Page 9 of 10
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:41 pm
by Mystic Force
Milo wrote:@garion: You've made some good points. I understand your point of view, and agree with the basic point that a rule that makes it more likely a coach will abandon a team should be reconsidered. I don't consider it as serious an issue as you do, but I do see your side of the argument.
The problem is that the rulebook has already been printed, and so -- for most players -- those rules are already in place. GW could print an errata, but that errata will only be seen by people who go looking for it, and errata are by their very nature admission of a mistake, which companies do not generally like to do without a compelling argument. Most coaches will probably never encounter a situation like yours when it was competitively better to abandon a team and start over; even those that do, many of them would prefer to keep the team and history and deal with the slight competitive disadvantage.
Given that the rules already clearly state the two options, and leave the choice of those options to the LC, I think it is unlikely that GW would post an errata just for this issue. If and/or when there is a new core rulebook printed, that would be, I think, the appropriate time to discuss whether the rulebook should be amended to show "no-TV-impact-for-FF" as the default option, and "FF-adds-to-TV" as the other option. I just don't think it's going to happen before that point, nor do I think it is severe enough (in impact or frequency) to warrant any errata.
What I do think would be great is an article in WD (or posted on bloodbowl.com) discussing options available to LCs, and making some suggestions about ways to tweak the rules to implement a more competitive or more fun league environment. Discussion of the pros and cons of this rule would go great in there, giving new LCs some background on why they should select one option or the other.
Thank you Milo, I very much agree with your sentiment. I used the FF as an example earlier, to explain my thinking and I agree that it is now to late to change the default position. It was more a comment for the future. It seems a little strange to be able to argue that we can have a default and an option and be so divergent on which should be which, when clearly you are free to pick either! That goes to show that my thoughts around how and why you should pick which is the default selection may have some validity. So maybe that's the feedback that's relevant for future developments.
I think that an article laying out options for an LC to consider for structuring their league to suit their players and environment would be an excellent thing to do. I think some of us who first purchased bloodbowl some time ago (1994 for me!) forget how it can be approached differently or that we have actual choices because we always use the same set up. Or for someone new to being an LC it would be great too, preventing people overly complicating things or teaching the new players that there is more than one way to go here.
May Nuffle not curse you this weekend, keep Blocking!
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:42 pm
by garion
Milo wrote:@garion: You've made some good points. I understand your point of view, and agree with the basic point that a rule that makes it more likely a coach will abandon a team should be reconsidered. I don't consider it as serious an issue as you do, but I do see your side of the argument.
The problem is that the rulebook has already been printed, and so -- for most players -- those rules are already in place. GW could print an errata, but that errata will only be seen by people who go looking for it, and errata are by their very nature admission of a mistake, which companies do not generally like to do without a compelling argument. Most coaches will probably never encounter a situation like yours when it was competitively better to abandon a team and start over; even those that do, many of them would prefer to keep the team and history and deal with the slight competitive disadvantage.
Given that the rules already clearly state the two options, and leave the choice of those options to the LC, I think it is unlikely that GW would post an errata just for this issue. If and/or when there is a new core rulebook printed, that would be, I think, the appropriate time to discuss whether the rulebook should be amended to show "no-TV-impact-for-FF" as the default option, and "FF-adds-to-TV" as the other option. I just don't think it's going to happen before that point, nor do I think it is severe enough (in impact or frequency) to warrant any errata.
What I do think would be great is an article in WD (or posted on bloodbowl.com) discussing options available to LCs, and making some suggestions about ways to tweak the rules to implement a more competitive or more fun league environment. Discussion of the pros and cons of this rule would go great in there, giving new LCs some background on why they should select one option or the other.
I agree, I don't think it warrants an errata, it is a small detail and you make some good suggestions about WD and BB.com,
Deep down though - I hope though that once this run has come to an end say 2019, that we can have yet another core rule change. A 2nd edition for the new era. As you have said your self it keeps things from getting stale, and hopefully we can have a bit more of the competitive rule changes so many of us in the CRP wanted. Loner removed from trolls, decay removed from TGs, thick skull added to Blitz Ra and Throw Ra. Return of SW rolls, argue the call stays on the pitch and so on....
edit: oops, didnt see mystics post, seems he ninja'd me there
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:33 am
by dode74
garion wrote:Why? You are yet to give a single good reason why it should add to TV.
Because it has value to your team.
Because it is something of a leveller: it's a small handicap on teams which have performed better. More even games are, imo, more fun.
I would be behind making it optional to carry FF over when redrafting in order to offset the likelihood of team retirement.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:34 am
by ArrestedDevelopment
FF isn't necessarily an indicator of success though. You can gain ~6-8FF with nothing but ties and losses and some far from improbable dice rolls. The semi-random nature of gaining/keeping Fan Factor makes it less than apt as acting as a handicap, and it's particularly harsh on stunties. Who funnily enough are the first races I'd think of where I'd just bin teams constantly - poor double/stat rolls and increased FF? Absolutely no point keeping them over a rookie team.
