves you right since you didn't like my support of SPP's for fouling.

SPPs for fouling? OMG, not again...

The XP is OK with me, but since I am not the center the BB-universe I'd admit that it might be way too complicated and cumbersome for the average player. about 15 XP dice rolls after each game, is that really reasonable and practical?

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:21 pm

BlanchPrez wrote:Okay, just because I am honestly confused, explain to me how peaking is not a punishment for succeding? I have a player that's doing well, and suddenly, he can't get any better? I'd rather get a niggling injury, because then at least I'm not losing SPP's.

Chris

Under the current rules, you want to avoid SPPs at all costs for functional players, since this might cause an annoying niggle or stat decrease and you like the player as he is (personally, I'm rather modest with regard to functional players btw, this "ageing"-thing taught me).
Under peaking rules it wouldn't matter to you how fast your player accumulates the SPPs. You wouldn't get a dysfunctional player suddenly. The probabilty for peaking wouldn't be influenced by SPP-acquisition-speed. Superficially observed, this might seem true for ageing as well, the difference, though, is that peaking wouldn't leave you with a significantly downgraded (or even worthless) player, he would still be fully functional at his current level, whereas an aged player may mean immediate retirement.

dakkakhan · Post by **dakkakhan** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:23 pm

No you are right, though I'd gladly do it, most people probably wouldn't. The system as a whole really works well, but we have the EXP rolls, and the record-keeping all web-based. It really is sweet though.

You can't "age" before game 7 minimum (I have a roster of 14 and only two have aged after 13 games.)

The "aging" result is off the Injury table so sometimes it will simply be MNG without a niggle or stat decrease.

It targets all players that have been around the same amount of time equally. 1 in 6 chance after you have gained 6 EXP. I only have 5 players with 6+EXP after 13 games.

Hrmmmm, how to make it simpler, yet keep the meat of it?

Post by **Dave** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:52 pm

BlanchPrez wrote:Okay, just because I am honestly confused, explain to me how peaking is not a punishment for succeding? I have a player that's doing well, and suddenly, he can't get any better? I'd rather get a niggling injury, because then at least I'm not losing SPP's.

Chris

The only difference I can think of is that the peaked player doesn't get worse, he stays the way he is. On the other hand can an Aged player gain new stuff / skils, not that bad IMHO

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:56 pm

dakkakhan wrote:Hrmmmm, how to make it simpler, yet keep the meat of it?

I will support anything that makes me get rid of those "Oooh, I'd rather not score with this player he might age, better try that one, I only hope he won't get the MVP though."-considerations. It really sucks, if you have to check the current SPPs of each of your players prior to every move due to "ageing". I'm really fed up with "ageing" players whom I tried to deny SPPs as hard as possible.

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 10:00 pm

Folks, we should split the Discussion on "Ageing" to:

A. Trigger Event & B. Result Effect

I think the Triger Effect is totaly broken, linking Starplayer Points to handicaping the Player is just plain wrong.

The Result Effect should be balanced.
An AG loss is catastrophic for a Human Catcher but ridiculous for a Dwarf Longbeard.

I created "another ageing topic" if you are interested

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Tue Jun 03, 2003 10:07 pm

Toby wrote:The Result Effect should be balanced.
An AG loss is catastrophic for a Human Catcher but ridiculous for a Dwarf Longbeard.

It is balanced. everyone has the same chance of taking a -1AG or a -1ST etc. Being able to pick a aging is not the way to go. OK, so a -1AG is worse on a catcher than a Longbeard, but tough, them's the breaks.

I dislike the trigger events as well, but I still not seen a variation that I liked, other than EXP, which seems to be dead.