Change the core rules to suite online play?

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
plasmoid
Posts: 209
Joined: 05 February 2012, 23:00

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby plasmoid » 25 September 2013, 20:28

PS - Ageing is, IMO, a fine example of a rule that was never proven to be broken. I don't even know how the broken-ness of Ageing could be measured.
But it was changed all the same, explicitly because it was unpopular/unenjoyable.

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 » 26 September 2013, 00:44

No Mike. It implies that you have to get the changes coded before you can use them via the internet to build this massive store of data that you are after.
Only if the changes are NOT based on any data in the first place in which case you're wasting your damned time collecting post-change data because you have no initial metric against which to test for improvement! If you have no data going into a change, then you have no way to test the effect of the change. I honestly don't know how you and plasmoid can't wrap your head around this concept.

There is no "happiness" metric so every time you bring that crap up its just blowing smoke up people's asses. What shall we pretend is that metric? Number of people playing the game? Are there as many people playing the TT game today as there were in 1997? No? Fewer tournaments? Does that mean the BBRC has been progressively making people less happy over time with their changes? I doubt you'll agree that's the case... so what, then? Polling people who still bother to play the game and keep screwing with the rules based on what they say? Awesome, you'll end up with a progressively smaller and smaller yet happier and happier group of players - you won't have made the game objectively "better" you'll have made it more and more focused on a small group of people, serving things up to their wishes until there's nobody left but them.
And each time you make tweaks you have to code those tweaks too. With out that you're back to relying on data from the TT leagues..
Obtuse... keep reading that first paragraph until you understand what I'm saying and then you'll answer all your own questions. Changes without a specified metric to measure the effects of those changes are random and meaningless. If you can't measure the effect of a "fix" you're not fixing things you just screwing around.
b) A rule is hugely unpopular among the player base - making the game frustrating/less enjoyable.
The only thing approaching data on the topic is the poll on TFF, which you refuse to accept as valid... unless you have a secret source of data you've yet to reveal. Your forum buddies rubbing you on the shoulders and saying "you go, girl!" doesn't constitute an objective measure of what people find enjoyable or frustrating in general, even within the player community as a whole.
BBRC rarely, if ever, made any of the many many rules changes on anything like significant data. There was none.
Which is, unsurprisingly, why people keep calling for more changes to the rules with each revision... because they made their decisions in the same useless way you make yours, by gut feeling and by assuming that the vocal minority somehow generalizes to the entire community.
Controversial, sure, but if the costumer base clearly wanted it, why wouldn't Cyanide do that? After testing, ofcourse.
You've developed that missing "happiness metric" to be used in such testing, have you? What exactly would they be doing comparative testing on? Forum polls? Which ones... the ones that say what "we" want them to, or the ones that don't that "we" don't consider to be a valid source of data?
PS - Ageing is, IMO, a fine example of a rule that was never proven to be broken. I don't even know how the broken-ness of Ageing could be measured.
But it was changed all the same, explicitly because it was unpopular/unenjoyable.
Unpopular with some people, certainly, much in the same way the "replacement" for ageing is unpopular with some people. Could it be that people just don't like losing players? They love the concept of permanent injury and loss... just not to their players. The BBRC changed all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons - they're not a good example of design as it should be done: the fact that you're calling for changes to their design should be proof enough for that to you, but obviously won't be.
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 » 26 September 2013, 11:56

