GW's Triple B League --- TBB WE NEED YOUR VOTES!!!

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:14 pm

well iirc the bbb season is going to be 12 weeks long and then they are going to review the rules they are testing, i think at the moment they are 8 weeks into it (i could be wrong here)

i have also spoken to one of the coaches who plays in it and he tells me that the coaches testing the rules don't particuly like them

andy even posted on here that the SPP chart was getting a lot of negative noise

so how about we wait and see what the feedback from the head office is

sean newboy · Post by **sean newboy** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:19 pm

They are close because they all read this forum Sean.

I will just say this, i think its a bunch of malarky, how many people read the New York time and yet america doesnt have a consensus on many things. I could fill up johnnyp's servers with all the stuff on this site where we dont agree, at all. Game rules is the one area where tbb usually is not in agreement. U ask what a player who got doubles should give as a skill, u get alot of people saying like he said and such. But when u ask is this the rule we should adopt, u get answers from one end of the spectrum to the other, and the disagreements are rarely from the same suspects.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:56 pm

sean newboy wrote:
They are close because they all read this forum Sean.
I will just say this, i think its a bunch of malarky, how many people read the New York time and yet america doesnt have a consensus on many things. I could fill up johnnyp's servers with all the stuff on this site where we dont agree, at all. Game rules is the one area where tbb usually is not in agreement. U ask what a player who got doubles should give as a skill, u get alot of people saying like he said and such. But when u ask is this the rule we should adopt, u get answers from one end of the spectrum to the other, and the disagreements are rarely from the same suspects.

I used to know a friend who's last name was Malarky, thanks for reminding me.

The New York times isn't a valid comparision, because the people who read it are entirely passive participants. If everyone who read the NYT were able to discuss what they read, argue it, defend their points... we'd see something more like what we have here on TBB.

If even one valid point on a subject gets raised from debate, you'll see a large number of people changing their views on a subject. That's part of the community effect.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:58 pm

Thadrin wrote:If thats not what Neo meant then I'm sorry - but that is my interpretation of this statement.

You're dead wrong. Go back a few pages and look at what I voted for.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:23 pm

Since its buried pretty deep Thrads ... let me help you with that one.

neoliminal wrote:This is a coach view of these items...
Vote Yes/Undecided/No for the Bugman's rule changes
1 ) Advanced SPP table
2 ) No injury mods change
3 ) No more auto +1 to AV for fouling, remove IGMEOY and Referee rolls, eject only on AV doubles, Dirty Player is for AV only.
4 ) No more aging
5 ) No more handicap table ... new tables for game effects based on TR
6 ) Piling On changed to AV reroll
7 ) New winnings table 15k bands
8 ) Negative winnings rules.
1. I don't like the limits put here. I'd rather see a team able to get a one star player, and be pretty limited otherwise, but that's a hard mechanic to create. (No)

2. I like the very clean nature of not having injury mods. You can control all chance of injury just fine with modifiers to the armour roll. (Yes)

3. At first I didn't like this, but after seeing the results and playing the the numbers, it's actually a fine system for fouling. I like the Ref Roll, but unless there's a way to unify the Ref tests (secret weapons, fouling checks, argue the calls...) I don't mind getting rid of it. (Yes)

4. I don't mind ageing, but I don't think the BBB league will have enough games in to actually test the results of eliminating it. (Undecided)

5. Feel like change for changes sake. Haven't played with it to know how I feel yet. (Undecided)

6. Love this rule. But that's probably because I championed it. (Yes)

7. The winnings table needs an overhaul. It's really a matter of where you think the high end of teams should be. Personall I think it needs to be short of 200 TR, so this table does that well enough. (Yes.)

8. Very happy with this rule. It was first proposed back when negative winnings were suggested and the BBRC didn't include it for various reasons. I love it. (Yes)

John -

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:46 am

OK...lets get specific:
Neoliminal speaks out publicly in favour of rules change number two - the removing of modifiers of the injury roll.

TBB poll and Fumbbl poll are bothe strongly negative to this poll.

French poll is positive, leading Neoliminal to state that the TBB poll is probably irrelevant because the french poll disagrees with it.

You'll have to point out to me where I'm wrong here John.
I feel VERY strongly about this.

Neoliminal wrote: 2. I like the very clean nature of not having injury mods. You can control all chance of injury just fine with modifiers to the armour roll. (Yes)

I take issue with that statement. Restricting the modifiers nerfs Mighty Blow significantly (I did some math at some stage and worked out that a player with mighty blow will see his casulaties fall by about 30%.).

Restricting the modifiers is an even bigger hit on the stunty teams, where the proposed rules effectively reduce all stunty players' AVs by 1. I'm sure all Lizardman coaches are really looking forward to that, not to mention Halfling and Goblin players, not to mention your poor Ogre player who has just seen BOTH parts of his team take a beating in effectiveness.

The proposed change affects the game balance in a negative way.
There is no reason for this change.
Pretty much every other roll in the game can be modified. Why make an exception for injuries?
There are constant debates about aging, team capping etc. Would these be necessary if we stopped making it harder to kill opponents?

Nuffle almighty, I'm sounding like part of the damned EMU debate we have going on here at the moment.

Mestari · Post by **Mestari** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:44 pm

I have to agree with Thadrin here. Johns statement works to undermine the value of this discussion board and definitely throws fuel to the flames for people like XYZ and ABC (you know who I mean) who already have a very low image of how the BBRC considers other peoples opinions. Now, I stress that I'm not of that opinion, but I do consider that statement to be very poorly thought out with respect to the fact that many people have that opinion. It seems like as if you've just been looking for an excuse to disregard the results of this poll. Now, I'm sure that was not your intent (sincerely), but too many people will think that way.

However:

I think most of the yes-votes for suggestion two come from the fact that the voter understands the impact of the suggestion poorly.
The way the rules change #2 is represented ("Simplicity, yay!

") fools a lot of people.
If we would say that "what if we reduce the effectiviness of MB by 30%, increase the amount of stuns in the game disproportionately and give nothing in return. Well, one d6 roll is eliminated", who do you think would vote for the change? No one.

Dangerous Dave · Post by **Dangerous Dave** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm

Mestari - hear hear.

That is a much better explanation for polls coming to the wrong conclusion. That said, it does make the job of the BBRC more difficult.

I suppose that leads us to...

Make no changes unless its broken......or put another way - iron out as many of the hot list misunderstandings first - hey its easy to reach the conclusion you want!

Dave

NightDragon · Post by **NightDragon** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:59 pm

Exactly Galak. Hit the nail on the head. Debates about ageing and capping would not be necessary because there wouldn't be ageing if casualty taking hadn't been weakened in the first place. The negative winnings table does now seem to me to be the fairest way of reducing those power teams.

Post by **Thadrin** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:06 pm

Mestari wrote:
I think most of the yes-votes for suggestion two come from the fact that the voter understands the impact of the suggestion poorly.
The way the rules change #2 is represented ("Simplicity, yay! ") fools a lot of people.
If we would say that "what if we reduce the effectiviness of MB by 30%, increase the amount of stuns in the game disproportionately and give nothing in return. Well, one d6 roll is eliminated", who do you think would vote for the change? No one.

A-fricking-men teemu!

Ithilkir · Post by **Ithilkir** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:35 pm

I'll hold my hands up and say, "Yup, I screwed up". Looking back on it, I'd vote NO to #2. We need more onfield ways of team management, and death is one of them

If anyone has any mathematical ability, can they do me a favour

Can I get percentage chances for Stuns, KO's, Casualties on the following ideas against AV8...

Current (LRB2 rules)
Mighty Blow
Claw

BBB
Mighty Blow
Claw

BBB with a change
Mighty Blow (though +2 modifier)
Claw (though +3 modifier)

With Stuns 2-6, KO, 7-8, Casualties, 9+
BBB Mighty Blow
BBB Claw

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:54 pm

Two issues:

First, I mentioned the non-TBB centered nature of the poll because there is often a view that if TBB thinks a certain way, then the world of Blood Bowl thinks that way. Here is an example where that isn't true. It's unfortunate that some of the voting is similar to what I was leaning towards, because it appears to cheapen my point.

While I think it's very important to take a measure of the thinking here on TBB, it's far from the center of the Blood Bowl world. As unpopular as that will likely make me here, it's true.

Second, I value the simplicity that the no injury modifier system produces. When I play at tournaments, where the specific type of casualty is not important, I'm always hoping for a '12' on the dice and consider that a death... we never bother rolling Siguards at tournament. It somehow feels right not rolling Siguards. Perhaps years of 3rd Edition have some deep, hidden feelings in me.

You've point out some worrying statistics about how this system would alter the proportions of stuns/injuries. I've been thinking about this and it may sway me, but it's not the world shattering change you make it out to be. It's something I want to investigate more and ask about in the leagues that are testing this system.

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:57 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
neoliminal wrote:They are close because they all read this forum Sean.
Yeah Neo, but the FUMBBL results are definitely more worldwide and they were lockstep with the TBB results bar the Bugman's rule for Negative Winnings with the forced results.

Galak

Quick question:

How many of the FUMBBL players voted here and there?

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:40 pm

Very good question. I voted only here.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:49 pm

I don't think there were many crossovers between here and FUMBBL but i cna't be sure unless you ask everyone :p