Which Team List is better ?

[Darkson]

I hven't voted for either, as I can see some merit in A, but B is easier to read.
However, I perfer Ithilkir's version, and if that's what your's looked like 11 months ago Toby, then maybe you should have stopped there, rather than tryin to re-write the whole of the BB rules set.

And before you start insulting me, I am not stupid, talking moo, or anything else you've flung about recently. I just obviously have different ideas and preferences from me.

Be cool and calm

[Toby]

But on the whole, keep your own house rules out of the lists and rather remove WHFB fluff position names than add more of them and the lists would be a small improvement for the LRB.

This is an example for constructive criticism. I appreciate that.
I know people on this board who oppose your suggestion. I share it. But I didn't dare to rename "Dragon Warrior's" to Blitzers, because I wanted to do AS LITTLE CHANGE AS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Your ideas are very computerlike and exact, germanic if I may say so. However, none of them are absolutely necessary. I'm the first to admit that the LRB needs reworking and that the team rosters could be perhaps improved, but the fact remains that the current rules work fine too and achieve everything that your lists do, with only little more effort.

I prefere logic to be suger-coated by fluff over fluff gluing scattered pieces together. This is a Tactics & Strategy game. It is all about logic and statistics. Fluff is a surrounding to stop the numbers from being boring.
If you look at my very first posting in this topic, and try to achive the set design goals, you will soon realise that changes are unfortunately absolutely necessarey. If you mange to proove the opposite, i'm the first to compliment you. Get all the Info on one sheet of paper and show me.

Only thing ridiculous around here is your attitude, Toby. When you get your act together and understand the fact that people can oppose your ideas without being morons you can start to expect that people give your ideas serious consideration.

As to my atitude, i'm fed up. I used this board for some feedback, its 99,8% negative but in my opinion the feedback lacks competence, interest and understanding. Im all about the Game, most people here are all about the Fun of it. These poles will not merge. Its like a NHL Coach talking to Inline Hockey parking lot Folks about Hockey.

In my oppinion Blood Bowl is fine the way it is for YOU. However, it is not for anybody else because it will not stand the pressure of Power/Pro Gaming. As you folks don't want to see the game played that way, this is fine for you. However it prevents the Game from getting bigger in terms of audience.

As I said, these poles wil never merge, and therefore I will spare you from my Ideas from now on. I joined this board withot a nickname because I was serious. So my email is valid and whoever wants to contact me has a way of doing it.

[Darkson]

As to my atitude, i'm fed up. I used this board for some feedback, its 99,8% negative but in my opinion the feedback lacks competence, interest and understanding.

This shows why there is a problem. As soon as someone disagrees with anything you say, you ignoreit, or worse, question there inteligence as they don't see things the same as you.

Im all about the Game, most people here are all about the Fun of it.

and

In my oppinion Blood Bowl is fine the way it is for YOU. However, it is not for anybody else because it will not stand the pressure of Power/Pro Gaming.

Then why ask gamers who play for fun and the social aspect of it if they approve of changes to the game they love that will only be on benefit to players who only play for the win/loss? And where is it been found that Pro gamers will have any interest in BB anyway?

As you folks don't want to see the game played that way, this is fine for you. However it prevents the Game from getting bigger in terms of audience.

I think most BB'rs here would be happy to see the game get bigger, but not at the expense of the fun aspect. And if you can't understand that, Toby, maybe you did come to the wrong place.

[Mestari]

In my oppinion Blood Bowl is fine the way it is for YOU. However, it is not for anybody else because it will not stand the pressure of Power/Pro Gaming. As you folks don't want to see the game played that way, this is fine for you. However it prevents the Game from getting bigger in terms of audience.

I disagree with this standpoint. Even though a very exactly written rulebook definitely is not a handicap when aiming for a bigger audience, I can't see how the current ruleset will prevent that goal.

I'm also definitely one of those who consider this game to be a Tactics and Strategy game. I admit that with most teams I play very competitively (although I have to admit that it's fun too). However, I have serious doubts whether BB is suitable for a pro-gaming environment due to the large importance of the luck-factor in games. I don't think so. What I think it is suitable for is a large base of hobbyists playing (perhaps competitively) for fun. Look how many members NAF has already. Look at how many players there are in FUMBBL.

This is a hobby. For some it is more serious than for others, but I'm afraid that this game cannot adapt into a mass phenomena like Starcraft or some other popular online games, no matter what you do with the rulebook.


BTW. Look at any more radical idea presented in this board, including those posted by BBRC members. Most of them get as critical welcoming as your comments do. Most of them are shot down. I know that most of mine have been. By all means do leave the forum, but I'm pretty certain that if you'd like to have wide-spread support for your ideas, you should try to befriend this society and be more open to changing your ideas.

