Discussion in 'Blood Bowl 2' started by Coach, Oct 10, 2013.
Release date May 28/29: Blood Bowl 2 finally gets a release date for May | games.on.net
So apparently the players aging and retiring is not optional per Focus:
That's pretty much a dealbreaker for many players, I would think. It absolutely ruins a number of teams when they will only get 70 games in before losing players.
That just seems crazy that they would do that. I can understand them wanting it for public leagues so that their new player market doesn't get saturated. But to force a private league to play by their house rules is truly shocking...
I think the minimum number of games you can get out of a player before possible retirement is 96. They can start at 19 and possibly retire at 31, right?
That's a ton of games that you're never going to reach unless you're in a perpetual leagues for many seasons. In addition to its market implications, it also seems like they want to use it as a way to neuter high armor teams in these perpetual leagues, which I'm not sure is a bad thing.
That being said, I'm relatively new to BB and have no teams anywhere near 96 games, so maybe I'm not understanding the depth of the change.
It still should be optional based on league preferences, as the more league customization options, the better. But I don't really have a problem with the aging mechanic in general.
That is Sigh-anide for you
The key part of that is that there's a chance for them to retire after 7 games. I've had players that have played twice that without even getting SPP. Tomb Guardians anyone?
This is not my understanding of the aging mechanic. A player starts at an age between 17 - 19. They have a chance of retirement first at age 31. They age a year every 8 games.
That means they will retire somewhere between 96 - 128 games.
Hi all, I'm going to try and gauge strength of feeling about this across various places where BB is discussed: Petition Make any deviation from CRP optional in BB2
I personally do not mind this version of the aging... it's ok. Sure I would rather that it was not there, or at the very least optional. But again, this version is not to bad. I am atleast glad that they did not use the previous version of the aging rule, because the old version of the rule was horrible.
There is one thing though... I have actually encountered conflicting versions of the "new" aging rule.
This is the first one i found, and it comes from page 2 of the information about the Marketplace on the homepage:
So 8 matches per year, 12-16 years, and a total of 96-128 matches.
However, 2 days ago they put up a new update on their BB2 developers blog, which says this:
So 7 matches per year, maximum of 14 years, and a total of up to 98 matches.
Not sure when the chance of retirement starts to happend in this version.
In either case... that is still a lot of matches. My most played team ever only have 53 matches. And they are a pretty good team, with a total of 687 SPP devided amongst 12 players (I have 16 players, but 4 of them are star players, so do not earn spp... this is a team from back in the mid 90's to early 00's... and with various houserules, which we did not know where house rules untill years later... since the guy who taught us BB, he and his friends had added numerous house rules years befor, which he then taught to us)... which if it was devided equally amongst them would mean that they would all have had 4 skills. Of course since that was my first team, it was not devided equally.
Anyway... I doubt there are a lot of people around who have characters which have played that many matches... or even survived that many matches. Especially any team which has 8 or less in AV. And that is actually something which is making me go "hmm... maybe this version of ageing is not such a bad thing".
Because for one, there has always been a problem with that bashy teams tend to become pretty OP once they have reached a certain point. Where all the none bashy, AV8 or less, teams, will constantly lose players from injury etc... where as that rarely happend to many bashy teams. But with this aging thing it will atleast start to happend eventually. Also, it might be a somewhat effective way to combat farmed teams to an extent. Granted... 60-100+ matches is maybe so many matches that it would not effect bashy teams early enough... and it might be so many matches as well that it does not really effect farmed teams either. Who knows...
None the less, I do feel that aging should atleast be optinal in the game, especially for private leagues etc.
267 games and counting.
seems like it could be a fun rule with the marketplace in public leagues. to not have it optional in private leagues is pretty disrespectful to their main playerbase imo
As it stands I'm not buying this. They as yet have still never got the actual rules right, and so to now start fannying around and making up their own rules is ridiculous.
I am not sure about the numbers of games played and so on.
But isn't it a good thing that they try to figure out a way to balance the Bashing side with the scoring side of the game in a perpetual league?
And isn't aging one of those things that could work?
Since bashing teams level slowly and rarely loose players. And Scoring teams are the other way around.
Or is it just the elf in me talking?
I would prefer it to be optional however BB was not designed with long term leagues in mind.
I don't think I ever played more than 20 games with one team on tabletop.
It could actually improve the open leagues as it will stop teams with 2 or 3 superstars and everyone else rookies as they will need to train the rookies up to replace the stars when they retire.
It will hopefully also reduce the mass bash at 2000TV+ in nagg and auld.
I can already feel my rage from a levelled flesh golem being forced to retire.
Or a nurgle beast
I think any deviation from CRP should be optional for sure, but I also like the ageing rule if they get the number of games right. 96 seems pretty good that's absolutely enough games to get even nurgle competitive - its maybe not enough games to get a bunch of legendary warriors but superstars should be no problem.
Anyway if they make it optional I expect there will be one perpetual league with and one without, then people can vote with their feet.
The Nurgle beast might possibly survive until retirement but probably not. My Undead have played 130 matches, but no player has survived more than maybe 70.
In OCC Tier 1 those with more than 100 games are
3 vampires in two teams
0 Pro Elves in two teams
4 Nurgles in one team
1 Undead in one team
0 Chaos players in one team
also 0 Dwarves, 0 Khorne, 0 Necro
Checking OCC tier 2, with 40 teams, the races with players with 100+ games are
2 Dark Elves in one team
3 Khemri in one team, 7 in another (and none in the third)
2 Lizards in one team
1 Nurgle in one team (and four nurgle teams without any such players)
2 Orcs in one team (and four orc teams without any such players)
2 Wood Elves in one team (and four orc teams without any such players)
Races without any 100+ match players at all are
1 Amazon team, 3 Chaos teams, 1 Chaos Dwarf, 1 Elf, 1 High Elf, 1 Human, 3 Necro, 1 Skaven, 5 Undead
So apart from Hawca and some other random outliers it seems to affect Vampires (apothecary+regen = powerful), Khemri, Orcs, Lizards and Nurgle
The only reason I would be against this aging rule is that it might scare away too many rules lovers who want their clawpombers to live forever (so they can keep killing all other players) meaning that leagues would lose speed.
On the other hand, the original Crunch Cup reset every season, so things like that should easily move over. Francobowl also uses retirement rules already, while OLF retires the teams instead of the players.
I want some kind of a retirement scheme, so it's not a case of just waiting until your megaplayers hit legendary each. But it should be in the league's own hands, not come from random Cyanide houserule.
I dont want any kind of aging or forced retirement scheme. What is the fun in that? Why implement a houserule that only aims to destroy your team if you are lucky enough to have players that survive - I just dont get it
I think that they should give us options instead of forcing us
Smurf's comment is why it wouldn't work on a voluntary basis though. He and dode et. al. would make sure no league ever used it because either "no fun" or "not in the rules"
Separate names with a comma.