| Poll |
| How do you feel about ageing |
| Absolutely HATE it! Let's get rid of it... |
|
48% |
[ 116 ] |
| Keep it. It keeps the ballance right... |
|
47% |
[ 114 ] |
| I don't know/care |
|
3% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 239 |
|
Darkwolf
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 24, 2004 - 17:45 |
 
|
The last 4 skills rolls my son made for me was ageing rolls. On 3 16spp players and 1 6spp player. I really cant complain as the previous 20 rolls (including two 76spp players) I had no ageing whatsoever. Its the nigglers I cant stand. I rather see more ma or av or ag drops, than the nigglings. Nigglings happen more frequently on ageing rolls AND on cas/injury rolls. I tend to be an unlucky coach (especiall last 4-5 games) and have been riddled with niggling injury's. My team development line has plummeted due to my firing and removal of nigglers from injury and ageing.
I have always like the concept, but would like it tweeked or as others have said changed to start at 31 with the normal rules.
AND I do play Div-X, but it is hard to find games with my 250TR Khermi. |
_________________
Check out the latest Darkwolf "***Did you know?" in his bio! Each month, a new Darkwolf factoid!
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=coachinfo&coach=768 |
|
Tricktickler
Joined: Jul 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 24, 2004 - 19:04 |
|
I really hate aging and think it should be removed from the game entirely.
First of all the rule is lame. Secondly it creates this boring similarity between players because the rule makes it very rare for someone to ever exceed 4 skills without getting retired.
The third and most important reason why to remove the rule is because its ruining one of the best parts of the game, and thats your role as a coach to build up and improve your team. Why do you think the RPG-genre is so popular? There is a reason people spend hours playing games like Diablo, hacking and slashing monsters without the need of skill. The reason is because it is so FUN to chase experience points... and its FUN to build up and improve your character by getting new skills and stats. Exactly the same thing goes for blood bowl but here you have an ENTIRE TEAM to build up which is pretty cool.
Sadly enough aging is ruining all this.... Not by stopping it but actually by making your players WORSE for every starplayer point they earn after a certain level. After three skills the chance to age is so big that u dont want to get anymore SPPs. Thats also the reason why I never pick mighty blow anymore.. because it increases the chance to get a casulty which will bring you those extra SPPs that you DONT want to have.
Best part of the game - destroyed :/
The reason we DO need something like aging is because we need something to bring the team rating DOWN. We want things balanced. Therefore before aging can be removed it must be replaced by something else. My suggestion is to replace all "Miss next game" results in the seriously injury table with permanent injuries like nigglings, -st, -av, -ma and -ag. Then remove aging. That should make it. |
Last edited by Tricktickler on %b %25, %2004 - %01:%Dec; edited 4 times in total |
|
MorbidDeath
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 24, 2004 - 19:13 |
|
Sorry have to disagree. thats a load of old crap.
"We have to do somehting to bring the teams TR down".....what do you think happens to high TR teams? That wihtout ageing they continue forever?
Jesus they get ripped apart by kaos or niggle / die from the game. thats what the game is about. Later if you want to impose ageing then - well I just dont think it applicable to a team and I view it as a real dumb idea. We all have our views. But unless it is "tweeked" in a big way - say setting ageing rolls from 100spp+ then it is crap. |
_________________
Believe in yourself - not in the others. |
|
mstrchef13
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 01:14 |
|
I think that aging as it is sucks rocks. If it is to represent the deterioration of experienced players, then aging rolls should be based on games played instead of based on SPPs. Let's go with an aging roll after 10 GP, 20 GP, 30 GP, etc. Under the current system, I can easily see your basic average dwarf lineman playing 30 games and accumulating a grand total of 12 SPPs, meaning he's played 30 games and had one aging roll. The trollslayer on the same team has four casualties, an MVP and a TD in his first 3 games, 16 SPPs, and now he has two aging rolls. A bit unrepresentative of the intent of the rule, don't you think? |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 01:29 |
|
Cope |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
Unxerxes
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 02:08 |
|
I don't hate it but I agree aging should be tweaked to prevent 6 spp-agings and such... say that on the first aging roll when rolling for injury 2-6 means nothing happens, 7-8 = niggle and 9 thru 12 are the stat-decreases. On aging roll 2, 2-5 means nothing happens 6-8 = niggle and 9 thru 12 is a stat decreases. Roll 3 = 2-5 AND 9 -12 = stat-decrease (2 = 12, 3=11, etc.) and 6 thru 8 would still mean a niggle... This way, early agaings have a lot less chance of hurting a player and higher aging rolls will have an increased chance of a stat-decrease and decreased chance of niggling which imo is a very good thing |
_________________
We're all merely specks of dust awaiting the eternal Hoover |
|
Mr_Love
Joined: Nov 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 02:12 |
|
I like ageing. Balances things up in my opinion.
I have to agree with many of the replys tough when they say it can happen to early. I would prefer if the player could only suffer from ageing after third or maybe second skill.
And yeah why not add an ageing roll that could kill your player but only when he gets something like 6 skills. I would really find it fun in a sadistic way. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 02:49 |
|
bah. first roll sucks but it's only 1 in 36. Aging isn't needed in SHORT leagues, but is a necessity for perpetual leagues. And the agility teams aren't the ones that aging is mainly for...it's for the AV9 teams that never take any significant damage.
don't like aging....play divX there are obviously enough of you out there to make it work. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 12:10 |
|
yeah that's right. div x is almost ranked (without CR and therefore without true cherrypicking, wich people dislike too) but nobody plays div x. So stop whining about it. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 15:21 |
|
if everybody who "hates aging" went to DivX then you'd have plenty of coaches..... |
|
|
Seppuku
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 16:42 |
|
Fact: Aging is part of Ranked, and will be for some time yet.
Fact: DivX has no aging, and the 10k every game for an Apo is more than worth the trade off.
Fact: DivX is unpopular, though the 'wierd' teams can be avoided, just say NO kids...
Fact: Play DivX, make it popular, don't play stupidly wierd teams if you don't want to, and it becomes, more or less, Ranked with no aging.
Please, this is a really simple solution. Don't moan about aging, there's a simple solution, play DivX. I got so bored and frusrated seeing potentially great teams getting mullered because of aging I've practically stopped playing R. Only ever got one player to the 5th roll (76spp) uninjured, and of course she aged. If you're pissed off with it, play dX, and avoid it. It's the same game, but ever-so slightly different to pure LRB Ranked. The differences are tiny, but there's NO AGING.
Shut up, and see you there. 
EDIT: I really don't understand the 'balance' arguement. To my limited intellectual capability, a 300TR Woodie team with +ST/Strip Ball/+MA/+MA players everywhere is formidable enough to risk the potential injuries from a 300TR Chaos team with Claw/MB etc everywhere. The Woodies will win, and can score so easily to rack up the spp on any new replacements, negating the aging requirement. High AV teams might (and I stress MIGHT) not take the damage as others, but not scoring as often, not winning as often is as limiting a factor as losing players more frequently, so it balances already. And, at the end of the day, why shouldn't 300/400 TR Chaos/Dwarf/Orc teams kick seven bells out of each other? It'd be a hoot. If the elves don't want to risk the cas, they can decline, and play other high TR elves, and score loads of TD's. In my opinion, aging only does one thing, and that's to slow development, and cap teams. Why this is necessary I don't know, as the choice to play a game is always the coaches. If the rules Fascists want to dictate games so minutely, why don't they play our games for us?  |
_________________
Life ain't scary...making a 2+ Dodge with my luck...THAT's scary... |
|
Prez
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 17:53 |
|
Aging gets my vote, we have to have something in place to prevent teams from becoming to strong, it just gets stupid after some 20 odd games.
With aging coaches try and spread the ssp's about more giving a team a more balanced feel to them, instead of the SUPER hard Blitzers that we use to get.
Though I do feel Aging should be removed for the first skill up (6+)
Mr P |
Last edited by Prez on %b %28, %2004 - %18:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
AFK_Eagle
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 18:01 |
|
I tend to spread out spp's, but not to avoid aging. It's just smart business--if you have 14 players with 2 or 3 skills each, then in-game loss of players will mean a lot less than having two mega-stars and a bunch of rookies, then losing that star to a crowdpush or cas. I retired an extremely promising woodie team--every lineman had guard, huge ts in relation to tr--when every one of them aged on second or third skill, all a niggle. Sucks, but dem's da breaks. Makes it really cool when you can get a player his 4th skill and on without aging, it makes a player seem that much more special, and you'll work harder to protect that player on-pitch, not leaving them near the sidelines or alone for fouling, etc. I'm thinking of making a div-x team anyway, just to see how things progress w/o aging. If I can get a steady flow of games, I'm sure I'll commit; until then, the R teams will remain open for business. |
_________________
Listen to Eagle! Eagle is good, Eagle is wise!
Founder of the E.L.F.--These elves will play anybody! |
|
Seppuku
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 18:11 |
|
| Mr_Prezident wrote: | | Aging gets my vote, we have to have something in place to prevent teams from becoming to strong, it just gets stupid after some odd games. |
Again, the question is WHY? Every high TR team, with amazing Blitzers (amongst others, such as +AG/NoS/+MA catchers...) would be playing OTHER high TR teams (+/-40 TR), so you're not talking about newbie coaches, and they'd know what they can do, and what the opposition could do. There isn't any practical reason to artificially cap teams that I can see, apart from tourney's that have arranged matches and you can't avoid the 'MEGA-team' that you are concerened about. That isn't Ranked, so why not have 400TR teams? All it would do is enable coaches to develop the team closer to a personal ideal, whilst maintaining similar strength opposition. Seriously, why have aging. All it does is stiffle team development, fluff etc.
I say again, 'too strong' is only too strong for weaker teams. As you can't play significantly weaker teams anyway, if everyone could have high tr teams, why is this disadvantageous? It'd keep teams around longer (i've retired teams becaude the 'core' got aging niggles, as most coaches have), get more fluff built, interest keener...So what if your 150 tr Skaven would be massacred by his 345 tr Orcs?? They aren't going to meet! |
_________________
Life ain't scary...making a 2+ Dodge with my luck...THAT's scary... |
|
Ash
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 19:44 |
|
so the point is "Ranked is not for TR 340"...
It s a good point cause bb is not for TR 340 team either  |
_________________
Ash |
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season 100!
Search
