We need a list of all aging alternatives

[Zombie]

If they stop collecting SPPs, some players are actually better off peaked. A zombie with block and dirty player comes to mind. He'll never get to the next level anyway, and extra SPPs would just increase TR and give away extra handicap, without helping your team any. It's to avoid the cases where you're praying to have your player age that peaked players need to keep earning SPPs.

[Ghost of Pariah]

That's my point. He's never going to get better so why is he a problem?
On the other hand the ghoul on that team who is building up SPP's is just as likely to peak at 2 or 3 skills too.

If the peaked result is as decribed the players who would be more likely to peak would be the players who gain spp's quickly, not the zombie with 2 skills. The zombie with 2 skills WILL keep gaining spp's, but it will be a slow build up. I think the TR would slowly rise and and the peaked ghouls would die off.
No need for forced retirement.

[Zombie]

That's my point. He's never going to get better so why is he a problem?

He gets better the moment he peaks, by insuring that he won't ever inflate your TR needlessly in the future. Peaking is in itself an improvement! With SPPs still collecting, peaking will never be an improvement, and that's important.

[Balrog]

Here's one that I think would work well, it's called LRB Ageing+LRB Ageing+

Name:
LRB AGEING PLUS

Link:
here

Description:
When a player reaches a certain number of SPPs, he must roll for ageing. Roll 2 dice and consult the table below, if the player fails the ageing roll then roll on the ageing table.

SPPs / Ageing Roll (2d6)
20 / 3+
30 / 4+
40 / 5+
50 / 6+
60 / 6+
70 / 7+
80 / 7+
90 / 8+
100/ 8+
125 / 9+
150 / 9+
etc... (every 25 SPPs more means a roll of 9+)

Ageing Table (2d6) / Effect
2 / -1 ST or -1 AG
3 / -1 ST or -1 MV
4 / -1 ST or -1 MA
5-6 / Niggling Injury
7 / No effect
8-9 / Niggling Injury
10 / -1 AG or -1 MA
11 / -1 AG or -1 MV
12 / -1 AG or -1 ST

Advantages:
No extra bookeeping.
Not directly linked to gaining skills (no more fearing that next upgrade).
Less stat reduction that equals automatic retirement.
Starts after the 2nd skill.

Disadvantages:
Ageing still linked to SPPs rather then nb. of games played.
The effects are rather uniform.
Needs testing.

-Balrog

[Ghost of Pariah]

That's my point. He's never going to get better so why is he a problem?

He gets better the moment he peaks, by insuring that he won't ever inflate your TR needlessly in the future. Peaking is in itself an improvement! With SPPs still collecting, peaking will never be an improvement, and that's important.

Right, he won't INFLATE your TR so there is no need to force him to retire. If the team rating doesn't go up and the team is not gaining skills then they aren't a problem. I don't see your point.
If players gain skills they become a problem, to gain skills they need SPP's and SPP's make the TR increase. No SPP's means no rise in TR. What's the problem?

You didn't answer my question. Why is it necessary to force the coach to retire a peaked player? If he is frozen in time then he can't ever become a problem. The proposed system is to make an ever increasing chance to peak so the majority of players will peak at 2 or 3 skills, most linemen will take forever to get there and most postional players won't make it past 3 or 4 skills. If the team is not a problem at this point, and it becomes frozen at this point how does forcing retirement make it better?

[Bevan]

The only reasonable way to handle peaking in any of these aging systems is to have the "peaked" player keep accumulating SPPs, but never gain any new skills.

[Zombie]

The problem, Pariah, is that increasing your TR without gaining skills (which is what happens to a non-peaked zombie at 16 SPPs, since he'll never get to 31) is BAD for your team. If you allow the zombie to peak at 16 SPPs and not gain anymore SPPs, you're helping the team, not hurting it. Aging is meant to hurt the team, not help it out.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. We're saying that peaked players need to still earn SPPs (but not skills), while you seem to now be talking about forced retirement. When did anyone mentioned FORCED retirement?

