How could a new BBRC work?

[Bakunin]

Given that blood bowl is a dead game, and gw have no interest in the game, then a new BBRC could only make house rules. If, through naf one want to a lrb7 rule sets, it seems like the only way to give it legitimacy is to democratize NAF! That some guys from England and the United States (which no one voted for) have made a house rules set gives it no legitimacy .. It's a good idea to get a fumbbl guy on a new BBRC, but i think that the whole the BB community should be represented - representatives from The Latin countries, Scandinavia/Germany, Australia/New Zealand seems to be a way to provide rules legitimacy.

Also, a new BBRC must have the possibility to change in the rules. Example - do something about Clawpomb..

[Pehr]

I'm simply pointing out that FUMBBL's developers are not actively interested in FUMBBL. I don't think they're going to ditch it, or do no work on it ever, ...

There was some work earlier this year to get non-progression tournaments going on FUMBBL.
https://fumbbl.com/p/group&group=9298&op=view

Also, rumours say that Big C is working on "custom rosters" to be implemented in League division.
That would allow things like this:
https://fumbbl.com/help:SecretLeague
Which would be a great benefit for fumbbl...

However, nobody knows when it will come, if ever...

Regarding CRP+, I think it's a good idea to make a "New Community Edition" just like Necromunda.

[sann0638]

There was some work earlier this year to get non-progression tournaments going on FUMBBL.
https://fumbbl.com/p/group&group=9298&op=view

Some work?

250 in the first tournament, over 100 in the most recent? Quite a lot of work!

[Joemanji]

Yeah, having covered just one evening of that work whilst Phil was on holiday, I can attest to just how much is involved. That is the annoying thing about all these discussions I guess. Easy to have an opinion on the internet. Less easy to spend hours and hours of your free time doing admin so that the NAF / FUMBBL can work.

Given that blood bowl is a dead game, and gw have no interest in the game, then a new BBRC could only make house rules. If, through naf one want to a lrb7 rule sets, it seems like the only way to give it legitimacy is to democratize NAF! That some guys from England and the United States (which no one voted for) have made a house rules set gives it no legitimacy .. It's a good idea to get a fumbbl guy on a new BBRC, but i think that the whole the BB community should be represented - representatives from The Latin countries, Scandinavia/Germany, Australia/New Zealand seems to be a way to provide rules legitimacy.

One nation, one vote? So something like how FIFA works now? Seems to be a fine model. But in seriousness, it is hugely important that a potential BBRC is a meritocracy. No voting in the people who shout loudest on the internet. No token representatives.

If we can just be realistic for a moment, we nerds as a group are very bad at accepting we don't know best about everything. If there was a BBRC, I would want people to apply for positions on it as they would do a job, and be interviewed accordingly. The best people we have to award these positions are the NAF committee. Let's hope it remains sensible. Whatever you say about the NAF, you can't complain that they are not conservative enough. And long may that continue. As a community I really don't think we deal well with change.

[sann0638]

democratize NAF!

Yeah, elections! http://talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopi ... 81&t=41401

[Chris]

Seriously though I think it all comes down to Cyanide. Without that all NAF can do is a house rule set for tournies. Which is no bad thing of course.

[Pehr]

There was some work earlier this year to get non-progression tournaments going on FUMBBL.
https://fumbbl.com/p/group&group=9298&op=view

Some work?

250 in the first tournament, over 100 in the most recent? Quite a lot of work!

sorry, bad choice of words yes, that is a lot of work!

anyway, I had no idea that it so much time developing

[harvestmouse]

Yeah, having covered just one evening of that work whilst Phil was on holiday, I can attest to just how much is involved. That is the annoying thing about all these discussions I guess. Easy to have an opinion on the internet. Less easy to spend hours and hours of your free time doing admin so that the NAF / FUMBBL can work.

Yes, yes it is.

My first main point, is I dislike the Blood Bowlers being split into Table Toppers and Onliners. I see little difference here (being a player that started and spent most of his life on TT and has moved to Computer based clients). Yes there are differences in how post/pre game is handled (which can and should be house ruled depending on the environment), and yes I cried when my IGMEOY was taken away. However if something is troublesome to monitor on TT, so be it take it out.

For me we should be considering the 3 common formats, rather online vs tt. These being Resurrection/Short term leagues, Long term leagues/Mid term leagues, Perpetual/arranged matches. This I feel is far more important.

However, unlike some I feel now is not the time. Let's see what happens with the Cyanide release (or until we know exactly is going to be the Cyanide release) and what happens with NAF/Cyanide relations.

As to FUMBBL, I don't think it would be FUMBBL's (as a site) lack of interest in play testing new rules. I think there would be some worry about testing something that is purely Cyanide and annoying a commercial company. If that can be avoided, it's really not in FUMBBL's interest to annoy the tail of commercial companies.

However as pointed out the main problem would be coding. FUMBBL, simply cannot do this overnight. Yes, there is one key coder. He has had helpers, but they come and go. He is also very very busy and has a personal life that isn't swimming along perfectly. As for his dedication, I do not doubt this at all. However patience and sympathy is needed for a lot of the key players on FUMBBL, it's a hobby after all. This of course, doesn't take into account how easy it is to code. Something that may seem simple, may not. It also may involve several people. Graphics/Site/Client coding are all lead by 3 different incredibly hard working (real and on the site) people.

Regarding the old client and being left behind. That was a coding problem, the coder could no longer work on it and it was patched in such a way, it would have been easier to make a new client than to sort out the old one.

The downside of getting FUMBBL to do any testing is..........getting them to do the testing. If it's not in a main division, the player base simply will not do it. With the release of the latest client, we needed to test changes that would affect them directly. The response for testers in a test division was very poor, whilst the main divisions got just as many games as usual. With an outside organisation, requesting testing...........sigh.

Regarding the key questions:

Who would a new set of rules affect (i.e. where would they be used)?

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? That's for each representative to decide. I have no doubt that FUMBBL at least would follow, if the NAF followed. So it's key for this new BBRC to be at least NAF approved.

Who should be on the BBRC?

Just me and only me....... Well of course, the more organisation representatives you can get on board, the more likely a BBRC would be accepted. One person (or type of person) I would stress to have on the board would be somebody who understands the original premise of GW and has a good understanding of the GW gaming worlds. Especially each of the BB eras. Somebody who understands and has sympathies for the portrayal. I feel this is eroding away, with the competitiveness of the game.

How should the rule changes be decided?

If there was a BBRC, and they were to consider Cyanide changes (seems to be the core behind the idea). This would mean the rest of the BB world would have a different ruleset to Cyanide (unless the BBRC was just a rubber stamp committee). So it doesn't seem to be a huge leap, to then consider other play tested rule changes. If you're going to try and leap the grand canyon, you may as well give it your best effort; failing has the same result anyway.

[Vanguard]

For me we should be considering the 3 common formats, rather online vs tt. These being Resurrection/Short term leagues, Long term leagues/Mid term leagues, Perpetual/arranged matches. This I feel is far more important.

Yup, very good point. Some of those formats are more common in TT or online, but it is the format that is important, not the arena.

[Pakulkan]

Nice to see this kind of feedback topics.

- Who would a new set of rules affect (i.e. where would they be used)?

At the very beginning, NAF tournaments and leagues. From this point, I truly believe many different coaches would endorse this NAF ruleset. If you could add fumbbl people to the BBRC to assure they will follow the LRB7, this would be the truly inclusive ruleset.

Being honest, to care about those guys who still play 3ed or Golden rules have no sense. Community is connected, 3ed players probably follow these rules because de don't care (or don't know) about the BB community.

As an example, I am just start playing Battlefleet Gothic. I would love to have a BFG community of thousands of players endorsing a single ruleset, but what I found are several documents, some of them slightly more popular. I am afraid that without the authority of a massive support from a big players organization, would follow BFG rules progression. We could also think that we could simply follow current LRB6.0 as a stable ruleset, but the impulse of reviewing rules would always be there, so far I prefer to conduct this through an organization like NAF (and a related procedure including experienced players) rather than different player groups.

- Who should be on the BBRC?

Easy and difficult question. I am totally against country-based formation. BBRC should eventually formed by players with:

a) Long track experience as players (not only lots of games played, but played in different BB editions).
b) Experience in managing tournaments and leagues. This pretend to filter a group of players that already faced managing (time frames, priorities, negotiation...).
c) Connected and known in the community. This would provide them (and BBRC) a very welcome prestige.

- How should the rule changes be decided?

Starting with the set of rules that were listed to consider in a putative LRB7.
Monitoring BloodBowl development (just in case metagame eventually changes, not so probable but worthy to take into account).
Following community instructions and generating an strategic plan (i.e. community would not decide specific rules changes, but the purpose of the BBRC: Is the purpose to narrow tiers? is the purpose to generate a ballanced alternative ruleset/rosters for Resurrection tournaments? Would be a re-active group to, for example fix skills that are not used at all? Could they modifiy core rules or just adapt rosters and/or skills?).
Evaluate suitability of 3rd party modifications (e.g. Cyanide).

Every imput should be tested and analyzed (using fumbbl, Cyanide, tournament, league data) for a period of time before its consideration as rule change.


Finally, a point regarding rule changes. I guess the important thing here is not to change rules, but to have an organism capable of analize inputs, and moreover, an organism that certify the game is not abandoned in terms of ruling.

Then, a newcomer could easily find that the biggest TT players organization (NAF) not only support operational BB, but also take care that the rules of the game are living, independently of what number of changes (if any) are proposed or the time necessary for their implementation. Maybe final conclusion is that LRB6.0 would be untouched by many years, but I would prefer to take this as a conclusion from the BBRC instead of by a supression of the game by GW (and that was indeed what stopped the BBRC the first time, not the decission that LRB6.0 was definitive).

Thanks Sann for asking. Very constructive debate though.

[koadah]

For me we should be considering the 3 common formats, rather online vs tt. These being Resurrection/Short term leagues, Long term leagues/Mid term leagues, Perpetual/arranged matches. This I feel is far more important.

Yup, very good point. Some of those formats are more common in TT or online, but it is the format that is important, not the arena.

For long term online leagues people can get more games in more quickly. Online is more likely to stress the rules.

[spubbbba]

For me we should be considering the 3 common formats, rather online vs tt. These being Resurrection/Short term leagues, Long term leagues/Mid term leagues, Perpetual/arranged matches. This I feel is far more important.

It's an interesting point, I have previously thought of somehow having a tabletop and online split in the rules to better suit each environment. But both FUMBBL and Cyanide have healthy league environments that are pretty close to how tabletop leagues play.

So maybe a better split in the rules would be between resurrection and progressive rules? Maybe even change the starting teams for resurrection to make them as balanced as possible, so narrow tiers only applies to them. Leagues could have teams that either don't progress or reset after each game but allow the addition of some skills over the course of the season. Either pre-set choices or allow a certain amount of assignment by a points system.

[dode74]

Even the progressive rules work out differently between MM/B environments and progression leagues.

[frogboy]

If leagues reset after each game or had a restriction on skilling up then it would be pointless playing in a league, I mean the whole reason people play so much/plaay so many games is to gain advancements.
That's why all these games are so addictive, it's a quick reward. Your brain releases chemicals into the brain which makes you feel good when you "achieve" something. Just look at minecraft or clash of clans for example.
Basically I'm saying if you take away the reward aspect of the game then it would stop being played by a lot as people's brains would search out another option to forfill it's need for love...

Anyway told myself I should stay away from these threads but i'm an adict

[MattDakka]

If leagues reset after each game or had a restriction on skilling up then it would be pointless playing in a league, I mean the whole reason people play so much/plaay so many games is to gain advancements.
That's why all these games are so addictive, it's a quick reward.

Yes, one of the reasons to play in a league is earning new skills changing your team's potential, and some teams really suck without a few basic skills.
There are non-progression resurrection tournaments for people not liking the skill stacking typical of leagues.