NAF World Headquarters :: View topic - North American Team Championship Ruleset Posted

NAF World Headquarters

North America - North American Team Championship Ruleset Posted

zootsuitjeff - Jun 07, 2012 - 01:14 PM
Post subject: North American Team Championship Ruleset Posted

The NATC ruleset draft has been posted at:

http://www.northamericanteamchampionship.com/info/

Please have a look and let us know your thoughts here. These are more or less finalized, but we still welcome any feedback or questions and can still make changes for anything that is unclear or problematic.

Thanks!

SolarFlare - Jun 07, 2012 - 02:16 PM
Post subject: RE: North American Team Championship Ruleset Posted

Looks great. Quick observation - Day 1 will be ending at 8pm local time. I think that's 11pm EST. Which will be a bit late for folks coming from the east coast. I don't see this as a terrible thing, but it may cut into the hanging out time afterward. (Not sure if I can make it at this point, so take my feedback with a grain of salt.)

zootsuitjeff - Jun 07, 2012 - 02:23 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: North American Team Championship Ruleset Posted

SolarFlare wrote:

I believe the reasoning for that is to give people a chance to book an early flight and still make it in to the tournament on time, saving an extra night's room if they need to cut costs. Luckily the venue is just a 5 minute taxi ride from the airport.

You better be there Frank!

Lizardcore - Jun 07, 2012 - 04:07 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: North American Team Championship Ruleset Posted

Each coach must build a team with TV1100k (1.1 million gp starting build), with 2 regular skills and one double skill assigned to three separate players on each team before Game 1, and one regular and one double result skill assigned to separate players prior to Game 4 and Game 7, for a total of seven (7) skills by Day 3.

=> this should be explained a bit better.

1/ build your team with 1.1 million (what can you buy not buy ?)
2/ assigned 3 skills
3/ ...
4/ ...

Krannix - Jun 07, 2012 - 06:10 PM
Post subject:

This might be crazy, but start day 2 at 8am. That way it ends at 5 and there's more time for Saturday evening festivities. Day 1 makes sense with early flights. I guess I was thinking Day 2 and 3 have same start time. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks for submitting the rules. I am following you on twitter and you're doing a great job.

DarkOrk20 - Jun 07, 2012 - 06:54 PM
Post subject:

The rules state that you must assign 2 normal skills and a double skill. Can the double skill be a normal skill instead?

zootsuitjeff - Jun 08, 2012 - 12:23 AM
Post subject:

yes of course. A double skill just means any skill you could pick with a double roll.

Khail - Jun 08, 2012 - 07:55 PM
Post subject:

As a couple of us brought up on the Thunderbowl thread - there are some concerns about the progression format favoring the already top tournament teams as opposed to a set skill format like Spike/RCR/Iron Mike/etc use, which encourage a more diverse spread of teams.

From the TB Thread:

Quote:

We all know that the power scale of a team shifts as it develops - some teams more so than others. As Blood Bowl has enough randomness in it already, it makes sense to eliminate the variable of development for a tournament if you're seeking for the tourney to be a test of skill, not a test of "well, I got matched up against Wood Elves before I could get my toolkit skills, so yeah, that sucked".

As Warpstone mentioned, it pushes people to play the races that already come pre-built with most of what they need - Dwarfs, Chaos Dwarfs, Orcs, etc. Competitive players won't consider any of the other races because having to play an entire day without all their toolkit skills doesn't bode well for their results.

There's a good reason we don't use progression for tournaments anymore, and the variety of races showing up at Spike/RCR/etc are a testament to how well it works.

I'm a strong advocate for a skill package setup with a cap on skills (i.e. you can only add a given skill to your team twice). It's the most balanced tournament format we've been able to come up with in the PNW so far.

Lizardcore - Jun 08, 2012 - 11:30 PM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

Agree for the skill package, totally disagree for the skill cap:

- WE and Undead will never need more than 2 x the same skill
- Amazons without Guard x 4 or Necro without Block x 4 are just screwed.

The better you could do is TV 110 + 5 skills (guess what, almost all tournies in europe are like that).

The potential winners are then: WE, DE, Orks, Dwarves, Amazones, Norse, Skaven, Necro, Chaos Dwarves, Lizardmen, Undead.

for example, with the Chaos cup format (purchased skills), the teams with expensive rerolls are advantaged (cause they can buy leader, therefore all the effort done to balance the rosters by increasing reroll costs are ruined -_- ). i.e. for the chaos cup: top teams are Undead, Orcs, Norse, with Chaos dwarfs not so far and Wood elves. The list goes from 11 to 5 competitive teams... not sure that's the goal.

On another hand, north American coaches are nice and not even trying to win games, so bloodbowl tournaments are still a tone of fun !

If you want more diversity, then give more skills to the tier 2 and tier 3 teams. This is what is being tested more and more.

Khail - Jun 08, 2012 - 11:51 PM
Post subject:

If you don't cap skills, you end up with Dwarves with 5-6x Guard and Lizards with 6 blocking Saurus, etc, again making the strong stronger. Amazons have been doing fine without 4x Guard in our tourneys out here. Capped skills leaves you with vastly more diverse teams - knowing that you won't have to face 6 guards on a dwarf team encourages diversity in and of itself.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 09, 2012 - 08:42 AM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

Khail, these are all good points. I believe we'd briefly discussed this skill cap while I was writing the ruleset, but we left it out.

I sort of disagree with a dwarf team going all Guard or a lizard team going all block on the Saurus amounting to "making the strong stronger", as in my experience making these skill choices actually hamstrings most of the rest of the team. Sure, six blocking Saurus are tough, but that leaves the skinks as untouched. On the odd chance that the Saurus ends up with the ball, you're then left to seeing whether or not you've made allowance in your own team build for extracting the ball from a ST4 carrier.

At any rate, I'm discussing these concerns with Jeff now. I'm honestly indifferent to the skill cap/no skill cap issue, but that indifference is why I'm discussing it with Jeff.

Thanks for the input everyone so far.

Xtreme - Jun 09, 2012 - 11:41 AM
Post subject:

Lizardcore wrote:

for example, with the Chaos cup format (purchased skills), the teams with expensive rerolls are advantaged (cause they can buy leader, therefore all the effort done to balance the rosters by increasing reroll costs are ruined -_- ). i.e. for the chaos cup: top teams are Undead, Orcs, Norse, with Chaos dwarfs not so far and Wood elves. The list goes from 11 to 5 competitive teams... not sure that's the goal.

1 cheaper reroll hardly changes the balance of the game. And I would argue there are a lot more then 5 competitive teams with that rules pack. Considering in the top ten last year there were 7 different races.

Lizardcore - Jun 09, 2012 - 06:16 PM
Post subject:

Some more elements that you can think of and see if they make sense or not. I just feel like discussing tonight ! But really it's your call, and I will be forever thankfull for the work you guys are pulling out so we can have a good time.

A bit of analysis:
How are amazons winning games => out-guarding most of the teams (norse, orcs, etc...)

Who is always winning tournaments ? Undeads and Wood elves.

Undead: Block on mummy, block on ghoul, guard on a wight, frenzy or tacle on a wight, guard on mummy, and the last skills doesnt really mater.
WE: Guard on 1 catcher (or 2), strip ball or tackle on a WD, frenzy on the other WD, leader, wrestle...

Is the cap affecting the teams that are already always winning ? => no.

Is the cap affecting other teams ? => yes (amazones, dwarfs, necro). And as there is less dwarf / amazones, that makes the norse and orcs much stronger, as they are not out-guarded. Therefore, they can just take tackle without an hesitation, as they only have to worry about WE / Undeads.

as for the cost of a reroll.

Why is the amazon reroll so cheap ? cause it's a roster were you're supposed to have lots of player.
An amazon gets 20/30 k back by trading a RR for a leader (as the elves).

Undeads, CD are getting 40k back which is 2 skills.

If you think it's the same, why are you not giving +1 skill to undead and chaos dwarves when you give skill packs ?

Jonny_P - Jun 09, 2012 - 06:42 PM
Post subject:

Make sure to account for the extra work for the organizing staff and the possibility for coach error with adding skills later in the tournament.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but there are more variables to think about.

