18 coaches online • Server time: 07:00
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Theory-craft Leaguegoto Post On-spot substitution...goto Post Juggernaut as counte...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 15:34 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:
thoralf wrote:
mister__joshua wrote:
I've read the rules quite well thanks Smile


Perfect. Then you know that before you cut the 600TV you in a season, you enter into play-offs, right?


So now every R and B team has to enter playoffs? That's asinine.


About as asinine as forcing them into arbitrary seasons Smile

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
Uedder



Joined: Aug 03, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 16:36 Reply with quote Back to top

licker wrote:
thoralf wrote:
mister__joshua wrote:
I've read the rules quite well thanks Smile


Perfect. Then you know that before you cut the 600TV you in a season, you enter into play-offs, right?


So now every R and B team has to enter playoffs? That's asinine.


You surely can't force them but you can incentivate them. Playoffs could be what now are smacks and brawls and minors. Or something like that.
Giving some actual point in playing tournies past the bragging rights is a good thing, imo.

This leads me to some wider considerations about Fumbbl, its place in the bb community and its future.
What stands out about fumbbl, compared to cyanide, is its community. Tournaments, blogs, Forums, Admins etc... and how interwine themselves in random casual play.

Will anyone ever care if you get a legend zombie on BB2? Can you compete there with your fav team past casual games/ladders?

I think most casual gamers would likely play there than here. Casual gamers aren't the core of Fumbbl.
I feel the vast majority of fummbl users are either blood bowl nutties or people who want to engage a community while playing blood bowl.

That's a major strenght of fumbbl imo. And i think seasons push towards that kind of feel to the game rather than casual.

Getting coaches to play tournaments is a major part of what makes fumbbl unique i think. There's human interaction in scheduling a game. You get to know your opponents, they get to know you. Playing tournaments get you mingled in the community more than casual RnB play does.

Add that, with seasons, you'd also fight tooth and nails to win, because winning in playoffs (or smacks/brawl) means more money for your team!

That, i think, is unique. Is a strong point. And gets people hooked up.

It's also fluffy and stuff can be written around that.

This all works for the best of Fumbbl imo, i don't see it being the reference point for casual players in the future. For community mass play? Hell yes!
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 17:07 Reply with quote Back to top

mister__joshua wrote:
My point was that it doesn't matter if teams can only grow by 100TV or by 600TV as long as that growth is similar to what other teams can achieve. Playing cups has no effect on this. If (for a quick example) seasons force you to cut to about 1600, and in a season an average growth is 200, then most people will enter the cup or whatever at 1800ish. TVs will certainly be a lot closer together than they are currently.


As I understand it, Uedder's point is that the disparity between the teams playing majors will be bigger without downtime before entering than with downtime. Whether or not this disparity could be less than what we have now is irrelevant to that point. The rationale of creating season cutoffs should apply to tournament play. If the objective is to have teams entering majors with a closer TVs, than Uedder's suggestion makes lots of sense.

Depending upon the season's length, the gap between the team may be even bigger than what we have now. Contemplating a season cutoff at 2200 TV should make it obvious. The disparity between one-season teams and two-seasons teams will be tangible. Speculations for three-seasons teams look shaky.

Choosing to put a cutoff before or after majors should have an impact on the choice of Fumbbl's seasons length. If what you want is a 1600-1800 teams standard for Fumbbl, then say so and argue for it more directly than until now. If it's what you want, it's not just a quick example.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see any reason why we should not have 3000TV teams around. I never seen any in action, so I might be convinced otherwise. Persuading me that Fumbbl should become an online NAF facsimile might be harder.

mister__joshua wrote:
I reckon that with Seasons we'd do away with the journeyman rule. Carrying journeymen to the end of a season and then replacing them with rookies would be the expected practice.

One good reason to keep the journeyman rule is to prevent the possibility to play with loners while inducing chainsaws and other pleasant stuff.

There is a definitive advantage of running Loners under current rules, because you can keep your money to replace positionals instead of having to replace dispensable and expensive linemen. It's even good for cheap linemen upon which you want no SPPs attached. In concrete terms: without any journeymen rule, I'd never buy more than 8 elves until my teams have 1000K in Treasury. The first three rules of business are: never run out of cash, never run out of cash, never run out of cash.