Only if the changes are NOT based on any data in the first place in which case you're wasting your damned time collecting post-change data because you have no initial metric against which to test for improvement! If you have no data going into a change, then you have no way to test the effect of the change. I honestly don't know how you and plasmoid can't wrap your head around this concept.
I am all for using data to help with decisions.
There is no "happiness" metric so every time you bring that crap up its just blowing smoke up people's asses. What shall we pretend is that metric? Number of people playing the game? Are there as many people playing the TT game today as there were in 1997? No? Fewer tournaments? Does that mean the BBRC has been progressively making people less happy over time with their changes? I doubt you'll agree that's the case... so what, then? Polling people who still bother to play the game and keep screwing with the rules based on what they say? Awesome, you'll end up with a progressively smaller and smaller yet happier and happier group of players - you won't have made the game objectively "better" you'll have made it more and more focused on a small group of people, serving things up to their wishes until there's nobody left but them.
Even without much GW support there seems to quite a few tournaments around.
Maybe that is not as many as the 'good old days' but the game seems to be taking it's own sweet time to die. And computer versions are only helping to prolong it's life.

How big does this group of people need to be? Does it need to be as big as Starcraft? There are far more than enough on Fumbbl. There were enough on Stuntyleeg.com until Fumbbl updated it's rules and stole them all away. Now if people had left Stuntyleeg to play Starcraft or Poker I'd be worried. But they didn't. They left to play blood bowl somewhere else.

There is no "happiness" metric so every time you bring that crap up its just blowing smoke up people's asses.
.

OK. Now we're getting to it. So why do we play the game? If winning & losing was all that matters we may as well just play snakes & ladders.
The only data you have is win/loss and injuries. You don't seen to take much notice of injuries. We don't even have KO data which to many would be probably more important than injuries.

How are we supposed to believe that the data will cure all known ills when it doesn't even address the most important goal of the game. To have fun.
Having at least a certain amount of balance is part of the fun equation. But it is not the only part. A lot of people specifically want parts of the game to be unbalanced.

PS - Ageing is, IMO, a fine example of a rule that was never proven to be broken. I don't even know how the broken-ness of Ageing could be measured.
But it was changed all the same, explicitly because it was unpopular/unenjoyable.
Unpopular with some people, certainly, much in the same way the "replacement" for ageing is unpopular with some people. Could it be that people just don't like losing players? They love the concept of permanent injury and loss... just not to their players. The BBRC changed all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons - they're not a good example of design as it should be done: the fact that you're calling for changes to their design should be proof enough for that to you, but obviously won't be.
I agree with Plasmoid. Aging may well have been a good mechanism that did it's job well. But people just didn't like it.

Would you have kept aging purely because it worked on paper?

As far as the BBRC are concerned I am pretty happy which what they have done. Even the CPOMB hasn't directly been much of an issue for me. I comment because I can see how it could be an issue for others. I have nerfed it in some of my leagues purely as a preference. If enough people feel that there is not enough blood I'll change it back. ;)
I would be interested to see the effect of a nerf on Box or MM

Do you have any data that says nerfing it would be a bad move?
CaRBB

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby dode74 » 26 September 2013, 13:12

Do you have any data that says nerfing it would be a bad move?
That's the point: there is none either way. That's why I want a test league. It might be good, it might be bad: we might end up with more dwarf- or orc-spam instead, for example, (which might in turn have a greater effect on the overall bashiness of the league, and potentially a negative effect on "happiness"). Without testing we have no idea.
Image

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

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Koadah » 26 September 2013, 15:43

Do you have any data that says nerfing it would be a bad move?
That's the point: there is none either way. That's why I want a test league. It might be good, it might be bad: we might end up with more dwarf- or orc-spam instead, for example, (which might in turn have a greater effect on the overall bashiness of the league, and potentially a negative effect on "happiness"). Without testing we have no idea.

Careful Dode. People might think that you are turning into one of those gut feeling, hand wavers. ;)
CaRBB

User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby dode74 » 26 September 2013, 15:46

What, because I'm willing to say "I don't know what would happen and would rather find out before implementation?"
Image

User avatar
Darkson
Posts: 2713
Joined: 17 September 2008, 20:43
Location: Somewhere on the same planet as you.
Contact:

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Darkson » 26 September 2013, 18:49

@Koadah - there's more tournaments today than 10 years ago. Also NAF membership has gone up every year for 10 years (not that that means there's more players in total, just that a larger % sign up).
Galak 3:16 says "There is a point in time that a player really should read the rulebook."
Home of the ARBBL
TalkFantasyFootball admin - PM me if you need help.
Nope, I was talking about a 0TTD on a Blitz! using TTM.

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 » 27 September 2013, 09:26

I am all for using data to help with decisions.
Any decision that is not made based on data is, by definition, arbitrary in nature. Additionally, you cannot measure the effects of your decisions without having pre-and-post decision data. If you start changing things based on anything but data, you're just playing with the knobs and buttons like a chimp would.
Maybe that is not as many as the 'good old days' but the game seems to be taking it's own sweet time to die. And computer versions are only helping to prolong it's life.
Its not a boolean state... things aren't AWESOME or DEAD. My point was not that the game is dying, my point is that you can't use player base as a metric for how happy people are at the same time as saying everyone is happier with the BBRC's changes with each LRB, unless the player base has been steadily increasing with each version.
How big does this group of people need to be? Does it need to be as big as Starcraft? There are far more than enough on Fumbbl. There were enough on Stuntyleeg.com until Fumbbl updated it's rules and stole them all away. Now if people had left Stuntyleeg to play Starcraft or Poker I'd be worried. But they didn't. They left to play blood bowl somewhere else.
I'm pretty sure you didn't even read what I said.
OK. Now we're getting to it. So why do we play the game? If winning & losing was all that matters we may as well just play snakes & ladders.
Again you're failing to wrap your head around what is being said. I didn't say that people enjoying the game doesn't matter, I said there is no metric for measuring how much people are enjoying the game... and because there is no metric, we can't measure the effect of any changes on that non-existent metric. It's a bit like you declaring that the only thing that matters in a debate is how much Jesus loves each of the particular debaters. Obviously Jesus isn't holding up score cards, so such a metric simply doesn't exist. It's swell that you think it matters, but since there IS no measure, any time you delve into it being important when we're making decisions, you're blowing smoke up our asses. If you want to make it important, give it a metric people can agree on and then we can use it.
How are we supposed to believe that the data will cure all known ills when it doesn't even address the most important goal of the game. To have fun.
Having at least a certain amount of balance is part of the fun equation. But it is not the only part. A lot of people specifically want parts of the game to be unbalanced.
blah blah f'n blah. It doesn't account for Jesus's taste in sandwiches either, but since we don't know whether he likes white or brown bread, we don't factor it into our decision making process. The same is true for the lacking "happiness" metric. Let me put to you in a way you might be able to understand... you say "a lot of people" want it unbalanced... peachy. What percentage of the player base does "a lot" translate to. More than 50%? Less than 50%? More than 90%? Less than 10%? "A lot" of people would rather play balanced games than play games unbalanced AGAINST them - for games to be unbalanced in one person's favour they have to be unbalanced in the other. What percentage of people would rather play balanced games than games unbalanced in their opponent's favour? More than 50%? Less than 50%? More than 90%? etc etc etc...

You don't know, do you? I don't know either. That's the so-called "fun and happiness metric" that DOES NOT EXIST because we simply do not know. When you dive into these weasel-word horsecrap things about "a lot" you're just blowing smoke up people's asses because you absolutely have NO idea how people feel because there is no objective measure of how they feel. Theres you listening to a very small group of people you hang out with, and generalizing it to the world.

So, the proposed decision making process is this: barring the introduction of an objective happiness metric and jesus sandwich-preference metric, we don't worry about those things because we cannot factor those things in without an objective measure of those things. We do, however, know that the vast, vast majority of people prefer not to be disadvantaged in games and competitions of any sort.. that extends beyond THIS game.. it extends beyond games to all forms of competition. Since we know that the majority of all people, in all cultures, tend to be unhappy when they are put into a competitive situation in which they are more likely to lose than win, we can assume that we are improving the happiness of at least 50% of people who would, in an unbalanced environment, be faced with such a situation, by making things balanced. We can also say that the people who only want to play unbalanced games in their own favour are assholes, and that we're not too worried about them being happy at the expense of others when we focus on making a balanced environment.

