Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 10, 2004 - 19:04 |
 
|
Rolling niggles at just half time as well as the start should prove to be deterrant enough.
That means in every 3 matches they will be missing at least half the match if not all of it.
Now at the moment they miss in match in 6 so its already nearly doubled the amount of games they miss.
Personally if i have a good player with a niggle already chances are I will sack them, if they have to then roll at half time as well then from my perspective thats them all but useless for me.
Now if they had to roll for every drive it only takes 4 touchdowns in a game for them to fail the roll on average. Now I just happen to personally think thats a bit to much over the top. I understand that you disagree with that but taking it that far and you might as well just replace all the niggle results from SI to an RIP instead.
I mean really would anyone seriously keep a niggled player under those rules, it will practically be an optional but forced (heh force get it heh) retirement/death with the bonus of a coach if you want one. It would just take things out of the hands of the coach to decide. |
|
|
origami
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2004 - 23:20 |
|
Why do people think that the current niggling injury rule is ineffective? I mean this as real question that I'm interested in hearing the response to.
From what I've seen, accumulating enough niggles already leads to the team getting retired because it:
1) Can't make enough money to replace those nigglers as they accumulate more injuries.
2) Can't win games because of all the handicaps against it.
Niggle already = death in my estimate, because I'd much rather lose the player than the team. I'm also not sure that it's accurate to say that there will be fewer niggles with the new system. I think it's more likely that there will be just as many niggles, but distributed more to those higher ranking teams that have trouble affording an apothecary (which I like).
From the standpoint of a FUMBBL player who is mainly interested in winning matches against equal strength teams, pretty much any of the permanent injuries, but especially niggles, might as well be a fatality. |
Last edited by origami on %b %11, %2004 - %00:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 11, 2004 - 00:11 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: | | Now at the moment they miss in match in 6 so its already nearly doubled the amount of games they miss. |
Well, that's the theory.
I've just retired the following Wood Elf Catchers:
- Catch, Dodge, Block, Side Step, Dauntless, +MA, +MA, n
- Catch, Dodge, Block, Side Step, Leap, +MA, +MA, +AG, n
- Catch, Dodge, Block, Side Step, Leap, +MA, +AG, +ST, av-1, n, m
Why? Simply because they didn't show up in more than 50% of the games for quite some time now.
For now on I will try to fire nigglers as soon as possible no matter what. The only exception will be players without too many SPPs who serve specific functions (I'd keep a kicker until a new one is developed for instance) or can serve as sacrificial lambs. |
|
|
neverborn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 11, 2004 - 01:06 |
|
I think giving a +2 on injury rolls for each niggle a player has is a good idea.
It shows their frailty, means they are more likely to be injured, more likely to be taken off the ground and as such they are a weakness in your team...
If you put a niggler on, you gotta expect they are gonna get beat up and taken off the pitch, and it also means they are more likely to experience other cas and as such have more bad things happening to them... |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2004 - 23:52 |
|
origami i have always thought pretty much the same as you in that respect
thing is a lot of coaches don't, if you are retiring them anyway this change won't affect you |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 13, 2004 - 00:08 |
|
Retiring players is nice IF you can afford it. Many elf teams cannot afford to because they dont have enough money to repalce them. Without hard evidence I think the new rules will make it harder on elves. Why = lower AV plus expensive to replace. (unlike zons/norse).
Under the ageing proposals it would be nice to be able to "sell" back players to a "bank" rather than retire them. Sales price would be cost less some value for injuries. I just "feel" some goo teams will be forced to retire with a couple of bad winnings rolls at a decent TR level. Just retireing players won't help at that point cause it will move you, at most, 2 rungs over on the winnings grid which isn't great.
Sure, high AV teams will have even that much more money, but that is very similar to the way it is now.
2 cents - no charge |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
ChangoLoco
Joined: Sep 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 13, 2004 - 00:55 |
|
Right, as Grumbledook can attest from running into me in the chat, I am merely a typical idiotic American. I'm willing to concede the fact that we have pram's in America, but I don't know what they are. Anyone care to enlighten me?
As far as new rules for niggling, I like the idea. The best part, IMHO, is that we get to be involved in playtesting these things before they come out in 'real'. Working the bugs out here is nice, and playing with experimental rules is something that appeals to me. This may be simply because I am a horrible coach, and any new rules may expose a flaw I can exploit... |
|
|
origami
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 13, 2004 - 01:10 |
|
A pram is an old-fashioned baby carriage. If you've seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a pram is the carriage that Baby Herman rode in.
If I'm wrong, any of you uppity Brits can feel free to correct me.  |
|
|
slackman
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2004 - 02:37 |
|
not to be a killjoy or anything, but shouldnt this discussion be about force's idea? i think he's suggesting that you make a roll at the beginning of each and every drive. this means he could miss the first one and then show up for the next. if that is the case, the other proposed idea of missing the entire game if its failed at the beginning, and missing the rest of the game if its failed at half time doesnt belong here.
i think force's idea would provide for a bit of variety, but i think it would actually increase the usefulness of nigglers, not the way the bbrc seems to be wanting to go.
oh yeah, i remember that song from sesame street too. back when it was cool to watch. before that little bastard elmo ruined everything. snuffy was the bomb, yo. |
|
|
Twahn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2004 - 03:45 |
|
| origami wrote: | A pram is an old-fashioned baby carriage. If you've seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a pram is the carriage that Baby Herman rode in.
If I'm wrong, any of you uppity Brits can feel free to correct me. |
A Pram is what the rest of the English speaking world calls a 'baby carriage' because they don't need the strange dumbed-down names that Yanks seem to give to everything... 
No offence intended, just saying like it is...  |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2004 - 16:25 |
|
BACK ON TOPIC -
If this change is to take place I think the injury table also has to be modified. Currently, the table is skewed so that most of the SIs are niggles VS stat decreases. The thought being stat decreases are much worse than niggles.
However, if you continue to make nigglers less valuable then the table makes less sense. If I am almost forced to retire every niggler due to 2 niggle rolls per game, then I'd much rather lose 1 point of Move then get a niggle. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2004 - 16:51 |
|
the idea is to encourage player turnover not the other way around
and at the moment its all just speculation with regards to the elf teams
losing a couple of players and going 2 rungs down on the winnings bracket is an extra 20k per match winnings
i know the bbrc are currently going under the way of negative winnings just taking you to no money rather than going into negative treasury but somewhere needs to test the negative treasury out as well and thats going to be here
and if toby meant they come back after failing deffo no makes niggles better not worse |
|
|
Kommando
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 15, 2004 - 20:24 |
|
i really like force's idea which for some reason got hijacked by the soon-to-be-implemented new niggling rules.
the point is: when you roll for a niggler these days he'll either show up in his whole glory for the whole match or miss it entirely, i.e. deciding an important part for the game (when its a real star) with a simple dice roll. with force's idea the whole niggling injury thing will move further away from either absolutely lucky or unlucky to a more balanced approach which will have a more measured impact on the match, making it more likely a contest of skill instead of one dice roll while not changing the amount which nigglers spend off field. very good idea me thinks. |
|
|
slackman
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 16, 2004 - 07:35 |
|
yeah, i just said that. but the point here is that niggles arent supposed to be something u want on your players. changing to rolling every drive means they're likely to play a bit more. although they're a bit more unpredictible (i like this) they're going to be overall a bit more useful (i dont like this, and apparently neither does the bbrc). |
|
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