Matthueycamo wrote:
Not sure how that relates even in the slightest to the thrust of my post?


Repeating the thrust of your post may help see how: buying the inducements is usually going to be the long term option to reduce the risk of losing your treasury.

If you want long term, buy menz, not kegs.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 18:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Uedder wrote:



Will anyone ever care if you get a legend zombie on BB2?


How many care on FUMBBL though? Personally I don't care about your legends, I don't care about anyones legends in R or B. But the answer to your question is yes, some will care and some won't.


Uedder wrote:
Can you compete there with your fav team past casual games/ladders?


Why not? They can run tournaments or whatever they want to do. Right now they are focused on creating seasonal play with tournaments at the end. Hmm... that sounds like something we're talking about.

Uedder wrote:
I think most casual gamers would likely play there than here. Casual gamers aren't the core of Fumbbl.


Who cares about whatever you think 'the core' is? 'The core' may be less than 50 players out of however many 100s actually play here. For the record I think 'the core' of fummbl is league, so taking their opinion on how to run R and B seems silly.

Uedder wrote:
I feel the vast majority of fummbl users are either blood bowl nutties or people who want to engage a community while playing blood bowl.


Feelings are great, but don't prove anything. I feel the vast majority of fumbbl users don't care one way or the other about seasons. Wow, give me my cookie!

Uedder wrote:
That's a major strenght of fumbbl imo. And i think seasons push towards that kind of feel to the game rather than casual.


Good for you, I disagree, I think seasons shoehorned into R and B will make those divisions less enjoyable, and possibly turn off the 'casuals' you mention. Why do you want to drive them away to BB2? Wouldn't you rather they enjoy FUMBBL and convert to your 'the core'?

Uedder wrote:
Getting coaches to play tournaments is a major part of what makes fumbbl unique i think.


Nope.

Uedder wrote:
There's human interaction in scheduling a game. You get to know your opponents, they get to know you. Playing tournaments get you mingled in the community more than casual RnB play does.


Sounds like a case for league to me. Do you play in any? Maybe you should.

Uedder wrote:
Add that, with seasons, you'd also fight tooth and nails to win, because winning in playoffs (or smacks/brawl) means more money for your team!


More reward the rich and screw the poor. Perpetuating increases spreads in TV based on coach ability after each season, which then continues to advantage the better players throughout.

That sounds counter productive to me.

Uedder wrote:
That, i think, is unique. Is a strong point. And gets people hooked up.


So, still play in league. Gotcha.

Uedder wrote:
It's also fluffy and stuff can be written around that.


Still, play in league. Gotcha again.

Uedder wrote:
This all works for the best of Fumbbl imo, i don't see it being the reference point for casual players in the future. For community mass play? Hell yes!


How do you get and maintain 'mass play' (whatever that means) without bringing in new players?
Matthueycamo



Joined: May 16, 2014

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 18:33 Reply with quote Back to top

Uedder wrote:
licker wrote:
thoralf wrote:
mister__joshua wrote:
I've read the rules quite well thanks Smile


Perfect. Then you know that before you cut the 600TV you in a season, you enter into play-offs, right?


So now every R and B team has to enter playoffs? That's asinine.


You surely can't force them but you can incentivate them. Playoffs could be what now are smacks and brawls and minors. Or something like that.
Giving some actual point in playing tournies past the bragging rights is a good thing, imo.

This leads me to some wider considerations about Fumbbl, its place in the bb community and its future.
What stands out about fumbbl, compared to cyanide, is its community. Tournaments, blogs, Forums, Admins etc... and how interwine themselves in random casual play.

Will anyone ever care if you get a legend zombie on BB2? Can you compete there with your fav team past casual games/ladders?

I think most casual gamers would likely play there than here. Casual gamers aren't the core of Fumbbl.
I feel the vast majority of fummbl users are either blood bowl nutties or people who want to engage a community while playing blood bowl.

That's a major strenght of fumbbl imo. And i think seasons push towards that kind of feel to the game rather than casual.

