What if Cyanide did to BloodBowl what GW did to Warhammer?

[Digger Goreman]

The customer is the blood bowl player and what he wants is a stable rules set with long considered and statistically defensible, properly tested options.

I've argued for nothing else at length on these very forums. Thing is, changes (and people seem to want them) need data for them to be considered properly tested. By providing the user with options Cyanide will be able to gather data on all of these options which can then be used to see which are statistically defensible (i.e. balanced) and which are fun (i.e. popular).

Baseball is so successful because the rules have been ironclad since 1982 when the designated hitter was introduced (a player's union decision that had nothing to really do with the rules and is still contentious today)... rules change committees haven't bothered to meet in over 20 years....

This is not baseball. The failures in that analogy are legion.

I suggest sir that, given your tag line, you are less than neutral on the issue....

I suggest, sir, that you are talking out of your arse. I've been very critical of Cyanide when they deserve it, and on their own forums as the moderator of those forums. If you're talking about the "toadie" bit that was put there years ago (I believe by Darkson) as a joke. I've never bothered asking to have it changed simply because such lines don't bother me in any way.

First point sounds reasonable... not sensible given Cyanide's purported track record.... They could change....

Second point isn't reasonable nor sensible.... Unsupported denial is just unsupported denial.... First strike....

Third point(?)... well, you leave something on your post, without disclaimer, and you own it.... Expecting anyone/everyone to be in on the joke is absurd, ofc.... Second strike....

Bringing the immoderate moderator into a conversation is totally indefensible.... Third strike, ... and you're outta there....

Bon chance, amigo, you could have handled that better....

[dode74]

That's a pretty sad response. You here to score points or discuss the issue? I can do either one.

Unsupported denial is just unsupported denial....

Unsupported analogy is just unsupported analogy. If you insist, though, the baseball analogy fails because it refers only to the rules of baseball as a single competitive sport. Nowhere in the rules of baseball, as far as I am aware, does it say anything akin to the "house rules" section of BB, nor is it likely as loose in its description of how to schedule a league. I could be wrong on both those points, of course, and if you are able to point me to a "house rules" section or a "schedule it however you works" bit of the baseball rules then I will happily concede your analogy works. Otherwise I maintain that your analogy is a failure.

you leave something on your post, without disclaimer, and you own it.... Expecting anyone/everyone to be in on the joke is absurd, ofc....

I expect nothing of anyone. I particularly don't expect people to claim bias on the basis of a single sentence (whichever one it is you mean) and yet you do so. Pretty sad.

Bringing the immoderate moderator into a conversation is totally indefensible....

Disagreeing with Cyanide is not the same as being an immoderate moderator. While I'm sure you'd love that to be some sort of clever wording it's simply inaccuracy on your part.

you could have handled that better....

Mmm hmmm....

[Wulfyn]

The customer is the blood bowl player and what he wants is a stable rules set with long considered and statistically defensible, properly tested options.

Hi Digger, nice to meet you.

What should we do if the current rules are stable, but are not the best that they could be? What if the current rules, as you put it, are not statistically defensible, and were not properly tested? Should we stick with a stable but sub-optimal rule set, or should we change to something better?

Baseball is so successful because the rules have been ironclad since 1982 when the designated hitter was introduced (a player's union decision that had nothing to really do with the rules and is still contentious today)... rules change committees haven't bothered to meet in over 20 years....

I'm not sure I believe that this is why Baseball is so successful. I'm no expert at all, but I do recall Baseball being pretty popular in the post war years. In popular culture, at least, I feel that it was very popular before 1982. Meanwhile football (association), has undergone a significant number of rule changes and still remains the world's most popular sport.

My first World Cup was Italia '90, but looking back it feels odd to watch because players were allowed to pass back to the goalkeeper, and they were allowed to pick up the ball. That was changed in 1992, and a year later you were allowed to have 3 substitutes instead of 2. Of course then you had to name the 3 subs in advance, but over the years, and at different rates in different competitions, the rules for that changed so that now you are allowed to name 7 subs and change up to 3. There have been numerous minor alterations to the offside rule (2004-2014), tackling from behind was changed to a red card offence (1995), in the Premier League pitch sizes were all forced to be the same size rather than within a range, although with exceptions to some pre-existing stadia (2013), and the Golden Goal came (1993) and went (2002), to be replaced by the Silver Goal that lasted just 2 years.

I think it is fair to say that games do not need a completely stable rule set to be successful.

[harvestmouse]

These topics are blurring into 1.

Personally I think this whole line on baseball is a red herring. You can make arguments for and against and it still doesn't make a jot of difference or has much relevance to BB (blood bowl not base ball). A traditional sport and a commercial product sell themselves very differently.

On a side note, I don't think that's true about the Premier pitches Wulfyn, they are still indeed within a range.

[Digger Goreman]

Hey Wulfyn!

A fair enough question and a good, if mildly confusing, counterexample.... Not at all your fault, I have only a very basic understanding of the beautiful game....

In light of all the discussion, a curious past circumstance comes to memory: by LRB 4/5 there was a cry, by some, to stop tinkering with the rules... very opposite to now, non? Indeed, now that we have no way to make change, others want change.... I really think everyone wants just what they want.... And now that GW has forbid the BBRC... some want a new BBRC.... The Kingmakers are most vociferous, believing their chosen ones will give them their vision of the holy grail of rule books... or at least call Camelot to court....

To answer your question, and knowing you read my manifesto, the rules are mostly stable... and, yes, I'd like to see them better.... However, my vision of balancing will sacrifice so many sacred cows.... Alive and Undead....

As I said before, I was a big fan of the LRB process.... Two years of testing is a great period of time.... Only two out of six people seemed capable of putting their agendas aside and promoting the game... The other three, and King Jervis, prevented the process from achieving its potential.... Even if Morgana La GW lifted her spell, there are no worthies among the present day contenders that could raise Camelot again.... If ever there could, I hope they will take on Voodoo Mike as their Merlin.... That cat has got some crazy understanding of Stats Magic....

Wulfyn, these threads have taken theory bowl to the extreme.... And the extremists are pleased, thinking their ideals will be realized, and the unbelievers subdued.... What I see is the natural lay of things: A "good as it can get" (without house rules) TT rulebook, a tournament (dis)organization with delusions of grandeur, an extremely clever Java, almost straight BB, creation that sadly intends to buy into the delusion, and a not so clever software company that elfed up and will do anything to obey the courts findings and demands....

Then there is that ephemeral figure: an old Necromancer, perhaps,... crazy Zarathustra, maybe... more like Chuang... but mostly just the little boy that annoyingly points to the emperor's non existent clothes....

Pleased to meet you....

[dode74]

I really think everyone wants just what they want....

Hence options.

[koadah]

I really think everyone wants just what they want....

Hence options.

Yes options.

[Digger Goreman]

I really think everyone wants just what they want....

Hence options.

Yes options.

Hence unofficial, non binding, house rules....

[dode74]

Hence unofficial, non binding, house rules....

I don't think anyone has suggested anything different.

[plasmoid]

Agreed

[VoodooMike]

It's all very well and good to say "more options are best!", but this isn't a single-player game. What people want isn't simply to have the rules be what they think is best, they want (and, in fact, require) other people who also want the same thing. To that end, what people really need is a set of rules that everyone can accept.

Which set of rules is that, among all the hundreds of proposed rules and changes? Whichever set someone bothers to implement. If you try to do it by committee you'll get nowhere because this is a community of pig-headed jackasses that haven't had an open mind since the mid 80s.

[dode74]

To that end, what people really need is a set of rules that everyone can accept.

That's only true if everyone is playing in the same league. Over multiple leagues there's no problem with there being multiple rulesets and, unless they plan on not allowing private leagues, there will be multiple leagues.

My own preference (and as an example of how it could be set up) would be for CRP as default with lots of options available. Several default Cyanide leagues with pure CRP for one and a couple of their favourite options for one or two others would work in a similar manner to Nagg etc (with a similar move to one ruleset or another in general). The main point of options is to allow private leagues to play however they like, though.

[koadah]

It's all very well and good to say "more options are best!", but this isn't a single-player game. What people want isn't simply to have the rules be what they think is best, they want (and, in fact, require) other people who also want the same thing. To that end, what people really need is a set of rules that everyone can accept.

No. They don't.

They only need a set of rules that is widely accepted enough for them to be able to get a game. As long as the rules do not diverge too much people can still easily switch between them.

I don't see any point in playing a rule set that you do not enjoy and/or doesn't suit the environment when you can have something that is better suited.

If Cyanide go ahead and change the rules then will have different rule sets whether we like it or not. Unless the NAF blindly follows them that is. Cyanide will change the rules to suit their open environments. we'll be fortunate if they give much consideration to anything else.

[Milo]

It's all very well and good to say "more options are best!", but this isn't a single-player game. What people want isn't simply to have the rules be what they think is best, they want (and, in fact, require) other people who also want the same thing. To that end, what people really need is a set of rules that everyone can accept.

We have that now -- it's called the CRP.

Anything else is now, and will likely remain, a house rule. But there's nothing wrong with discussing those house rules, making recommendations, and testing them to see if they achieve their stated aim.

[harvestmouse]

It's all very well and good to say "more options are best!", but this isn't a single-player game. What people want isn't simply to have the rules be what they think is best, they want (and, in fact, require) other people who also want the same thing. To that end, what people really need is a set of rules that everyone can accept.

We have that now -- it's called the CRP.

We definitely do not. I enjoyed playing progression games much more under LRB 4 than I do CRP. Where I agree that many/most of the changes were for the better, the overall package (for me and others) is most certainly inferior.

I'm more than happy that we all play the same rules on the field. I just think that MM the same way for completely different environments holds everybody back. It's all good and well house ruling things here, but more than most want to play the official product.