Future of Rule Making

Purplegoo · Post by **Purplegoo** » Sun May 24, 2009 1:54 pm

Greetings. First - a few disclaimers. This isn't a thread rubbishing rules as they stand, were before, or might one day be. It's not a FUMBBL Vs. TBB troll fest, it's not trying to have a go at anyone or anything, past, present or future. It’s simply a bit of a muse and a question.

Right, with that said, I'd like to ask about future rules reviews. As far as I understand matters (and please, feel free to correct me in my ignorance, I’m sure not all of this is correct), rules are currently debated by a 6(?) man(??) panel, and have to get a final OK from JJ. The testing is done on MBBL or tabletop (or seemed to be in the 5+ discussions I've been looking at), and the views of those in this forum seem to be pretty valued. I also understand that LRB6, when official, will be with us for a decent, indefinite amount of time.

OK, with that (possibly inaccurate) background out of the way, to the point. We were having a chat in the Whiteisle channel (British online league) about those of us that are attending their first TT tournament at the upcoming GT, and for the 1000th time, rules we liked or didn't like in LRB5. It stuck me for a moment that much of the resentment felt by some (although they'd never probably admit it) was down to the fact that the few (i.e. table toppers, the majority of people that read this) make the rules, and the many (i.e. the predominantly online coaches) have to suck it up a bit and get on with it, whether they like what happens or not. Now, to date, why not? Afterall, BB is a board game, the online outlets that use the Java client are unofficial and now 'out of date' (although, I hate that phrase. People enjoying a set of rules that just so happened to be released before a different set should just be allowed to get on with it like any league with it's house rules), so it makes perfect sense that new rules should be made my those that invest their time in painting the minis, running local leagues, play the official way, etc. Makes sense to me. I agree with the system.

The future is less obvious. With the release of the Cyanide product (again - it's not for this thread to address the 'Will it be any good?' and ‘How many new coaches will it introduce?’ questions, they’re debated elsewhere) the 'many' will grow even further to outnumber the few, the number of online (in the main – obviously some crossover will occur) coaches will boom, and whilst TT (I hope) will get a new influx, it just can't hope to reach as many people. E-mail is bigger than letter writing, lager sales outweigh brown ale, Twenty20 Cricket will probably one day leave test followers nostalgically wondering about the good old days when Cricket lasted 5 days, and BB will be an online experience for 95% of people. If it isn't already! Or at least it seems this way to me. It will also have a legitimate face, the Java client will soon be LRB5+ too - online play won't be (shudder) 'out of date'.

At this point - who will make the rules? Will the pocket of BBRC members that (so far as I know, to date) are TT bods still use conventional means that the majority of online coaches are unaware of (and thus, make the rules as the few, for the few) to make the rules, or will they take on members of online communities that might have different ideas or have different needs (online environments are typically vastly different than their TT counterparts)? Will their new, official Cyanide face mean that if and when LRB7 ever comes, they have a voice? Or will there will be a steadfast doctrine that BB is a tabletop game, so the rules are made for tabletop leagues?

Anyways, I'm just interested. Long may all forms of BB go on, but I'd really like to see ‘online’ participation in discussions relating to LRB7 if and when it ever comes. The needs of the many, and all that.

Cheers.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun May 24, 2009 3:32 pm

lots of the data was collected from various sources, online javabowl leagues included

fumbbl, francebloodbowl, the italian forums as well

fumbbl has already had a big effect on the changes to rules, handicapping for instance (though its been well known as a weak point in leagues for years before this hence all the different handicapping systems that were tried)

LRB6 is meant to be the last one for quite a while as I believe jervis (or others at GW) want a fixed ruleset for a while to make it worthwhile printing a new rulebook (amoungst other reasons that a less changing ruleset brings)

So if and when LRB7 it thought about I imagine the same process will continue as before and I'm not sure where you got the idea that the rules were made up by a few table toppers. I'm not even sure galak plays a tabletop league, and I know for certain that he read all the forums for the big online leagues. I certainly got my opinions shaped by fumbbl to a degree as well. Also a lot of "table toppers" play on fumbbl etc as well.

Hope that clears things up, not all table toppers are happy with all the rules either and the ones that are being tested for LRB6 (which you could use javabowl for on the whole) aren't necessarily going to be put in the official rules either.