Getting coaches to play tournaments is a major part of what makes fumbbl unique i think. There's human interaction in scheduling a game. You get to know your opponents, they get to know you. Playing tournaments get you mingled in the community more than casual RnB play does.

Add that, with seasons, you'd also fight tooth and nails to win, because winning in playoffs (or smacks/brawl) means more money for your team!

That, i think, is unique. Is a strong point. And gets people hooked up.

It's also fluffy and stuff can be written around that.

This all works for the best of Fumbbl imo, i don't see it being the reference point for casual players in the future. For community mass play? Hell yes!


I would say fumbbl is what you want it to be.

Sometimes I play ranked casually, sometimes I play it to practice for leagues, every now and then I enter a tournament.

I play fumbbl and and hardly play the cyanide games for a number of reasons. First the comunity and the way timeouts work, it's much nicer and I find actually more casual in that you don't have to worry about auto turn ends. But that to me makes it feel more casual even in cups and stuff. Coaches usually chat, in about 350 games I have never timed out and only once been timed out myself without a warning and the oppo ended his turn early to compensate. It's more relaxing since there is no "shit the clock" feeling. Disconnections don't basically end the game. I can build a team how I like and stick to whatever TV I like and play who I like with a match up I fancy. Leagues are so so much better. If I ever fancy taking on all comers then I can play box.

Fumbbl can be casual or hyper competitive but either way the games are usually a good social experiance with the coach on the other end. Why I play fumbbl and what I do with my teams can be partially the same as you or totally different. Fumbbl is what you want to make it and that is it's strength, it's variety.

Ok it lacks the graphics, though with custom rosters there are some cool icons floating around and the regular icons are pretty good for what they are.

Basically just because I am blood bowl nut does not mean I don't ever want to be playing casually sometimes in a one off game that matters absolutely not at all to unwind.

_________________
Image

DLE College 7s
thoralf



Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 18:43 Reply with quote Back to top

Uedder wrote:
You surely can't force them but you can incentivate them. Playoffs could be what now are smacks and brawls and minors. Or something like that.
Giving some actual point in playing tournies past the bragging rights is a good thing, imo.


Giving gold pieces for the next season also carries the advantage of being more temporary than trophies like sand skeletons.

I mentioned playoffs to point out how leagues were said to be working in DZ1. League seasons lead to playoffs. Then downtime. Then another season. BB2's model should not surprise anyone who read DZ1.

DZ1 only offers a toy model. For instance, open tournaments are missing, and it alludes to friendlies without clarifying much. I did not mean to suggest that we should follow this toy model to coerce anyone into entering playoffs. This would go against everything I've argued so far.

Fumbbl already offers everything we need to implement GW's new suggested mechanisms, including seasons. B & R are competitive pools that contain pick-up games with no strings attached. There have minor competitions for teams of all levels. There are groups of teams that race toward a ladder by playing all kinds of opponents. Each season, we have majors.

Everything Fumbbl already offers is subsumed by concepts we can read in GW's rulebooks. The key, if we want to preserve our actual pools along their pairing systems, are friendlies. We need friendly games exactly because we don't want anyone to be coerced into playing into structured events, like playoffs, tournaments, or round robin leagues.

_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Uedder



Joined: Aug 03, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 09, 2016 - 22:54 Reply with quote Back to top

I never said Fummbl doesn't or shouldn't allow casual gaming. I said i feel like its strenght over competitors is in the community.
Obviously I didn't mention leagues, secret league and stunty which all add to fummbl uniqueness.

But even the 'casual' environment of RnB has a community around it. Even the timeout ruling Mat mentioned, is only possible because of the community, admins preventing people from abusing it.

And because of it even RnB aren't just pure random casual sandbox play. They can be. But there's also a number of tournaments and events and stuff that make it feel like a true open, free perpetual league. If you so wish. That's something competitors don't have and probably never will. It's a strong point.

Add the blogs, top lists, forums, fluff... that's what i feel makes fumbbl so unique and great.

As i see it seasons have the potential to expand on that. That's why i see it more like an opportunity rather than a limit.

