Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 12:35 |
 
|
I'll break down the reasons why it won't happen for you.
1. My time is not free. This is something that would take a significant amount of time to set up for the benefit of only some of our players.
2. Our resources are not unlimited, now or in the future. Once again, this would take away those resources from the majority for the benefit of the minority.
3. It's does not fit with what we want to do for the site. It serves only to fragment the community.
4. It serves no purpose as a test bed, because as has already been stated officialy before, ageing will not be removed from the official rules. It might be changed, but it won't be removed. It's a simple play balance issue. This game is at it's root, a d6 reroll system. When a team gets too many skills, the game devolves into nothing but waiting for your opponent to roll 1,1.
So no, it's not that we won't consider any new ideas. Quite the contrary, many of the things the site now has it has because we have implemented the things people have wanted, but only where those things are not counter to what we intend for the site, and not for the benefit of only a portion of those playing at the cost of everyone else.
As for my less than diplomatic refusal, you have already proposed this before, and I told you why it wouldn't happen then. If you continue to ask for the same thing, you can generally expect "no" answers after the first to get less cordial. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 15:05 |
|
I suggested something similar, thats right.
But this time i was not suggesting a new division rivaling with the "regular" ones but a pure experiment.
This was inspired by a quote from someone from another forum who said "i cannot make up my mind about ageing, i hate it, but it appears to be neccessary. I'd like to see what happens when it is removed so we could define the problem better and maybe come up with a better solution".
While i of course have no idea on the amount of work this would take the admin team, i want to say that it would hardly affect the total number of games played. so things like bandwith seem a liitle bit of an overstatement from your side.
As to who would benefit from this:
Everybody.
We have a different viewpoint here. While some people just want to "play the game", others enjoy the "what if" houserules/experimental part better. Let me make this clear: i understand your point. But i also hope you realize what a great resource for playtesting fumbbl could be. New rules that become official as a result of this playtesting would be benificial to everybody who plays bloodbowl.
Of course someone would have to decide what is worth playtesting and what is not. You made it clear that the official policy of the fumbbl admin team is to only include "officialy experimental rules". I am questioning this policy. And my feeling is that your "saying no" is a categoric/principal attitude. So i would like to ask you to please reconsider that attitude.
To give you an example:
there was a discussion about "Piling On" prior to the rules review.
It would have been possible to include the "reroll" rule in a experimental version of JBB, and play a couple of games in a experimental division of fumbbl. For a pure playtesting purpose. So we could have said "well we tried the reroll piling on on fumbbl and it looks as if it would work fine".
On the other hand, i understand your concerns since games workshop does in no way support you that it is not your task to do their work. So no hard feelings about that. Maybe at some time in the future fumbbl will become a more important part in the gamedesign for bloodbowl. I for one hope so. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 15:28 |
|
You are still missing the point. They have said that ageing WILL NOT be removed. Altered, maybe, revised, almost certainly, but it WILL NOT be removed. It CAN NOT be removed for the simple play balance issues I have already listed.
Because of this, it is a waste of time and resources to test a change that will never be made official. We fully intend to do playtesting here, but by only playtesting officialy experimental stuff, we make sure that our resources are not squandered in testing things that will never even be considered as an official change.
If you would like to spend your time in setting up a site to test this, regardless of the hopelessness of the cause, you are free to do so. We, however, will not be using our limited time and resources to test something that has 0 chance of ever being used. If you still don't understand that, then I don't know what else to tell you. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 15:40 |
|
Relax.
The point of this experiment would be to see the result of "No Ageing".
So you could better evaluate possible changes to the rule.
just to give an example, it could turn out that "No Ageing" leads to a situation where teams with AV9 are totally dominating.
or it could lead to a scenario where hig scoring teams are totally dominating.
We don't know.
So was not suggesting to remove ageing as a "fix" to ageing. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 15:46 |
|
Your stated intention was to test it for possible inclusion in the core rules. They have already said that will never happen, therefore, it's a waste of time to test it. If you still don't get what I am saying at this point, I don't see what else I can tell you. I'll end with something I should have remembered before ever getting into this:
 |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 16:00 |
|
Dear Mr-Klipp, I got your point ages ago.
And I even agree. Some Kind of "Ageing" is propably needed.
Obviously you have misread some of my statements becaus I never ever sayd that the removal of ageing should become part of the official core rules.
All i was saying is I would like to see some Team rosters that have not been exposed to ageing and compare them to some who have been. That might give us a hint or two.
As to me beeing retarded, im not sure if it would be wise for me to commet this. Its your site after all as you repeatedly made perfectly clear. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 16:14 |
|
| Anonymous wrote: |
Obviously you have misread some of my statements becaus I never ever sayd that the removal of ageing should become part of the official core rules.
|
You didn't? Could have fooled me.
| Force wrote: |
Let me make this clear: i understand your point. But i also hope you realize what a great resource for playtesting fumbbl could be. New rules that become official as a result of this playtesting would be benificial to everybody who plays bloodbowl. |
| Force wrote: |
This is NOT about creating a House Rule for FUMBBL. Its there to give a concrete analysis to tell what happens to teams that are not exposed to ageing. |
Since you acknowledge that ageing will never be removed from the core rules, your whole reason for promoting this is invalid.
