Future of Rule Making

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:11 am

FUMBBL data was used for LRB5, but it isn't really relevant to LRB6 input.

daloonieshaman · Post by **daloonieshaman** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:52 am

Our TT league does a wonderful job of creating real data over close to 1000 games a year with over 60 coaches. (Thanks to the league tracker from the Dutch guys). A main differance between TT an online play is the involvement of the players scanning the rules in real time and finding a source to go this way or that on some vague working (few but still there)to clarify a situation. Online play is great for the player that wants to pick up a game at 1am and play against an unknown opponent (unless you play alot at a specific time slot or play for a long period of time). There will always be online players and TT players. The advantage to having outlets like the BBRC is you can suggest some clarity of rules before final print. Blood Bolw has been one of GW's cleanest games, and will probably remain so. As far as nerfing this team or that, those people should quit their whining and play a challenging tier 3 team. If they win the championship of the league ....
All teams start with an equal chance of winning their league, what you do with them is all up to you. If you suck you suck if your good your good, but if your great and have decent luck it does not matter which team you play. So as far a tweaking teams we can all take sides but it is a mute point. All we want is some clarity in the wording of a few rules that have slipped through the cracks over the years, and 50K bribes for the goblins (lol)

Purplegoo · Post by **Purplegoo** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:29 am

Spubb makes a lot of points far better than I could. I still think the main thrust of my original point is being missed by a few people telling us FUMBBL data was used for LRB5; that's totally not the point. Data only gets you so far.

As spubb says, the vast majority of BB coaches don't know LRB6 exists, even less know where they'd come to voice their views. Experience is being missed.

If LRB6 really is the 'end' of rulemaking before it's been tested / stretched in an online (MBBL accepted) sense, that's a real shame. I was hoping after a few years of Java and Cyanide (if it's any good), we'd have some really very experienced online guys that could help fix up any issues that had occurred, and we could really move to an excellent ruleset that benifits all form s of the game. It would be a shame to dismiss that resource. How far can the Cyanide game go, anyway? If we're really sticking with 6 because of the game (at least to some degree), why do we imagine that the computer game will excel where TT fails (I mean in a relative sense of course)? BB is niche for one reason or another, much as we here all love it, I somehow doubt even a perfect Cyanide product is going to propel us into the mainstream and have massive longevity with the kids...

I doubt GW would be hugely averse to new rules in a few years when the good Cyanide chaps are back at the less than multi award winning Euro Cycling Manager!

Jural · Post by **Jural** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:28 pm

But look at it from GW's point of view! Once the BB game is released, a further rules review would make the game outdated, or require a large patch, etc etc.

If the Cyanide game is a hit at all, GW is smart to lock down the rules and not let them change even a little bit for a few years. Then they should release an exciting new version of the game (video game or tabletop) and the new community is their audience!

I don't know how many people's voices were missed in making LRB 5 and 6, and I don't know how different the outcome would have been. I understand there is a difference between data and anecdote.... BUT, given where we are right now, it is absolutely the right move by GW.

Otherwise, the game dies off, is marginalized, etc.

Purplegoo · Post by **Purplegoo** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:49 pm

Well, yeah, I said right from the start that LRB6 will be with us for a decent, indefinite amount of time, and that further rules being made is a way away off. I don't disagree with anything you say there, Jural. Doesn't mean it's too early to talk about the future (although, wehen we mentioned LRB6 to the Cyanide staff last year, they looked at us and panicked, I assume this has been smoothed over...)!

After all, if Cyanide is the main reason for the wait, how long has this generation of PCs / consoles got before they're gone and replaced by something new and shiny? 3-4 years? If that? Assuming a whizzo perfecto game that people still want to play, there will have to be an improved version on the next generation of consoles and video PC cards anyway, it's not like technology isn't in constant flux. If you live by fancy pants graphics, you have to continue pushing. With re-releases or sequels comes fine time for rules revision, no?

And I just reread the whole 'online stats are skewed by picking' bit from Galak again; if anything that merely reinforces the fact that data alone isn't enough, and experience is important. Supports the point. I think it's harsh to judge all things online as tarnished in this way, as Spubb says, there's plenty of ways and means of play. Afterall, give a good coach a crap team in a TT league of not so good coaches, that's a skewed win % anyway. I'm not sure that a load of small TT league stats are any less subject to external factors other than racial balance. I mean, I can look at MBBL stats (again, going back to the start, I'm not here to have a go), and my experience can help me through the oddities therein.

I'm always a bit confused by the juxtaposition that many on here think the Cyande product is going to be huge (despite the many things stacking up against it), and yet not conceding that they in the minority (I say *they* since most reading these words play TT of some form or other) aren't going to be the main consumers of BloodBowl, and the time will perhaps come to draft in some of the experience out there, and pander a bit more to the majority.

Personally, I think there are huge headwinds into which this game is released, in product, support, expertise, platform and economics, but I <i>still</i> can see it being as big as FUMBBL or the French online leagues a few months after release after the dust has settled for perhaps 6-18 months. So even the pessimist that I am is keen to see what they learn.

Anyway - I've no real interest in doing the usual internet thing of going around and around in circles, so I bid the thread farewell whilst we're all still civil! Anyone can continue the point in Bugmans on the weekend if they notice me half cut (or, they can avoid the weird drunk bloke)!

Jural · Post by **Jural** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:42 pm

Personally, I think the Cynaide game has the potential to bring in more players to the game, just like you. And also just like you, I think that it will be an uphill climb if that!

Finally, I also think the game will benefit from being tweaked after more data is being collected. So I would not even say we disagree that much at all really.

But I imagine that if the Cyanide game is huge, the next version of Blood Bowl, or the Cyanide game itself, will be a fairly large departure from the current rules. It will be a next edition type game, with fundamental differences in the game itself- perhaps more friendly to a video game setting, or perhaps merchandised in such a way as to have a broader appeal. I am not saying I would enjoy that direction, but it is the next step I fear is most likely.

Post by **GalakStarscraper** » Fri May 29, 2009 1:32 pm

Pgoo

I do understand what you are saying and I even agree with some of the points.

However ... GW is walking away from BB in terms of active support. IE allowing JJ to actually look at the game.

But its not just BB ... its the entire Specialist Games range. I actually consider us very lucky. GW and JJ shut down the rules committees for all the SG games other than BB 2 years ago. Jervis only allowed the BB to stay in existance because we were the most active, most organized, and required the least amount of effort on GW/JJ's part while doing the most (ie mean we even created the complete rulebook documents for GW).

So ... what you would need for an LRB 7.0 is for GW execs above JJ to care about another edition of the rules. For that the problems in the game will need to actually be a detriment to sales great enough to justify the finanical pains to come out with a new edition ... especially since LRB 6.0 may actually be considered for printing. GW heads were NOT happy that the rulebook in the boxed set was completely out of date in 1 year and I'm pretty sure if LRB 6.0 is printed to put in the boxed sets that they won't allow another BBRC meeting / LRB 7.0 until they feel the expense of printing another book for the boxed set is justified.

While I completely understand many of your points about the online game and all connected to it. Bottom line is the repercussions to the board game of any such changes and the expenses of those repercussions are going to be massive change drivers going foward after LRB 6.0.

I also believe that based on the changes we were looking at for LRB 6.0 that a lot of the feedback we had showed that LRB 5.0 was already pretty well balanced. We were trying to adjust by same %s here and there ... nothing major.

But even if I didn't feel that way ... the stuff I typed above that is what you are looking at for why the feedback you discuss probably won't be used. Its not an exclusionary thing against online so much as at this time this is where GW is. IF FUMBBL had stayed current with the rules as they happened like the PBeM Tool tried to ... I think the FUMBBL community would have had much much more input into this ruleset ... but that didn't happen and of course that not your fault or anyone else in FUMBBL's fault ... it was a decision by Ski. But it does mean that the window that was open is now closed and I honestly with all that I know of the insider stuff of BB ... I just don't see that window opening again in any timeframe that I can currently picture.

Galak

MerchantDragon · Post by **MerchantDragon** » Sat May 30, 2009 8:32 am

LRB6 will be with us for a decent, indefinite amount of time

Good and about time.

With luck GW will print the rules and maybe start stocking the box in their shops again (with the miniatures) even if it is only for a limited time.

UncleBob · Post by **UncleBob** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:32 pm

Beside comparing online games and board games, which I think is pointless as both have undeniable advantages which can't be ignored or become out of date. There is something else.

GW is a company producing board games. And they make money by selling board games. And I don't believe they will ever support online games above a certain degree, never ever. Because that would mean to compete with themselves. The rights for Blood Bowl are with GW, and as long as that's the situation Blood Bowl will remain a board game and you either play that or nothing.

When any computer game will ever become big enough to be a threat to the board game GW will be after them to protect their teritory.

The only possibility is that GW will start their own department to move into online gaming, but they havn't done so far and they probably never will be. And even if they do they probably won't pick one of the minor systems for that kind of an adventure.