Even a few doubles probably wouldn't make it a worthwhile venture - more fun from getting increased likelihood of inducements as everyone else carries FF, and when I re-make a team I can keep some gold back to spend on games 1-2 because I don't roll for EM at team creation.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:49 am
by dode74
Of course it's "not necessarily" due to the influence of the dice, but it is generally the case because success determines the number of dice.
Like I say, give the option to bin at least some of your FF on team creation. Linking it to success would be interesting, and could be along the lines of "fair weather fans". Something like (and I am spitballing):
New TV at start of new season:
1000-1300TV: d3 fans (i.e. FF) will be willing to stick with the team
1310-1600TV: 2d6 fans will be willing to stick with the team
1610TV+: 4d6 fans will be willing to stick with the team
If the roll is greater than the team's FF then the FF remains as it is.
As I say, just conceptual and deliberately attempts to reduce the FF for lower TV teams while maintaining it for higher TV teams. The odds and TV brackets are purely for illustration.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:58 pm
by Milo
Frankly, if a coach in my league came to me and said, "I want to carry over my team to the next season, but the fan factor I've got now would put me at a disadvantage over a brand new team. Could I run a negative publicity campaign and reduce my fan factor after the season is over?", I would commend them for their roleplaying and approve it without a second thought.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:06 pm
by Glamdryn
Milo wrote:Frankly, if a coach in my league came to me and said, "I want to carry over my team to the next season, but the fan factor I've got now would put me at a disadvantage over a brand new team. Could I run a negative publicity campaign and reduce my fan factor after the season is over?", I would commend them for their roleplaying and approve it without a second thought.
This statement is essentially admitting that there could be a tweak added to the rules to make them better, right?
I want to support Dode's statement that FF is a built in handicap. Most really good coaches/teams in our league have really high FF. I love this. I also really loved LRB4 fan factor rules, so I think there is room for improvement here.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:14 pm
by stashman
Fan Factor and the gate should give winnings as in the old versions, more gate more money.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:29 pm
by Gaixo
stashman wrote:Fan Factor and the gate should give winnings as in the old versions, more gate more money.
For sure. I'm not sure why they felt it was a bad idea to give teams a permanent, minimal bonus for playing more developed teams.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:55 pm
by JT-Y
Glamdryn wrote:This statement is essentially admitting that there could be a tweak added to the rules to make them better, right?
No. It's Milo saying something he'd do within his league.
Playtesters don't get to write content or make any tweaks. We get shown stuff and asked to comment on it before it goes to print, and that may or may not lead to alterations.
Milo, me, anyone else, we can't change the rules and would never lead anyone to think we can. That's not how it works, though I appreciate some people might have been mislead in the past as to what playtesters can or cannot do.
Right now, if it's in print, it ain't changing.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:12 pm
by dode74
Milo wrote:Frankly, if a coach in my league came to me and said, "I want to carry over my team to the next season, but the fan factor I've got now would put me at a disadvantage over a brand new team. Could I run a negative publicity campaign and reduce my fan factor after the season is over?", I would commend them for their roleplaying and approve it without a second thought.
Ooh that's nice. And such a campaign could result in something like the 51SPP rule to put higher-achieving teams off using it.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:46 am
by Milo
JT-Y wrote:Glamdryn wrote:This statement is essentially admitting that there could be a tweak added to the rules to make them better, right?
No. It's Milo saying something he'd do within his league.
Playtesters don't get to write content or make any tweaks. We get shown stuff and asked to comment on it before it goes to print, and that may or may not lead to alterations.
Milo, me, anyone else, we can't change the rules and would never lead anyone to think we can. That's not how it works, though I appreciate some people might have been mislead in the past as to what playtesters can or cannot do.
Right now, if it's in print, it ain't changing.
That's completely accurate. We are NOT the BBRC, despite having a few members in common. The BBRC was tasked by Jervis to rewrite the rules and improve them. The playtest group is only asked to comment on rules written by the games developers. Sometimes that leads to changes but sometimes it does not. I do wish we had an easy to use acronym to refer to ourselves by.
I was simply saying that if a coach wanted to lose fan factor between seasons and could come up with an in-universe explanation for how he was going to do it, I'd have no problem with it as a league commissioner.
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:06 pm
by lunchmoney
Milo wrote: I do wish we had an easy to use acronym to refer to ourselves by.
GWBBPT
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:49 pm
by Milo
lunchmoney wrote:Milo wrote: I do wish we had an easy to use acronym to refer to ourselves by.
GWBBPT
Really just rolls gracefully off the tongue, doesn't it?
Re: Death Zone 2 Feedback thread
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:02 pm
by sann0638
Games Workshop Advisory Group? GWAG?