NAF response to possible BB2 rule changes

[harvestmouse]

Great post by Geggster, extremely informative.

Christer has stated that FUMBBL would follow the NAF's lead on issues like the Khorne roster. Now FUMBBL has a resurrection format, you can almost guarantee this will also play to official NAF rules/rulings. So we have some unity there.

I think the in game rules play more than fine across the different formats. Where the ruleset needs different formats is in match making. Or to be more precise have officially recommended match making formulas in the 3 distinct formats. Resurrection, long term leagues and open perpetual. I believe it's in nobody's best interest to have the same match making formula as it's too restrictive and compromising. It also does not affect any core rules. Even resurrection would benefit from this, as it could be used to make unused skills more enticing.

I'm also with Matt in that in lrb 5 onwards, long term leagues are negatively affected by TV match making, or possibly the removal of aging.

[RoterSternHochdahl]

In Germany the Cyanide game has greatly helped to recrute new TT tournament players including myself. I cannot exclude that occasionaly people enter the tournament scene because they used to play years ago but Cyanide - catalyzed by the German online community - has definitely been the number one impetus for new players to go to TT tournaments and join the NAF over the last few years.

[Regash]

And some of them are very strong at low TV, others are very strong at high TV, some others suck for design.
This doesn't make the game as enjoyable as it could be with more balanced teams, because people tend to avoid the weak teams. Goblins, Halflings, Ogres, Vampires are funny, but on FUMBBL most coaches play tier 1 teams, this is the reality.

I know, that is why I avoid any online community, be it FUMBBL or Cyanide
I played a couple of games online and the experience was enough to log out and never look back.
People forget what games are made for. They're made to spend some good time with friends and having fun while playing.
Nowadays, everyone ist just about winning, to be the best, to experience some successes they might lack in real life, I don't know.
Games are for your leisure time, I don't want any pressure in my leasure time.
I want to play, have a laugh and that's all games are there for, at least in my book.
I played two seasons with halflings, got my butt kicked constantly and severly.
Celebrated a 2-2 tie against orcs like I'd won the whole f*cking trophy!

Seriously, all this balancing... Since when have real sports been balanced?
You got the big bucks, you buy the players you want.
Some teams even buy players and make them benchwarmers, just so no other team can have them.
You wanna play competitive? Okay!
Pick the right team for it and off you go.
You wanna play some team that's fun?
Well, then do just that and deal with it.

Sorry, I can't change my opinion about games and gaming.
People tend to take all of this to f*cking serious.

[MattDakka]

This doesn't make the game as enjoyable for me as it could be with more balanced teams, because people tend to avoid the weak teams.

Corrected that for you. You are not everyone. I know quite a few players that won't play anything but tier 3 teams because they enjoy the challenge.

Goblins, Halflings, Ogres, Vampires are funny, but on FUMBBL most coaches play tier 1 teams, this is the reality.

Whoopee doo for Fumbbl. So now we should change the rules just because Fumbbl is full of fun-hating powergamers*?



* Deliberately exaggerated description

Come on... do you think that the majority of BB coaches likes to play tier 3 teams and in general playing being at a disadvantage?
My anecdotal experience (on Cyanide and FUMBBL) suggests that most coaches (not necessarily power gamers) like to win and play the strongest teams.
Tier 3 teams are a very rare sight in Black Box.
FUMBBL and Cyanide of course don't represent the entire BB community but I think they are a good sample of coaches' attitude and preferences.
Making teams weak by design means they will be rarely played, therefore, if we want coaches playing them they should be balanced.

The problem is that almost nobody plays BB as a casual "beer and pretzels" game anymore..

Yes, things have changed, people don't play BB just for fun and giggles.

If you want a challenge you can play any team, including tier 1, and create a challenge based on your selection of players and skills. There's really no reason to create rosters that are incapable of playing on par with other rosters because of that.

Exactly.

It's a waste of versatility and variety, and it's an unnecessary waste when those rosters could be changed to allow them all to be tier 1 teams, but also give room for people who want a challenge to create that challenge for themselves.

Exactly my thought. What's the point of having so many rosters, if people won't play many of them due to their inherent weakness?
One of the things which bothers me a lot when I play is the lack of variety, I'm sure that more balance amongst ALL the 24 teams would increase variety and make the game more enjoyable, more variety = more fun, that's what I meant when I said enjoyable.
For some people playing a hopeless team can be fun, sure, but for most people winning is fun (and you don't have to be a power gamer, it's human nature).

[Darkson]

Go and play NTBB then. Plenty of people play the lower tier races. If you play in environments where they don't that's not the fault of the rules.

[Shteve0]

It's a waste of versatility and variety, and it's an unnecessary waste when those rosters could be changed to allow them all to be tier 1 teams, but also give room for people who want a challenge to create that challenge for themselves.

Exactly my thought. What's the point of having so many rosters, if people won't play many of them due to their inherent weakness?

This made me smile. I'm sure it makes perfect sense, but I'm still reminded of an old Woody Allen joke.

Woman 1: "The food in this restaurant is terrible."
Woman 2: "I know! And the portions are so small".

[MattDakka]

Go and play NTBB then. Plenty of people play the lower tier races. If you play in environments where they don't that's not the fault of the rules.

