Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[VoodooMike]

Then again, before doing so I'd imagine that Cyanide would have asked me, in which case I'd have said that for the purpose of selling their game, it would not be a good idea to implement NTBB or CRP+

The point was that if they don't delve particularly deep into the community, and base their decisions on skimming the various communities and seeing what gets discussed, then they're likely to end up implementing things that are highly contentious rather than things that a majority think should be implemented. It totally doesn't matter whom they approach or ask questions to in that scenario - we end up with a product built from ignorance and intellectual laziness.

Skimming the community also gives them slanted ideas on who they should consult when developing their products.

[koadah]

Heh heh.

Are you implying that all my whining may not have been for nought?

[VoodooMike]

Heh heh.

Are you implying that all my whining may not have been for nought?

Quantity over quality, baby!

[GalakStarscraper]

The CRP+ rules are rules compiled and circulated by plasmoid to BBRC members. That they didn't object to the idea that they would be worth testing is a world away from saying they were on the way to adopting them.

True ... but the starting point of the CRP+ was the list that the BBRC members were kicking around in the area of ... if we get another go ... things we think could stand to be tested. So it was not Plasmoid's list originally but the items on that were left on the BBRC list of things to do when it was disbanded.

But that was the clear point that was being made ... those 10 were on the list of things we thought needed tested. We did not know if the changes should be made ... but we could see those 10 items as having possible positive effects for the game if they tested out like we hoped they would.

I said it once on 3DB ... I like a lot of what was in the CRP+ list ... the Narrowing Bands stuff ... most of that was not my cup of tea personally.

[Rolex]

The CRP+ rules are rules compiled and circulated by plasmoid to BBRC members. That they didn't object to the idea that they would be worth testing is a world away from saying they were on the way to adopting them.

True ... but the starting point of the CRP+ was the list that the BBRC members were kicking around in the area of ... if we get another go ... things we think could stand to be tested. So it was not Plasmoid's list originally but the items on that were left on the BBRC list of things to do when it was disbanded.

But that was the clear point that was being made ... those 10 were on the list of things we thought needed tested. We did not know if the changes should be made ... but we could see those 10 items as having possible positive effects for the game if they tested out like we hoped they would.

I said it once on 3DB ... I like a lot of what was in the CRP+ list ... the Narrowing Bands stuff ... most of that was not my cup of tea personally.

I have similar views.
CRP+ ideas have some merit (some have a lot, some have less) but all need playtesting.

I must say don't like most of NTTBB (having tested it quite a lot) because I think the game is better with these tiers.
The wide tiers are one of the things I have come to love of the game.

Anyway some of the ideas proposed in the NTTBB have some merit as well, and might deserve playtesting.
Even with the idea of keeping tiers the way they are.

[plasmoid]

Hi Galak,
thanks a lot for clearing that up!
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Shteve0,
if you're gonna be my personal heckler for all eternity, perhaps I could persuade you to check out the site. I get the sense it has been a while since you visited.
http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm

New coaches coming on here are unlikely to realise that CRP and CRP+ are two absolutely unrelated constructs developed by two completely different parties for two different purposes. One is official, the other is not. In my view, that point needs to be expressed.

I'd expect anyone trying to find out what the heck CRP+ is would find the site.
I think the site openly and repeatedly (ad bleeding nauseam) states that they're unofficial.

claims it has a statistical basis, that narrow tiers is a design goal or that it's what the BBRC would 'probably' have done... those things are either demonstrably untrue or or, at best, pure guesswork.

Speaking of demonstrably untrue...

a) It certainly uses descriptive statistics. I think the site also quite clearly explains that these do not provide the proof to do anything. As men of science, the prudent thing to do would be to do nothing for a loooong time. House rules for the daringly impatient then

b) Narrow tiers very much is a design goal. The site lists 5 ways in which the tiers have been narrowed compared to CRP.
I'd be happy to try to make individual tiers even narrower, but as you and I both know, we don't have the piles of data required to do that in any sort of reliable way, so I gave up trying (more than anything because of the accusations that would go with it).

c) As Galak has already replied - prior to CRP was a continuous cycle of BBRC ideas getting tested and a lot of them adopted. After CRP, Galak posted a list of rules that would have gone to testing, had the cycle not been terminated. My CRP+ started with Galaks list - check out the site for details - and was created in collaboration with BBRC members. That doesn't make it official. And since the BBRC is no more, then it is not going to be. But it represents the direction testing would have gone. Whether these precise versions would have gone to testing - who knows. And whether they would fail in testing - who knows. I don't think the site is secretive about that either.