[Ghost of Pariah]

The problem, Pariah, is that increasing your TR without gaining skills (which is what happens to a non-peaked zombie at 16 SPPs, since he'll never get to 31) is BAD for your team. If you allow the zombie to peak at 16 SPPs and not gain anymore SPPs, you're helping the team, not hurting it. Aging is meant to hurt the team, not help it out.

Why is Ageing meant to hurt teams? I think that's why most people hate the current system...because it hurts their teams.
Also you say what I want is BAD for the team but it helps? What?
What I'm saying is that the positional players will progress first and most won't get past 3 or 4 skils and they will frezze...as in stay the same until dead. The linemen will SLOWLY grow and most won't get past 2 skills but will still gain SPP's and that is enough. The SPP's that the linemen gain will take the TR very slowly up. This let's a coach play his team for a long time with out it becoming an uber team...which is what Ageing is supposed to stop. Ageing should not destroy a team...that's what Nurgle's Rotters are for.
If you have some idea how not gaining spps on positional player and only on linemen helps a team I'm all ears. I think you are talking out yer ass though cuz you say my way is Bad for the team but it helps the team. Nice one, swifty.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. We're saying that peaked players need to still earn SPPs (but not skills), while you seem to now be talking about forced retirement. When did anyone mentioned FORCED retirement?

Yes, we are talking about the same but you lack the ability to see it through. Forced retirement IS what you are doing when you stop a players growth at 2 skills but continue to give him spp's.
I know if my blitzer peaked at 2 skills but kept gaining points he'd be outta there in aheart beat. Think it through before you hit "reply" just to argue.

[Zombie]

One thing is bad, the other one (a very different thing) is good. Read all my posts again, it's clear enough if you take time to read properly.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. We're saying that peaked players need to still earn SPPs (but not skills), while you seem to now be talking about forced retirement. When did anyone mentioned FORCED retirement?

Yes, we are talking about the same but you lack the ability to see it through. Forced retirement IS what you are doing when you stop a players growth at 2 skills but continue to give him spp's.

That's what i first thought you were talking about, but the way you were going about it, i wasn't sure anymore. You were now giving the impression that you were talking about actually forcing retirement.

All i can say to this is that if my two-skill zombie peaks and still gets SPPs, i'm certainly not about to retire him. It probably won't make a difference for his entire career anyway.

If however peaking means not getting SPPs anymore, you'll often find me hoping that my player peaks when he gets a skill. This means that peaking would often help me. Since we're trying to curb down powerful teams/players, helping them doesn't seem to be the way to go!

[Joshua Dyal]

Aging is meant to hurt the team, not help it out.

And here I thought aging was to keep teams from becoming runaway TR machines. You don't need to hurt teams to accomplish this, you just need to fix the way TR accumulates.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Zombie, you are missing my point.

Yes the 2 skill zombie that still gains spp's probably wouldn't get retired but in the system where you don't gain skills he probably won't peak either! SO HE WILL STILL GAIN SPP'S! The players that would get ritired are the positional players who gain 2 or 3 skills and peak. Most coach aren't going to like that so the player will retire...it's like forcing retirement. Are you going to keep a 2 skill blitzer around that still gains spp's? NO! But if you have 4 blitzers and one stops growing at 2 skills and doesn't ever add to your TR you might keep him around because he's not going to handicap your team needlessly. Meanwhile the TR will nearly freeze while linemen slowly push it up.

[Munkey]

Aging is meant to hurt the team, not help it out.

And here I thought aging was to keep teams from becoming runaway TR machines. You don't need to hurt teams to accomplish this, you just need to fix the way TR accumulates.

I agree except to clarify: We need to fix the way skills accumulate, if TR accumulates without skills (as in Zombies example) then the handicap table becomes a big issue.

One of the things I think i might dislike about peaking is that if too much of the team peaks and stops gaining skills the team development side of the game could become dull.

[Ghost of Pariah]

That's kinda how I feel. I'd like to see peaking back in the game however. I never thought it was too awful when one of my players peaked.

[Munkey]

Perhaps peaking combined with one of the other alternatives could be used to make a more moderate aging system.

The thing I like about it though is although it may be frustrating at least you don't have to immediately retire the player.

[Ghost of Pariah]

I'd say the salary cap is my favorite system right now. Don't know how peaking could be included there, though.