| 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 |
|
Aequitas
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 20:14 |
 
|
Seppuku: The thing is that without aging at high TR you find more and more teams with super high TR and it starts getting silly. And no, you won't find high TR elf teams playing high TR bashy chaos, as the elves would be losing 80+ TR/per game. Instead you'll find the elves playing other elves to help each others star players improve. Sorta like over at OLBBL.
I understand what you're saying and agree with it a little bit, but I do think aging is a good idea. Even though it has haunted my chaos for the past 15 months. I'm with those who think aging should take effect after 31spp+. |
_________________
The goggles, they do nothing! o_0 |
|
Ash
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 20:33 |
|
So trouble came from player who love to play at high TR... for myself i dislike playing at more than 250... |
_________________
Ash |
|
AFK_Eagle
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 28, 2004 - 21:16 |
|
Depends on what type of game you enjoy. Some coaches prefer the sub-150 games, where players are still iffy with skills and luck plays a large part, although intelligent placement of players can help mitigate luck more towards your side. Personally, I prefer the 200-250 range, as usually all players have at least one skill by then (if not more) to reduce the impact of luck causing premature turnovers, and strategy becomes far more crucial. Can't say much about 250+ games...I've only ever had one team get up that high in TR, and the next game they played they lost 5 players and over 100 TR, never again to get beyond 225 or so... |
_________________
Listen to Eagle! Eagle is good, Eagle is wise!
Founder of the E.L.F.--These elves will play anybody! |
|
Bascrebolder
Joined: Nov 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 09:28 |
|
I did not expect this many reactions to my first mail about ageing. I do however remember now why I hate ageing so much. Yesterday I spent an entire match getting two td’s for my new Chaos Warrior so he would get his first skill. He succeeded and rolled +ST… but horror of all horrors: snake eyes for ageing: a niggler! Now I have to fire this beautiful player. I really am considering joining DivX now.
So far I agree a lot with Seppuku. Ageing only limits team development at around a max of tr 250 it seems. Without ageing there is a max as well due to casualties that will happen and the number of SPP’s that die with those casualties. The limit may be somewhere around tr 350-400.
My personal view is that everybody should be able to decide if they like playing high tr games or not. No need for rules to protect us… If you don’t like high-tr’s: don’t play them or fire players yourself to keep tr down. If you do get your team as strong as possible.
It is clear people disagree on ageing a lot but many people seem to feel that if ageing would be tweaked it would be better acceptable. For example if ageing only started at 31 SPP’s (on a roll of a 1,1) Therefore I’m going to make a new poll with the choice to leave it as it is or to tweak it. I think a lot of people will find a tweaked ageing acceptable (both pro’s and contra’s of ageing in general). |
|
|
Scurn
Joined: Sep 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 09:44 |
|
i ranked matches here on fumbbl, i don't care about aging.
of course, it's not nice to have a niggler, but in ranked, you can easily fire him, because you can choose your opponents to fit your team strength.
league play is something different. aging on one or two important players and the whole season might be over and thats annoying.
We played an unranked league for three seasons here, me and my friends, in about three weeks. it became very obvious, that two of the eight teams participating in that league, are not competative anymore just because of aging results, so we decided to quit the league and continue playing ranked ... well, actually, they all quit bloodbowl, but for other reasons, i'm the last survivor, so to say ^^
so, in a short sentence:
Whenever you can choose your opponents to match yout teamstrength, aging is ok, but if you play in a league, aging is too damaging to a team. It's just a question of luck or bad luck without having any chance to do something about it.
Yes, true, a game is about luck as well, but there, you can choose to field a player or not, to make that 4+ pass or not, risking the 1dice block or not ... |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 14:38 |
|
 Hey a niggler means that he does not show up up 1 game out of 6 roughly. If he's good, I would retire him only in R since you choose your opponent. But in leagues? Damn be bloody then. I don't know. |
|
|
Kommando
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 14:48 |
|
hey, my last 3 guys with 16 spps niggled  wonderful. it sure felt very balancing to me. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 17:10 |
|
It's weird that you guys can't accept the randomness of ageing results, but probably would be against something alike ->auto ageing at the 4th skill for exemple.
