We replaced ageing with peaking

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 1:01 pm

Our House rules:

When you roll on the ageing table if you fail the roll simply peak the player so he's stuck at those SPPs

We did this because players don't age much in a year, which is the timeframe our league is set in

- maximising your full potential can happen...

So if a player peaks early, you have to be circumspect and realise that not all players are destined to be great

(Oh and we also us kicking but it never works

)

littlemute · Post by **littlemute** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:34 pm

I think this is a good, simple idea. You should write this to some of the coaches on the rules consortium for considerations.

Khankill · Post by **Khankill** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:40 pm

Let me make sure I have it straight in my head. when a player gets an advance, you do a "peaked" roll and if he fails, he can no longer gain SPP's.

That is so simple. I for one like the sound of it.

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 7:37 pm

Do those age-peaked players still collect SPPs towards their team rating?

littlemute · Post by **littlemute** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:32 pm

That's a good point.

ALL coaches still want to keep stats for their players. The system I designed for the kripple peak tournament website to calculate ratings and keep stats automatically assigns SSP's to TD's etc. It would be a bitch to reprogram....actually not so bad, just an if then statement with a switch for peaked/unpeaked.

Anyway, in game terms, I gues they couldn't possibly get SSP's for the team rating.

Khankill · Post by **Khankill** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:20 pm

narkotic wrote:Do those age-peaked players still collect SPPs towards their team rating?

I wouldn't think so. They've just gotten as good as they ever will! They could still get mangled by injury, or accumulate stats from here to the moon; they just stop getting advancements.

I like this better than any other system I have seen or heard about.

Khankill · Post by **Khankill** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:51 pm

viewtopic.php?t=5394&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

I found this, It's the only prior discussion I could find on this topic. Some it seems didn't like this solution. The only real reason that I saw given was, that sometimes having a player peaked could be a good thing.

Granted I haven't playtested it and I'm no number cruncher but just because a player is as good as they can get, doesn't mean they won't get worse. The thing that should make players worse is getting there heads bashed in, not achieving glory on the field. Even with regeneration Bloodbowl players get hurt!

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:19 pm

The problem with Peaking is that it doesn't hamper the player in any way...so forevermore from when they Peak, they're as good as they'll ever be, barring injuries. It doesn't make them worse, and it sure doesn't make you any more likely to retire them.

A Wardancer with two or three skills who Peaks is a "Who cares?" decision. One who Ages and Niggles, or -STs or whatever is suddenly an expensive liability.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:21 pm

yeah but people don't hate it

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:27 pm

And it also doesn't cause player turnover. Which is the sole point of Ageing. Not to make you feel like Nuffle hates you.

So if you take away the player-turnover factor, you've basically made having Ageing moot and may as well just remove it completely.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:27 pm

Dragoonkin wrote: So if you take away the player-turnover factor, you've basically made having Ageing moot and may as well just remove it completely.

hehehe actually that's whay we did.

Dragoonkin · Post by **Dragoonkin** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:30 pm

Exactly. So Peaking isn't a solution because it doesn't do what Ageing is supposed to do...so why bother? If you're "in the market" to use Peaking...just take away Ageing completely.

Asperon Thorn · Post by **Asperon Thorn** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:50 pm

Dragoonkin wrote:Exactly. So Peaking isn't a solution because it doesn't do what Ageing is supposed to do...so why bother? If you're "in the market" to use Peaking...just take away Ageing completely.

Well I do think this Peaking idea is a bit of a compromise. If you remove Ageing completely you could end up with a team of uber-dwarves. Peaking at least halts the progress of the dwarves, so they don't keep accumulating skills.

Maybe a mix of Ageing and this would be good, something like if your player ages on one of the first 3 skill rolls you have a choice of peaking or ageing, but after the 3rd skill roll you are stuck on ageing.

Asperon Thorn

Dark Lord (retired) · Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:11 am

How does peaking not cause player turnover? In fact, unlike ageing, this causes player turnover instead of TEAM turnover.

With the increase of niggling injuries and the stretching of the SPP table most players are likely to peak at 3 or 4 skills and then the longer they play the more likely they are to get an injury...A career ending injury.

What this system does (as I said vehemently before) is allow coaches to have their players' careers ended on the pitch. And, thank you very much, but player turnover was the goal of ageing ONLY to keep uber teams from developing. This stops uberteams from developing.

Mirascael · Post by **Mirascael** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:11 am

It's absolutela ridiculous they called "ageing" "ageing", since it actually is merely a punishment for success or spp-handycap.

What is referred "ageing" has nothing to do with "ageing" or "attrition" at all. The correlation is zero.

"Ageing" simply punishes you for playing successfully.
I think it's really annoying if you really have to consider every move in the game with second thoughts about how to avoid to get any more SPPs with this or that particular player since he might age. A reasonable measure against "uber-teams" should by no means punish players for playing successfully (i.e. making touchdowns, casualities, completions). Therefore I'd go with any ruling that stops punishing players for good performance. I think that a realistic game-based ageing might be too complicated, therefore I'd favour a simple peaking solution as well.

I'd really say that Age Bowl doesn't make much fun and that "ageing" makes the game really unattractive for many players. I consider it the major flaws of the LRB.

An easy, straightforward peaking rule could be:

Roll D6

1st skill: no peaking
2nd skill: 1
3rd skill 1-2
4th skill 1-3
5th skill 1-4
6th skill 1-5
7th skill: peaks automatically

If a player peaks any more SPPs he gets are wasted. His SPPs will freeze at the number needed to get his last skill.