...as to Jesus, I offer him a reuben sandwich on rye, and the following prayer:

"God give Koadah the serenity to understand the things he cannot measure.. the wisdom to work with the things he can... and 20 or so IQ points to finally figure out the difference."
Would you have kept aging purely because it worked on paper?
Again, that's entirely the wrong question. The point is that both ageing and the whole Claw thing are about forcing mortality on players, and both have been a major focus of vocal opposition from people in forums, etc. I was suggesting that they may be symptoms of a larger issue that people have with certain design decisions... and thus just shifting around the method of enforcing mortality is just shifting around what people will bitch about next.
Do you have any data that says nerfing it would be a bad move?
Do you have any data that says giving halflings claw and regeneration would change their win%? No? I guess we should do it then, herp derp derp!
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

A-r-c-h-o-n
Posts: 165
Joined: 05 December 2009, 11:33

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby A-r-c-h-o-n » 27 September 2013, 10:05

I don't get why you are arguing over the fact, that VM wants the game to evolve (by identifying problems based on measurable data and eliminating them through tweaking the rules and comparing the pre-post-results), while kodah seems to be more willing to "just screw around" with the crp, which certainly will lead to another gaming-experience, which MAY (or may not) be a better one.

IF that's done in a testing league - why oppose to it? Marie Curie (well, not for her personally) and Alexander Fleming did come up with some great inventions by "screwing around". What harm can it bring to give kodah the chance to do so?

Beside diminishing resources, that would otherwise lead to a perfect CRP-compatible BB2-Client from Cyanide... ;)

If regenerating halflings with claws turn out to be THE great rule change, which makes the game more fun and kodah is the one who finds out, I would be thankfull to him. Point is - we don't know now, but we MAY know afterwards how to measure it...

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

Re: Change the core rules to suite online play?

Postby Koadah » 27 September 2013, 10:39

What does all that blowing smoke up asses stuff mean? Do you mean talking crap?
So, the proposed decision making process is this: barring the introduction of an objective happiness metric and jesus sandwich-preference metric, we don't worry about those things because we cannot factor those things in without an objective measure of those things.
I don't suppose there is any point asking them or testing a change to see what happens.
We do, however, know that the vast, vast majority of people prefer not to be disadvantaged in games and competitions of any sort.. that extends beyond THIS game.. it extends beyond games to all forms of competition. Since we know that the majority of all people, in all cultures, tend to be unhappy when they are put into a competitive situation in which they are more likely to lose than win, we can assume that we are improving the happiness of at least 50% of people who would, in an unbalanced environment, be faced with such a situation, by making things balanced.
Purely anecdotal experience of the Fumbbl Ranked division suggests that the majority of people would prefer a slight advantage. :twisted:
It may well be that removing the chance to sometimes have a slight advantage would actually make people unhappier. ;)

You also seem to be assuming that everyone treats MM as just a one off pick up game. Removing any meaning beyond the one off game will probably also reduce people's fun.
We can also say that the people who only want to play unbalanced games in their own favour are assholes, and that we're not too worried about them being happy at the expense of others when we focus on making a balanced environment.
I'd say that it is how unbalanced people want the games to be that defines whether they are an asshole or not. I am sure that many would say that building a competitive team is part of the fun. What is the point in aspiring to a better team is it does not give you any advantage? What is the point in improving coach skill.

I suspect this communist style egalitarianism will lead to a dull, dreary, characterless league. ;)
Who gets excited about a bunch of 8-8 teams. It is 16-0, 15-1 that gets people excited. The issue is teams that use loopholes to make getting to 16-0 too easy.

People dream of being champions not just average.
CaRBB


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron