State of the NAFtion

[mawph]

That's a really good idea, one that antipixi mentioned earlier. It's on the list!

Darn it, thought I might be original!

The teamsheet tool on the cakebowl website is actually a much nicer one than the NAF one too, a PDF output similar to that would be much better too.

[Warpstone]

I've never received any particular direction like that, and in the next newsletter we will have at least 2 league reports, which will hopefully spark off more coming in.

While I will be taking Warpstone up on any offers of help, I'm still dubious that e.g. shtev0 playing Darkson will happen often enough to be worthwhile putting something into place for it? Or do you mean more local inter-league stuff, so a better example being me v Darkson?

That's brilliant news Mike! Let me know if you want a Thunderbowl writeup and we'll get something to you ASAP.

Regarding Shtev0 vs Darkson, I didn't realize they were on different continents. Heh. But yes, you've got it: inter-league can simply be between two leagues in the same town/county/province/state. We have leagues that have spun off from TB. Rat City BBL for example is a league that was modeled on TBs norms. It's physically based about 3 hours away from us in the USA, but there really should not be any problem facilitating inter-league play with them considering we have no problems making the trip to each others tournies.

I don't think anyone advocates inter-league play as something you do off-the-cuff--I suppose you could, but you probably want more organization than that. Rather, I think we've always seen it as much the same as a tourny event: two or more communities getting together for a really fabulous game day or two. We do this for tournies where our teams have next to no sentimental appeal to us due to resurrection. Imagine if instead you meet your city's other league on a semi-annual basis where your champion plays their champion, your runner-up plays their runner-up and so on? If we can go from that to "destination" events like the Major NAF tournies, then even better.

There are obviously going to be slight mismatches based on rules (i.e. one league picks MVPS, the other has random MVPs), but that can be solved with good planning and solid leadership (i.e. League Director). But of course, none of this can take place until you first solve the inter-locking data set issue. We really need an organization to run with this idea in order to serve BB league communities and it really should be NAF if it intends to serve ALL BB players.

[Darkson]

I don't think anyone advocates inter-league play as something you do off-the-cuff--I suppose you could, but you probably want more organization than that.

Actually, while that sounds cool (and something I'm trying to organise with two local wargaming clubs), I'd also like to be able to play anyone I met at a BB tournament (or elsewhere) using league teams that we'd both know were "kosher", because they'd been kept on the NAF forum.

Both options would be the best of both worlds.

[Warpstone]

I don't think anyone advocates inter-league play as something you do off-the-cuff--I suppose you could, but you probably want more organization than that.

Actually, while that sounds cool (and something I'm trying to organise with two local wargaming clubs), I'd also like to be able to play anyone I met at a BB tournament (or elsewhere) using league teams that we'd both know were "kosher", because they'd been kept on the NAF forum.

Both options would be the best of both worlds.

Yup makes sense. Though I suspect you'd want your commissioner's blessing first, right? For example, we play a fixed schedule for a regular season followed by playoffs. There's really no room in that period for a pickup game as that could unfairly affect your next league opponent (i.e. all my MNGs healed during a bonus inter-league match).

I think who you need to buy-in to the above idea are the commish/club exec level of each league. Get them talking to each other in order to establish "intercontinental football" style windows for their leagues to interact. Also, given a chance to stage an impromptu pick-up game (i.e. while you're on vacation and in another league's vicinity), your commish could agree that any team that is currently retired from your current league is eligible to "go on the road" with you.

[spubbbba]

Opening the NAF up more to leagues sounds like a good idea, but there is the issue with them going inactive. It can be hard to keep track of all the leagues dotted around the world and it is very frustrating to move to a new area and find out most of the leagues listed there are long gone or moved. Maybe allow the league organisers to update their own entry with location, info and news and if nothing is done to it for a year it goes inactive?

I can see there being a difficulty trying to play international league games and upload them using a tool. But how about utilising Cyanide or FUMBBL to have “official” NAF online tournaments and rankings?
You could split it into 3 regions; North and South America, Europe and Africa and Asia and Oceania.

This does run the risk of stepping on the toes of the NWL and SWL, who pretty much have 2 of these groups covered. But there isn’t a unified European league at the moment, probably as there are too many coaches to handle.

It should be possible to have some sort of automated online database with an online NAF ranking. I could see there being open league style play and regular tournaments, possibly even inter-regional (Ryder cup style US vs Europe) or an online version of the NAF European or world cup.
I’d also love to see resurrection style mid (1500) and high (2000) TV tournaments, which would be easier to use online.
Coaches given a selection of teams for each race, say one skill heavy and the other stat and double heavy and a few injuries here and there. Possibly give each team 5-6 normal skills to add on top of that and allow some customisation.

[Woolfe]

When I mentioned leagues, I personally was more referring to the rankings type database than actually inter league gaming. Its a nice idea tho, but as someone else mentioned I imagine there would be a fair bit of work to make it fit.

As to the comment on leagues going inactive, doesn't the same thing happen with tournies?
Simply create a DL that the leagues can sign up for. Then assuming you aren't communicating with them more regularly, you can simply send a regular email asking for acknowledgement. Note the non replies. Target them specifically. Still no reply, mark them as inactive with a date. Allow searching and sorting of leagues based on active or not.

[Elyoukey]

Simply create a DL that the leagues can sign up for. Then assuming you aren't communicating with them more regularly, you can simply send a regular email asking for acknowledgement. Note the non replies. Target them specifically. Still no reply, mark them as inactive with a date. Allow searching and sorting of leagues based on active or not.

i think it is mandatory, if you want the tool to be up to date. if it is not done this way, the league list will get obsolete in 1 year.

[sann0638]

DL?

[Sandwich]

Not sure anyone has pointed this out, but the main benefit I can see of adding leagues to the NAF database is this: game statistics.
Currently it records a bunch of tournament results, which are almost entirely between teams of equal (or very similar) TV. But with leagues, you'll get a bigger spread of TV differences.
So if leagues are added, suddenly we get a much bigger set of data when wanting to do things like play-testing teams (Khorne anyone?), or when whining about how team X is overpowered

Personally, I'd rather keep FUMBBL and Cyanide out of the NAF rankings... whilst online BB is big, they have their own ranking systems, and I see no real reason to add them.

[Spiky]

DL?

Distribution List

[Indigo]

Personally, I'd rather keep FUMBBL and Cyanide out of the NAF rankings... whilst online BB is big, they have their own ranking systems, and I see no real reason to add them.

How does fumbbl having a ranking system invalidate any of it's actual match results in any way? Or at least in any way different to an arbitrarily house ruled league that decided to upload it's results to the NAF site?

Tourneys are the best, most standardised means of assessing team balance we have and even they have massive, fundamental flaws which ultimately limits their usefulness as a balance gauge.

[Winged_Human]

I would prefer fumbbl and Cyanide rankings out of the NAF rankings, as fumbbl has it's own rankings anyways. Cyanide still has a good amount of bugs to work out, and IMHO NAF is for TT games.

Just my .02.

[Sandwich]

Personally, I'd rather keep FUMBBL and Cyanide out of the NAF rankings... whilst online BB is big, they have their own ranking systems, and I see no real reason to add them.

How does fumbbl having a ranking system invalidate any of it's actual match results in any way? Or at least in any way different to an arbitrarily house ruled league that decided to upload it's results to the NAF site?

Tourneys are the best, most standardised means of assessing team balance we have and even they have massive, fundamental flaws which ultimately limits their usefulness as a balance gauge.

Its not invalidating the results. I just don't see what they add to the existing (and as you say, flawed) ranking system the NAF already has.

I possibly should have been clearer: I don't mind FUMBBL (and to a lesser extent Cyanide) results being available under NAF stats, I just don't want them in the rankings. The existing rankings should stay purely for TT tournaments. If league results are added, fine... but they should be under a separate ranking.

[Blammaham]

Not sure anyone has pointed this out, but the main benefit I can see of adding leagues to the NAF database is this: game statistics.
Currently it records a bunch of tournament results, which are almost entirely between teams of equal (or very similar) TV. But with leagues, you'll get a bigger spread of TV differences.
So if leagues are added, suddenly we get a much bigger set of data when wanting to do things like play-testing teams (Khorne anyone?), or when whining about how team X is overpowered

Great post Sandwich!

Tourneys are the best, most standardised means of assessing team balance we have and even they have massive, fundamental flaws which ultimately limits their usefulness as a balance gauge.

I don't think this is true at all, unless the rule book is rewritten for tournament play only. There are leagues out there that don't use in game house rules, these are the best resource we have for perpetual play roster balance IMO, not tournaments. Can tournaments show the casualty number skew of CLPOMB? Nor one that i have seen, maybe there is one that allows three skills on one player, but I've never seen it. Only perpetual league play, with a minimum of house rules, will show that there is a problem with that combination. Just look for yourself:

http://www.thunderbowl.ca/tbsn/index.ph ... v_bh&dir=d

Thunderbowl uses no in game house rules, and three of the top 4 casualty leaders all have the CLPOMB combo.

1) Y2J with 1.42 cas per game
2) Jehovah Joe with cas .94 per game
4) Syphilis with with cas .92 per game

This is just one example, but there are a lot more, where perpetual league play can provide a different and more useful insight to the long term racial balance.

I don't think any tournament could expose those numbers. Not to mention the wildly varying rules from tournament to tournament that would further flaw the numbers that you have already admitted have "massive, fundamental flaws which ultimately limits their usefulness as a balance gauge." Remember the NAF number include games that aren't even Blood Bowl, there's street bowl and Deathbowl and even one of the majors is settled by a variant game (Dungeonbowl).

During the last TD election I pointed out how important an asset having a database of info like this would be to the NAF, of course an Internet Blood Bowl pod casting star mocked me for saying that getting such records under the NAF umbrella would be a huge gift that would put the NAF in a unique position when or rather if any other editions of the LRB were produced.

Again, I don't want to come off as bashing the tournament scene, It's great, but it is functionally useless as a data set for anything to do with the rules as they are currently mandated, for league play.

Another important point to remember when talking about balancing the races is the fact that some teams do outstanding at low (110) TV and suffer as the TV goes up, like Wood elves or Amazons and the converse is also true when it come to Chaos, Ogres and High Elves. Can tournaments show this? Not the way that they are currently set up as a 110 TV base from what I can see.

If the NAF were able to have a tool to sanction and track league play from all over the world the benefits from the mountain of data would put in a very unique position when it came to the future of the LRB rule set.

Step on in this process is to appoint a "League Director" and let him/her start on the herculean task of building the program to put the NAF on the track to sanctioned league play. S.

[Darkson]

Please don't turn this into a ClawPOMB thread.

Tourneys are the best, most standardised means of assessing team balance we have and even they have massive, fundamental flaws which ultimately limits their usefulness as a balance gauge.

I don't think this is true at all, unless the rule book is rewritten for tournament play only.

Totally agree. Tournaments might be good for assessing low-TV balance (very new teams), but even with that they are very flawed. They're absolutely useless for assessing long-term balance.

Personally, knowing Indi is a relatively ( ) intelligent person I think he's just trolling with that comment. Or drunk...