Xtreme - Jun 09, 2012 - 09:09 PM
Post subject:

You make some excellent points Lizardcore. I don't want to derail this thread further talking about Chaos Cup but I would like to continue the conversation so i'll be PMing you.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 10, 2012 - 08:20 AM
Post subject:

At this point, we will not be altering the ruleset to implement a skill cap.

Warpstone - Jun 13, 2012 - 01:57 PM
Post subject:

1) Team building is a coaching skill

Team design in Blood Bowl involves min-max'ing a roster, however it also requires coaches to assess and control for risks as well. Usually, successful tourny coaches compose a roster and skill set that allows them to run a complete game plan against most opponents. The completeness of such a game plan is not just due to individual skills (i.e. do I have a blitzer with strip ball) but also due to the "force multiplying" effect of leveraging combinations to full effect (i.e. do I have a strip ball blitzer and a sure handed catcher to support him with). Coaches who field a team with a skill package have a chance to play their best game in every game of the tourny.

2) Less skill picks encourage gambling on team builds

If you strip out skill picks, you don't get the same efficiencies in team design and coaching ability on a smaller scale of skilled players. Some effective team builds simply do not work if the complementary skills aren't in place. In other words, if skills are taken incrementally, then it does not follow that a coach will build the same as a pre-determined skill system. There is gambling inherent to the progressive system (i.e. I need sure hands but what do I do if the next guy already has 2 x Guard?) that cannot be controlled by even the greatest coach. Starting with 5 or 6 skills allows even low tier teams to either cover their bases or take high risk/high reward roster into all games and especially the early ones.

3) Progressive skills amplify the results of roster mismatches and luck

On the Thunderbowl thread, someone mentioned that they believed progressive skill systems would be an even better indicator of coaching skill because competitors would have to show their ability at various stages of development. The problem with this though is that games with few skills actually amp up the effect that a race mismatch will have on the result (i.e. dwarves & norse vs. anyone without block). They also render early games incredibly vulnerable to freak dice results because coaches are not able to address reliability concerns.

Remember that a progressive skills system nerfs team design, increases gambling, but does not improve the test of skill over a predetermined skill system.

4) Progressive skills weaken indicators of strength of schedule

Teams place all over a skill curve in terms of their relative efficiency with less or more skills. However, it's not a linear progression for all teams. Dwarves and Undead start great and get better, whereas Pro Elves and Humans catch up when they tune up play-making and countering skills. So why would an early round game be any indicator of coaching performance when the involved skills literally change in later rounds? It screws up swiss-pairing because you're comparing apples to oranges in terms of the ripeness of each team for a round.

Keep in mind that this is a squad (team) tourny. If a squad has teams that mature earlier, then they have a huge leg up on squads with teams that develop in higher rounds. The chance to catch a squad deteriorates after a bad start because you'll see results stratify between good coaches with good starting rosters and everyone else.

5) Don't try to imitate NAF WC blindly

Sure, NAF uses progressive skills for the tourny norms, but by no means does that mean that they've thought it out. Worse, NATC should stand on it's own merit rather than attempt to regurgitate what anyone else has done. If you can improve on the skill package system, by all means do it. But right now, I don't think the current ruleset does anything but try to appeal to NAF WC sensibilities... and I don't know if a whole lot of thought was put into that either. After all, if you really want progressive skills over a long haul, why not simply keep records like the rulebook tells us to and see who's really coached the best after 9 games of attrition and skill ups.

If anything, NAF norms seem to attempt to appease some league-like development (progressive skills) while sticking to their brand of Blood Bowl (bonus TV + resurrection). I'd be wary of assuming that they've found the perfect ruleset just because they have cornered the market on legitimizing resurrection tournies.

The rulesets you've seen used by Spike, Rat City and Chaos Cup are improvements on previous years. They've made tournies competitive and more interesting. Good coaches still win, but everyone gets a more even experience with a ruleset that minimizes spammy rosters that exploit low TV mismatches (i.e more than 2 guard per team for example).

TL;DR: Wink

The game already has a lot of on-pitch luck baked-in to the rules. If you want increase the amount of luck in the game by amplifying freak results via either mismatched team pairings, on-pitch unreliability--or worse both types of bad luck--then a progressive system would be the way to do it.

Personally, I'd rather tournaments opted for fair starting conditions via skill package systems (i.e. Spike, Rat City, Chaos Cup) rather than consign us to the parity via blind luck (i.e. NAF's World Cup) that progressive skill systems are more prone to.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 13, 2012 - 03:43 PM
Post subject:

Hi Warpstone,

I do think you are making some persuasive arguments for your perspective. I personally am interested in a rulespack that encourages the greatest diversity of competitive teams. I'm still not convinced that the WC skill system is inherently broken or significantly more luck prone than a straight 6 skills rules pack. I personally thought the WC system worked well after playing it, and was a bit different and more interesting than a more vanilla rulespack was, while still being fairly balanced. however since I was near the bottom tables, maybe my personal opinion shouldn't count for as much. But I also haven't seen a lot of opinions from players who actually were there that they felt that the rulespack was too dependent on luck.

I'm interested in hearing from more people who participated in the WC2 what they thought of the rulespack.
I'm also interested in hearing from more people that are planning to attend the NATC what sort of rulespack they would prefer. I am willing to go along with what most attendees would like and I can open a poll if that is necessary.

blammaham - Jun 13, 2012 - 03:45 PM
Post subject:

SierraKiloBravo wrote:

At this point, we will not be altering the ruleset to implement a skill cap.

At this point, my interest in this event has been sadly diminished due to the rule set. S.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 13, 2012 - 03:57 PM
Post subject:

blammaham wrote:

At this point, my interest in this event has been sadly diminished due to the rule set. S.

I'm not sure that this is the most constructive attitude to keep. We are still open to possible changes, but obviously it won't work to let each attendee write their own personal rulespack.

To elaborate a bit more on SKB's comment, there are plenty of large tournaments which work well both with and without skill caps. With the limited number of extra skills in the current rulespack we don't feel that spamming skills will be a big issue.

Khail - Jun 13, 2012 - 04:47 PM
Post subject:

I think Blammaham is a bit put off because we've spent the last 3-4 years up here trying to build as balanced a ruleset as we can for large scale tournaments, and that research is being dismissed (after discussion or not, we can't really tell).

I strongly believe that set skills with a skill cap are way more conducive to a broad spectrum of team viability in a tournament than a progressive skill setup. As we've been saying, the low skill count on the first day means a very select few teams are actually viable on that day, and the others will get dismissed by competitive players.

Warpstone - Jun 13, 2012 - 04:47 PM
Post subject:

Jeff, Spike ran similar to NAF WC for 2008 and 2009. IIRC, you got 30k per round and could save or spend it on skills as the tourny went on.

It was okay, but man did it ever suck when agile teams ran into dwarves or if you ran into blodgers early.

I have a distinct memory in 2009 of playing the eventual winner who had a Chaos Dwarf team with lots of guard. Great coach, overpowering build, I was helpless. It was a 2-1 grind that I really could not have played any differently.

Spike 2010 was like Chaos cup, you get 1,100,000 to spend and can buy skills and MA/AV for 20k or 30k a pop.

RCR 1 ran a skill pack (6 normal or 4 normal+1double, etc).

Spike 2011 took a page from Khail's RCR tournment and used that skill pack idea with a cap of no more than 2 of any bought skill.

RCR 2 recently ran the same skill pack.

I'm a sample size of 1 obviously, but anecdotally:

* build variety and tactics increased drastically once we abandoned NAF norms.

* Spike 2010 finally saw good coaches field non-tier 1 teams to good effect.

* Khail's skill pack was probably a better fit for both rookie and experienced coaches than the Chaos Cup model.

* Limiting skills to no more than 2 of one kind was a god send for anyone playing a roster that does not rhyme with wharf. Moreover, a lot of coaches took it as a real chance to field creative and cunning rosters and it was no longer the case that you could predict exactly what every tier 1 team took.

* In particular, it took skill to coach the 2-1 grind tactic under the capped skill pack and the variety of viable roster types was really impressive compared to the power-gamer friendly NAF system.

* Less bitching at tier 1 coaches was a boon for them too. Dwarf coaches take a lot of stick, but less so in a tournament where they can't spam the mutual fun out of a game.

It's not that I'll completely abandon all notion of coming to NATC if you use the NAF ruleset. It's more that I genuinly wish the NATC itself is a great tourny in and of itself rather than an audition to host the NAF WC III or IV. We're not Europe, we don't have to mimic them in every facet of our tourny.

I would feel more confidant booking the trip if I knew that from the ruleset up, the tourny was designed to give a fun and enjoyable experience to everyone--even those jerks like me who actually want to win under rules that no one can gripe over. Very Happy

blammaham - Jun 13, 2012 - 04:47 PM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

blammaham wrote:

At this point, my interest in this event has been sadly diminished due to the rule set. S.

I'm not sure that this is the most constructive attitude to keep. We are still open to possible changes, but obviously it won't work to let each attendee write their own personal rulespack.

So be it, if I'm going to travel to a tournament, take time off of work and away from my family the rule set will have the most impact on weather I choose to attend or not. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat Jeff, in fact I may be the majority with this being a deciding factor. If I feel like the tournament is too favorable to one group of races and those races are the one's I expect to play against (ie. every team has a dwarf team) then that will keep me far far away. Not voicing this attitude/concern with the rule set would be destructive, so i actually feel that I AM being constructive! Your welcome! S.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:04 PM
Post subject:

Warpstone wrote:

This post is the most objective, compelling response I've seen thus far. Thank you for this.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:07 PM
Post subject:

blammaham wrote:

SierraKiloBravo wrote:

At this point, we will not be altering the ruleset to implement a skill cap.

At this point, my interest in this event has been sadly diminished due to the rule set. S.

By comparison, this post is not as useful.

runki_khrum - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:09 PM
Post subject:

Perhaps as Lizardcore pointed out, we North Americans are not the power gamers that some Europeans are. I attended and enjoyed the WCII immensely even though I finished middle of the pack. I think the present proposed NATC setup ,which I believe is the same as the WC pack, is acceptable.

This is going to be a great event just like WCII was. I like to think the majority of coaches will be attending for fun and games and whichever rule pack is finally decided upon should have little effect on the success of this tournament.

blammaham - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:14 PM
Post subject:

SierraKiloBravo wrote:

blammaham wrote:

SierraKiloBravo wrote:

At this point, we will not be altering the ruleset to implement a skill cap.

At this point, my interest in this event has been sadly diminished due to the rule set. S.

By comparison, this post is not as useful.

Really?!? Why not? Glib, concise, essentially says the same thing and absolutely true! S. Confused

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:17 PM
Post subject:

runki_khrum wrote:

Would you have enjoyed WCII more or less if the tournament's racial makeup hadn't been primarily comprised of undead/dwarves/wood elves/skaven?

jrock56 - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:40 PM
Post subject:

First off we have already been organizing for a few teams from the Eastern Canada region to make it out to this event. Having gone to WCII as part of Team Canada we played nine games with basically the same ruleset as you are proposing here. While it does hamper some teams early on, skill choices are paramount in how your team performs. While I do agree that a 'copycat' version of the WC may not be the best option available, without a doubt it was the greatest bloodbowl event that both myself and my team had ever had the opportunity to attend. The ruleset did not take away from the overall enjoyment of the tournament at all.

If you are looking for a more diverse group of races played, with several different roster builds than this ruleset will definitely restrict teams that want to be very competitive from bringing anything but Tier 1 and a few Tier 2 teams. Regardless of the ruleset however, you will still see several 4 player teams with similar races as the strong teams will still remain strong regardless of the roster build and people will lean towards selecting them in order to better there chances of staying competitive. For instance, when we were choosing our Races to play for the WC II the ruleset had no bearing on the teams we chose to play, we looked at who on our team played successfully with which races most consistently. We each worked around the skill selections after we had chosen the race we wanted to play with. The deciding factor was to play a team we each knew we would have fun with for 9 games. Just my 2 cents but having played with this ruleset previously, it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. People will still play the teams they enjoy playing regardless of the ruleset.

jrock56 - Jun 13, 2012 - 05:47 PM
Post subject:

SierraKiloBravo wrote:

runki_khrum wrote:

Would you have enjoyed WCII more or less if the tournament's racial makeup hadn't been primarily comprised of undead/dwarves/wood elves/skaven?

Would not have made a difference in my opinion what races I played. I had a wide variety of opponents including high elf, necro, lizards, dark elf, wood elf and one dwarf. think i played a few twice to bring it to nine. Wide variations in playing styles and skill selections from team to team that we played

zootsuitjeff - Jun 13, 2012 - 06:13 PM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

I do feel that we've done a fair amount of discussion on this, although much of it not public to everyone, so I feel a little bit blindsided by these criticisms. We have been using the World Cup ruleset as a template, since it a similar format to the tournament we would like to put on. My personal attitude towards most of the rules from that was that if it isn't broken no need to fix it, and I think WC2 was pretty successful. I do think there was quite a bit of discussion of that rules set prior to the event, and quite a few coaches were involved in it too.
We first discussed a draft rules set amongst our organizing committee which consists of the majority of tourney organizers in the Western US. We then invited feedback from the NATC coordinating committee which consists of coaches/TOs from throughout the continent & world. Most of the feedback that we received from coordinating committee was positive, and I don't think anyone brought up the concerns you are voicing here.
I share all of your concerns that we have a rules set that is as competitive and diverse as possible and that appeals to and is fair to as many attending coaches as we can be. I am open to changes to the rule set if the majority of constituents are in favor of them. My main concern right now is that the "research" that is presented is primarily experiences, tournaments, and coaches opinions from the PNW. Opinions from coaches and rulesets from other regions seem to be mixed. Perhaps you've cracked the code for the perfect tournament up there, or perhaps this is just a regional difference/preference.

Thoughts?

runki_khrum - Jun 13, 2012 - 07:28 PM
Post subject:

@ SKB

If I remember correctly I played 2 Dwarves, Dark Elves, Lizards, Chaos Pact, Khemri, 2 Chaos Dwarves and something else. However I agree that I do not enjoy a game against a loaded team. So maybe a 2 pick limit for each skill I could support in the interest of making for a more fun tournament.

fe2mike - Jun 13, 2012 - 07:31 PM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

Perhaps you've cracked the code for the perfect tournament up there, or perhaps this is just a regional difference/preference.

Thoughts?

I would agree with this, I think almost every game has regional differences, hell every game group has its own set of preferences.

I have always viewed tournaments as a way to get together with coaches that I don't know, meet new people and have fun playing a game that I love.

If the rules are slightly different than the way I play at home, so be it, I'll adjust.

daloonieshaman - Jun 13, 2012 - 07:34 PM
Post subject:

my personal opinion is for 9 games I think a limit of 2 per makes for a better coach. It divides the field just a little and makes coaches think about who to give what.
As far as the progressive. I prefer not to use that set. All-in, digressive, or maybe even cost (not my first pick for this type of event).
but
as pointed out, on a larger scale it worked, and lots of consult private and public was put into the decision. (public = VERY long form posts from many "public" members)

As far as a rules set being a deciding factor for me, maybe 5%.
Then again I do love to challenge my coaching ability.

(I was involved in the public discussion and when casually asked by zootsuit, over a beer, I gave my opinion <no I was not drunk I am too old and too lazy to get up and pee that often Laughing

Khail - Jun 13, 2012 - 07:43 PM
Post subject:

There are definitely regional differences, though I'm of the opinion that just copying the WC's format when we've got ideas for something better with strong arguments to back it up is a mistake.

While we've got what we consider a pretty solid system up in the PNW, I don't think that it being "regional" is a reason to dismiss it. I've yet to see a solid argument FOR a progressive non-skill capped system in regards to balance and team variety. All we've got so far is "That's how the WC did it, and people enjoyed that...".

Ideally, I'd like to see us set the standard for a balanced and diverse large scale tournament, rather than copy one that we already know limited competitive coaches to a few select races if they wanted to win.

Lizardcore - Jun 13, 2012 - 08:22 PM
Post subject:

@ Khail : I agree for the progressive skill up. There are actually less and less tournament doing it in europe. But for the skill cap, I still disagree, But my arguments werent convincing enough apparently Wink

By curiosity I would like to know what you've seen on Dwarfs / Amazones / Necro / Lizard man that was allowing them to win against team that are not affected at all by the skill cap (WE, Undead, Skaven, Norse, Orcs) ?

As for the gamble of picking the right skills the right day, this is part of the coaching (the good coaches will make the good choices), I think that's the reason why they kept it for the world cup. It forces you to handle any match up with few skills, and prioritize the proper skills.

Grither - Jun 13, 2012 - 11:18 PM
Post subject:

Ultimately, we are hoping to put on a tournament that will be extremely enjoyable, a valuable experience for all participants and quite possibly, the biggest tournament we've experienced in North America. In order to do so, we value all of your opinions and may adjust the ruleset based on your feedback.

Jeff, may I second your suggestion that we do a vote to see what the coaches would recommend. I don't think anyone can argue with a majority decision from the community.

Khail - Jun 14, 2012 - 01:42 AM
Post subject:

Lizardcore wrote:

Regarding the skill cap - we played without one in the RCR I (32 coaches, 110 TV + skill package) and a Lizard coach with a large amount of Block on his Saurus ended up winning. We also had Amazons with tons of Blodge and Dwarf Guardspam represented, which both did decently in the tournament. I received quite a bit of feedback regarding the format, which was well received aside from the lack of a skill cap (something that Spike had in place 6 months earlier, though they ran a 110 TV in which you had to buy skills + the skill cap). After the first RCR tournament, Spike adopted the format but added the skill cap from the previous year and it's been rainbows and butterflies ever since. I followed suit in RCR II and the community has been very pleased with the result.

My main complaint about the Progressive format is the fluctuation in power levels of teams throughout the event. A team that is weak on day one isn't a viable option for a competitive player. Diversity makes for a more entertaining and engaging environment - it's tough to get pumped for a tournament where a likely opponent lineup is Wood Elf, Dwarf, Dwarf, Orc, Wood Elf, Oddball Skaven, Orc, Dwarf, Wood Elf.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 14, 2012 - 08:01 AM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

My main complaint about the Progressive format is the fluctuation in power levels of teams throughout the event. A team that is weak on day one isn't a viable option for a competitive player. Diversity makes for a more entertaining and engaging environment - it's tough to get pumped for a tournament where a likely opponent lineup is Wood Elf, Dwarf, Dwarf, Orc, Wood Elf, Oddball Skaven, Orc, Dwarf, Wood Elf.

I have a few responses to this.

1 - Nowhere in the WCII ruleset conversation is there any detailed discussion of "I'm hesitant to go to this tournament because I don't want to get powergamed or have to play against the same four races over and over again." The only discussion I see about the specifics of the progressive format used was the logistics of recording the relevant skills, stating what day they were effective, and how to mark this as such on the relevant mini.

2 - Nowhere in the WCII subforum do I see any discussion at all similar to "I went to this tournament and hated it because the ruleset caused me to have to play the same four races over and over again." I didn't even see any opposition to the progressive format at all in the WCII subforum. Does anyone see any discussion on this anywhere in the NAF's website? Perhaps I am missing it.

So far, based on the responses in this thread from the people who actually attended WCII, no one has indicated that the progressive format negatively impacted their experience. Actually, no one has even indicated that they had to play against a limited number of races (although I understand that at this point, that sample size is 2). As such, I would disagree with the thought that either prior WC was compromised by coaches being stuck with playing against a limited number of races.

3 - The preliminary ruleset was privately reviewed and discussed by the individuals who reviewed and accepted the tournament bids. That reviewing group included representation from Thunderbowl. In that review, there was no detailed opposition to the progressive format, although the format itself was discussed. I have to share Jeff's confusion in the opposition to progression coming up now, particularly as it's now being couched as "We in Thunderbowl and in the PNW do it this way."

At this point, I just don't see any tangible evidence or commentary from WC participants that the progressive format failed. I do remain open to being convinced otherwise.

Thank you for everyone's discussion thus far. It's clear that all involved want the thing to go well, but that we just disagree a bit about the path to that goal.

Warpstone - Jun 14, 2012 - 09:30 AM
Post subject:

SKB, WC II would have been a success even if they ran it with a gonzo ruleset--heck, there are freakin' street bowl tournies in the NAF DB that people look forward to. It sounds like WC II already had good buy-in and engagement even before it kicked off and the organizers did a great job with the venue and admin. This was the case even with Spike 2008 and 2009 where I could wish the rules were tweaked in hindsight, but I still thoroughly enjoyed both experiences. So no, the ruleset alone is not going to be a make or break.

However, you really have to consider one simple factor: what do you expect motivated teams to field? Your meta-rules will govern roster selection and the utility of conventional tactics. You will choose a ruleset that either opens up variety or suppresses it.

All TOs have to consider this because there's a range of players you have to satisfy. Guys like me will usually show up wanting a shot at top table. Others want to play stunties or tier 2 or lower teams for style points and zaniness. The latter will always make the same roster choices and most TO's recognize these dedicated coaches with secondary awards (Best Stunty, Most Cas, etc.). But for coaches in the mix for top spot... tournaments with conventional rulesets are pretty repetitive. No one looks forward to playing dwarves not because we're more likely to lose, but because we're more likely to be put sleep. It's like trapping hockey or soccer with 10 men behind the ball from the start. And you can't fault the Dwarf coach, he's just exploiting the loop holes the ruleset gave him.

Undead, dwarf or woodie teams in a league are actually interesting over the course of a season. League play has drama and long-term considerations that add context and depth to matches (i.e. do I really want to stick my Wardancer there or should I play it safer until the finals?). But you just don't get this in a standard NAF tourny. Every game is balls-out. The same power teams suffer absolutely no consequences to fielding a spammed roster in your ruleset. Moreover, while the matches themselves may be exciting because of the tournament environment, the actual on-pitch variety is limited for anyone facing these teams.

Seriously, what team vying for top spot is not going to take Undead, Woodies, Dwarves, Amazons/Lizardmen? The problem is not just that it behooves coaches to take top tier teams, it's that they're also going to all play the same way due to your rules. Case in point, what competent coach of any bash team is not going to squeeze the life out of a game with conservative cage play? It guarantees a draw at worse thanks to min/max'ing low-TV biases. The 2-1 grind is a valid tactic, just like stalling and fouling. But when you have meta-rules that encourage skill spamming, you're making these snooze-fests far easier for good and even average coaches to deploy.

Blood Bowl is primarily a game of risk management. Progressive skill systems favour teams that are less risky out of the box. This is why we generally try to structure meta-rules (i.e. skill caps and package, as well as tourny point systems) to encourage coaches to play for the win (i.e. bonus pts for 2+TDs over opponent, wins are more valuable than 2 draws, etc.) rather than unwittingy endorse games to be killed off with mind-numbing power-gamer tactics.

The TO is like a Blood Bowl economist. You dangle the carrots and the rest of us will adjust our tactics to meet them. If you keep a conventional ruleset, you're going to keep encouraging the same tired routine that's led to predictable NAF tournament tables. If you incentivize creative approaches, you're far more likely to get them. Coaches will get to have fun and relish the chance to place on a leaderboard that doesn't require a commitment to stale and biased rosters for success.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 14, 2012 - 09:44 AM
Post subject:

Warpstone,
I find it interesting that you refer to a progressive skill system as a "conventional ruleset". Probably it is because I have only been active in the tournament scene for about 2 1/2 years, but by far the most common ruleset I've seen is 6 normal skills or equivalent. So my thought was that a set pack of 6 skills is more "conventional" and the progressive system more interesting/creative.

Lizardcore - Jun 14, 2012 - 09:52 AM
Post subject:

Warpstone wrote:

SKB, WC II would have been a success even if they ran it with a gonzo ruleset--

Right because most people were going there to have fun.