Of course this is just my opinion. It should matter nothing to anyone but me and that's it. Not going to argue or try and convince anyone who doesn't feel that way.
As it's been said Fumbbl is what you want it to be and i hope is stays that way.
I just felt a reflection on this matter could add something to the discussion.
licker



Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 00:37 Reply with quote Back to top

Uedder wrote:


Add the blogs, top lists, forums, fluff... that's what i feel makes fumbbl so unique and great.


I agree, but the one place FUMBBL is sorely lacking (for good reason probably) is places like Twitch and youtube. BB2 has a presence there, and a lot of fans of various streamers do follow those guys and their teams pretty heavily.

This includes various league streams, though sadly The Legion seems to be dead, but for a while that was drawing 150+ viewers every Friday for league night. FUMBBL might get 50+ viewers for a major tournament game, and might have a dozen or so viewers watching other games at any time.

FUMBBL is special in many ways, but BB2 blows it out of the water with it's online viewership presence.

Uedder wrote:
As i see it seasons have the potential to expand on that. That's why i see it more like an opportunity rather than a limit.


It's both. But how many people exactly spend the time to fluff their teams? Not that many, outside of league at least.

Uedder wrote:
Of course this is just my opinion. It should matter nothing to anyone but me and that's it. Not going to argue or try and convince anyone who doesn't feel that way.


I think it's too late to suggest you haven't been trying to convince people, and even if I disagree with you, I think it's perfectly fine for you to argue your opinion. The only push back you get is when you seem to be making unsubstantiable claims. Otherwise, it's more of just a simple disagreement and presentation of opposing views.

Uedder wrote:
As it's been said Fumbbl is what you want it to be and i hope is stays that way.


So do I, but the issue seems to be that adopting seasons as you (and others) are suggesting will not allow FUMBBL to be whatever people want it to be.
The_Great_Gobbo



Joined: Aug 04, 2014

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 00:48 Reply with quote Back to top

The answer is simple, leave B + R alone and let leagues introduce seasons as they see fit. Now lets move on to more important subjects like how old are you?
garyt1



Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 09:11 Reply with quote Back to top

Uedder wrote:
Getting coaches to play tournaments is a major part of what makes fumbbl unique i think. There's human interaction in scheduling a game.

Make people have to play tournaments and you would slash the user base. I wish folks would stop trying to force tournaments or playoffs on people in these ideas.

_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.”
JimmyFantastic



Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 13:51 Reply with quote Back to top

Uedder wrote:
There's human interaction in scheduling a game.

This is literally the worst part of tournaments though Very Happy

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!
Uedder



Joined: Aug 03, 2010

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 17:01 Reply with quote Back to top

garyt1 wrote:
Uedder wrote:
Getting coaches to play tournaments is a major part of what makes fumbbl unique i think. There's human interaction in scheduling a game.

Make people have to play tournaments and you would slash the user base. I wish folks would stop trying to force tournaments or playoffs on people in these ideas.


I completely agree. That's why I never even once suggested such a dynamic.

What I suggested is incentivate. There's a big difference between the 2.

JimmyFantastic wrote:

Uedder wrote:

There's human interaction in scheduling a game.


This is literally the worst part of tournaments though


That's personal preference and nothing you can do about it.

Of course you can still enjoy Fumbbl and never ever play a tournament, it's all personal prference.

What is not down to personal preference tho, is that Fumbbl has a torunament scene. Which competitors don't. So those who like them will find added value to Fumbbl over, say, BB2 that casual players won't.

Expanding on that concept can't be a bad thing imo.
Use seasons as a chance to make Fumbbl even more appealing to those users, while subtracting nothing from casual players.
That would be a good thing imo. But mostly it would add to Fumbbl's uniqueness.
soranos



Joined: May 14, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 18:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Almost 50 pages now! So I will not pretend to add anything new to the debate. Still I would like to add my 2 cents.

When I read about the new rules the first time, I first felt joy about the cut of PO and SE which were just bad/unbalancing mechanics. I dreamed up my teams being able to sustain TV above 2100. Then I read about the seasons and got brought back to earth.

I like building up star players. I even run an excel file with all kind of statistics about every player of mine who has surpassed 51 spp. In short: I’m a pixel-hugger. And still I concede that an off-pitch mechanic was needed to keep teams in check and in a TV range that is more balanced/healthy for the game.

