Team changes and the NAF discussion

[fromherashes]

Of course, a small group goes nowhere is the majority goes, actively or pasively, with whatever gets officially printed. My take is they (and I) see themselves more like as players of a game than as consumers of plastic, with respect to BB.

This is part of the problem. It’s not about going “actively or passively“ with the rules, you can still not like something but accept it’s part of the game (you never know, you might even come round to it not being an issue). It’s that sort of closed/blinkered approach from the vocal minority that is part of the problem.

The other statement is very derogatory as it implies that the people who don’t agree with you aren’t “players of the game” and just mere “consumers of plastic”. That’s most definitely not the case.

[ugrosh]

I undertand because you confused, is because i´ve changed the subject, that you out in red is what i think or believe they think. As i saiid theres years i not read the forum of spanish comunity because the vocals, that wanted all stay at CRP. Maybe is a minority, but man how vocals are.

Stay at CRP, or evolve from it based in testing? The "9 points to test for next LRB" list was commented, with mixed reception, mostly moderate stance rather than vocal. They even participate in new team ideas, last couple (Tzeentch and Slannesh) were active past month.

First of all, im not thinking in argument with you, you have your opinion, wich i dont share and else. Thats wfy i left years ago the spanish BB comunity.
Not tested? Not widely like as LRB´s years, sure. But on the other hand the changes are so few and modular for sample the cards, that introduces the crazyness of the background of these game. Its almost CRP with a few tweaks, but you so vocal about that tweaks that i disagreed with you and recived an "corporative" answers from that forum. And CRP is a stagnant rules, not poepole.
So you left out of the playtesting, and you get vocal. Or as you said there´s no better playtesters than you and your innercircle, yeah you right.
As said Fromhereashes you implies that who disagree with you is a plastic consumer than a player, i more than happy not heard of you and your innercircle AKA Bloodbowlforo, as im no spanish, Im Argentine and over here the comunity is growing. Althought the current times being growing with CRP as we play online.

[Xac]

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.

[sann0638]

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.

What is the feeling in Spain Xac?

[Steam Ball]

(you never know, you might even come round to it not being an issue). It’s that sort of closed/blinkered approach from the vocal minority that is part of the problem.

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

Not tested? Not widely like as LRB´s years, sure. But on the other hand the changes are so few and modular for sample the cards, that introduces the crazyness of the background of these game. Its almost CRP with a few tweaks

The important point is the way changes are being done, above the specific changes.

So you left out of the playtesting, and you get vocal. Or as you said there´s no better playtesters than you and your innercircle, yeah you right.

Everyone was left out. We do not know how it is playtested, or even if it is at all. The first manuals do not have any credits, neither writers nor testers. By non-official ways we know one person involved. The motive is no inner circles, but a truly widespread testing.

[Mystic Force]

I have noticed a trend amongst the podcasters that seems rather negative to anything new that has come out, before any of it was actually tried. I know that it's often possible to look at something and get a feel for what it might be, but you only really understand by experiencing what it is. I think the demographic of bloodbowl coaches seems to center around a certain age where people start becoming set in their ways. When listening to people who would not have been able to participate in the hobby when the 3rd edition was released seem much more accepting of the fact it might change (not necessarily the exact changes) I think we need to get past the idea that the old way is the only way and accept that their will be additions and modifications and that the intention is not to destroy a game, but also understand not every choice made will be right and that there needs to be room to wind back any errors.

These discussions only center one aspect of the whole BB world, competitive tournament play, which is only one aspect of the whole. The fact that BB can be enjoyed in so many formats is a testament to the underlyings systems flexibility. When GW makes a change to the rules remember that this is also for leagues too. The CRP tightened the rules to make it more suitable for competitive play, at a cost of removing some of the wackiness of the background. Some of this was put back in but in a way that it is optional. Nothing at this point has done anything to break the game, if they wanted to more balance the game a reduction in wardancer power would be a good start and I have not heard anyone clamouring for that yet.

I

[fromherashes]

I have noticed a trend amongst the podcasters that seems rather negative to anything new that has come out, before any of it was actually tried. I know that it's often possible to look at something and get a feel for what it might be, but you only really understand by experiencing what it is. I think the demographic of bloodbowl coaches seems to center around a certain age where people start becoming set in their ways. When listening to people who would not have been able to participate in the hobby when the 3rd edition was released seem much more accepting of the fact it might change (not necessarily the exact changes) I think we need to get past the idea that the old way is the only way and accept that their will be additions and modifications and that the intention is not to destroy a game, but also understand not every choice made will be right and that there needs to be room to wind back any errors.

These discussions only center one aspect of the whole BB world, competitive tournament play, which is only one aspect of the whole. The fact that BB can be enjoyed in so many formats is a testament to the underlyings systems flexibility. When GW makes a change to the rules remember that this is also for leagues too. The CRP tightened the rules to make it more suitable for competitive play, at a cost of removing some of the wackiness of the background. Some of this was put back in but in a way that it is optional. Nothing at this point has done anything to break the game, if they wanted to more balance the game a reduction in wardancer power would be a good start and I have not heard anyone clamouring for that yet.

I

We didn’t have an issue with the changes. My main issue is the lack of QC and proof reading.

[fromherashes]

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.

[fromherashes]

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.

You sound angry...

[Darkson]

if they wanted to more balance the game a reduction in wardancer power would be a good start and I have not heard anyone clamouring for that yet.I

You must have not been looking in the right places, this was a call for years - then for some reason we got the catcher change instead.

[Darkson]

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

Possibly - given some of their history it's possible it wasn't playtested at all, or only by a very, very limited amount of people (the old Dirty Player rule and the staff league comes to mind). (That's not specifically a Blood Bowl problem, or even a GW problem, many/most games I've played over the years have had issues due to the way playtesting has been done - for example, Warhammer Underworlds, Scrappers and Frostgrave have all had issues big or small,)

[TopsyKretts]

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.

There was an interview from one of the game designers of Necromunda. That game has certainly never been play-tested, let alone proof-read. It was a result of too few people working on too many games, with deadlines, corporate decisions and whatnot. The guy in the interview also had a newborn baby.

Still, I wonder how so much of the new content for Blood Bowl is so good (consistent, functional). While other games from GW have garbage quality, with errors often showing up in the sneak-peaks before release. GW recently had to withdraw some sneak-peak of an upcoming book, because it was incorrect (lack of quality control).

[Jip]

Still, I wonder how so much of the new content for Blood Bowl is so good (consistent, functional). While other games from GW have garbage quality, with errors often showing up in the sneak-peaks before release. GW recently had to withdraw some sneak-peak of an upcoming book, because it was incorrect (lack of quality control).

It might just be that, with Blood Bowl, there’s simply less variables to for developers and testers to Duck up. Fundamental rules are fairly static, less characteristics to manipulate (Human Lineman = 4, Space Marine = 9) and skills rarely get added to.

Compare that to something as metamorphic as 40k or Necromunda and there’s just less opportunity* to royally screw it up.



*not zero, clearly!

[fromherashes]

There was an interview from one of the game designers of Necromunda. That game has certainly never been play-tested, let alone proof-read. It was a result of too few people working on too many games, with deadlines, corporate decisions and whatnot. The guy in the interview also had a newborn baby.

Still, I wonder how so much of the new content for Blood Bowl is so good (consistent, functional). While other games from GW have garbage quality, with errors often showing up in the sneak-peaks before release. GW recently had to withdraw some sneak-peak of an upcoming book, because it was incorrect (lack of quality control).

Well they clearly had someone that knows what they were doing as Necromunda plays well.

Blood Bowl works well, how many of the changes have been unplayable (in either a good or bad way)? I can’t think of any. And I don’t mean suboptimal, I mean totally broken.

[ugrosh]

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.