But I'm pretty sure funky ruleset would have not been well-perceived (one of the reason why the ruleset is what it is: a consensual somehow fair rule set). The top ten teams were not only there to mingle Wink

PS: remember that the number/size of tournaments in north-america is pretty small and the level of coaches is mild (I'm trying not to put in a bad way). Therefore, many of the loop-holes you think you avoided with skill caps or 6 skill packs instead of 5, might just be because the few good coaches will win no matter what (they don't have to exploit the system).

Jonny_P - Jun 14, 2012 - 10:23 AM
Post subject:

Since opinions from other regions have been requested I'm going to give mine.

I prefer everything up front. (thats what she said)

But not for the reasons others have stated. Mine is purely for ease of play.

Both for TO's and coaches.

I remember in an old Chaos Cup when it used to be progressive, I played against a guy who's skills seemed to change a bit, then it turned into "Oops, my bad, THIS guy had block from last round, not this guy"

Mistakes can happen in any rules set, but I think adding skills later just opens up for more possible issues.

Also, I'm biased being a longtime TO. I am not going to check rosters for skill packs after the tournament already started. I have other things to worry about.

Lastly, and I'm going to bold the shit out of this. The rules pack of NATC has absolutely nothing to do with me being able to go or not. I want to go, but it's a money and timing thing.

Khail - Jun 14, 2012 - 10:37 AM
Post subject:

I can get behind that as well Jonny. I'll be going regardless, and if it's progressive instead of set skills, I'll survive and probably even enjoy myself. Wink

I'm purely arguing for a skill package system because I think it's a better way to do things, for the reasons stated above. The WC is the WC. Just because nobody complained doesn't mean it was the best tournament they could have run. The WC obviously didn't "fail", but I think the ruleset could and should be improved on, and we have an opportunity to do so.

I still haven't seen an argument for Progressive being a more balanced ruleset that encourages a more diverse field of teams. If nobody can get behind it being a more balanced/diverse format, why do we want to stick with it?

Taxal - Jun 14, 2012 - 10:40 AM
Post subject:

Quote:

I prefer everything up front. (thats what she said)

Who`s that..my Mum?

Warpstone - Jun 14, 2012 - 10:46 AM
Post subject:

@Jeff, AFAIK, the reason Spike 2008 started with a progressive system is because this has been the traditional norm for the Blood Bowl/NAF Championship tourny itself. It's "progressive" in name only, as it's really just the default GW/NAF resurrection tourny ruleset.

We and various other tournaments have started to gravitate towards skill packs over the last few years. My hunch is that this has become more intuitive since LRB6 did its best to close the gap between top tier 1 teams and the rest of the races. The LRB has advanced, it makes sense that tourny meta-rules would too.

It could also simply be that there is now more exposure to different ideas than the template used by Nottingham/NAF. TOs are starting to adapt it to their needs. For example, there are some really creative systems like Ironmanj out there that seek a better formula to balance tournament play for everyone.

@Lizardcore, everyone goes there to have fun (even me). Very Happy

I think we should take that as a given. My point though is that there are always coaches who want to win (even tier 2 and stunty coaches) and that some rulesets are much better at opening up variety than others. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that the stigma of winning with a power-roster is lessened if you're not allowed to exploit spamming. You shouldn't feel bad for trying to win and the ruleset should be robust enough not to be exploited to its discredit.

Ideally, the TO can do a good job of giving everyone an experience that's exciting. You might not get it exactly right, but I think it can get better each year. Rules favouring the same tier 1 teams will make the final rounds seem like groundhog day for both coaches.

Lizardcore - Jun 14, 2012 - 10:57 AM
Post subject:

Taxal wrote:

Quote:

I prefer everything up front. (thats what she said)

Who`s that..my Mum?

OMG, the NATC is featuring your mum as main attraction ?

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Daggers - Jun 14, 2012 - 11:07 AM
Post subject:

Lizardcore wrote:

Taxal wrote:

Quote:

I prefer everything up front. (thats what she said)

Who`s that..my Mum?

OMG, the NATC is featuring your mum as main attraction ?

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

Well, it is in Vegas. She could expand her clientelle to a whole new group of Blood Bowlers.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 14, 2012 - 11:11 AM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

I still haven't seen an argument for Progressive being a more balanced ruleset that encourages a more diverse field of teams. If nobody can get behind it being a more balanced/diverse format, why do we want to stick with it?

My contention is that a Progressive rule set would require more adaptability/flexibility for a successful team, because they can't simply min/max their roster to find the "ideal" roster for the given TV & skill pack. Since the roster changes slightly it would require the successful coach to make slight adjustments to their approach.

One critique I did hear about WC2 rule set was that it tended to favor Undead, simply because the TV and skill packs allowed one to optimize a roster for that race. I tend to think that will happen with any skill pack, but that changing skills will mitigate that optimization to some extent.

Jonny_P - Jun 14, 2012 - 11:18 AM
Post subject:

Oh I forgot one thing in my post.

I am a fan of "0-2 of the same skill" restriction.

There are enough viable skills out there that can be taken and used effectively without the crutch of arming an entire team with Block, Guard, etc.

With that said, I also like allowing players to have 0-2 skills added too. Teams like Chaos and Chaos Pact now become competitive when you get players to the 16SPP level.

delevus - Jun 14, 2012 - 12:36 PM
Post subject:

I tend to prefer builds that are skill cap of 2 myself. This is mainly to encourage diversity in builds.

The progressive team builds may alter some teams win rate a bit. However, I do not think it will change the win rates of the top tier teams that much. Teams that start with less core skills will always be hindered. Starting with a few extra block pieces is splitting hairs when the top teams are picking up Guard and Mighty Blow to widen the disparity. My preference in the matter is having skills upfront though. It can make roster verification so much simpler and I prefer to have more skills for longer. I would like to believe there isn't someone that desperate to win that they change their rosters before each game, but you never know.

Khail - Jun 14, 2012 - 12:44 PM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

Khail wrote:

I get that Jeff - it does require the coach to play their team at varying levels of development, somewhat like running the team in a league. Since this is a competition, it forces a coach gunning for the top tables to pick a team that is good at low levels of development (3 skills) as well as medium levels (5-7 skills). That limits the diversity of viable races drastically.

At medium levels of development, more races become viable. Can we agree on that?

zootsuitjeff - Jun 14, 2012 - 02:22 PM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

At medium levels of development, more races become viable. Can we agree on that?

No, not really. I CAN agree that there are more viable teams at 1100TV & 6 skills, versus 1000TV and 0 skills. 1100TV/3 Skills versus 1100TV/5-7 Skills I am much more dubious about. At least I haven't seen the evidence to support that.

Here's a what if hypothetical: would you have as many objections if the skill pack was something like 5-7-9 skills or 6-8-10?

Lizardcore - Jun 14, 2012 - 02:29 PM
Post subject:

[quote="zootsuitjeff"]

Khail wrote:

Here's a what if hypothetical: would you have as many objections if the skill pack was something like 5-7-9 skills or 6-8-10?

Forget it. 9 skills was at the first WC, and I can tell you that the sunday was rough (tired of partying and playing, trying to remember 9 skills out of your own roster was challenging, so forget about the opponents Very Happy

).

For the different skills different days, it's like 3 different tournaments. You have to coach differently every day, which is a nice challenge for some coaches (but might be annoying for others, I get that). that itself creates diversity.

Khail - Jun 14, 2012 - 03:04 PM
Post subject:

I'd have less objections with more starting skills, but at that point we're just doing progression for progression's sake. Which makes it harder on a) the organizers, and b) the players. So why bother?

I'm not sure how to respond if you think that the pool of viable teams with 3 skills is the same as the pool of viable teams with 6 skills. Dark Elves, High Elves, Norse, Chaos Dwarfs, Skaven, Humans, and Lizards all open up when they've got the tools to combat Woodies or Dwarfs while still being able to do "their thing". Especially with a skill cap, which stops "oh great, 6 guarding Dwarfs" issue. We've seen it at Spike and at RCR over the last couple years - aka, evidence.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 14, 2012 - 03:39 PM
Post subject:

Khail wrote:

We've seen it at Spike and at RCR over the last couple years - aka, evidence.

Yes, the answer is if you are using RCR I, Spike 2011, & RCR II as the totality of your evidence to support that that tournament setup is superior to all others, then I do find that to be a rather anecdotal/narrow sample size with a relatively small pool of players. I would like to get more opinions/feedback first.

