Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
 Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 11:06 |
 
|
When making LRB5 fumbbl game data from lrb4 was used, but with lrb5+ and 6 fumbbl gamedata is invalid. Opinions about the game and its mechanics however... I think some fumbbl coaches actually chipped in when they were gathering ideas in TBB.
I don't find it that strange that they wouldn't take an online coach(or anyone else) in at this point where the new ruleset is almost finished. Let's hope that with Cyanide it will be recognized that it's online where most of the game happens and the rules will evolve according to that(long term team devepoment and no newbie play data clitches in truly balancing the teams that are mean't be equal) |
|
|
spubbbba
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 11:07 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | Doubt it, since they tried to get an online coach into the cabal, but were sneered at.
"Over on TBB purplegoo proposed in a thread that there be at least 1 "online coach" in the BBRC, with FUMBBL and now the cyanide game there are probably more digital BB games played each day than there are Tabletop ones. But i don't think it got a lot of support, the impression i get is that it's a bit of an "inner circle" affair with a few TT tournament regulars who are mates of Jervis that decide things. " (Spubbbba) |
Not sure if i'd say sneered at, the discussion is here so you can read for yourself.
From what i could see the main point given was "the dicsussion has been going on for ages and it's too late to change anything now, you should have brought this up earlier".
One thing to bear in mind is that the BBRC does not decide the rules they propose them, as i understand it Jervis and GW have the final say so plenty of times the BBRC has their hands tied. For instance Khemri have to keep 4 mummies/guardians as "people have already bought the models" (didn't stop them limited ogres to 6 though) so you couldn't have reduced the mummies to 2 and added catch-ras or similar. |
_________________
British or British based and looking to join a League?
Then check out theWhite Isle Fringe |
|
soranos
Joined: May 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 11:10 |
|
DP now only +1, harder to get assists on the foul...how can you guys possibly say fouling is as powerful as it is now? |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 11:11 |
|
Wow, alot of misinformation here.
Firstly I'll point Babs towards Kalimar (developer of the future FUMBBL client) and Deaf (creator of the rather excellent client used on a few other websites but which will sadly never be seen on FUMBBL).
Secondly I'll point out that Babs is an official member of the BBRC and the BBRC is an official panel of carefully selected volunteers led/created by Jervis Johnson. These guys have been writing the rules for quite some time now. They wrote the various versions of the LRB that SkiJunkies client used to simulate, way back in the day. The rulebook they produce will be released on the GW website and replace the rules currently available.
Blood Bowl Rules Committee:
- Paul Gegg (Geggster)
- Tom Anders (Galak_Starscraper)
- Ian Willims (Doubleskulls)
- Stephen Babbage (Babs)
These people have all been selected for their involvement in various BB communities. Their most notable weakness is an almost total lack of presence within FUMBBL. Babs, before you disagree with this, think about the amount of "who is this guy?" "who are these people?" responses that you already got from some relatively active and notable users. At various stages in the rules development efforts were made to try and include FUMBBL users in the rules discussions.... unfortunately that never worked terribly well and only really introduced fresh tabletop/FUMBBL crossover coaches into the discussions. However, although some members of the BBRC arent keen on FUMBBL its important to know that it was never intended to get missed out in quite the way that it did. The rules committee did attempt to cover everyones opinions and overall didnt do a bad job of it.
Finally - the rules Babs is offering the developers are the official rules of BB and they are here to stay for quite some time. The door is shut on new suggestions and its known that GW is now keen for the rules to remain static for a fair few years. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."
Last edited by SillySod on %b %25, %2009 - %11:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
spinball
Joined: Jul 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 11:22 |
|
best statement of the bunch, easily!
| SillySod wrote: | Wow, alot of misinformation here.
Firstly I'll point Babs towards Kalimar (developer of the future FUMBBL client) and [url=]Deaf[/url] (creator of the rather excellent client used on a few other websites but which will sadly never be seen on FUMBBL).
Secondly I'll point out that Babs is an official member of the BBRC and the BBRC is an official panel of carefully selected volunteers led/created by Jervis Johnson. These guys have been writing the rules for quite some time now. They wrote the various versions of the LRB that SkiJunkies client used to simulate, way back in the day. The rulebook they produce will be released on the GW website and replace the rules currently available.
Blood Bowl Rules Committee:
- Paul Gegg (Geggster)
- Tom Anders (Galak_Starscraper)
- Ian Willims (Doubleskulls)
- Stephen Babbage (Babs)
These people have all been selected for their involvement in various BB communities. Their most notable weakness is an almost total lack of presence within FUMBBL. Babs, before you disagree with this, think about the amount of "who is this guy?" "who are these people?" responses that you already got from some relatively active and notable users. At various stages in the rules development efforts were made to try and include FUMBBL users in the rules discussions.... unfortunately that never worked terribly well and only really introduced fresh tabletop/FUMBBL crossover coaches into the discussions. However, although some members of the BBRC arent keen on FUMBBL its important to know that it was never intended to get missed out in quite the way that it did. The rules committee did attempt to cover everyones opinions and overall didnt do a bad job of it.
Finally - the rules Babs is offering the developers are the official rules of BB and they are here to stay for quite some time. The door is shut on new suggestions and its known that GW is now keen for the rules to remain static for a fair few years. |
|
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 16:17 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | its known that GW is now keen for the rules to remain static for a fair few years. |
It's also well known that GW suck at keeping their word when it comes to statements like this. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 16:50 |
|
Silleh - thanks for the info. So the BBRC are hardly "independent" of GW then, as they claim. This makes me feel better, as GW still has control and hasn't ceded it to an random clique. It's GW's game afterall.
Still, my concerns still circle the following:
"selected"
"Their most notable weakness is an almost total lack of presence within FUMBBL"
"The door is shut on new suggestions"
I still wonder, however, why Cyanide went with 5.0 then, if 6.0 is the final (for some time) definitive ruleset? Or will they patch an update, if they are up to this technically? Then again, as I dislike their user interface and silly animations, I personally don't care. |
_________________
 |
|
JoeKano
Joined: Aug 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 16:52 |
|
Wow Hostility.....Babs i wouldnt have bothered with the offer. Fumbbl has too many munchkin Euros and Yanks to be worthwhile listening too.
Its a miniatures game for leagues and tournaments and one offs. It was never intended to be for teams that play 300 and 400 and 500 games. Why should they aim changes at that sort of thing? Just cause you play it lots shows you support the hobby? Pfft. Buy some figs, front up or hell even run some damn tournbaments or leagues, join the NAF, vote for the NAF president, get involved in things that way.
The results from NAF member versus NAF member games drives the stats the committes use and they come from Tournaments.
Maybe you do already good for you Pythrr i cant be bothered looking for your tag anywhere to see if you do, cause frankly you kinda missed the whole point of the offer and instead tried to derail it all with some "Your oppressing me!" crap.
Hey i hate the eye being gone too, I own like 6 different ref models!!
And before you say well who am I to talk, Ive run two NAF approved tournaments, this year alone, attended two more, this year, and Im deputy commisioner of a league. Both tournaments i ran used the LRB5 + BBRC 2008 rulesets, the new races and the league does as well and we wil convert to LRB 6 as soon as its posted.
Ive been on Fumbbl since 2003 and I play in the Southern Wastes League and frankly, I say I honestly see nothing about fumbbl or even the cyanide game that says to me "Someone from this community deserves a spot at the table" when it comes to rules changes. The Cyanide game has too many ways to cheat it apparently ( www.tacklezoneradio.com podcasts for a comment from unaligned computer game designer about this ) and Fumbbl, well fumbbl isnt really what the games is , its a fun alternative and I love playing in the SWL but with the cherry picking and newbie mugging in ranked, discons because "ooh my best pixellated collection died, ooh ooh" it really doesnt deserve a guernsey.
As far as I know the BBRC are guys who have been there from the start, and exist because they were asked too. They volunteer their time and effort to consider the information they receive and they deliberate long and hard before any change they make.
You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time. Theres always stuff your not going to like.
That being said...bring back the eye!! |
_________________
"Take the Strength, crush the opposing linemen, drive them broken before you and hear the lamentation of their Cheerleaders!!!"
 |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:02 |
|
| JoeKano wrote: | . Fumbbl has too many munchkin Euros and Yanks to be worthwhile listening too.
Maybe you do already good for you Pythrr i cant be bothered looking for your tag anywhere to see if you do, cause frankly you kinda missed the whole point of the offer and instead tried to derail it all with some "Your oppressing me!" crap.
|
Excuse me?
If your first comment pretty sums up your attitude, then why bother asking us?
Second, I have no idea who these people are, and have just been asking who / why / and where they come from. Silly was nice enough to give those of us not familar with this "BBRC" the background, and in a less "dismissive" manner than you. |
|
|
phil78
Joined: Jul 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:11 |
|
| Quote: | | The results from NAF member versus NAF member games drives the stats the committes use and they come from Tournaments. |
Has the BBRC not always said that the new rules are for leagues and any tournament considerations are second to these? |
|
|
Nemeton
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:13 |
|
Yea I too feel a lot more enlightened now than I was earlier, especially since the one page (http://www.geocities.com/blood-bowl/bbrc.htm) doesnt really look all that official, and neither does the URL. But so be it, now that I know more about BBRC than I did not too many hours ago I think its cool that he comes here with some info that the new LRB6 is coming soon AND that he is actually offering to help the guys doing the new client with the rule changes that are to come so that FUMBBL can get up to date when our new client is ready for launch.
Skipping LRB5 since LRB6 is coming out soon seems like the logical choice especially if we are not even ready to implement the LRB5 client at this time. Thanks to Barb for giving us this option, now we will just have to wait and see if it will be used and what the new LRB6 rules are like when they come out. I hope they will keep the good stuff from LRB5 and get rid of some of the more problematic things.
And as a last comment I would like to echo a statement that others have already made: Bring back the Eye  |
|
|
JoeKano
Joined: Aug 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:17 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | there were initially no plans for 6.0 so soon after 5.0 either, one assumes (would seem stupid if there were)
yet it still happened
if there is a committee, it will change things to justify its own existence. this is the nature of committees
i know this as I am on committees at work, and this is all they do
disband your unelected (ie: oligarchic) committee and we might believe you. |
"Disband your Committee"
Pretty hostile attitude
Before you found out the information you were already calling for the villagers to rally in the town square with torches and pitch forks.
Oh and I dont see a question in my comments, I wasnt asking anything, it was a commentary on the fumbbl ranked experience. |
_________________
"Take the Strength, crush the opposing linemen, drive them broken before you and hear the lamentation of their Cheerleaders!!!"
|
|
Kalimar
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:18 |
|
A word from the developer then.
I do not consider LRB6 at this point. It's hard enough to implement with a proper specification in form of the rules as written. And to be tested properly the testers also need a specification - impossible with "advance info" for the developer.
From what I've seen so far of the LRB6 rules the differences to LRB5 are minor compared to the step from LRB4 and LRB5. New or altered teams are not an issue as those are specified via XML, no coding changes necessary. Minor skill tweaks, different kick-offs etc. won't be that hard to implement on top of the LRB5 version.
Thank you for the kind offer, though. |
Last edited by Kalimar on %b %25, %2009 - %19:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:25 |
|
| JoeKano wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | there were initially no plans for 6.0 so soon after 5.0 either, one assumes (would seem stupid if there were)
yet it still happened
if there is a committee, it will change things to justify its own existence. this is the nature of committees
i know this as I am on committees at work, and this is all they do
disband your unelected (ie: oligarchic) committee and we might believe you. |
"Disband your Committee"
Pretty hostile attitude
. |
Nicely quoted out of context. As you can (or should be able to) see, this was part of a critique of the "no more changes" claim (ie: committee's exist, and therefore change things), not as a general critique of BBRC. Learning to discern discrete argument threads is a useful skill. |
|
|
JoeKano
Joined: Aug 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 25, 2009 - 17:29 |
|
| pythrr wrote: |
disband your unelected (ie: oligarchic) committee and we might believe you. |
[/quote]
Nicely quoted out of context. As you can (or should be able to) see, this was part of a critique of the "no more changes" claim (ie: committee's exist, and therefore change things), not as a general critique of BBRC. Learning to discerne discrete argument threads is a useful skill.[/quote]
What does disband your committee have to do with "no more changes"
You didnt say "No more changes" and leave it at that.
You said "disband your unelected (ie: oligarchic) committee"
How is that out of context? |
_________________
"Take the Strength, crush the opposing linemen, drive them broken before you and hear the lamentation of their Cheerleaders!!!"
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