They still give their games to companies such as cyanide when they see a profit it in (advertisment, money, whatever) but they keep the rights and I absolutley can't beleive that they allow a computer game to become bigger than the board game.

To see Blood Bowl coming strong into the the internet would probably require GWs bankcruptcy. But as long as that company exists they will defend their interests and thats board games, table top and especially minatures.
The Internet is not their teritory.

Am I off topic?

spubbbba · Post by **spubbbba** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:48 pm

UncleBob wrote: GW is a company producing board games. And they make money by selling board games. And I don't believe they will ever support online games above a certain degree, never ever. Because that would mean to compete with themselves. The rights for Blood Bowl are with GW, and as long as that's the situation Blood Bowl will remain a board game and you either play that or nothing.

When any computer game will ever become big enough to be a threat to the board game GW will be after them to protect their teritory.

Um.. you do know that there is a Games Workshop sanctioned computer Bloodbowl game coming out very very soon don't you?

If the new game does kick off in a big way then i could easily see there being more online games played then tabletop. There are already 15,000-20,000 games played on FUMBBL each month as all you need is access to a computer and an hour or so of your time.

If Games Workshop/Cyanide are clever they could make money from this game, maybe some sort of subsciption along the lines of Warcraft to play in online leagues and tournaments with simple prizes (either boosts for the team or real life stuff) and stats.

Games Workshop don't make money selling boardgames, in fact they sell very few boardgames any more. The models for the big 3 systems are their money spinners, space marines in particular.

Bloodbowl doesn't sell a lot of miniatures, for the cost of an average sized 40K or Fantasy army you can get models to make most of the teams and BB lends itself to conversions and proxies far more than other GW games.

But why shouldn't Games Workshop move more into an online environment? Their various computer games have done ok and we have the WAR online game. Retaining all those bricks and mortar stores and staff costs a lot and moving more towards digital might be more profitable for them.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:35 pm

spubbbba wrote:But why shouldn't Games Workshop move more into an online environment?

Because GW have said (repeatedly) they're a MODEL gaming company, not a computer company. They WANT you to buy more figures,not more pixels.

Jural · Post by **Jural** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:32 pm

Darkson wrote:
spubbbba wrote:But why shouldn't Games Workshop move more into an online environment?
Because GW have said (repeatedly) they're a MODEL gaming company, not a computer company. They WANT you to buy more figures,not more pixels.

Ok, but if you aren't going to make models and re-release a product, why not get money off the rights via a computer sim?

I mean if you aren't selling anything, you aren't making any money, right?

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:33 am

Jural wrote:Ok, but if you aren't going to make models and re-release a product, why not get money off the rights via a computer sim?

I mean if you aren't selling anything, you aren't making any money, right?

Ah, there's your mistake - you're applying commonsense.

UncleBob · Post by **UncleBob** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:47 am

The simple common sense to move where the money is, doesn't work for companies/factories, but only for stockbrokers. There's a lot of money in oil but I can't see companies dashing of to build oilwells. Companies and factories stick to what they do. If you've got a house you live in it.

The problem of BB is that isn't selling enough miniatures, sure, and that's why it is lacking support. But it is still a value, probably their biggest specialist system and I don't believe they will give it up. It's just not worth it to run it on a regular basis.

My guess is they let the computer game run, attract new players. Then when the game runs out they will bring out a new collection of models and try to get as much of the new customers as possible.

Beside, if BB becomes an online game they can kick all their models and the rights for it into the bin. And that makes no sense.

But I believe you're right to make BB online does make sense. And maybe if they have a scheme to move online there wouldn't be a better system than BB to do it with.

The only question is; does it make sense for a board company to leave their territory? And I believe that's the key question, not where's the money or the larger part of customers.

zephard · Post by **zephard** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:49 pm

Cyanide - is it really going to be using LRB 6.0 when it finalizes its game?

After it is released, is it going to care about changes to the Blood Bowl GW game?

Why would it?

As far as I know, PBeM and the Java clinents have tried to stay true to the GW rules, but FUMBBL has not, by not being updated.

So why would we think Cyanide would?

There are rules that work for a tabletop game, that might not work for a real time action video game, but I can't see changing the rules of a Tabletop game because people who play the video game don't do them.

I understand the desire to have people who play the game as they know it wants to contribute, but if they do, why are not more going to the places to be heard, rather than waiting for someone to come to them?

Sorry thats just the way this whole conversation seem to vibe to me.