Team changes and the NAF discussion

[Dark Duke]

I really love how people who doesn't live nor play in spain tries to tell us how many spanish people are angry about changes.

I didnt said how many people, ive said certain amount are vovals. i dont know how many are. But are very vocals.

In my opinion, that tends to be true in every forum, facebook page, Whatsapp group, etc. The angry people, the trolls, they are always very vocal. We try to deal and live with it.

[TopsyKretts]

This is much less of a topic now that we got at least 2 new teams, a new edition and changes to several existing teams in addition to the PA stat?

[Jembo17]

I'm half-worried, viyullas.

By that, I mean that there is a vocal and persistent sub-set of the Spanish community that is dissatisfied with the NAF, with how the NAF (if I may summarise what I read on the internet crudely) kowtows to every GW whim (as you see it), how our service is nothing but a ranking, how we don't represent you, etc. I am 'worried' enough to continually challenge these views and debate around this subject with you; here, as I have at length on the Spanish forum, anywhere you like*, because I believe quite passionately that it isn't true, and if you run through the news items on thenaf.net or the social media feeds, the ongoing engagement project (more on this soon - see recent minutes for details!) and everything else, I believe an even-handed reviewer would find that while we aren't perfect, we're certainly more than a rankings service.

However, there are limits to my worrying. I know that we cannot make everybody happy, because that's life. I also strongly suspect that there are some members and / or former members that have views so entrenched that even when we do exactly the thing(s) they loudly campaign for, citing them as examples of how the NAF is incompetent or not representing them, they will quickly forget or ignore the progress made and complain about something else. If we were to issue a statement that we're never including another new GW rule and we'll play CRP for evermore, I suspect those that say they want that will be happy for all of about five minutes, and the noise from the rest of the membership will split our eardrums.

So. I'm worried enough to debate how we do things with you, viyullas, because I think a fair bit of the criticism is unwarranted and it is worth an amount of my time attempting to convince you of that. But I'm not so worried so that I'll go on forever or that if you don't renew your membership I'll lose any sleep. I hope you do, but we'll never please every Blood Bowler. Again, if representation is your problem, use your democratic right to get some representation. There are a lot of Spanish members and only a handful of them seem to turn out to vote. Perhaps your lack of representation is on you?

*I say 'anywhere you like', knowing of course that a section of the membership would be disgusted with us for having this debate here, and not in a Facebook thread linked to spicy Reddit memes, Tik Tok videos and You Tube! There is another section of members I'm never going to please. I'm collecting them up.

More people running things like this guy and all will be well.

[soyelpera]

That minority wants to test, and then act based in the results. No preset outcomes, no closed or lack of testing.

GW will have play-tested the rules. They might not have been tested by you and your mates, but they will have been tested.

So they say, but honestly I don't believe they have invested much time on it, like it happened with previous releases (such as giants) especially having they mind that they mention the best players were involved and not giving a single name. I would like to know how many experienced coaches were asked to participate in this new rule set, most of us have been around long enough time to know the best coaches at least from the European area, and I am afraid not many were contacted for this new version.
As well as that it also surprises me how little they care about the naf community in general, even though it could have come really handy if what you need is a bunch of experienced people expending tons of hours playing blood bowl and giving their opinion, it must be because the amount of possible buyers is insignificant in comparison with the numbers of newcomers they have in mind, but who knows, GW may be saving the game from us players once again

[sann0638]

Look at the people who wrote the playbooks in the Spike. Likely that they were involved? Joemanji, geggster, others?

[soyelpera]

Look at the people who wrote the playbooks in the Spike. Likely that they were involved? Joemanji, geggster, others?

That sure is good, but doesn't sound as "many" definitely. Perhaps trying to involve coaches from different places could be also helpful in terms of widening the perspective having in mind that BB is played in many countries.
Any way, if players such as them say they have invested a good load of time testing this new rules that would bring some peace of mind, but I think that involving more coaches from different places could have been much better, instead of making a handful of people play each other over and over.
If playtesting was a major concern for GW they could rely on the NAF community more often, that would be in advantage to both really, but I still think that they don't pay much attention to the people that have been playing this game for ages

[sann0638]

I agree with you

[spubbbba]

The difficult thing about increasing the number of playtesters is that it increases the chances of leaks. For big things like a new boxed set there is usually a pretty long time between the rules being created and it going on sale.

It appears that GW didn't want us to know about the new edition quite yet, as I'm sure it will have harmed the sales of the Snotling Spike.

[montanhas18]

I would like to know how many experienced coaches were asked to participate in this new rule set, most of us have been around long enough time to know the best coaches at least from the European area, and I am afraid not many were contacted for this new version.

This is where you lost me... how do you know not many of the best coaches were contacted for this? If you have some way of knowing who wasn't contacted, then you know how many were contacted, don't you?

The ones we do know about signed NDAs.... and probably don't even want to say they were a part of the process, if they're smart. That just hopes them up for two of the Internet's favourite things: whining about something we don't like about in BB3/BB2020 and... relentlessly asking about BB4/BB202X in a few years...

I also don't really see why GW, or any company, would feel the need to provide external accountability of how the built their product. Maybe to shareholders...

Perhaps trying to involve coaches from different places could be also helpful in terms of widening the perspective having in mind that BB is played in many countries.

Again... we don't know the distribution of places for people involved. But if they used - as it seems - prolific coaches on BB2, I'm sure they play against coaches from very different places. Certainly a much wider range of possible countries than any tabletop tournament, including the World Cup.

Also, out of curiosity, what are the differences between how BB is played from country to country that you think might influence a ruleset?

[soyelpera]

This is where you lost me... how do you know not many of the best coaches were contacted for this? If you have some way of knowing who wasn't contacted, then you know how many were contacted, don't you?

I don't really know who are all those players they mention in that particular release, but after the leak I could see none of the people I usually have contact with knew anyone who participated on this playtest, I agree as mentioned here that they may want to be cautious to avoid the new features hitting the media before they want to make it official, but then I have to still think that the playtest might have not been sufficient, and that the statement saying that many of the best coaches in the world participating on it may not be true.

The ones we do know about signed NDAs.... and probably don't even want to say they were a part of the process, if they're smart. That just hopes them up for two of the Internet's favourite things: whining about something we don't like about in BB3/BB2020 and... relentlessly asking about BB4/BB202X in a few years...

I also don't really see why GW, or any company, would feel the need to provide external accountability of how the built their product. Maybe to shareholders...

I haven't even said whether I like the new changes or not, I don't even think that is important, again I a just saying I believe they may not have been tested enough, like it happened in the past, and I feel a lot of this changes are not motivated by playing experience. GW is a company and doesn't have to please me or anyone else, is their own business and they make their own decision based on whatever the motivation is, I was just pointing out that I think it would be sensible to try and involve the NAF community (which kept the game alive while GW put it a side) if "hours of playtesting and feedback from many of the best players in the world..." are needed. If they did that through online BB2 gaming that would definitely have been a bright idea as I stated before, caring about the players' opinion and the playibilty of the game seems important to me.

[

Again... we don't know the distribution of places for people involved. But if they used - as it seems - prolific coaches on BB2, I'm sure they play against coaches from very different places. Certainly a much wider range of possible countries than any tabletop tournament, including the World Cup.

Also, out of curiosity, what are the differences between how BB is played from country to country that you think might influence a ruleset?

In terms of BB being played differently in different places, I think trying to involve a wider range of play styles could be helpful if what you want is to have a broader perspective, what could be sensible if you are planning to change the whole ruleset. Again if they obtained that through the digital version I am more than happy with that.

[Darkson]

The ones we do know about signed NDAs.... and probably don't even want to say they were a part of the process, if they're smart.

I don't know about GW, but I was in the alpha-testing for a video game, and the NDA I signed said I wasn't even allowed to say I was in the alpha-testing, so I wouldn't be surprised if the BB testers (if there were any!) are in the same boat.