In short - I think I've put in quite a lot of Work since 2013.
Heck, I even put the CRP+ and NT Rosters on separate pages

Cheers
Martin

[Shteve0]

Hi Martin, sorry not to reply sooner - I've only just seen this!

That first block where I talk about the claims being demonstrably untrue and the absence of a statistical basis - that was not in reference to claims you were making, but rather the claims Decker was making on NTBB's behalf. I'm not attacking you - I'm just stepping in to clear up some myths that seem to crop up irritatingly often.

Here's what I said:

Let's bust open some myths here. NTBB is not based on statistics, nor is it about narrowing bands. It's based on observation and is about narrowing the gap between tiers, not within them. The CRP+ rules are rules compiled and circulated by plasmoid to BBRC members. That they didn't object to the idea that they would be worth testing is a world away from saying they were on the way to adopting them. Plasmoid allows (encourages?) a lot of grey area to develop around his house rules and fosters a legitimacy to them that honestly I don't believe exists. Which is a shame as it unfortunately detracts from some decent ideas (and some not so decent ideas).

1) NTBB is not based on statistics
We've already been over this at length. The thrust of it is that you've looked at a data sample and reference it in the changes you've made. That's more than most have done, but it's still certainly not a statistical basis for the changes you're proposing. Your changes are based on observation - observation of a small data sample and observation of your games and those close to you.

2) nor is it about narrowing bands
I have seen nowhere on your site any definition of what constitutes a tier, how narrow it is currently, where teams sit within them... or how you intend to narrow them, by how much and around what mid point. What you're doing is trying to boost crap teams and weaken top teams, and I quote, "These house rules are intended for coaches and leagues that - like myself - would like to slightly narrow the gap between the best BB teams and the worst. The ambition is not to make all teams equal, but to make all teams viable, hopefully diversifying your team choices as well as that of your opponents". That aim (and I'm not saying you're achieving it, because there's no way of knowing, which undermines the name further) would make the tiers closer together, not narrower. If you want the overall pool of teams to be more similar in performance levels, then fine, but narrowing tiers wouldn't achieve that - this is a weird one for me because it's so blindingly obvious to me that you've no intention of narrowing tiers that I'm utterly baffled as to why you've called it Narrow Tier BB in the first place.

3) The CRP+ rules are rules compiled and circulated by plasmoid to BBRC members. That they didn't object to the idea that they would be worth testing is a world away from saying they were on the way to adopting them.
I've seen Galak's post above. I still believe this statement to be broadly accurate. If anything I think it reinforces the point I was making - that you started from a bigger list that was under consideration by the BBRC for testing. That's great, totally. And I think it's cool that the rules you picked were liked by some of the BBRC members. But at the end of the day, it's still just a wishlist of some of your favourite houserules, even if a couple of the BBRC guys like them (and I'm making no value judgement on the rules). Which takes us to...

Plasmoid allows (encourages?) a lot of grey area to develop around his house rules and fosters a legitimacy to them that honestly I don't believe exists. Which is a shame as it unfortunately detracts from some decent ideas (and some not so decent ideas).

Perhaps this is unfair, but what I'm saying is that my frustration with you is related to some slightly grandiose naming of your house rules and that, where your house rules are concerned, I perceive you to be unforthcoming in dispelling the above misconceptions.