So there is still time to pull your finger out to get an input on LRB6 if anyone so wanted. Course that may not address what you don't like in LRB5 but not everyone will be pleased by 100% of the rules. I know there are some things I'd change.

Purplegoo · Post by **Purplegoo** » Sun May 24, 2009 3:56 pm

A slight sidestepping of the point, although perhaps I wasn't presenting myself as well as I'd hoped.

It's one thing to collate data, read forums, etc, but it's quite another to have a visible face giving experience or a collection of anecdotal evidence. Of course the plural of anecdote isn't data - part of the reason I think some of the new rules went the way they did, but let's not stray - but I think that a visible, knowledgeable (of the online BB medium) face would be a) helpful, and b) belay some of the silly arguments that spring up.

I made no comment on the experimental rules, because that isn't my point. My views on LRB6 as is can be found elsewhere, so my voice has been heard there.

The process 'continuing as before' is, however, exactly my point. If you can point me to a rules committee member that is a visible, experienced face of online BB as is, then fine, my ignorance is happily warded off. If not, with the future being online (or at least, as I see it), my point is that there would be enormous benefit to that being the case. If not Galak, then someone else. I knew that online sources helped formulate LRB5, and there is a sizeable portion of online coaches that don't like a lot of it (again, I'm not here to be critical, I only said this to illustrate a point); so it's an example of data not formulating good results, at least in the eyes of many. To be totally honest, I don't even know what I think, until LRB5+ is let loose on a huge online scale, I only have opinions on what might be, not what is. I could very well be wrong on bits I dislike, or not have spotted problems thus far. Give it 6 months on an online medium I'm involved in, I'll have an opinion.

And I know LRB7 is an indefinite time away. Hence me getting in early! Consensus on rules is impossible to achieve. That's why house rules exist. But online input in the future might help keep more happy.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Sun May 24, 2009 4:13 pm

Well it is Jervis who picks the BBRC. Not 100% sure what you are asking either.

Galak is a visibile member of the online community, he runs the MBBL or whatever its called. Ian has been around since forever as well, I know I've played him on fumbbl in the past as well.

How many of the sizeable portion of players have played any LRB5, as you said yourself until the online leagues that generate a lot of games actually play them it is just theory. It's a shame they couldn't switch over ages ago such as what happened with LRB4 testing that was done on fumbbl.

Not sure what you would class as a being visible member of online BB being on the BBRC, if that was your main concern your best bet would be to email Jervis. However I don't feel that would make much difference over the current process given that players off fumbbl have posted a lot on here (sillysod for example) and the fumbbl forums views are read.

From my time as fumbbl admin though this same thing has happened on there every time the rules changed from each LRB, I think when it does switch over most concerns will be fine. The proof will be in the pudding.

Xeterog · Post by **Xeterog** » Sun May 24, 2009 5:58 pm

I know many Table Top only players felt left out of the LRB process, as they did not have an online presence. I know Galak and other BBRC members did their best to include everyone, online or TT, in the discussions.

IMO, neither online or TT should be valued over the other--they are both valid ways to play Blood Bowl. But I don't know how either could be more included more in the process than they were for LRB5/6

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun May 24, 2009 6:02 pm

Although the majority of my play these days is online, I still think that tabletop should have the bigger overall presense - like it or not, BB was designed as, and still is, a Tabletop game firstly.

Purplegoo · Post by **Purplegoo** » Sun May 24, 2009 6:14 pm

Darkson wrote:Although the majority of my play these days is online, I still think that tabletop should have the bigger overall presense - like it or not, BB was designed as, and still is, a Tabletop game firstly.

I'm not, and never will be in the business of saying form 'a' of the game is better or more important than form 'b'. I think there's a bit of snobbery that's unwarranted on both sides, to be perfectly frank. Tbh, the only people that miss out are those that restrict themselves to one only. If I get involved in, or see, one more FUMBBL Vs. TT argument, my head will explode, it's just dumb. Why people can't just get along is beyond me.

TT having a bigger overall presence in rule making? Seems fair to me, I’m not arguing the contrary. Just perhaps for an actual, physical, experienced person or people that can have genuine input from a primarily online standpoint, not just forum fighting, conjecture or reams of numbers (especially when theres a rather large group of those guys, as yet seemingly unrepresented!). I was very clear in my own head that I didn't want to come across as 'There's way more online guys, you guys are all fossils, let us take over', hence the careful disclaimer.

besters · Post by **besters** » Sun May 24, 2009 6:15 pm

I have to say I don't have a problem with the BBRC continuing as is. I understand that the priority is to balance league play anyway, which inevitably puts on-line concerns at the top off the list.

I also think the members of the BBRC do a hell of a job getting the views of all parts of the bloodbowl community.

Whether I personally like the result at times, I can't argue that changes haven't been discussed and tested as much as is possible.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:10 pm

I'm pretty active online and attend all the tournaments I can - so go to any in NSW or ACT and I'm likely to be present. Travelling further a field is difficult, but I was at the NAF world cup and a few other European tournies in 2007 (fingers crossed for the next WC too). I also play in a local league which contains some FUMBBLers.

I don't play on FUMBBL. I find it hard enough to keep track of all the rules without having to remember obsolete ones too! I'm intending to play on Cyanide and once the FUMBBL LRB5 client is stable I'll probably pop back there.

I try to make myself accessible and if there is anything specifically you think needs to be discussed feel free to PM or email me. There are no guarantees that I'll agree but I will listen.

Geggster is on the BBRC and is one of the most prolific tournament players around. He's play over 300 NAF games and travels to a lot of tournaments. He doesn't post much but is easy enough to talk to if you see him.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:34 pm

Hi Pgoo,
don't know if anyone else has clarified this - I'm just a casual reader

But AFAIK, the BBRC is 4 members + JJ himself.
Of those 4, 2 have a pretty big online presence (Ian and Tom), while 2 of them don't go to any boards.

Cheers
Martin

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:53 pm

Hi Pgoo,

I think that a member of the BBRC does not have to play a lot of FUMBBL or be a mod there to have a strong 'online presence'. I think Tom's willingness to go on all the BB boards and accept their data covers this. Even before you consider the MBBL (which I know you FUMBBLers don't have much time for).

spubbbba · Post by **spubbbba** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:46 pm

It's a real shame that just as we're about to get 2 great sources of LRB5 statistics it's decided that LRB6 will be the last change to the rules for quite some time.

Both the cyanide game and the new FUMBBL client that's in the works will be really useful to see how teams perform at all different TV's. With 100's of thousands of games using LRB5 soon being played online it would have been really useful to look at what aspects were needing to be changed and which races needed a nerf/buff.

Personally i though LRB6 was a bit pointless and didn't really add anything to LRB5 or address some of the flaws in the change from 4 to 5. Though overall i do prefer 5, but that's mainly due to the changes to norse, rotters and goblins as well as the inducement system.

ianwilliams wrote: Geggster is on the BBRC and is one of the most prolific tournament players around. He's play over 300 NAF games and travels to a lot of tournaments. He doesn't post much but is easy enough to talk to if you see him.

300 tournament games isn't all that much really and it doesn't even use the Bloodbowl rules as most tournaments are with rookie teams or feature quite a lot of house rules (no injuries carry over and you can pick and choose who skills). There are over 300 coaches on FUMBBL who have played 1000+ games at all TR's and using a huge variety of races.

Once the cyanide game is up and running and the new client come along it won't take that long for some online players to get to 1000+ games of LRB5 and against a far wider variety of opponents and TV's.

Reading the forums is a useful way to see what;s going on, but not as good as playing a shedload of games.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:52 pm

GW mandate is that LRB 6.0 is it. The video game is a major reason for this demand.

Also we had a LOT of game data collected from LRB 5.0 ... Plasmoid pulled it all together from online and TT sources. Yes they'll be a lot of games played with it and the new FUMBBL client ... but I'm happy that the mass data we collected at this point shows that the game is working pretty darn well.

I also collected a lot of data from FUMBBL to help build the LRB 5.0 in the first place.

LRB 6.0 changes are minor because the data looked so good. A few team changes to pull them closer to performance of their peers but that's it.

Ian and I differ on this. I don't think they'll be an LRB 7.0 for the next 10 years ... he does. Heck I'm not sure if JJ will get LRB 6.0 to happen which I do think is definitely needed but not a mission critical. If there isn't an LRB 7.0 ever ... I'm happy with the game as it is.

Tom/Galak

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:00 pm

spubbbba wrote:Reading the forums is a useful way to see what;s going on, but not as good as playing a shedload of games.

I should not debate this since it is a moot point since LRB 6.0 in a few months is it and no new changes can be introduced at this point anyway.

But FUMBBL data has its own skew that doesn't make its shedload of games as meaningful as TT data. Online data (FROM ANY SOURCE) is usually skewed by cherry picking. I took steps in the MBBL to limit the cherry picking but its just limited not eliminated. It comes down to that leagues are normally more scheduled and that is how Jervis Johnson wants Blood Bowl to work.

PLEASE note ... I used a LOT of online game data including FUMBBL stats from LRB 4.0 to work on LRB 5.0 and 6.0. But I do need to stress that there is actually a reason why tabletop is preferred for game data.

Galak

spubbbba · Post by **spubbbba** » Wed May 27, 2009 6:51 pm

GalakStarscraper wrote:
spubbbba wrote:Reading the forums is a useful way to see what;s going on, but not as good as playing a shedload of games.
I should not debate this since it is a moot point since LRB 6.0 in a few months is it and no new changes can be introduced at this point anyway.

But FUMBBL data has its own skew that doesn't make its shedload of games as meaningful as TT data. Online data (FROM ANY SOURCE) is usually skewed by cherry picking. I took steps in the MBBL to limit the cherry picking but its just limited not eliminated. It comes down to that leagues are normally more scheduled and that is how Jervis Johnson wants Blood Bowl to work.

While this might be true for the open format you miss that FUMBBL has an active scheduled league division that features around 100 games a day. Now some of those leagues are quite silly (4 vs 4 or no block) but there are quite a few that have feature over 50 coaches and have been going for 10+ seasons. They'd also have much better data than the figures complied by plasmoid as you could look at TR/TS ratios and Coach Rating not a great indicator of skill (but still more useful than NAF rankings or those from MBBL and better than nothing from a normal TT league).

When (if) FUMBBL goes LRB5 then those leagues would be a great source of data and the cyanide game will have scheduled leagues as well and it seems a terrible shame to waste all this and LRB6 be the final ruleset. I know this has be set down from on high, but doesn't mean it's right especially considering how little GW do for BB. Also i doubt the majority of Bloodbowl coaches even knew that LRB6 was open for discussion. In fact plenty won't even know it exists and will still be using LRB5, 4 or one of the many early silly rulesets they seemed to bring out every couple of months a while back or even the original rules and deathzone (SPP's for fouling! ah the memories).

My main point was that if there ever is a LRB7 then it would be good to get a super experienced coach in the mix. Playing 2000 games with a varierty of teams, coaches and TV's would give a better indication of the BB balance than looking at the results from 2000 games just broken down to win/draw/loss.

A common complaint about some of the armies for 40K and WHFB is that the new lists aren't tested enough by real gamers. They tend to live in a rather nice "sportsmanship bubble" where everyone plays nice or in character, hence their shock at the DP spam in 3rd edition or not realising people would take 2 lash Daemon Princes in the Chaos Marine list. So a real hardline gamer would be useful to spot exploits and weaknesses in the early stages.

Raw data with no context is not all that useful and can give the incorrect impression. Personally i strongly disagree with the nerfing or Undead and Khemri further in LRB6 and Orcs being left alone. In the stats Undead do very well but that is because they are one of the best teams at low TV, above 175 they suffer greatly from lack of guard and zombies being hard to skill. Conversley Orcs are good at all TV's and most experienced coaches would pick them as the strongest bashy team (taken across all TV's) but they are the most commonly used team to learn on so tend to be used by poor players who usually move on to something more intersting later on. I also believe that they rot the brain and stunt coach growth but that's another matter

GalakStarscraper wrote: PLEASE note ... I used a LOT of online game data including FUMBBL stats from LRB 4.0 to work on LRB 5.0 and 6.0. But I do need to stress that there is actually a reason why tabletop is preferred for game data.

Galak

This opens an interesting topic for me. Are more games played on Tabletop or Online now? FUMBBL manages about 5000 a week and there are plenty of other online ways to play the game and the new game just a month away (well so we are told). So if more people play online than on tabletop has the game evolved into something different.

Just because it was created for a bunch of mates to get together every now and again and play the odd game doesn't mean it has to stay like that. If a lot more poeple play in huge open leagues with 1000's of potential opponents should the rules reflect that and change accordingly. After all it could open up more revenue for GW, you only need to spend a couple hundred quid to get enough minis for several teams and it's much easier to proxy models when you have a maximum of 16 players in a team. But if online Bloodbowl really kicked off then a regular subscription even just £5 a month could make them a lot more money in the long term.