Change the core rules to suite online play?

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
User avatar
Gallows Bait
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 August 2011, 20:06

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Gallows Bait » 06 November 2013, 22:15

I suspect that the current TV system was "pulled out of someone's ass". I also suspect that it was deliberately simplified to make it easier to use on TT.
I always find it surprising when people think that Blood Bowl should automatically have been a perfect game system with perfect TV calculations made in a perfectly playtested world. It never has been. It has flaws precisely because it was a game developed by a couple of people tossing ideas around for something fun to play once in a while over a beer. So yes, it was made by someone throwing some numbers together, playing a handful of games and seeing what felt about right.

Has it improved over the years due to extensive play and large volumes of league data and experience, yes, it has, but ultimately it can only improve within the parameters set out in the original rules.

All game systems are essentially made up from nothing. They can be tweaked with data, but the starting place has to be decided by somebody somehow to get the ball rolling in the first place.

We're also dealing with a system that essentially had development frozen by GW years ago, so refinement is a lot harder to come by (sadly for Human Catchers).

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby VoodooMike » 08 November 2013, 02:22

I always find it surprising when people think that Blood Bowl should automatically have been a perfect game system with perfect TV calculations made in a perfectly playtested world. It never has been. It has flaws precisely because it was a game developed by a couple of people tossing ideas around for something fun to play once in a while over a beer. So yes, it was made by someone throwing some numbers together, playing a handful of games and seeing what felt about right.
Nobody ever said it should have been perfect from the get go. The game was made with the intention of being what has been called a "beer and pretzels" game - something to do when you're with some buddies socializing, not really as something to seek out with the hopes of finding socialization on the side, and certainly not something meant for serious competitive play. For it's original purpose it has been fine for ages - it's fun and funny, especially when nobody is taking anything seriously.

When you play BB with some buddies as a hang-out thing, it is fun nomatter what - it's where a lot of people's best memories of the game come from. The problems started when a lot of folks shifted to that second concept... the game is primary and the socializing is the secondary aspect, such as you'll see with larger leagues and regional tournaments where the players don't all know and like each other from outside the game. That's when the rules started to become important, and as that type of play became more widespread it required rules revisions to deal with some of the most obvious deficiencies.

The BBRC was put together to work on that, and while they did some improvements they were really the start of the game's near-fatal growing pains. The BBRC was more or less about transitioning the game from beer and pretzels into something that made more sense in terms of being vaguely competitive for tournaments and short term leagues. They did some good stuff, don't get me wrong, but they were trying to use patches to turn a turkey into an eagle, and what's worse, they didn't really have the tools or know-how to do so. No doubt the statement will rub many of the hero-worshiping community members the wrong way, but I'd be absolutely floored if any member of the BBRC even knew how to analyze data much less anything else... it was just guys sitting around tossing a football around and saying "what if?" more or less.

And that leaves us with the online BB game which more or less is that final step... its not people who know each other coming together and playing a game to pass the time while they drink and laugh... it's not even people who like to play the game who are looking for like-minded folks... it's people who are playing a game and probably won't do much socializing with their opponents, especially outside of the match, and it's people who are looking for a game that is competitive and fair. Blood Bowl in its current form does not suit that, but that's what we're pretending it is with these online versions of the game.

The question thus becomes - do we do what needs to be done to transition it to a competitive game that suits online play? Some say yes, some say no... typically the people who say no are trying to hold on the the idea that the game can be one of the first two types mentioned despite being in a gaming environment (the internet) that doesn't much suit it. They can absolutely have that experience by simply sequestering themselves into smaller, cozy private leagues... they can play only with their real-world friends - hell, that's mostly what I do with this game. If the game is to make the transition into an online game it does need to change - specifically, it needs to have the qualities that make for a competitive game: it needs to be balanced in such a way as to make player skill the primary determining factor in either match outcomes or some visible ranking system.

Should the overall rules, even tabletop, change to accomplish this? Personally I don't give two craps whether they do or not - that's not what I'm playing here. I don't see that it'd be a problem since the actual reason for playing the game only rely heavily on the rules when using it as a competitive medium - if you're just passing time with friends it doesn't matter if the rules are total crap or if they're actually well balanced, and for short term leagues and tournaments there won't be anything lost by having things balanced. The opposition is mostly fear of the unknown from what really is a painfully chickenshit community.
Has it improved over the years due to extensive play and large volumes of league data and experience, yes, it has, but ultimately it can only improve within the parameters set out in the original rules.
And what parameters are those, exactly?
All game systems are essentially made up from nothing. They can be tweaked with data, but the starting place has to be decided by somebody somehow to get the ball rolling in the first place.
It's not the starting place anyone is worried about, its the next place.
We're also dealing with a system that essentially had development frozen by GW years ago, so refinement is a lot harder to come by (sadly for Human Catchers).
At its core, this is just the aforementioned chickenshitness of the community - its the fallback argument that people go to when they're too afraid to move forward, but don't want to say so. They say "but... but... GW will never officially change the rules so...." ...so what? They're not the ones making or playing the game.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
Gallows Bait
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 August 2011, 20:06