[Mestari]

Last weeks Get Fuzzy is quite similar to this situation. Again, I'm not trying to offend you, Toby, but instead I'm trying to say that you're approaching this from the wrong angle, with too many simultaneous posts and too big emphasis on the 'me' -part. Many of your ideas are worthwhile but you really should concentrate on the presentation more.

Bucky Katt the Movie -part in Get Fuzzy:
http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/a ... 30505.html

Last saturdays strip:

[Dafrenchcoach is Back !]

Hum... Won't talk about the roster team rebuilding, which isn't really important for me, but maybe I'm too stupid to see the interest of working one year on it. The nicest thing is is you find great. THis is the most important thing, and if it should help you in playing blood bowl, why not?

Hum, just a last thing, off topic. On another one topic, you talked about how stupid we are to not see the interest of a 1000 coaches online league. I strongly agree with you. I don't see the interest of a 1000 coaches league; that why I play in a more than 2000 coaches online league without clans, incredible 3D graphics, complex management rules system, and other stuff, just skijunkie. Not bad for a "non-professionnal" stuff (Skijunkie, nearly a god for a lot of people). One of the factor key of success is you don't have to pay anything (skijunkie, league) for playing. Which can't be the case with a professionnal software.

Last, if you're complaining about the 99% people on the board, why posting here?

PS @ Mestari: about german people: after met some BB german players (BB tournament, Rendez-Vous), it's happy all german players I know aren't like that

[Toby]

Bla Bla Bla.

Online Gamers are the Prime Evil and they will kill you all.

Bla Bla.

Power Gaming is a good thing for a Startegy game, and actually I am a nice german Blood Bowl player and - whatever -

Anyway good to see you again French Coach ^^

[roysorlie]

Toby, I've a few questions for you, if you don't mind..

1. How old are you?
2. How many painted teams do you have?
3. How long have youbeen playing the game?
4. Do you play, or have you played, any other GW games?

And I'd like to tell you a few things.
First off, I like your intentions. You see a lot of thing in BB which in your opinion could be better, and you spend a lot of time and effort in trying to improve things, which in your eyes aren't good enough. Which is fine, and somewhat commendable.

However. Many, many of the coaches here have very different ideas, and preferences to the game than you do. Everybody has his crusade, something he (or she) would dearly like to change. Some part of the game they do not like, or something that is gone, and they really liked, or whatever. Personally, the two most important things I'd like to change, is the aging system, and bringing some semblance of the cards back. I like the fluff, and want more mayhem into the game.

Lot's of people disagree with me. But it's never something personal. They are just expressing their views. Often using argumentation, that is hard to defeat, sometimes not.

But no matter what I, or you or anyone else on this board think, the chance of actually getting anything at all changed, is so small, It's hardly worth the effort.

And it's especially not worth getting upset or worked up about, and it's certainly not something worth pissing off other members of the board with your sarcastic, and sometimes outright rude comments. You'll make no friends. And to be honest, I almost voted against your suggestion, for no better reason, than that I found your behaviour appaling.

Now, that said. I agree with you concerning the layout of the rulebook. It could be alot more organized. Also, I agree that there could be a section for league play, and on for tournament play. But these sections, would have to be, in my opinion, optional, and only sample suggestions. Sort of different suggested types of league/tournament setup. With a notification stating that the tournament/league could be held any way the players like.

And, for those who actually read the post through, I apologize for the length of it.

[Toby]

27
Wood Elf (Treeman, Jordell), Human (Griff, Zug, Ogre)
'95
No, but I was tempted to buy a Lord of the Rings starter set.

Now. Its fine to have OPINIONS. But the Lists are not about OPINIONS, but finding a SOLUTION to a clear stated TASK.

I'm sorry I wont defend or explain myself anymore, it's useless.
Simply try to do a new List on your own and then we can share "Opinions" on diffrent solutions. Voting things down because of irrelevant concerns like the name of a feature that can easily be adjusted is very "strange".

And by the way since most people here know the LRB by heart, its kinda impossible to fight that battle. Nevertheless the new list puts a lot of info you need to know about your team in on place. And If I have to rename a Black Orc Blocker to Black Orc Basher to accomplish that, its absolutely outweighting that minimal change.

[roysorlie]

Toby, no need to explain or defend yourself. The very fact that you feel personally put upon, is due to tone and demenour of your posts.

As for your ideas on how to solve the question regarding team lists, I agree, for the most part. The concept of putting all relevant information on the list is a good one.

I think you are getting some heat due to your choices in what you choose to call the different positions.

As to that, I'd say, just put a generic name in. The main thing is the list in itself, not what the positions are. Personally I like blitzer far better than knight, but in the end, I think it should more or less tied to linepositions commonly used in in football.

I had a beef, wanting to call a skaven lino, a linerat, and elf a lineelf and so on, but it really doesn't matter very much. Basher, blocker, tackler, whatever. The point is you are only allowed to have up to a set number of the given position. (even if there are several choices to fill the setup).

As to star players, I am generally against them, as they imbalance teams. I remember all to well how frustrating it was to play elves, and having to choose between the likes of Prince Moranion, and Jordell freshbreeze to compete against the likes of Morg, Luthor, Borag and Varak.

I was left having to choose woodies, as they had the treeman.

But if it were to be implemented, then the general outline of your list seems ok. I haven't got a better idea, nor do I intend to create one. I am, however, able to comment your own list. But if, when doing so, you start calling me unintelligent, I will certainly start opposing you on general principle. I belive this goes for most people here.

Keep it friendly, and you get people who will give their comments, for good or bad, for you to considerate. Then, when you feel that you have reached a result most people more or less could agree with, PM one of the members on the BBRC, and suggest it. And that, Toby, is the extent of what you can achive. With a little luck, at least parts of your ideas will see the light of day.

(and I state for the record, that any personal opinions on this post regarding the lists are ment for nothing other than being opinions, based on a minute or two of considering the lists you have spent a year developing, and not ment to be critizising)

[Toby]

First of all if all posts had been as cool as your's, things would be diffrent. But its fun to have a "Bad Guy" on the Board, isnt it ?

The stars thing, take a look at my file if you want to. I always agreed that the stars are way to powerful right now.

And its not about adding permanent stars to the list, its about the possibility to to it. As you can see, freebooted stars can be listed as well.

The Warhammer Fluff. Well, again what I did leaves all possibilities. We could rename all positions, or all but one to create some "uniqueness".
But thats not system related. Everybody could rename his positions on his own as long as the correct limit applies to them.

Finally, I first had the ideaa of that list one year ago. The Idea; needed a lot of tweak.

[roysorlie]

First of all if all posts had been as cool as your's, things would be diffrent. But its fun to have a "Bad Guy" on the Board, isnt it ?

He he. Not all my posts are as cool. Main thing is to avoid insulting someone.

And I always though Grumbledook and Zombie were the bad guys

Mirascael tends to be very sarcastic in his replies. But never openly hostile

My job is maily bitching about aging.

Cheers

[Toby]

My job is maily bitching about aging.

Hey tell me if you need an allie on that issue; Ageing is completely stupid. A fix for overfixed fouling; I would rather like to see 500 SPP required to get Skill #3 instead of getting your strength reduced by scoring Touchdowns.

Ever seen an 6SPP ST1 Human Catcher ? Talk about coaching people who are almost dead...

[Mirascael]

Mirascael tends to be very sarcastic in his replies. But never openly hostile

That's by no means easy at all, I can assure you!

HEHE!

[Asperon Thorn]

I don't like this part:

Human rosters can consist of up to 12 Linemen, 4 Catchers, 4 Blitzers, 2 Throwers and 1 Ogre upto a maximum of 16 players on the roster in total.

. . .and think it should be part of the table, so it would look like this (adding the Max# column).

Code: Select all

Although Human teams do not have the individual strengths or outstanding abilities available to other races, they do not suffer from any outstanding weakness either. This makes Human teams extremely flexible, equally at home running the ball, passing it, or ignoring it and pounding the opposition into the turf instead! 

Position   M|S|A|AV  Skills,Traits & Specials  Cost Category Max#
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Lineman    6|3|3|8                              50K GE        12
Catcher    8|2|3|7   Dodge,Catch                70K GE,AG      4 
Thrower    6|3|3|8   Sure Hands,Pass            70K GE,PA      2
Blitzer    7|3|3|8   Block                      90K GE,ST      4
Ogre       5|5|2|9   Bone Head, Thick Skull    120K GE,ST      1
                     Mighty Blow, TTM, Big Guy

Team Reroll: 50,000   Apothecary: 50,000   Wizard: 50,000 (Freebooted only)

As far as the Anne Landers to Toby discussion, I find myself shotguned with so many ideas from the same person that I rapidly lose interest in the ones that may even have a degree of merit. Only in extreme cases of boredom (such as today) do I find myself wading through and attempting to make sense of newly started threads.

This thread, for example, could have started with a degree of merit if it had it only addressed one issue. Instead it had all kinds of other ideas packed into it, although we were told to ignore them. When I was 11 I took the required Introductory to Physical Science that was required for our Junior High School system. Most of the things I learned in that class got eclipsed by classes taken later in my schooling, but the one thing that they drilled into us was the scientific process. The part that really applies here is that when you do an experiment you conduct it so that there is only one variable. Everything else is a constant or a "known." Threads that start out like this, given a set up with x amount (I refuse to count how many) of different variables than the one in question is just poor presentation.

Asperon Thorn