FWIW, my subsequent post about the unofficial nature of your rules needing to be expressed was nothing to do with people going to your site, it was in response to a post on this site; what I was saying there is that I think when claims (not your claims, but the exaggerated legitimacy that's derived from your decision to name your house rules CRP+) on TFF that your rules are stats based, handed down from the BBRC and constitute a narrow tier system need to be corrected. For instance it wouldn't take a huge dose of uncritical thinking for some half arsed developer or other to pick up on a legitimate sounding set of house rules in the mistaken belief that they're a widely adopted, next-Gen BBRC approved, stat based ruleset for suddenly all manner of potentially game changing untested rules to make it into the next version of the game's most widely played format. Thank goodness there aren't any of those aro--- oh.

I hope you can see, there's no ill will here. I'm really just pointing out what I consider to be facts, I'd do the same to anyone who called their rules CRP2, LRB7, Robustly Tested Stats Based Blood Bowl etc. If you'd just called your rules Plasmoid's House Rules I doubt we'd see half of the (erroneous) claims made about your rules circulating and I absolutely wouldn't give a damn.

[koadah]

Heh heh. It's a slick bit of marketing no mistake.

If Cyanide have have adopted some or all of Plasmoid's I'd say "nice work".

All I'd want is the option for private league commishes to use plain CRP.
Or even better, use the Fumbbl approach and allow commishes to pick and choose which house rules they apply.

Hopefully the delay is due to making things optional after the "aging" revolt.

[dode74]

My CRP+ started with Galaks list - check out the site for details - and was created in collaboration with BBRC members.

This is true, but the list you have now is not the same thing as that original list. To that end, where your site claims that they are "approved for further unofficial testing by Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage of the former BBRC" it's simply not the case. Your list is an evolution (which is not necessarily an improvement) on that list, but it is not the same list; the claim on your site is therefore untrue.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,

This is true, but the list you have now is not the same thing as that original list. To that end, where your site claims that they are "approved for further unofficial testing by Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage of the former BBRC" it's simply not the case. Your list is an evolution (which is not necessarily an improvement) on that list, but it is not the same list; the claim on your site is therefore untrue.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, so it bothers me that any casual reader could stumble upon your claim of 'untruth'.
As detailed on the site, Galak created a list of rules.
After having posted my first version of a list inspired by his, I did indeed contact Galak and Ian and made a new version "created in collaboration with BBRC members". Several changes to my first draft were made, and they both had right of veto. But we managed to reach an agreement, and that list is the one "approved for further unofficial testing by Tom and Ian". I contacted Stephen at a later date, and he OK'd it too.

If you can be bothered to look at the site, than you can see a comparison between Galaks original list and the one that Galak, Ian and I worked out.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

You mean this? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBBCRP.htm

in february 2012 at a list that we could all agree on. That list is what I now refer to as CRP+.

The current CRP+ list is not the same as the 2012 list, I believe. There were changes in 2014 IIRC.

BTW, I've read your site from start to finish several times. So yeah, I can be "bothered".

[stashman]

Plasmoid did a great job with the crp+ with the former bbrc.

We use it now and have only played one season but we have also played extra matches on teams that have played over 100 games.

Banking rule helps underdogs alot with extra inducements. Teams like chaos, c dwarfs, dwarfs and orcs have loads of cash and can always buy new players were alot of teams struggle. Undead also have a pile of money but are not that strong team, as developed bash teams.

The new right stuff and sneaky git is a great way to make weak teams be in the compition.

[VoodooMike]

Plasmoid did a great job with the crp+ with the former bbrc.

QED.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,
I'm glad you've read the site. Thanks. Makes conversation easier.

The current CRP+ list is not the same as the 2012 list, I believe. There were changes in 2014 IIRC.

That is correct. However, the majority of changes have been to NT Rosters. Very few have been to the CRP+ rules.
To elaborate:
In 2013 Sneaky Git was tweaked to not be affected by Bloodweiser Babes and Bank was reworded (but not changed). I asked Galak and Ian and they didn't care. This was also on the list I showed Babs.
In 2014 Bank jumped to 150K. This was on Galaks original list. And Right Stuff voided Tackle. This was also on Galaks original list.
In 2015 Khemri switched back to CRP rules. This was cleared with Galak, but also, as CRP+ is a list of approved changes to CRP, getting rid of a thing on the list just Means going back to CRP.

Cheers
Martin