Warpstone - Jun 14, 2012 - 04:16 PM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

Khail wrote:

We've seen it at Spike and at RCR over the last couple years - aka, evidence.

Yes, the answer is if you are using RCR I, Spike 2011, & RCR II as the totality of your evidence to support that tournament setup is superior to all others, then I do find that to be a rather anecdotal/narrow sample size with a relatively small pool of players. I would like to get more opinions/feedback first.

At the same time Jeff your sample size is basically WC II and similar NAF tournies like the Blood Bowl.

As Khail pointed out, we've advanced a positive argument for a skill pack, both in terms of player and organizer ease as well as competitive balancing.

There is not yet one positive argument for the NAF progression model besides "WC II did it."

I know you guys are really interested in appealing to NAF tourny-goers for the prospects of WC III. But you can either make NATC a test-drive for WW III or you can actually try to make NATC succeed on it's own identity.

You don't even have to use our skill pack idea. You could use Ironmanj or something of your own choosing. If you don't, you're tacitly agreeing to a leaderboard that looks like a repeat of this:

Blood Bowl 2012: http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3531/capturenq.png
WC II: http://thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5374

At WC II there were 63 Wood Elf and 62 Undead teams. The next more prevalent race was Orcs at 46--and that's a race we usually dismiss somewhat because everyone has those Orc figs! http://thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5376

There is evidence, it just doesn't support the claim that progressive systems encourage any variety or balance.

The more tenuous your claim to "progression" tournaments become, the more I worry that your primary goal is a dry-run of WC III. It isn't the ruleset, but rather the mindset that attempts to replicate WC II in full that I'm concerned about. Clearly, if you do go with this line of thinking, then you see no need to tweak a system that provides a blunt signal to coaches: play these teams if you want to win in our tournament.

Heck, even if you tried something brand new, at the very least you could hope that the unknown variables would help encourage a broader sign up than the tournies you're modeling NATC on.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 14, 2012 - 05:12 PM
Post subject:

Kavin,

1) I'm not worried at all about WC3, and won't be thinking about it until after next May. I may or may not be interested in helping out with a bid for that, we will see how this goes. I do suppose I am thinking of following some aspects of WC2 since I believe it was a fun tournament, and since that was a tournament that I and most attendees enjoyed, and most NA coaches including you did not attend, my goal is to have a similar tournament NA coaches to experience that. It is NOT to have a WC3 dry run.

2) Please see my above posts for the positive argument for using the progression model. "My contention is that a Progressive rule set would require more adaptability/flexibility for a successful team," ... etc. I am trying to incentivize some flexibility and adaptability, which I don't feel is exemplified by advocating for a rules set that is exactly the same as all the other tournaments you've recently attended.

3) My "sample size" includes all of the tourneys I've attended, WC2, WCQ, OSBC, Colleges of Magic, Spike, RCR, Chaos Cup, Zlurpee Bowl, RMR, etc to name some of them. Many of those use a 6 normal style skill pack, many of those used other formats. Only a very few of those were critiqued as broken. I do admit that I am not a super competitive player, so I appreciate your perspective. However my thesis is that MANY different styles of tournament can be competitive, fair, and fun, where as you seem to be contending that ONLY the tournament style you are advocating will be competitive,fair, and fun.

4) I have a belief that ANY rule set we finalize on will be min/maxed by competitive players/power gamers, and that certain races will be more common than others. I am not yet convinced that is less likely to happen with the skill pack you suggest. I would also contend that the large number of Undead teams at WC2 was not because of the progressive aspect of the ruleset, but because the Team Value and the 2 Double skills in the skill pack was a particular sweet spot for that roster. I believe that this minmaxing will be unavoidable, but will try to mitigate in other ways, for instance having prizes for the best team of every individual race.

Lizardcore - Jun 14, 2012 - 05:12 PM
Post subject:

@ Warpstone: You're being a bit rough here. I know you're trying to be constructive and you're passionate about BB, but so are the guys that are actually to organize it while we might be playing / enjoying it. I kinda agree with you on the statement : "progressive skills is an issue". But regarding the WE and Undead statement, the skill cap is actually making it worse... If you want to have tier2/3 teams, there are plenty of other options but certainly not the skill cap.

Regarding the dry run for WCIII, I think the intention to use the WCII rules is just: It is going to be a bigger tournament than we ever had in north-america, lets use something that worked for a tournament of that size (or lets say of 100 coaches in a team tournament format). You dont "try" for a tournament of that size when people are travelling from all-around the word...

edit: we posted at the same time...

zootsuitjeff wrote:

I believe that this minmaxing will be unavoidable, but will try to mitigate in other ways, for instance having prizes for the best team of every individual race.

that's a great idea! or a prize for best team of each tier

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 14, 2012 - 06:01 PM
Post subject:

Warpstone wrote:

There is not yet one positive argument for the NAF progression model besides "WC II did it."

It encourages coaches to deal with team improvements over time, which I believe is a greater test of skill than coaching a static team over the same time span. It forces a coach to consider the order of a team's advancement so as to put that coach in the best position to deal with the majority of situations that the coach will deal with over the course of several matches, as well as forcing a coach to prioritize what he considers the greatest threats to his success in early and mid development.

"WC did it" to me is a valid reason because WCII had more participants than in every West Coast tournament over the past five years combined. The overwhelming response from that tournament, again as reported in the NAF WC subforum, was that it was successful.

As an aside, I took a look at Spike's 2011 results, as Spike is being offered as a specific example of a fixed skill set tournament that encouraged more "interesting play" resulting from supposed racial diversity. From what I can tell by Spike's reporting, the 2011 most common races were (in order) orcs, skaven, dwarves and lizards, with the top 5 placing teams being dwarves, norse, skaven, lizards and dwarves. It's somewhat confusing to me that set skill packs have been advanced as creating a more diverse racial atmosphere among the top performing teams when, at least to me, Spike's numbers suggest that the best performing races were races that historically perform better. It sort of leads me to conclude that there's another reason, apart from desiring racial diversity, that is the source of the resistance.

In the end, if the set skill packet ruleset does not impact the likelihood of less competitive races being competitive, then I don't understand why the ruleset is being attacked for encouraging a coach to only take a race that historically performs well.

I guess we could give every coach who takes Chaos the ability to roster Borak for free, or give every coach who takes Vampires the ability to roster the Count for free. That might increase the number of Chaos or Vampire coaches in the tournament. (OK, this is in jest, but only sort of).

DarkOrk20 - Jun 14, 2012 - 06:08 PM
Post subject:

@Lizardcore/JonnyP - that was the most reasonable thing I have heard here so far.

Of all the tournaments that I have attended (not a small number either), I don't recall that the ruleset was even up for a discussion. If attending a tourney for you is because you think it has a favorable set of rules then I guess you are missing the point.

I attended both WC and I had a great time. I played like shit for both of them. You can pick through all the players and get whatever stats that you want out of them but I think you will find that it trends with the all the tourney stats if you put them together. There are a lot of teams that will most likely never be competitive at any tourney. It doesn't stop people from playing them. I enjoy attending tourneys to be with similarly minded people and could enjoy going to them and NOT playing any BB.

What the hell is all the squabbling that has been going on here lately? Has the entire NAF turned into a bunch of spoiled kids that aren't getting their way? I don't even bother with coming to this sight except for the tourney listing and maybe a shout to whichever tournament that I may be attending that isn't listed on my favorite BB forum. (Zlurpee, I'm thirsty).

@The organizers for the NATC, run your own tourney the way you want to. I have my team in place already and I think we may have a Vampire, Wood Elf, Orc and a mystery team. Maybe human. I apologize ahead of time if we don't have the Dwarf, Undead, Wood Elf, and Skaven powergaming team. We will still end up in the top 3 for teams. (It could be higher but our team wanted someone to hold them back.)

For the NATC, step up and show us, or just get behind this one and support it. I am looking forward to meeting some of you from the NorthWest area. You will get a chance to see what all the Midwesterners are complaining about.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 14, 2012 - 06:40 PM
Post subject:

DarkOrk20 wrote:

I played like shit for both of them.

I can corroborate the WC2 part.

Daggers - Jun 14, 2012 - 07:10 PM
Post subject:

I kinda agree with Tom. As long as the team building and skills selection isn't totally insane, I don't think it really matters. A good coach will win with any race he chooses. Hell I have played 40+ tournament games with halflngs and am still above .500 with a race that isn't supposed to win. So really, the skills selection won't matter to most of the people. Zootsuit, just keep doing what you are doing and don't worry about all the gripeing, everyone will still come and have a great time because it's fun.

Daggers - Jun 14, 2012 - 07:14 PM
Post subject:

On another note though, I think skill packages are better than skill purchases, and the 2-0 skill max is not necessarily as balanced as everyone thinks it is. I agree with Lizardcore, that it hampers more teams than it helps. But if you are allowed to buy as many skills as you can, then I can see the logic. But that just proves my point about skill purchases being the problem. Anyways, still coming to the NATC anyways, got my team race picked out, just need three people to go with me.

Jonny_P - Jun 14, 2012 - 08:11 PM
Post subject:

DarkOrk20 wrote:

I have my team in place already and I think we may have a Vampire, Wood Elf, Orc and a mystery team. Maybe human. I apologize ahead of time if we don't have the Dwarf, Undead, Wood Elf, and Skaven powergaming team. We will still end up in the top 3 for teams.

Tom has some great points, but more importantly, look at the shit he's talking! Y'all gonna take that?!

Their team has 2 former Chaos Cup champions, including Tom himself with HUMANS! Yes, he won the Chaos Cup with Humans.

I agree with Dwarfrunner, a good coach can win with any team. Solarflare has won 3 Chaos Cups with different teams (Dark Elf, Lizard, Wood Elf).

Darkson - Jun 14, 2012 - 09:04 PM
Post subject:

Obviously I won't be attending the NATC, but can I ask for a clarification?

What (in NA) is a "Progression" tournament, because I'm getting a little confused as I think there's a language difference here.

Over here it's relatively new, and relatively rare, as it's used as a term to describe a tournament that runs using normal BB league rules (i.e. SPPs, skill ups, Injuries and Deaths, Inducements etc). Iirc we only have one i the UK, the Albion Coast Cup, though it's common in Oz.

I'm guessing from reading through the thread it's a tourney were you get a skill (or skills) per game, rather than all upfront, but wanted to check.

Plus it might be helpful to have a common terminology for when (if) NA and Oz make a bid for the WC. If you mean progressive like the Albion, I'd have no interest in playing, even if it was on my doorstep (which in NA terms, the Albion is Wink

Xtreme - Jun 14, 2012 - 09:28 PM
Post subject:

You guys have made Darkork the voice of reason. You should all take that and realize how out of hand this thread is.

poundfist - Jun 14, 2012 - 10:35 PM
Post subject:

Well this got big fast.

I have run a few events now and I find that this sort of discussion precedes a lot of them. People always want to tweak and improve, and some are pretty good at articulating their opinions. I hope no one is taking any of it personally. Since I know some of the louder mouths here, I can assure you there isn't anything behind this discussion, as someone has suggested, apart from a belief that one way is better than another way.

I am personally a big fan of playing in an event or in running an event, but never both at the same time. I think it is best to observe the too many cooks rule and to play the game in front of you. There is enough stress in running an event without having to listen to too much griping beforehand.

All that said, I have played "progressive" (and yes Darkson that means what you guessed, not an SPP-gaining event, which would be hard to manage I think), and I have played in games where skills were all fixed before the first game. Make no mistake, I would never claim that the teams that are generally top-tier are nerfed or especially helped by either option. However I did find that with all the skills up front, the Goblins won a few more games, and we actually saw players fielding Necro and Chaos, without the usual "ah what the hell?" attitude that often comes with fielding a low-skill team.

The general attitude that WC II was a success is a red herring. Of course it was a success; it had 480 coaches and it ran on schedule; the product support was awesome; it was in Amsterdam. You all could have been playing a different game and it would have been a success if those criteria were met. The success of the event didn't rest on the rules set. So I would tone down the "it worked there, and we shouldn't experiment" nonsense and just concentrate on running, or attending, a Blood Bowl event. It will be fun if everyone shows up and plays on time. It will be successful if there are few glitches, or if there are many, they ought to be small ones.

That's all I worry about when it comes to tourneys. I like all the skills up front because more teams can come to the field with serious hopes to win, but no matter what, it comes down to the best of about 8 teams, every time. So let's not get carried away here.

flyingdingle - Jun 14, 2012 - 11:58 PM
Post subject:

As much as I hate to agree with Tom....I agree with Tom. Just run your own tourney. People are going to show up whatever you do.

I'm likely to be that cockhead playing woodies whatever rules set you do Twisted Evil

daloonieshaman - Jun 15, 2012 - 12:11 AM
Post subject:

flyingdingle wrote:

I'm likely to be that cockhead playing woodies whatever rules set you do Twisted Evil

And I will be the Halfing (or Goblin) player that will pluck your feathers Laughing

Daggers - Jun 15, 2012 - 08:40 AM
Post subject:

daloonieshaman wrote:

flyingdingle wrote:

I'm likely to be that cockhead playing woodies whatever rules set you do Twisted Evil

And I will be the Halfing (or Goblin) player that will pluck your feathers Laughing

Me too. Dingleing is gonna get a beating.....

Khail - Jun 15, 2012 - 11:29 AM
Post subject:

And here all I thought we were doing is providing constructive criticism. I don't believe anyone was attacked, so and I don't believe any of the arguments got terribly heated - so why is everyone acting like someone put a turd in the punch bowl? Advocating a tweak to the ruleset 11 months before the tournament seems like the correct time to do it to me, especially since it's posted as a ruleset DRAFT.

As has been mentioned, Kavin and I (and the rest of the PNW that can) will come to the tournament either way, progressive or not. We're just trying to help out the organizers with what we perceive as a weakness in the system - based off our hours of discussion and testing. I've met most of the folks behind the NATC team (except SKB, I believe), and you all know I'm not some horrible troll working against the NATC.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 15, 2012 - 11:40 AM
Post subject:

Darkson wrote:

Obviously I won't be attending the NATC, but can I ask for a clarification?

And why not? Everyone is welcome at the NATC. I demand a rematch!

Warpstone - Jun 15, 2012 - 02:44 PM
Post subject:

SKB, Jeff, is it possible for you to rig early rounds so that clubmates don't face each other? For example, if Thunderbowl sends 2 or more teams down, they don't have to play unless they're vying for top spots?

A large part of the appeal of a tourny like this is playing coaches outside of our region.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 15, 2012 - 03:12 PM
Post subject:

Yes, no guarantees after round 1, but we will do our best to make sure you are matched up with a team from a different region in the first round. If we can manage it, we will have a preference for that in later rounds as well.

Also like the WC, we will most likely have a draw after registration closes, so that you will know ahead of the tournament who your first round opponent is.

Jeff

Warpstone wrote:

Warpstone - Jun 15, 2012 - 03:55 PM
Post subject:

Thanks Jeff, it should make for an exciting start.

BTW, as Khail mentions, we're not trying to troll. Maybe it's a gamer culture thing. For some reason, being interested in competitive conditions is misinterpreted as "STOP TRYING TO WIN" by the conflict-adverse. I'm always going to have fun if I win or lose. But dammit, I'm going to have even more fun if the competition is better balanced.

DarkOrk, Xtreme, complaining that a debate exists isn't a "voice of reason." It's just prairie-dogging it because you can't ignore disagreement--about something you claim is irrelevant no less. The only reason there has been a debate is because we want NATC to be a success.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 15, 2012 - 08:15 PM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

Warpstone wrote:

Absolutely.

Jeff, maybe we should ask squads to identify their home leagues at the time of registration? That's pretty easy to police.

Lizardcore - Jun 15, 2012 - 09:59 PM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

how are you going to that for later rounds ? bypass the double swiss ? I get that playing the guys that you travelled with sucks, but that shouldnt be more than once during the WE I guess. And that will create some interesting discussion back home Wink

daloonieshaman - Jun 15, 2012 - 10:23 PM
Post subject:

Lizardcore wrote:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

you could swiss by block of points (everyone at the end of game 3 that has between 7.5 and 9 points could be in a block)
these guys are in this block (they are ranked ABCDEF)(You can have the artistic license for a tweak and have say A play E instead of A playing B

Warpstone - Jun 16, 2012 - 12:35 AM
Post subject:

@Lizardcore, it might be more than one. You might see 3 or more teams from RCR alone. Note sure yet for TB, but it should be at least 2.

Just spitballing, but would it be possible to arrange day 1 into 4 squad groups? This would allow teams from the same areas to avoid each other for day 1. But it could also literally mix together squads from the 4 corners of the continent. Very Happy

It does abandon swiss for day 1 though... but I wonder if the remaining 6 rounds of straight swiss matches would make up for it.

Xtreme - Jun 16, 2012 - 10:31 AM
Post subject:

Warpstone wrote:

DarkOrk, Xtreme, complaining that a debate exists isn't a "voice of reason." It's just prairie-dogging it because you can't ignore disagreement--about something you claim is irrelevant no less. The only reason there has been a debate is because we want NATC to be a success.

My definition of this tournament being a success has nothing to do with this thread. If everyone has a good time and is excited about a NATC II, then I would consider it a success. I don't see rules squabbles before the event contributing to the fun factor at all. In fact all I see is a lot of talk about the competitive environment of the tournament rather then what will be fun to play in.

Lizardcore - Jun 16, 2012 - 11:35 AM
Post subject:

Warpstone wrote:

It does abandon swiss for day 1 though... but I wonder if the remaining 6 rounds of straight swiss matches would make up for it.

that's an interesting idea!

you need to know roughly how many teams will come, to see if the 6 swiss round will be enough following that (in the worst case scenario all the best teams are in the same group day 1). are you planning to have more that 64 teams total ? (=256 coaches). if not, it doesnt have any impact, so it's a pretty good idea. And each group will be swiss-paired, so good teams would have already play each other as they would have anyway...

You could even enlarge It so wilder groups are not playing each other the first day (i.e. guys from toronto, ottawa and montreal or chicago / detroit etc...). The thing is that it will be hard to prepare the file in advance, so this will have to be done once all the team are registered.

poundfist - Jun 16, 2012 - 05:00 PM
Post subject:

Personally, (if you're interested in doing that at all (and again I stress it your tournament and please run it as you see fit)), I would "rig" the first round to prevent countrymen (or fellow club members, or people from the same city, you know what I mean) from playing one another. I would then seed the groups for the second round, and if possible, I would manually switch pairings to achieve the same effect, if necessary. I would continue to do this for as long as it made sense: for instance, if by Round 3 the top 4 teams were all from the same area, well, fuck those guys. They're playing one another eventually, might as well be now.

I would not suggest trying to create any hard rule for this, since it's the sort of thing you might need to break on the day. As an example, I promised for Spike! 2010 that we would adopt a rule like this for the first three rounds, but by round 3 it didn't work for a few cases close to the top and I abandoned it. It was easy to say "ah, it didn't work so I abandoned it" when asked, but it would have been even easier not to have been asked in the first place.

I would word a promise about club seeding as "Every effort will be made to prevent fellow club members from playing one another for as long as it makes sense." That doesn't tie you down to anything, but we will all appreciate that effort is being made.

SierraKiloBravo - Jun 16, 2012 - 06:08 PM
Post subject:

I think it makes sense to consider geography for Day 1 Round 1 only, just as a courtesy for squads to at least be guaranteed one match against peeps they don't regularly play. After that, its a tourney and whatever the seeding is, the seeding is.

zootsuitjeff - Jun 17, 2012 - 02:27 AM
Post subject:

My personal take is that it makes sense to prevent regional matchups for round 1 and round 2. Round 1 because it is completely random, so adding this constraint should be easy. Round 2 because all the teams will be in a finite number of blocks (teams with 4 wins in round 1, team with 2 wins 2 ties etc) and the main tiebreaker of Opponents Cumulative Score will be meaningless at that point. After Round 3 it wil be harder to guarantee things...

Daggers - Jun 17, 2012 - 02:53 PM
Post subject:

Yeah, it would be nice not to have to play people from my region in the first few games. But it gets harder as the rounds go on to do hat in Swiss-style. But it could be possible if there are a lot of ties.

AnthonyTBBF - Jun 18, 2012 - 07:16 AM
Post subject:

Xtreme wrote:

This.

Warpstone - Jun 18, 2012 - 09:37 AM
Post subject:

Xtreme wrote:

Which would all be great if you weren't complaining about this thread that is... about the rules.

Seriously, you TO's are golden. We all know that. But if you solicit feedback and questions, wouldn't you want some genuine replies and concerns addressed rather than a handjob? : Wink

Warpstone - Jun 18, 2012 - 09:51 AM
Post subject:

zootsuitjeff wrote:

As Poundfist mentioned, I'm sure that's about all anyone could ask for. I'm not sure what software/spreadsheet you guys use, but I can imagine that hacking in a conflict protocol is not turnkey (i.e. usually some poor bastard left to sort through sheets). But two rounds is doable by hand, and the third could be a nice to have if the points aren't too far off and the 2nd round fixing wasn't too time-consuming.

Like Lizardcore, I think it would be nice if you could also avoid mates from the same region (i.e. Thunderbowl and RCR face off a few times each year now anyway). But, again this will depend a lot on the software you have in place.

AFAIK, Score doesn't do this (or at least not well) and Khail relied on an uber-spreadsheet to sort RCR's day one as best as possible.

Daggers - Jun 18, 2012 - 10:10 AM
Post subject:

One of the guys in the local area created a tournament manager that wuse, and actually programmed it so first round coaches from the same area were always separated. I can ask him how hard it would be to do that for later rounds just to get his opinion. I would just want to make sure it didn't mess with the Swiss format, because then the schedule might become unbalanced.

runki_khrum - Jun 18, 2012 - 10:11 AM
Post subject:

While I agree that 1st round match ups can be arranged to play " East coast, West coast". I think after that you just have to let the stars line up. If one region dominates, so be it. With 9 games I honestly don't believe that only having played against local coaches will be an issue. And if 2 or 3 matches are against regular opponents we'll be able to taunt or be taunted back home during the regular season. Remember that time I kicked your ass in Vegas?

Daggers - Jun 18, 2012 - 10:23 AM
Post subject:

Yeah, because then, all the Canadians will be playing each other on the top tables at the end! Razz

Really, I think after round 2, it won't really matter. I mean, +/- 25 teams, playing swiss style and then swiis style coach matches within that. I think it may be asking for trouble once rankings and tie-breakers need to start being considered, to try and force a match-up because someone travelled all this way and ended up playing someone they travelled with. Just keep it simple or the TO's will have massive headaches is something gets buggered up. Hell, just put me in a late match-up against one of the teams from my region and watch hilarity unfold.

Lizardcore - Jun 18, 2012 - 10:53 AM
Post subject:

runki_khrum wrote:

Remember that time I kicked your ass in Vegas?

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas Very Happy

flyingdingle - Jun 18, 2012 - 11:42 AM
Post subject:

Lizardcore wrote:

runki_khrum wrote:

Remember that time I Licked your ass in Vegas?

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas Very Happy

Those drunken stories are coming out already Embarassed

Daggers - Jun 18, 2012 - 11:57 AM
Post subject:

He is from France, and you are a freak Sol. So who knows what stories will come up. Very Happy

DarkOrk20 - Mar 04, 2013 - 09:10 PM
Post subject:

TO's for this may want to post your rule change somewhere on a public forum.

fe2mike - Mar 05, 2013 - 07:23 AM
Post subject:

Good idea DarkOrk20, thanks for the reminder.

We are making one small change to the NATC Ruleset. In the Basic Rules section we are adding the following clause:

For the seven skills added over 3 days, there is a limit of 3 for any single skill added over the three days. For example, on a dwarf team, Guard can only be added to three players on your roster, the other four skills will need to be something different.

Glamdryn - Mar 05, 2013 - 09:02 AM
Post subject:

I like it!