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Gallows Bait » 15 November 2013, 00:01

Nobody ever said it should have been perfect from the get go.
No, but when someone says they begin to suspect it was pulled out of the air, then they really need to be told, that the reason it feels like that is because it was and people need to remember it and not believe it was some planned out system that just needed balancing.
*Snip* lots of stuff I agree with
and it's people who are looking for a game that is competitive and fair. Blood Bowl in its current form does not suit that, but that's what we're pretending it is with these online versions of the game.
Some people, perhaps, yes, while I do think it is a more balanced game now than in its infancy, I'm not one to claim it is fair by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree some do see it with a more rose-tinted view.
*Snip more sensible stuff
I agree, so long as it is optional, because as you note, for those private league experiences, the game is for the most part fine and dandy and even if it isn't balanced, everyone has the choice of who and how they play, so it does become about finding what you enjoy. For MM style massive online ladders, I agree the rules could do with some house rule intervention, so long as they're not imposed by force on everyone, then that's no bad thing, provided the changes are actually beneficial and not some shoddy 5 minute brainstorming session by a junior dev and a couple of beta testers.
Has it improved over the years due to extensive play and large volumes of league data and experience, yes, it has, but ultimately it can only improve within the parameters set out in the original rules.
And what parameters are those, exactly?
By which I mean you can only balance it so far without admitting that the original team rosters aren't designed to a pricing model but were balanced on a "it feels right" pricing basis and that the system later used for designing or changing teams came about well after the fact and is not a foolproof model and would generate many differences to the rosters we actually have. You can't balance rosters by fiddling around only with the new ones is the limitation to my mind.
All game systems are essentially made up from nothing. They can be tweaked with data, but the starting place has to be decided by somebody somehow to get the ball rolling in the first place.
It's not the starting place anyone is worried about, its the next place.
Perhaps, that really depends on how much freedom Focus and Cyanide have been given though, they may not be allowed to make the "next place."
We're also dealing with a system that essentially had development frozen by GW years ago, so refinement is a lot harder to come by (sadly for Human Catchers).
At its core, this is just the aforementioned chickenshitness of the community - its the fallback argument that people go to when they're too afraid to move forward, but don't want to say so. They say "but... but... GW will never officially change the rules so...." ...so what? They're not the ones making or playing the game.
[/quote]

True, but ultimately it is GW who call the shots on what is or is not Blood Bowl, it's their IP and their license. If they don't sanction it, you're playing a similar but ultimately different game (I don't know, call it Chaos League or something ;) ) while that may make for a great game, there are those in the community that enjoy it at least in part because it comes with the GW IP background setting and that rich link to tabletop roots - we can't help it, nostalgia is a selling factor too.

Blood Bowl is the game GW say it is, is really my point. Everything else has to be negotiated, too far off script and they might get reeled back in, but if they've been given some freedom then fair play. Just let it be optional so that it can suit everyone, that's all I'd ask really.

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby VoodooMike » 15 November 2013, 01:06

Some people, perhaps, yes, while I do think it is a more balanced game now than in its infancy, I'm not one to claim it is fair by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree some do see it with a more rose-tinted view.
I'm not sure I agree that it is more "balanced" now than it used to be, though of course there's endless arguments as to what balance is supposed to look like. If you take the stats available from various places for LRB4, LRB5, and CRP... which aspects are really becoming more flattened and consistent in terms of numbers? Are rosters coming closer in win%? I don't know of any useful and reliable data from before that - the people who collected it had no idea what to do with it and just made it into uninformative averages.
I agree, so long as it is optional, because as you note, for those private league experiences, the game is for the most part fine and dandy and even if it isn't balanced, everyone has the choice of who and how they play, so it does become about finding what you enjoy.
The private leagues you're talking about are in the minority. Even the larger Cyanide Private Leagues are of the second type I mentioned - its not a group of buddies playing, its larger groups of people who don't really know one another, and thus are much more likely to care about mechanical game balance than they are about having a laugh. Given that the people who don't care about the game being unbalanced won't care any more if the game is balanced, there's really no need to preserve existing game IMbalance for them either, is there? The only people who require the preservation of existing systems are the people who honestly believe the existing systems are immutable imperatives to the game working correctly... which nobody really does, since they've moved between rulesets with each LRB just fine. So really, the only excuse for refusing game balance is "I juz wanna".
By which I mean you can only balance it so far without admitting that the original team rosters aren't designed to a pricing model but were balanced on a "it feels right" pricing basis and that the system later used for designing or changing teams came about well after the fact and is not a foolproof model and would generate many differences to the rosters we actually have. You can't balance rosters by fiddling around only with the new ones is the limitation to my mind.
Sure, we can all happily admit that the game was mostly pulled out of the asses of a couple of drunk guys one day when they were bored. That doesn't mean that needs to be a guiding game design principle, however.
Perhaps, that really depends on how much freedom Focus and Cyanide have been given though, they may not be allowed to make the "next place."
That's mostly a community-invented excuse... it has almost always been the community declaring that Cyanide and Focus couldn't do <whatever> because GW didn't give permission. At no point has GW ever validated this, and it is not in line with GW's other product licenses used in the creation of other software. Cyanide created a totally new roster and is adding in a marketplace for standard play, and stuff about stadium upgrades, etc. There has never been any substantiation of the claim that Cyanide/Focus's hands are tied by GW's department of purity, just community members claiming inside knowledge of something that has repeatedly been countered by actual actions taken by them.
True, but ultimately it is GW who call the shots on what is or is not Blood Bowl, it's their IP and their license. If they don't sanction it, you're playing a similar but ultimately different game (I don't know, call it Chaos League or something ;) ) while that may make for a great game, there are those in the community that enjoy it at least in part because it comes with the GW IP background setting and that rich link to tabletop roots - we can't help it, nostalgia is a selling factor too.
Says who? See above.
Blood Bowl is the game GW say it is, is really my point.
GW doesn't even sell it anymore. Blood Bowl is the game the people who play it say it is. Even if we assume that the ever-retold story that GW is like big brother to Cyanider/Focus ensuring the racial purity of the BB game (huge assumption, considering) this isn't the only way to play the game. The game is what people decide to play.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Koadah » 15 November 2013, 07:48