How?
NTBB is not implemented on FUMBBL and PBeM is so slow that I'm not remotely contemplating it.

[VoodooMike]

So you're saying they get taken in the format the game is designed for, and not taken in formats the game isn't designed for? I'm ok with that.

The format the game was designed for is almost extinct, and when it IS played that way it's certainly not in any way that is associated with the NAF. Additionally, it could still be played that way even if the rosters were all relatively equal. One of the "challenges" people would take in the Cyanide version was to win a single-player campaign using an all-snotling team - that's creating challenge without the challenge being forced when you take the roster.

It seems like a waste of fluff and some players' attraction to associated fluff to have teams like goblins, halflings, and vampires be noncompetitive in design. I acknowledge it was a design decision... but I think it was a very dumb design decision, and now that the people who made those decisions are out of the picture I'd be just as happy to see better decisions replace it.

I'm also with Matt in that in lrb 5 onwards, long term leagues are negatively affected by TV match making, or possibly the removal of aging.

TV is not used for match making, for the most part, anywhere but in environments like Nag/B... the problem that has plagued most environments is that inducements (again, by dumb design decision) do not bridge the gap between team strengths. If the inducement system properly compensated for differences between the two teams then the difference in TV (or whatever is used to match them) is irrelevant - at that point it comes down to which coach plays best, adapts best, and...well... is luckiest with the rolls.

Seriously, all this balancing... Since when have real sports been balanced?

Do you see a lot of little league teams playing against major league teams? What about feather-weight boxers against heavy weights? It turns out that most people don't consider it "sport" to kick the shit out of an intensely inferior opponent, nor are many people entertained by watching a big guy beat up a little guy. The excitement comes from not knowing ahead of time what the outcome will be... in seeing the two sides have to play a dynamic game in order to come out on top.

Go and play NTBB then. Plenty of people play the lower tier races. If you play in environments where they don't that's not the fault of the rules.

Is "plenty" a metric or imperial measure? Again, any time we've seen actual numbers the tier 3 (and even tier 2 races) have been painfully under-represented in every environment. That suggests that they are generally unpopular everywhere, and I think that's a waste. The other side of your glib coin is to say "lets make everyone tier 1 and then YOU can adjust your team to make it crap enough to enjoy your way, but the roster still allows people who want to be competitive to play it and be so".

The ultimate merits of normalizing roster capability is really the topic for another thread, of course. Regardless of which direction that goes, it is predicated on the assumption that someone is actually going to take the reins, which is far from a forgone conclusion.

[Darkson]

Get a league of like-minded individuals, but don't try to change the tiers just because you don't like it.
If you can't find enough like-minded coaches then I guess you're in the minority.

[MattDakka]

Get a league of like-minded individuals, but don't try to change the tiers just because you don't like it.
If you can't find enough like-minded coaches then I guess you're in the minority.

I'm not the only one disliking the tiers.
Many people simply don't bother to play the tier 3 races and avoid their built-in uncompetitiveness by just playing the best teams without complaining, but if you really like BB you want to play all the teams with a decent chance to win (i.e. all teams should have a win rate as close as possible to 50%), currently playing lower-than-tier-1 teams is just a recipe to lose a match and waste 1 hour in a frustrating manner.

[Darkson]

Utter rubbish. So you're saying if you don't want balanced 50/50 teams you don't like Blood Bowl? Tell that to Galak who's a huge halfling fan.

[Regash]

...and waste 1 hour in a frustrating manner.

This is only true if winning is the one and only goal for playing.

I think we're talking about two different things here.
Environments like the online communities on Cyanide and FUMBBL or a tournament are set with completely different circumstances then league play with friends.

A tournament and online play is, you are right there, all about winning.
So, naturally, everyone picks a team capable of winning.
League with friends? Not so much, I think.

Keep that in mind, too.
Different circumstances make different choices.

[sann0638]

The format the game was designed for is almost extinct

Is that a metric or imperial measure?

When playing the game the way it was designed, you don't need to talk about it on the internet or record the results anywhere online. So tricky to measure.

[lunchmoney]

Yes, things have changed, people don't play BB just for fun and giggles.

Using anecdotal evidence of all the games I and my friends play... We do play for fun and giggles.

[spubbbba]

Seriously, all this balancing... Since when have real sports been balanced?

Do you see a lot of little league teams playing against major league teams? What about feather-weight boxers against heavy weights? It turns out that most people don't consider it "sport" to kick the shit out of an intensely inferior opponent, nor are many people entertained by watching a big guy beat up a little guy. The excitement comes from not knowing ahead of time what the outcome will be... in seeing the two sides have to play a dynamic game in order to come out on top.

It happens often with football (soccer), the FA Cup has loads of tiny teams in the early rounds and those that win can face off against the likes of Man U, Chelsea or other top English clubs. On rare occasions the smaller team will win and those are part of what makes sport so popular.
The same is true for the world cup, they deliberately fix it to allow the continents who are less into football (Asia, North America and Australasia) to have a representation no matter what. Otherwise it would all be European, South American and African countries. On occasion the smaller nations will pull off an upset against the big guns and those matches are often remembered over the finals sometimes.