Lets both be perfectly honest here. Regardless of what you have been going on about in your posts so far, you don't want to see a no ageing league set up for real testing, as you just admitted that you know that that change will never be made to the official rules, making testing it a waste of time. You want a no ageing league set up because you want to play in one. That's just not going to happen.
As for the pic, read it again. It's not calling you retarded, it's pointing out the absolute futility of arguing this point to begin with.
When an ageing alternative is added to the playtest vault (as is rumored to be coming soon), we will probably begin testing it in DivX. However, as I have said time and time again, removing ageing completly gives us nothing but useless data. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 16:33 |
|
Your accusation of me trying to trick you into creating my own personal division is neat but untrue, i dont even have the time to play right now. I'm leaving this discussion now, since it is frustrating do discuss a one-line idea (compare rosters of teams that are exposed to ageing to those who are not for analysis) over an hour or more.
and to be honest with you from my point of view it would be absolutely no problem to disable the ageing roll for a group of teams. you have done far more amazing things with this site, so you keep coming up with sad excuses to prevent something that you personaly do not like from gaining support. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 16:34 |
|
OK dude, sure, you know much better than I how much work is involved in any given project.
Maybe the reason such a simple discusion has dragged on so far is that every time you are told that no, what you are saying does not fit because of x, y, and z, you almost completly ignore that and just say what you want again without addressing any of the issues already brough up. Trying to reason with you has become the discusion board equivalent of beating ones head against a brick wall. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 16:45 |
|
Would you two like to get a room? |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 16:57 |
|
Look i was trying to make you reconsider by explaining my thoughts. All you are is rude and stubborn not moving an inch and playing the me>u card. In your last posting you revealed your true reasons for objecting the idea.
I said multiple times that i at least partially understand your reasons.
Of course i try to convince you since i think it would be worth it.
And i have no idea how much work anything would be but my feeling is that you would not be willing to spend 10 seconds on anything coming from me no matter what. |
|
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 17:00 |
|
In a non aging League? orcs. Av9 all round. Or chaos for those claws, skaven would ust lose so badly... they get injuries oppos dont, we get screwed and left with the morcels. It wouldnt become a bloodbowlgame... it would become Chaosdorforcundeadbowl... (chaos and chaos dorfs and dorfs)
No sane coach would play an agile (low av) team since they die and niggle easy on injury, while the oppo has no injuries at all. I wouldnt join... hell no |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 17:05 |
|
Mr. Klipp, your avatar is screaming and pounding upon an invisible wall but no one can hear it.
How appropriate.
Force: How's about setting up a league for playtesting your ideas? Really. I've been telling you to do so since at least May 20th (earliest record I could find quickly). Naturally everyone should listen to exactly what I say. 
If you want people to get people to listen to you and your veritable conucopia of ideas, you've apparently determined that you need hard data to back them up.
Good.
Now create a league and wrangle up some players. Then prove or disprove it. Why have you not done this yet? If half of the effort you put into arguing your proposals were instead spent doing something constructive, you'd be done already!
{ edit: with posts like the above "me>u" response (which came in while I was typing this), why do I bother? You'll never listen to reason. I suppose I just have to accept that. Hypocrisy hurts... } |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 17:35 |
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | Look i was trying to make you reconsider by explaining my thoughts. All you are is rude and stubborn not moving an inch and playing the me>u card. |
Well, if you think a list of itemized problems with your idea equals me "playing the me>u card", I really don't know what to say.
| Anonymous wrote: |
In your last posting you revealed your true reasons for objecting the idea. |
No, in my last posting I stated the only reasonable theory I had for why you would keep ignoring all of the problems I list and just saying the same thing over and over again.
| Anonymous wrote: |
And i have no idea how much work anything would be but my feeling is that you would not be willing to spend 10 seconds on anything coming from me no matter what. |
It has nothing to do with you personally, but what I won't do is spend several hours of my time to set up a league that takes resources away from the main system and gives us absolutly no data that is of any value, given what we know about the changes that could and could not be made to the ageing system. Since "no ageing" has zero chance of ever becoming official, all the test data in the world about how it works does us no good at all. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch
Last edited by Mr-Klipp on %b %28, %2004 - %17:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2004 - 17:36 |
|
Mojo. I have already responded to your suggestion.
Its a silly idea to say the least.
You suggest to create completely new online league/community in order to test a simple rules tweak.
Its nice to see you line up with Mr-Klipp but forgive me if I turn down this opportunity to play 1vs2.
FUMBBL would have the means to realize my suggestion. Which is, according to the original posting, disable ageing for a limitied number of teams over a limited period of time and use the data that results from that to analyze the impact the ageing rule has on the game.
Mr-Klipp makes this sound like a worthless undertaking and at the same time makes himself sound like he knows whats best for all of us.
Ageing is a huge fun spoiler for a lot of blood bowl coaches, so anything that might help to sove that dilemma would be great.
There are a lot of acceptable reasons for not conducting this experiment, but one is for sure not valid: that it would produce useless results. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