The only people who require the preservation of existing systems are the people who honestly believe the existing systems are immutable imperatives to the game working correctly... which nobody really does, since they've moved between rulesets with each LRB just fine. So really, the only excuse for refusing game balance is "I juz wanna"..

This whole discussion is 'I juz wanna'. You want one thing. I want something else. Dode probably want's something else again. Pretty much everyone wants something different.

You keep whining about people not wanting change. Well, people do want change. It is just that some of them don't like some of your ideas.
That is it. The game does need to keep evolving but there is no actual evidence that your ideas will make it any 'better' than anyone else's ideas would.

Better = "closer to the way that I like it". :mrgreen:
CaRBB

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby VoodooMike » 15 November 2013, 10:46

This whole discussion is 'I juz wanna'. You want one thing. I want something else. Dode probably want's something else again. Pretty much everyone wants something different.
All hobbies are "I juz wanna", but that isn't what we're talking about here. In fact, we're not talking about my specific ideas in the first place - the topic is whether or not the rules should be changed to suit online play. The "juz wanna" comment refers to the fact that for casual play, the rules don't really matter... for competitive play the rules are everything. We know the current rules do not create a game that is really worthy of competitive play, so anyone who objects to making changes to the rules to get it there is just being a dickhole, because if they're a casual player the rules don't matter, so it doesn't matter if they change... and if they're a competitive player the rules do matter, and they need to change to make this game genuinely competitive.
You keep whining about people not wanting change. Well, people do want change. It is just that some of them don't like some of your ideas.
That is it. The game does need to keep evolving but there is no actual evidence that your ideas will make it any 'better' than anyone else's ideas would.
The game doesn't evolve in the hands of people like you or plasmoid, because everything you suggest is based on pretty much nothing but intuition - that kind of development doesn't reduce the number of problems, it just moves the problems around like pushing around shit with a dry mop. The statement about evidence is stupid - just as it was stupid when dode said it: you can't get evidence of future events without a time machine, so arguing that you can't prove an outcome is the logic level of a child. Nobody can see the future, but that doesn't make all paths equal and nobody believes it does - everybody lives their lives based on past information. Individuals use the informal method of personal experience... institutions use the formal method of data analysis and projections. The latter is the foundation for everything from science to economics. The former results in the hodge-podge lives of the common folk... long strings of relationships, failed marriages, changing careers, you name it. Each can fail... intuition fails more often, by far.

So, when I present ideas I do what I can to use data as the foundation, and transparent, logical calculations for the proposals. We can certainly say that nobody can be 100% sure that the outcomes will be positive for any path that anybody takes, but we can be much, much, much more confident in things that are clear, based on evidence and data, and which (intelligent) people can sit down, process, and understand... at least more confident than with "so like, me and the boys feel cpomb is a problem so lets just not allow that and like... stuff".
Better = "closer to the way that I like it". :mrgreen:
Actually, by your own crap logic, there's no "evidence" that making it different in ways you demand will lead to you liking it more and thus to being better even by your own personal definition. Darn, eh?
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

Mr Suplex
Posts: 36
Joined: 15 September 2013, 05:05

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Mr Suplex » 13 December 2013, 17:46

Screw this. The beauty of this game is that it is a translation of the board game and allows people to play remotely.

Vusfnuv
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 August 2012, 11:30

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Vusfnuv » 14 January 2014, 10:39

The best solution we have so far is TV++, which is being discussed in Criteria for MM thread.
Yes, at least it is supposed to minimize the problems people get in a regular TV-based matchmaking.
It would be good to have at least one open league with TV++ matchmaking system.


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron