Thinking ahead: NTBB 2013

[plasmoid]

Hi Darkson (and Garion)

Martin, what's your worry in whether any of the former BBRC condone a potential change or not? These are your house rules, and yours only.
Unless you are trying to sneak it in as LRB7, in which case, I need to take more interest in opposing it, as this is completely the wrong way for official BB to go.

Come now I doubt there will ever be an LRB7, and even if there is I don't think the BBRC will be let anywhere near it! If somehow both of these events magically came to pass, then I think the 8 rule "CRP+" list might be up for debate - after all it started with Galaks wishlist - in which case we'd have a miniscule leg up on the playtesting, not a secret back door to approval.
The NTBB rosters are my own thing, and I can't see how they'd come anywhere near this magical LRB7.

So - I hope you can see that this is not what this is about.

I have several reasons for sticking with Ian and Tom:
1. It keeps me from going overboard. I love messing with stuff. It's somewhat compulsive. I've already had suggestions to fix Coaches, Cheerleaders, Blitz!, Perfect Defense, Multiple Block and more - and this is a good way to restrain myself.

2. Personally I loved the thoughts behind Galaks wishlist. And I do think it addresses some real issues. So I'm curious to see why BB could have gone, if GW hadn't terminated the LRB process.

3. It matters to me that Tom and Ian find these rules sensible. I think it will matter to others as well. A select few leagues have adopted NTBB. Primarily because they sympathize with the Narrowing, but I'm guessing also a little bit because of Ian and Tom. This provides me with data and discussion, and hopefully it provides the leagues with some fun and diverse seasons. All good

Cheers
Martin

[Darkson]

If part of the reason people are playing NTBB is just because it has some sort of "semi-offical" BBRC stamp of approval, then I'd say there's a problem with the rules. They should be able to stand up for themselves.

[harroguk]

If part of the reason people are playing NTBB is just because it has some sort of "semi-offical" BBRC stamp of approval, then I'd say there's a problem with the rules. They should be able to stand up for themselves.

Unfortunately people generally seem unwilling to get behind many house rule changes unless they have some kind of "Seal of Approval". I think this is more a problem with people in general than anything else.

[Necro10c]

If part of the reason people are playing NTBB is just because it has some sort of "semi-offical" BBRC stamp of approval, then I'd say there's a problem with the rules. They should be able to stand up for themselves.

And many people think they do, but others think they need a bit off... Narrowing

For me its not about changing all of BloodBowl, but maybe adressing those few things that make some teams less competitive in a league setting. Especially if you look at some of the teams that 'officially' should be just as competitive as others, you will find that there is a huge difference. So those who plays in leagues who might want some teams to be a bit more competitive might adapt NTBB.

For us it is about what kind of game you want. If you are tired of Humans being just less than competitive, then maybe armor 8 on the catchers and 10K down on the ogre is what we need. It creates a slightly different balance of the teams, but doesn't ruin or dramatically changes the game.

If these house rules enhances our gaming experience, then thats great, and if we have 3 leagues testing them at all times, thats even greater, as holes might be found that we don't find.

Cheerio,
Necro10c

[Darkson]

That's great, but doesn't have anything to do with the point I made that you quoted.

[Shteve0]

and if we have 3 leagues testing them at all times

Big assumption. Curious to hear how it is you feel you can speak on behalf of all the leagues involved in this process. I don't think it diminishes Martin's efforts for me to say that not all of the ideas in this rulepack are universally popular, or to point out that they're not even universally popular in the leagues in which they're playtested. If it comes down to it, I'm not even sure I could find a single person in our league who is happy with all the NTBB changes, where we surely make up one of the three in question.

Personally, I don't feel that the lower tiers should be brought up to the T1/2 level, not even remotely. What appeals to me is the reigning in of the obviously T0 teams, and that, for me, is bigger than my desire to not see the T3 teams raised. Really, that's markedly different to the views you express.

Edit: self moderated.

[dode74]

Which teams are TO?

[MattDakka]

Which teams are TO?

According to plasmoid's NTBB premise (http://www.plasmoids.dk/NTBB.pdf)
"Ever since I started playing 3rd edition Blood Bowl, I’ve wanted the different teams to be on more (but not completely) equal footing. If they were, more of the outlandish teams would get played, meaning more variety and fun for everyone. It seems that tier 2 and 3 are only there to give super coaches a challenge, which they could easily have found with a few simple restrictions (max 2 rerolls? No apothecary?) – and then super coaches wouldn’t be stuck on an endless diet of stunty. Frankly, I find the 3 design tiers a nuisance in that regard – even more so because there is effectively a fourth tier – tier 0: The Überteams."

Amazon
Dwarf
Orc
Undead
Wood elf

[kerrygray8]

I have seen across several games / systems that people seem to feel more comfortable with House Rules that either (a) have some tenuous approval from people 'officially' involved in the game; or (b) have been created by a person (or people) who are perceived to have a lot of experience in the game.

This is probably human nature - i.e. it seems a reasonable assumption that the 'best' House Rules will come from the people with the most experience. This might also explain why suggestions by certain people will receive a lot of feedback (positive and negative) and discussion, whilst suggestions from me (for example) - not at all known in the BB community and with a low post count - will get little / no feedback

However, as an interesting thought exercise there are two additional things to muse on here:

(1) In all walks of life, the 'experts' will USUALLY have the best knowledge / ideas, but this does not preclude newbies having some absolutely fantastic ideas. I see this at work for example - people who have been in-role for many years and know 'how we do things' are usually the people with the best ideas, but new staff will often have brilliant new ideas that the 'experts' would not have thought of. No reason to think that BB House Rules should be any different

(2) A favourite thought of a friend of mine - a lot of 'experts' may have got to their position of expertise even though, when tested (e.g. school exams, professional qualifications, etc) they 'only' get the right answer 60-80% of the time (for instance). This being so, we shouldn't really expect 'experts' to be correct or 'the best' in any more than 60-80% of what they do / say. Please note, this is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment!

FWIW - I am testing most of the NTBB stuff in my next tabletop league, largely because (a) by chance I came across the NTBB stuff before I saw anyone else's (Darkson's, Garion's, etc) ideas; and (b) tweaking someone else's House Rules for my own purposes is a lot less time-consuming than creating all my own House Rules from scratch

[plasmoid]

A lot of what I wanted to say has already been brought up.
Personally, I'd rather avoid "semi-official" sticker. It reeks of sinister conspiracy to create LRB7. And I think I've been fairly up front on multiple sites/forums that NTBB are House Rules.

But - for those with an interest in more variety (in both team selection and tactics), adopting someone elses house rules may be daunting - especially if they don't have lots of experience or trust in their own analytical skills: "Will they wreck my league? Maybe I shouldn't!"
For those people I figure it can be a decisive factor that notable BB experts like Ian and Tom think that these rules look sensible - alongside the fact that they have been playtested about as much as can be expected of any set of house rules.

Dode said:

Which teams are TO?

In the design rules set by the BBRC, none.
However, in NTBB I've taken the view that if a team is super strong early on, but super weak in late development, they may get a lifetime winpercentage of 50, but this is still a problematic situation. So I've targetted those teams: Wood Elfs, Dwarfs, Amazon and Undead. Orcs are on there by executive decision rather than concrete data. Coincidentally the orc change is probably the only one that nobody has complained about

One last thing. I think it touches on something Shteve0 said.
The Narrowing idea isn't to blend tier 2 into tier 1.
I'm narrowing within tier 1. And I'm pushing tier 3 and 2 into the middle/top of the current tie 2. About the power level of underworld is what I'm shooting for. That still leaves plenty of space between new tier 2 and new tier 1.
IMO, naturally.
Cheers all
Martin

Cheers
Martin

[spubbbba]

I would be interested to see the statistic of number of games played at various Tv ranges in both open and league play. I don’t think non-progression tabletop tournament stats are useful for these since it changes how you build teams and play, teams like lizardmen change a lot where you can freely assign skills to the players you want.

If, as I suspect the vast majority of games are in the 900-1400 Tv range with few played above 1800 then I could see the argument for most of the balance changes being done within this range. I would point out that 3 of the 5 so called tier 0 teams are certainly not what I’d consider to be super strong above 1800 TV and only in the solid tier 1 range around 1500.

However the high TV games tend to be the most important, be they the playoffs of a league or something like a Fumbbl major. Coaches will be far more attached to these teams since if your newish team gets crushed you can easily start over or rebuild them with little effort.

I do think one of the weaknesses of all versions of BB is that there are a significant number of teams that are supposed to be tier 1 but can not cut it at high TV.

[Necro10c]

@Darkson: Oops sorry, misread your post. I agree that the rules as house-rules should be able to stand up for themselves, but at the same time I am one of those persons who wouldn't adopt a house-rule unless: 1. our gaming group had tested it, 2. other gaming groups had tested it extensively and had reported about it, 3. persons that I accept as experienced with the game in question are recommending it, and explaining why they recommend it.

There are so many mods and house rules to different games that I would rather play without them, than having them ruin my gaming experience for a game that I really like, so I like discussions about house-rules and Stamps of Approval as well...

Curious to hear how it is you feel you can speak on behalf of all the leagues involved in this process.

I didn't. The 'us' was our league.

Personally, I don't feel that the lower tiers should be brought up to the T1/2 level, not even remotely. What appeals to me is the reigning in of the obviously T0 teams, and that, for me, is bigger than my desire to not see the T3 teams raised.

I fully agree, for me it is the narrowing of tier 1 that is interesting, as that would make more teams appealing to competitive players in our league, while I could still be playing with my Gobbos and having fun and not be a contender for the finals.

About the leagues testing NTBB and liking/not liking it I think that their feedback will be fed into future versions of NTBB, and that is maybe also why Martin started this thread as well, because he is willing to listen and discuss with people about NTBB. For me this also gives a forum for the new players to come up with 'fantastic' ideas, which I really think is a good idea.

And of course I agree that not every player will like all the ideas in NTBB, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't prefer NTBB over the LRB6 rules. Its all about personal or league preferences as I see it.

Oh and btw, Martin have you thought about how NTBB transfers into torunaments, or are you mostly focusing on leagues?

Cheerio,
Necro10c

[Shteve0]

I didn't. The 'us' was our league.

You said three leagues playtesting at all times. Unless you run three leagues, you were talking for two other leagues too.

I fully agree, for me it is the narrowing of tier 1 that is interesting, as that would make more teams appealing to competitive players in our league, while I could still be playing with my Gobbos and having fun and not be a contender for the finals.

IMHO Lonerless trolls and the new sneaky git across secret weapons would give you a very real shot at the finals, particularly with a little TV management. I'm of the school that challenging teams should be left challenging, not homogenised into lower T1/T2.

And of course I agree that not every player will like all the ideas in NTBB, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't prefer NTBB over the LRB6 rules. Its all about personal or league preferences as I see it.

It doesn't mean that we would, either. This comes down to personal opinion and unfortunately, as a fellow tester who's found that these tweaked rules are not as balanced as we'd like to think, I believe offering blanket support for the rules without constructive criticism is detrimental to the testing process and drowns out other legitimate viewpoints.

Unfortunately I think the NTBB has become something of a victim of its own success and is in danger of badly losing its way. The response of 'we don't know it's too powerful until it's tested' (to the SG + Babes discussion) jars massively both with your argument that you only want fully tested rules adopted into your league, and the suggestion that NTBB wasn't looking for a radical rules rewrite but just gentle tweaks to narrow the tiers. The statement made several times that "my hands are tied" or "these rules are fixed for another year" doesn't chime well with me from a perspective that league feedback will be taken into account - we're still halfway through our second 2012 league down here, so if 2013 is locked in, how exactly will our feedback be incorporated?

[plasmoid]

Hi Shteve,
you come across as fairly p*ssed off(?)

For what it's worth, I got Necro10c they way he (says he) intended, so I originally didn't even understand how he had annoyed you. But I can see how it can be read your way. He was talking about one 'we' (he and his league mates) and another 'we' (the 3 leagues trying testing the rules). I don't think he claimed that he was in fact in all 3 leagues - or speaking for them.