And I will say it: Seasons on paper seems like great, intelligent game design. I honestly think that the idea gets a lot of (unfair) flak just for being by GW. It is not arbitrary like Aging and feels a lot more organic than SE (which never made much sense). It adds another (thematic) layer to the game and is a great compromise and lets every coach still decide which players are more important to him.

Some of the coaches who reject seasons the most strongly should really take a step back and read some of the arguments which have already been stated: When the season end you do not start from scratch. It is a soft cap nothing more! This is Fumbbl! Most of us enjoy high/supreme-TV BB. Every season surely will have a significant amount of games (something between 15 or 20 in the end, I would assume). I am sure you will find some ways to “game” that system (like “saving up” skill-ups for the new season, with players staying put at 15/29/30/50 spp during the end of the season) and hell then instead of ‘recycling’ players just because they picked up a niggling, you let them hang around until the end of season. Probably most teams will start their new season with no bench. Still, in the end you will have to let go of a few players here and there. But you will still have a degree of control over this.

I would prefer a set number of games (20 sounds good to me) as it is simply the fairest solution, but Christer’s thoughs (page 24) should also work just fine. But in that case the reset should be weekly as stated and not in longer intervals. I am not sure though, if I think a compulsory end of the season before entering a tournament is a good idea. Some teams just suffer a lot more from the off-season mechanic than others. Further the goal of a season should be to work something like a tourney. So end of season after going out of a tournament I would consider to be the better solution.
While I really like the seasons-concept, I also do not consider it perfect. I am a bit puzzled how GW thought it was a good ideas to leave the pay-off for TD and CAS independent of the length of the season. Also I think this is the one aspect that could be very detrimental to Ranked. Picking would probably be worse. If you know that you need to score 5 TD/Cas in your last game of the season in order to keep one more solid player than it just makes no sense to play those beefy dwarves, even if you would like to. My suggestion is to tweak this formula bit and reduce the pay-offs for TD/CAS significantly (to maybe 3k/2.5k) and instead raise the pay-off for games played or the threshold for Costly mistakes (or however it is called). This would also go some way towards leveling the playing field for the different races (as bashers should have a higher TD/CAS average that middling teams/elfs) – especially as those “Build-in” –advantages would amplify with longer seasons.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to the new rules!
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Dec 10, 2016 - 23:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Here is my final thought on this subject until Christer chimes back in on where he is at, on updating FUMBBL to BB2016 compliance and what he is going to do with BB2016 with the various Divs on FUMBBL.

Leave "season" play out of R/B. It goes against the "spirit" of those Divs by limiting every team/coach. Plus, lets face it, what ever choice Chriser makes in those two DIVS on what is an actual "season" will set off a fire storm for R/B coaches.

Bring all the other optional rules of BB2016 into R/B. Expensive Mistakes will limit R/B just fine. There is no need to worry about this mechanic as it is 10X times better than SE mechanic on limiting your gold. 'We" will find that R/B actually does not change that much from CRP in R/B. IN fact it addresses some of the biggest complaints of R/B play. How is that bad?

Bring Season play into League action and let the leagues all play around with it. Twist it and bend it and then break it. Let the "leagues" decided what to do with it. How long a season? do they mess with the gold for CAS/TD? and anything else they desire. Then what will happen is that the leagues will cater to all the coaches on FUMBBL on what are the good leagues and what are the leagues they want to avoid, because, well, their "seasons" do not fit with how him/her/it want to play Blood Bowl.

At this point all the pros/cons of "season" play has been addressed/debated and shouted about for the R/B divs. Christer I think at this point has gotten all the input he needs to make this choice on what to do.

**Foot note**

What to do with Stunty and the BB2016? Stunty is a home grown Div on FUMBBL. Do "we" ignore BB2016 as it relates to stunty div?

_________________
Comish of the: Image
King_Ghidra



Joined: Sep 14, 2009

Post   Posted: Dec 11, 2016 - 09:32 Reply with quote Back to top

My vote would be for adding seasons as a new division, and allowing the same mechanics for leagues if they desire.

At that point the community will decide what it wants to play, just as it has with paradigm changes of the past.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic