17 coaches online • Server time: 02:54
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post NBFL films present T...goto Post The Best Time is Now...goto Post The etiquette of fou...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 01:07 Reply with quote Back to top

"which will hopefully address at least some of James' complaints in his 2015 Blood Bowl 2 review, particularly its reliance on dice rolls for even the simplest actions"

"The basic pitch is kooky, turn-based fantasy football, but what’s actually there feels needlessly convoluted and difficult to parse for newcomers,"

Clearly from these 2 statements PC Gamer (and possibly Cyanide (surely not but from the past mistakes...)) do not understand the position of Blood Bowl. They are believing that the game can be changed considerably to be tailored to Cyanide's game as that's Blood Bowl...right? However the reality is that the game is successful due to it being a port of the board game. Without the board game existing, Cyanide's game would be long gone....proof of that is the lack of success of the real time version.

So...all my theories still stand. B suggests what PC Gamer are suggesting. However the lack of knowledge shown in that article A or C are just as likely. The article (for me) shows a lack of understanding BB or the current position of BB.

Ask this question. Let's say that GW mess around with the rules so much it's basically a new version. Where would the NAF stand on that? If the new version (which it would very much likely) be an inferior version of the rules they play.

The NAF have shown they can stand alone without GW, and probably wouldn't down grade. What would happen to FUMBBL? Christer in the past has stated he'd follow NAF's standpoint. And what would happen to Cyanide? They'd almost certainly lose their high end competitive scene and would consist of GW fanboys the established Cyanide scene, and the game's reputation, but would not come from the competitive BB scene anymore. Is that enough or would prove to be more popular? I very much doubt it. In the past Cyanide have shown an amazing lack of knowledge of the BB scene.........so the above scenario is I guess possible but probably not that plausible.
SirIndigo



Joined: Sep 10, 2015

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 02:39 Reply with quote Back to top

harvestmouse wrote:

Clearly from these 2 statements PC Gamer (and possibly Cyanide (surely not but from the past mistakes...)) do not understand the position of Blood Bowl. They are believing that the game can be changed considerably to be tailored to Cyanide's game as that's Blood Bowl...right? However the reality is that the game is successful due to it being a port of the board game. Without the board game existing, Cyanide's game would be long gone....proof of that is the lack of success of the real time version.


I think you're generally right here, but a real time strategy or even a sports game branded as Blood Bowl could be successful, and it's feasible GW might have one made one day as a stand alone and not packaged with a traditional board game port. The real-time mode in Cyanide's Blood Bowl 1 was poorly done and simply not fun to play.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 02:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Yeah but yeah but a few things.

A. The success of Cyanide's game is off of the back of the board game. What they tried to do is appeal to 2 types of gamers (board gamers wanting to play vs other people any time) and computer gamers (with a real time strategy) which didn't work.

B. The articles linked are stating an updated board game (in conjunction with) an updated cyanide game. That certainly wouldn't or couldn't be real time strategy. More likely affect rules that do not suit a computer interface. Or maybe the other way. For example IGMEOY really suited online, but was a little messy on TT. Or Illegal procedure that is completely pointless rule on the computer game...I dunno on this concept.

C. Does Cyanide believe they have enough of a player base that's supporting their product due to what they have produced and therefore have free licence to alter the game as they see fit? I very much doubt that.
harvestmouse



Joined: May 13, 2007

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 03:33 Reply with quote Back to top

Wow this story has really taken off. Newest rumour is it's going age of sigmar based. So possibly it's going to be more roster based overhaul. Thus GW and cyanide would align. Rosters in the past have been a sticking point between the 2.

With aos special rules, it's becoming a lot more feasible. 2nd hand and 3rd party figure ranges would become obsolete. More conversion opportunities with current correctly sized aoe range. If its true, the feel of the bb world would almost certainly be lost.
Wolbum



Joined: Jul 14, 2010

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 04:19 Reply with quote Back to top

I think the AoS thing is just a joke gone awry. People are worried and at this point GW is likely prepping a response.

Logically it makes little sense to release less than a year a new "revamped" set of rules while they are still in the process of releasing things. Maybe a reboxed BB2016?
Christy



Joined: Jul 19, 2007

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 09:03 Reply with quote Back to top

Indeed. If there are new rules I would expect them to be on par with bb 2016 changes. So potentially different mechanics for dealing with aging/rebuy that people can choose. Maybe a new version of piling on and some small roster changes.

AoS would fall under the issue of the naf simply not aligning to gw explained above.

The pcgamer stuff is just clickbait from people who have 0 influence on the game and don't play it.
datom



Joined: Mar 22, 2017

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 12:43 Reply with quote Back to top

There is no way that GW have enabled Cyanide to announce a new version of BB on their behalf - 2020 is pretty soon. So the most likely answer is that it is clumsily worded and that the final almanac is due for publication in 2020 (paper edition?) perhaps with some sort of combined volume, at which point BB3 will be officially in line.
Strider84



Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 13:41 Reply with quote Back to top

datom wrote:
There is no way that GW have enabled Cyanide to announce a new version of BB on their behalf - 2020 is pretty soon. So the most likely answer is that it is clumsily worded and that the final almanac is due for publication in 2020 (paper edition?) perhaps with some sort of combined volume, at which point BB3 will be officially in line.


Yeah this. They abviously need to start working on this now if they want their client updated to the currently released rules + add some community wishes as well to get some more selling points than just rules and rosters updated to thr board game.

Personally I think they could easily pull money out of people for some in game stuff like:

- Customized jersies, special stadiums, cutscenes
- pay for more than 1 entries into champ ladder
- limit amount of teams and pay for having more teams available...

So many more ways without even making it unfair for non paying players. Basically what every dam online game does...

As for fumbbl i guess the only drawback might be that we finally might have a video game with the proper rules and customization possibilities that we now only have here atm.

Nevertheless with the community we have here and maybe even the new client Im sure we'll stay healthy either way.
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 13:57 Reply with quote Back to top

"reliance on dice rolls for even the simplest actions"

Well, I don't totally agree with that statement, my opinion is that the issue is more due to crude d6 system, unable to represent well more "nuances" of probability in a granular way, than to randomness in itself.
Failing a pick up with AG 3 33.33% without being pressured by opponent player is quite ridiculous indeed.
Using a different dice system (for example d8 ) would allow to add more modifiers to dice rolls for simple actions like the pick up, therefore reducing the sheer randomness's impact on the various actions' rolls.

_________________
Please upvote the Diving Catch bug report, thanks!


Last edited by MattDakka on May 15, 2019 - 14:07; edited 2 times in total
kummo



Joined: Mar 29, 2016

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 14:02 Reply with quote Back to top

Garion wrote:
Hmm but they haven't finished this edition...


Cyanide was bought from Focus. That might be why they are making new game instead of finishing this one - because of the rights and stuff around that.
ph0enyx13



Joined: Nov 14, 2015

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 14:53 Reply with quote Back to top

"Its release will coincide with the launch of an updated board game edition that will feature all-new rules, which will hopefully address at least some of James' complaints in his 2015 Blood Bowl 2 review, particularly its reliance on dice rolls for even the simplest actions, and the fundamental opaqueness about how it all works."

>blocks and ag rolls should succeed without a dice roll.

What a scrub
Christy



Joined: Jul 19, 2007

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 16:05 Reply with quote Back to top

I can understand wanting less dice rolls (it is an opinion on the game that I don't agree with but I understand). I don't get the opaqueness comment. It tells you the odds on the screen. You can map out the full move and see the odds of every square moved.

Is it that it doesn't explain the tackle zone rules well or what?


I guess for the bb2020 thing we will have to wait for a gw announcement. Reckon they may as well come out with a party line on it now one way or the other now. Though I guess they were probably planning on some cool video to introduce it which has yet to be made.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 18:09 Reply with quote Back to top

It is all opaque if you won't read a rulebook.

_________________
Image
[SL] Rumble - 16 brand new teams - 100+ Races - Always recruiting
aerofool



Joined: Jun 11, 2008

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 19:05 Reply with quote Back to top

This has been cleared up in several facebook BB groups. Everyone was misinterpreting the original Cyanide statement.

What was meant is that Cyanide is creating BB3 and applying the current 2016 ruleset (new paper rules) to it. There is no major rules update to the TT version.

_________________
Scott
Wolbum



Joined: Jul 14, 2010

Post   Posted: May 15, 2019 - 19:12 Reply with quote Back to top

aerofool wrote:
This has been cleared up in several facebook BB groups. Everyone was misinterpreting the original Cyanide statement.

What was meant is that Cyanide is creating BB3 and applying the current 2016 ruleset (new paper rules) to it. There is no major rules update to the TT version.


Where has it been cleared up? Some said they thought it was a mistranslation but was not. Any links?
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