Be that as it may.
Necro10c said:

For me this also gives a forum for the new players to come up with 'fantastic' ideas, which I really think is a good idea.

I'm sorry, but as Shteve0 said, that's not quite where the rules are at anymore. I think the project started in 2009, with lots of open discussion and brainstorming. But if this project is ever to reach a finished state, then the time for 'rethinking (and rethinking, and rethinking)' has passed.

I still listen to feedback, but by now only from actual playtest.
Also, I hope it is obvious that I can't (nor won't) accomodate every piece of idea or feedback that is handed.

IMHO Lonerless trolls and the new sneaky git across secret weapons would give you a very real shot at the finals

Well, the stated goal of NTBB is to push gobbos into the top of tier 2.
40-45% winpercentage would be neat.
Your opinion about the gobbos is duly noted.
Others have been more positive about the change.

However, if gobbos start to not just look well but actually do well, then I will rein them back in. I don't see how it could be any other way.

It doesn't mean that we would, either. This comes down to personal opinion and unfortunately, as a fellow tester who's found that these tweaked rules are not as balanced as we'd like to think, I believe offering blanket support for the rules without constructive criticism is detrimental to the testing process and drowns out other legitimate viewpoints.

I think the 'testing process' is what shows which viewpoints are legitimate.
I'm sorry to hear that you're finding some (all?) of the rules unbalanced. I haven't heard that feedback from you nor your commish.

What I have heard is that you think it is a problem. Duly noted. But I don't know how I can measure this against others, who think that it isn't. I need playtest info. And I need more than 'OK, I played a game - it was powerful'. (No offense intended).

After your season 1, your commish wrote to me that he thought Gobbos using SG looked overpowered, but that nobody had tried it out. That doesn't give me much substance to work with.

The response of 'we don't know it's too powerful until it's tested' (to the SG + Babes discussion) jars massively both with your argument that you only want fully tested rules adopted into your league, and the suggestion that NTBB wasn't looking for a radical rules rewrite but just gentle tweaks to narrow the tiers.

Well, I had to make a decision.
And I didn't want to flipflop endlessly.
So I decided to go with one version of the 2 alternatives. And I haven't experienced any problems (yet).
I know you think it's a problem, and should be changed.
I don't think it is.
Nor have I had playtest feedback that it creates problems.
Even so, I listened to the feedback, I asked Galak and Ian, and they said to wait for actual playtest feedback. I'm fine with that.

The statement made several times that "my hands are tied" or "these rules are fixed for another year" doesn't chime well with me from a perspective that league feedback will be taken into account - we're still halfway through our second 2012 league down here, so if 2013 is locked in, how exactly will our feedback be incorporated?

My hands are indeed tied when it comes to the 8 rules that Ian and Galak are backing.
But I know they too will listen to actual playtest feedback.
Heck, as i think you know, The Bank rule will change in the 2013 rules based on feedback from your league.

Also, the Undead team will be changed for the 2013 rules based on feedback from yourself basically, as well as from the Daventry league.

I'm not ignoring you, and I'm a tad offended that you think I am.

The 2012 rules were published january 1st.
January 1st 2013 is moving ever closer, so I'm wrapping up the 2013 rules, based on the feedback I have.
Then it will get locked in for a year.
If problems arise, then January 1st 2014 will be the time to address them.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

To expand on the SG-thing:

In the Daventry League, some coaches were concerned about SG prior to their 1st season.
Now, with the season at an end, feedback on SG has been excellent!
Meaning so far I've had no problems, and positive feedback, from the general application of SG.
That's what pertains to the "8 rules".

The other side of SG is what it does to the secret weapon teams - which is compounded by the NTBB gobbo roster.
If it over-buffs the gobbos, making them tier 1, then I will make a change.
That said, I have a very hard time seeing them being pushed above tier 1 into the overpowered/broken category. So while it may turn out to be better than expected - we'll see - I don't think I'm gambling with anybodys season.

(except, I suppose, If you don't want the tier 2-3 teams to be lifted in the first place. But then I'd recommend either not playing NTBB, or playing NTBB without the roster buffs to the weak teams)

Cheers
Martin