How could a new BBRC work?

[spubbbba]

If leagues reset after each game or had a restriction on skilling up then it would be pointless playing in a league, I mean the whole reason people play so much/plaay so many games is to gain advancements.

Well the idea was more of a long term "competitive" resurrection style tournament between people, more of an alternative way of playing leagues than a replacement. One of the difficult things about leagues is that they can be a lot about luck, getting some good skill rolls or a farming game in the early stages can give a coach a big advantage.

I'm not sure how much support there is for a narrower tier BB, but this could be a way of having it without it "tainting" the joke teams when used in a normal league. I do quite like the idea that it would be possible to have 24 balanced teams with an equal chance of winning, aiming for a streetfighter II style balance. Flings, vamps etc could be the teams that are hard to master, but super effective in the hands of a good or lucky coach. Kind of like Orks were in 2nd edition 40K, they had some powerful but random weapons that could devastate the opposition, do nothing or harm their own side.

[MattDakka]

. Flings, vamps etc could be the teams that are hard to master, but super effective in the hands of a good or lucky coach. Kind of like Orks were in 2nd edition 40K, they had some powerful but random weapons that could devastate the opposition, do nothing or harm their own side.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness or mastering a race, that is playing a luck-based faction.
If dice go well you win, if go bad you lose, you are not mastering anything.

[dode74]

aiming for a streetfighter II style balance

There are some great articles from Dave Sirlin (the guy who did just that) here.

[frogboy]

The best thing about all the specialist games (well not sure about space hulk) was always that upgrading your team/squad/character/space ships etc not sure if it's fair but it's rewarding



I like the idea of different rule sets though, one for tournaments and one for league, I mean it could be the same rules, wait we already got something like that init? Lol

Nah seriously though who's going to be in charge of making them colossal decisions, wanting to change the rules is one thing and then you got to know why and how your going to do it and who will enforce the change. Someone's always going to be unhappy so is it really justified?

Getting far too involved in these discussions now, I just play for fun so didn't mean to offend if even I have. My opinion is just one person about a game I love, personally I'd bring back Razor Sharp Claws

[harvestmouse]

If leagues reset after each game or had a restriction on skilling up then it would be pointless playing in a league, I mean the whole reason people play so much/plaay so many games is to gain advancements.
That's why all these games are so addictive, it's a quick reward. Your brain releases chemicals into the brain which makes you feel good when you "achieve" something. Just look at minecraft or clash of clans for example.
Basically I'm saying if you take away the reward aspect of the game then it would stop being played by a lot as people's brains would search out another option to forfill it's need for love...

I think this is a valid point, particularly for perpetual leagues, where I don't think lets say FUMBBL don't offer enough rewards. Modern gaming has changed a lot in this way in recent years, and incentives are hooks.

Trying to get the highest overall ranked position in each environment with each race (and getting a badge/reward for it) would be good in my opinion. On paper they're pretty meaningless, however marketed correctly and presented professionally, they'd only add to divisions like MM/Ranked/Box etc.

I think for long term leagues, I would like to look at handicapping (so giving inducements) based on divisional standings. So a team lower placed would always get a handicap, no matter what the TV. This should keep divisions closer, and give an incentive for bottom boy to keep playing (fallout for bottom boys is quite high). You might have to factor in TV to some extent though or to code/give that option.

[spubbbba]

. Flings, vamps etc could be the teams that are hard to master, but super effective in the hands of a good or lucky coach. Kind of like Orks were in 2nd edition 40K, they had some powerful but random weapons that could devastate the opposition, do nothing or harm their own side.

That has nothing to do with competitiveness or mastering a race, that's is playing a luck-based faction.
If dice go well you win, if go bad you lose, you are not mastering anything.

It didn't explain it very well. Those weapons did have a random element, but there was also an element of skill. I was mainly thinking of the pulsa rokkit a 1 shot weapon that would travel up to 10d6" and be very nasty when it landed, though it could go off course or blow up. The element of skill was judging how far away the enemy was and choosing how many dice to roll as well as picking the target. There was a player who did very well in a GT taking multiple rokkits as he was great at guessing the range and if even 1 hit it would give him a big advantage.

I'd equate that to wood elves, using them can be difficult as they are expensive and die easily. Choosing if and when to leap into a cage can decide the game. There is a big element of luck to it, but the skill is maximising the impact (trying to peel off guarders, picking a time when there are less opposing tacklezones on the likely spot the ball will fall, having a player ready to grab the loose ball and pass and another ready to catch it, etc).

My main concern was that if there was a lrb7 I don't want tabletop resurrection tournaments to be giving the same import as leagues. I feel those are way more different from tabletop leagues that leagues are from open online environments.

I'd see it as being a tournament mode compared to a campaign mode. The tournament mode would have some way of playing 1 off games at higher TV's, kind of like choosing points in 40K. This would be better suited to 1 off games or tournaments aimed at coaching skill compared to team quality. Campaign mode would be the standard league/open way of playing with progression.

[Chris]

If we are talking emphasis I would want to see it with leagues. People are comfortable with house rules for leagues, and they are easily communicated (tournament rules pack). Leagues not so much so a good base is more important.

[Pakulkan]

One suggestion from my point of view, is to slightly modify rosters for ballancing them in Resurrection.

Former BBRC was focus on classical league play, but guess a variation just in RR cost would narrow tiers in resurrection pretty well.

This is an example to at least consider by a putative BBRC. Positive just to talk about...

[Chris]

You don't need a BBRC for that - just a NAF group. An example are these chaps http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/army-lists/ who do lists for tournies in the UK.

They would simply go into the standard tourney rules pack and be aimed at the range of TV's and extras you commonly see in tournies.

[Pakulkan]

You don't need a BBRC for that - just a NAF group. An example are these chaps http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/army-lists/ who do lists for tournies in the UK.

They would simply go into the standard tourney rules pack and be aimed at the range of TV's and extras you commonly see in tournies.

Following this you never would need a BBRC.

Difference between a BBRC and your example is that the BBRC should be sanctioned and supported by a massive number of players in order to propose and decide with some expectation of being followed...

[dode74]

For NAF-sponsored tournaments they only need the NAF rules. The NAF is perfectly capable of doing that (although it might alienate some people in so doing). The issue appears to be of wanting to keep a unified ruleset, though.

[Chris]

Yes - comment was in response to dong just a tournie set. If you are doing anything else you need cyanide to buy in...

[VoodooMike]

This topic is pointless blather-bait. The NAF absolutely has to decide to rigidly enforce adherence to a NAF-approved ruleset (including rosters) before any discussion of a new BBRC is anything more than large-scale masturbation.

The Blood Bowl community seems extremely conservative in nature - people are highly resistant to any sort of change, or seem to be. That's not the case, however: people are not resistant to change, they are resistant to everyone else's changes. Everyone and their brother has a vision of how the game should be, but they'd rather it not change at all than change the way you want it to. It is a lack of clear vision... a lack of anything approaching consensus... that leads to the appearance of conservatism. It is the one clear thread we've seen for years and it shows no signs of changing.

How, then, has the game managed to change over the years? The answer is simple: unilateral action by those who can do it. Things get changed and people are left to just deal with it... and they do, they adapt just fine and then they sit around talking about how they were behind the changes all along. That's how the BBRC got things done. That's how Cyanide is getting things done. Hell, at times Jervis would effect changes without the BBRC's consensus and everyone would just deal with it. That's how things get done in Blood Bowl.

Cyanide is the perfect example. When we all found out about the Khorne roster, prior to CE's release, people were outraged and incredulous... there was almost no support at all for the addition, but added they were. Even when the game came out, the roster was considered a crap addition if only for their lack of fluff, and in part for their poor performance. The people who were consulted during their creation weren't even proud of the resulting roster that they'd admit to. Despite all of this, the Khorne roster is being used in more TT tournaments than any other roster that wasn't handed down by the almighty JJ, and has more long-term community support than any other roster to date. Plasmoid has been whoring out his Bretonnians for years and they've never seen the level of use or support that a crap roster Cyanide rolled out has.

The key has been, as I've said, making the change and then forcing people to deal with it. For all the resistance people voice, they don't really invest themselves in anything until it's almost impossible for them to avoid it. Do you hate the idea of Bretonnians? What about AV8 human catchers? Even if you loathe all of them, if Cyanide offered to give everyone free access to BB2, you'd likely give it a serious try... and that chance would increase the more people you saw declaring they were giving it a chance. That's how the Bretonnian roster is going to get the largest increase in community support that it has had since the beginning: not because plasmoid will have convinced people it's a good idea, but because Cyanide made it happen whether you like it or not. It won't be free, but it doesn't need to be... it just takes longer.

The NAF is a weak organization - it seems primarily focused on not making anybody unhappy, and in the process, makes nobody completely happy. The policies it has chosen thus far have put it in the servile role - it attempts to shape itself around the various house rules and home-made rosters people decide to use in tournaments by simply side-stepping the things it doesn't "officially" support, while still giving its big rubber stamp of approval to such events. Until that changes, the NAF has no teeth... and without teeth, it is squarely unqualified to field a new BBRC. If it were possible to play Cyanide's CE, in every way, without Khorne then it would have fizzled out... but it wasn't... you couldn't avoid it in public leagues or single player. The unavoidable part was key to its eventual acceptance, and subsequent support.

So... this discussion of a BBRC is totally premature. Teeth first, then we worry about who's gonna be the alpha dog.

[koadah]

This topic is pointless blather-bait. The NAF absolutely has to decide to rigidly enforce adherence to a NAF-approved ruleset (including rosters) before any discussion of a new BBRC is anything more than large-scale masturbation.

I am interested. What kind of non standard rules are the NAF allowing now?

What power does the NAF have other than not accepting your results for the rankings?

... people are not resistant to change, they are resistant to everyone else's changes. Everyone and their brother has a vision of how the game should be, but they'd rather it not change at all than change the way you want it to.

Hell yeah! Everyone else's changes are crap!

Cyanide is the perfect example. ...

Yeah but Khorne & Bretonnians are only rosters. 'New' rosters at that. For all the moaning they were never really a big deal.
Rules changes are a different matter.
I don't play vanilla CRP. And you can't make me.
That basically means that I don't play Cyanide and I don't play Fumbbl public divisions.

I do play Fumbbl League division which has multiple rule options and custom rosters are in the works. "The commissioner's word is law". As far as the code allows.
Table top is not is not constrained by anything at all.

if Cyanide offered to give everyone free access to BB2, you'd likely give it a serious try... and that chance would increase the more people you saw declaring they were giving it a chance.

That depends what you mean by "serious".

A bigger factor will be how bug ridden the software is. How the public leagues are run. How many many games appear to be against total knob heads etc.

If it turns out that Cyanides ruleset is closer to what I play than the CRP then that would increase my chances of buying it. If I don't like it's rules and it doesn't offer options then no. I wouldn't give it a 'serious' try even if it was free.

The NAF is a weak organization - it seems primarily focused on not making anybody unhappy, and in the process, makes nobody completely happy. The policies it has chosen thus far have put it in the servile role - it attempts to shape itself around the various house rules and home-made rosters people decide to use in tournaments by simply side-stepping the things it doesn't "officially" support, while still giving its big rubber stamp of approval to such events. Until that changes, the NAF has no teeth... and without teeth, it is squarely unqualified to field a new BBRC. If it were possible to play Cyanide's CE, in every way, without Khorne then it would have fizzled out... but it wasn't... you couldn't avoid it in public leagues or single player. The unavoidable part was key to its eventual acceptance, and subsequent support.

So... this discussion of a BBRC is totally premature. Teeth first, then we worry about who's gonna be the alpha dog.

I don't know who really wants NAF BBRC rules. Cyanide would still end up doing what they want. It makes sense for them to continue adding rosters to continue making money. Also to continue tweaking the game to suit their platform.

Is there much appetite for changing low TV res tournaments? That is the only place where the NAF can have any teeth. Anyone else can follow if they wish.
As the higher TV, big, public/private leagues are where the main perceived issues are, who is really going to care what the NAF say unless they testing in that kind of environment?
Testing over a lot of games.

[spubbbba]

Despite all of this, the Khorne roster is being used in more TT tournaments than any other roster that wasn't handed down by the almighty JJ, and has more long-term community support than any other roster to date. Plasmoid has been whoring out his Bretonnians for years and they've never seen the level of use or support that a crap roster Cyanide rolled out has.

Out of interest does anyone have any figures for how popular the Khorne roster is since it came out? It's been a while now so it would be interesting to see how it fares in comparison to other teams, in particular those that were also released with CE.