Or I assume so. It could make sense. When ages comes you can't avoid it.
I feel like this ageing thread is a whining thread about ageing. |
|
|
gken1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 17:17 |
|
Like I said...if you're gonna play short league seasons....AGING is NOT needed. House rule it out. Play DivX.
But in long term leagues...like FUMBBL or my current table top league--going on 4 years with no reset. Aging is the balancer. We don't have the option of picking our games. you play a set schedule. If not for aging it would be the same friggin Chaos team winning every game over and over.....Elves, skaven and everybody else has suffered from casualties on the pitch. The Chaos team has not.....the only way to maintain league balance is aging. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 17:23 |
|
May I ask one thing, Seppuku?
What's the point in playing TR 300+ Elves?
Luck is even more important at those TRs, because in the end ANYTHING would succeed if you don't roll snake eyes... Quite boring, ihmo. How do you stop an AG5 leaping NoS Blodger Lion Warrior if he doesn't roll snake eyes? At TRs above 250 tactics are just as useless as at 100TR when the dice are against you.
This is how I see it, anyway.
What's the point in performing incredible plays with a 2+ success (with rerolls due to catch, sure hands, frenzy, dodge, ecc ecc ecc)??
A 300+ elves team is just broken... and as Ash already pointed out, BB is not designed AT ALL for that high a TR. |
_________________
 |
|
nazerdemus
Joined: Nov 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 18:00 |
|
Players that reach 176spps are considered " Legends " , the best of the best , If every player became a Legend just by staying around long enough that would be pretty lame . Hurray for aging , (See how my mind changes like the wind ) |
|
|
Sionis
Joined: Aug 26, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 18:48 |
|
Just another random factor that helps me retire players before they get cut down in their prime. |
|
|
tassel
Joined: May 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 19:10 |
|
Aging rocks. Simple and obvious. It's just that _my_ players shouldn't age. Hope the rest of you turn to papas and grannies after the first game.
Thanks for listening, love you too. |
|
|
Moxy
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 19:58 |
|
I don't know I think the aging rules would be just fine if the whole aging roll was shifted up one catagory. So it is 3+ at 16 SPP instead of 4+ and so on |
|
|
SparkingConduit
Joined: Oct 28, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 29, 2004 - 21:46 |
|
I think aging as it is is well represented. Think about it for a second. Yes, a wardancer does cost 120K, but look at what you're getting. You have a player that starts out with MA8, ST3, AG4, and has blodge and leap already. Now, I would think aging on the first roll is appropriate because in this case the player has obviously done some sort of extensive training before playing Blood Bowl to even acquire such skills from the get go. So, therefore, I can see an aging roll at 6 SPPs appropriate because it's obvious that this is an already professional athlete who has probably played or done something before Blood Bowl and is getting on in age. And it's such a minimal roll, too. You all complain because out of 36 wardancers, an average of 1 of them will get a slight injury outside of the game (practice/whatever they do) early on in their carreer? That's ludicrous. People develop problems at all different ages. You can live to be 100 and never suffer any problems and you can die at a few months from a horrible disease. Aging represents this well, in my opinion, because the easily replaced players, such as skeletons, can have a freak accident which causes them to age, and the very expensive players have probably been around the block a few times to get where they are at the start, therefore they could pull a leg during a practice routine early on in their life with the team and have to live with it. If anything, we should remove the aging roll for players that start with less than 2 skills, not for the ones that start with 2 or 3 and are already formidable. It's only common sense. This talk about instituting aging at 31 SPPs is completely unfair, because by then most elven players already have enough skills that they'll be impossible to stop from gaining SPPs. And with a decreased chance of gaining injuries just from growing old/practice/whatever, we'd have so many stars it would be pathetic. Aging is in place to prevent there being a deluge of 200+ SPP players with no injuries whatsoever. |
_________________
<belgin>need a makeup game
<belgin>with a team in the same perdickament
THIS is why you shouldn't try to spell some words as they sound... |
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season CI
Search
