mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 08:42 |
 
|
| selfy_74 wrote: | | Why, what did you do to him? |
Turned him into a cpomber. Now we know who to blame for planting the seed   |
|
|
mattwakeman
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:03 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Kam wrote: |
Oh and by the way, the game wasn't designed for this or that. It was designed for selling miniatures. |
Talk about lack of long term vision. |
Not sure if you are being serious or not with this comment but if you are, then I can tell you that Kam is partially right.
A long time ago I worked at Games Workshop in their head office - nothing serious or important - and it was an open secret that Blood Bowl was the least favoured game amongst the accountants / management (one and the same thing at GW most of the time) because BBowl was so much easier for people to buy miniatures for. Unlike the more open-ended systems like WHFB or 40k people could buy one team and that was it, they could potentially buy nothing else.
This was frowned upon as being bad for long-term business and so eventually BBowl just got shoved out the limelight before being ignored altogether. And with the direction that GW is going in, BBowl will never be important to them ever again except from a licensing perspective. |
Last edited by mattwakeman on %b %24, %2015 - %09:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:04 |
|
I was a bit lucky and a cad for using 'get the ref' to my advantage. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:15 |
|
| mattwakeman wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Kam wrote: |
Oh and by the way, the game wasn't designed for this or that. It was designed for selling miniatures. |
Talk about lack of long term vision. |
Not sure if you are being serious or not with this comment but if you are, then I can tell you that Kam is partially right.
A long time ago I worked at Games Workshop in their head office - nothing serious or important - and it was an open secret that Blood Bowl was the least favoured game amongst the accountants / management (one and the same thing at GW most of the time) because BBowl was so much easier for people to buy miniatures for. Unlike the more open-ended systems like WHFB or 40k people could buy one team and that was it, they could potentially buy nothing else.
This was frowned upon as being bad for long-term business and so eventually BBowl just got shoved out the limelight before being ignored altogether. And with the direction that GW is going in, BBowl will never be important to them ever again except from a licensing perspective. |
Well BB was never a chore game nor intended to be. It's position was one of the conveyor belt of fringe games that would come and go.
These are actually very beneficial to GW and they allow for players 'to step into' their world.
Firstly the rules are much easier to get a grip of than the chore games. And secondly you don't have to invest in a huge army.
Why it might be unpopular is that it garnered more than a 'cult' interest than the others and kind of pushed itself to a semi chore game (at times). This said there have always been waxes and wanes to the game, however yes nothing like the wane we're on now.
One of the reasons is that the game has truly taken on a new form. Nobody at GW is now skilled enough to have a well educated view on the game and on how to change it, we have taken it to beyond a fun TT game level.
They would need a BBRC to work with to make if they wished to produce it again in the future, and the only reason they wouldn't is the 3rd part figure companies that are sprouting out of the woodwork. Yes, they're cool and all, but with figures lines not paying a cent to GW and already available if GW wished to remake the game, and with the NAF being an independent organizing committee. This is the reason we may not see the game remade. |
|
|
Malmir
Joined: May 20, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:20 |
|
| Aflo wrote: | | I'd say this is on topic, the original post mentioned CPOMB being the distinct difference between the two divisions. |
It didn't actually - it just used clawpomb as an example to explain the skill difference the post and thread was about. Whether clawpomb is the cause of that difference... |
|
|
Malmir
Joined: May 20, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:23 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | Cavetroll wrote: | | Why has this thread not been locked and redirected to the one and only CPOMB thread on the site? |
My question is why is this in general chat and not the Box Forum.
My thought on this thread is that it is not a CPOMB thread because, well, that CPOMB thread is so boring and pointless, this one at least had a few posts that were interesting.
Getting booted to the CPOMB thread means you are just boring. |
It's in general chat because it was about a comparison between ranked and box. It could just as easily have been called 'Ranked - for people with the skill to play more than one tactic' |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:24 |
|
| mattwakeman wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Kam wrote: |
Oh and by the way, the game wasn't designed for this or that. It was designed for selling miniatures. |
Talk about lack of long term vision. |
Not sure if you are being serious or not with this comment but if you are, then I can tell you that Kam is partially right.
A long time ago I worked at Games Workshop in their head office - nothing serious or important - and it was an open secret that Blood Bowl was the least favoured game amongst the accountants / management (one and the same thing at GW most of the time) because BBowl was so much easier for people to buy miniatures for. Unlike the more open-ended systems like WHFB or 40k people could buy one team and that was it, they could potentially buy nothing else.
This was frowned upon as being bad for long-term business and so eventually BBowl just got shoved out the limelight before being ignored altogether. And with the direction that GW is going in, BBowl will never be important to them ever again except from a licensing perspective. |
Long term vision being that they should have started leveraging their IP for digital versions as soon as possible. I hope this isn't a mistaken interpretation of GW's strategic vision in the 90s but I get the impression that they simply didn't view themselves as a producer of computer content and that it would hurt the core business of minis.
Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but even as recent as the mid 2000s, it didnt seem like GW would ever throw its full weight behind reaching as wide an audience as possible through digital means.
It seems so obvious now and they were somewhat mistaken in the belief that digital versions would dry up mini sales. I've spent 200 bucks in the last year on minis via kickstarter and I'll probably spend an additional 2200 before I'm dead if 100 bucks is the going rate for a 16 menz with superstars team. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:31 |
|
| Malmir wrote: | | PainState wrote: | | Cavetroll wrote: | | Why has this thread not been locked and redirected to the one and only CPOMB thread on the site? |
My question is why is this in general chat and not the Box Forum.
My thought on this thread is that it is not a CPOMB thread because, well, that CPOMB thread is so boring and pointless, this one at least had a few posts that were interesting.
Getting booted to the CPOMB thread means you are just boring. |
It's in general chat because it was about a comparison between ranked and box. It could just as easily have been called 'Ranked - for people with the skill to play more than one tactic' |
That one tactic being a general effort to bash your way to players on the pitch mismatches? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:32 |
|
| Malmir wrote: | | It's in general chat because it was about a comparison between ranked and box. It could just as easily have been called 'Ranked - for people with the skill to play more than one tactic' |
It's nothing to do with skill though is it. It's teambuilding. People can pick soft teams in Ranked so can build easily with any team. You can't avoid bashers in Box so people who want to teambuild tend to use bashers cos they suffer less attrition.
It's not rocket surgery. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 09:52 |
|
I didn't read the thread, but yes. I find it relatively chucklesome the topic gets so heated when it comes around (I didn't read the thread because of 9 pages in less than a day), because we all know really, don't we? But that's not a big deal, good luck to those that enjoy it. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 10:14 |
|
Actually I think both divisions suffer from team building, but slightly differently.
For example Ranked has the Dark Elf 'Elf Ballers'. Dark Elves pretending to be Elf Ballers, but with multiple MB/tackle blitzers tailored to take out lighter teams.
An example of box, is highly successful box coaches parking at a certain low/mid TV that suits that team and whacking up very impressive win stats. It either takes a lot of building skill or dedication.
In both cases builds are the main factor on deciding outcomes. I don't play either division, so that's just my view as an outsider. |
|
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 14:43 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | People can pick soft teams in Ranked so can build easily with any team. You can't avoid bashers in Box so people who want to teambuild tend to use bashers cos they suffer less attrition.
It's not rocket surgery. |
It's true if you play yourself a soft team (or if you have a low CR), not so much if you play a remotely bash team. In 60 games, my Orcs for instance have played 5 times against elfs, once against rats, and twice against stunties (half of those games were arranged on IRC), but also 21 times against CPOMB material (Chaos, Pact, CDorfs, Nurgz), and the rest against other bash-oriented teams (the 3 undead teams, Norses, Hummies, Dorfs, Lizzie). They yet have to play against Zons, DE, Ogres, UW, Vamps, or Slanns. I'm pretty sure I would have had more diversity in the Box. |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
 |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 15:47 |
|
| Kam wrote: | | JimmyFantastic wrote: | People can pick soft teams in Ranked so can build easily with any team. You can't avoid bashers in Box so people who want to teambuild tend to use bashers cos they suffer less attrition.
It's not rocket surgery. |
It's true if you play yourself a soft team (or if you have a low CR), not so much if you play a remotely bash team. In 60 games, my Orcs for instance have played 5 times against elfs, once against rats, and twice against stunties (half of those games were arranged on IRC), but also 21 times against CPOMB material (Chaos, Pact, CDorfs, Nurgz), and the rest against other bash-oriented teams (the 3 undead teams, Norses, Hummies, Dorfs, Lizzie). They yet have to play against Zons, DE, Ogres, UW, Vamps, or Slanns. I'm pretty sure I would have had more diversity in the Box. |
Ah....this is now a dick measuring competition |
_________________
 |
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 16:02 |
|
|
Kam
Joined: Nov 06, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 24, 2015 - 16:10 |
|
| Calcium wrote: | | Ah....this is now a dick measuring competition |
How so?
(Unless you were referring to your comment of course ) |
_________________
GLN 17 is out!
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
