NAF World Headquarters
Rest of the World - MOAB?
Chunky - Jun 06, 2005 - 07:32 PM
Post subject: MOAB?
I may be jumping the gun here just a wee tad (what its only 4 months away!), but any word on what is happening for MOAB this year Babs? PBBL rules again, or just straight LRB?
Babs - Jun 09, 2005 - 12:17 AM
Post subject:
Hasn't been decided yet.
I was thinking about LRB, but if we desperately need PBBL data, it might go PBBL. I think I told a few people it would be LRB though...... I need to decide by the end of the month though (I need to get details in the publication blurby booklet).
-DM- - Jun 09, 2005 - 03:57 AM
Post subject:
I would definitely be in if it's LRB...
Babs - Jun 15, 2005 - 03:34 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, I think I'll err on the side of caution and go LRB. Thanks for the vote one way or the other DM.
Babs - Jul 13, 2005 - 04:05 PM
Post subject:
Here's the flyer:
Chunky - Jul 13, 2005 - 05:28 PM
Post subject:
Wikked, I shall be there. Probably using Humans or Chaos.
Doubleskulls - Jul 13, 2005 - 05:37 PM
Post subject:
I can't see a date or location on the flyer...
I'll be there though.
Chunky - Jul 13, 2005 - 07:20 PM
Post subject:
1-3rd of October I believe.
Babs - Jul 13, 2005 - 08:40 PM
Post subject:
This is for the MOAB booklet, which will have the date and location on the front cover. The other thing is costs.
for NAF members it's $25 (normal cost for rego for any other wargame is $35)
For non-NAF members it's $40 - and includes NAF rego.
For the record, the date _is_ 1st -3rd October and the Venue is Sylvania Heights Youth & Sporting Centre, Box Road Sylvania Heights.
Babs - Jul 13, 2005 - 08:42 PM
Post subject:
The other thing is the "('Cause we've got some for you!)" has been taken out of the printed version. I thought it was too 'gay boy' by implication.
-DM- - Jul 19, 2005 - 11:54 PM
Post subject:
I'm there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dan - Jul 25, 2005 - 02:28 AM
Post subject:
but i was only coming because of the 'gay boy' bit! (sic)
Doubleskulls - Aug 08, 2005 - 05:59 PM
Post subject:
I can't make it since I'm going to be in the UK that weekend.
Babs - Aug 08, 2005 - 06:43 PM
Post subject:
That's Ok Doubleskulls. A trip to the UK would beat MOAB for me too 
You'll just have to get three other people to register to take your place.
Babs - Aug 11, 2005 - 12:35 AM
Post subject: MOAB details on PaRaDiGm CeNtRaL
OK. Finally Updated my website to have some MOAB details
http://www.geocities.com/blood-bowl
But really the only new information is that the registration details can be gathered from http://motherofallbattles.org
One of these lives I'll get my website up and looking funky. Until then everyone else has to make do with blech.
dan - Sep 15, 2005 - 01:49 AM
Post subject:
Can you give us more details, Babs?
Please?
Chunky - Sep 19, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Post subject:
I notice the team reset rule is not there Babs. Is this intentional or an oversight?
Given that in the 3 tourneys I've played under these rules the first game I've always copped at least 3 MNGs or worse, this would cause me to hesitate in bringing my Humans. Regardless of what I bring, I get matched up against Khemri in the first round (or just someone who gets very lucky on armour and injury rolls) without it and I can pretty much kiss the whole tourney goodbye with very little I can do about it.
Babs - Sep 20, 2005 - 07:10 PM
Post subject:
You can reset your team to TR 100 after any point in the tournament. This will, however, put your team at a disadvantage. 3 MNG's during a tournament is perfectly livable with a starting roster of 12. Remember, money is earnt as normal, and can be spent to freeboot or buy new players as necessary.
Chunky - Sep 21, 2005 - 03:58 PM
Post subject:
3 MNG during an entire tournament is nothing I agree. In the first game though its huge. Even with 12, you're down to 9 players for your next game - unless you're an elf team and able to score reliably with fewer players, you're almost certain to lose your next game. Defense almost becomes impossible. This means you're almost certain to lose your second, as well as take a lot more casualties and be in even worse shape for the next game.
I did struggle through 2 MNGs (apothed the other I believe) first game at KF and managed to do quite well through copious use of freebooters for the rest of the tourney - if I had of been 3 players down (or if the MNGs had of been Blitzers) though I'd have been using the reset option.
At Cancon I was unlucky enough to cop 3 MNGs with CDs against Humans first game, and then played Dwarfs next game with only 8 players (and did quite well). I really should have used the reset rule on that occasion (not to mention abandoned FF but that was my first tourney of that style).
Leviathan I played the Khemri first up, and despite my best efforts the dice kept seeing the ball end up near the Mummies (including 2 for 2 on Mummy catches on the Khemri drive). 8 casualties later I definitely would have been out of the tourney had I not used the reset rule.
I guess I have more faith in my ability to win while down on TR than in my ability to win while with < 11 players.
Chunky - Sep 21, 2005 - 07:21 PM
Post subject:
BTW, I know from talking to someone else that it seems I didn't recognise that Babs had said the res rule is in. I do - and am very happy that is the case - I am merely disagreeing that 3 MNGs in the first game is livable if you're trying to have a crack at doing very well in the event. I'm not actually sure Babs is talking about the same thing as I am since he refers to 3 in a tournament. I'm not sure whether he means 3 in a game at some stage during a tournament or 3 throughout the whole tournament.
I like to debate these things, so I am
Twahn - Sep 22, 2005 - 07:05 AM
Post subject:
Any idea when we're looking to finish up on Monday? Will the 7 games be played 3-3-1 or 3-2-2 over the three days? Or what?
I'm coming up from Melbourne and am having dramas trying to get flights home... anyone know?
Doubleskulls - Sep 22, 2005 - 11:13 AM
Post subject:
Normally its one game on Monday - with a lunchtime finish.
Twahn - Sep 22, 2005 - 07:49 PM
Post subject:
Cool! Thanks DS.
I'm gonna take that as a statement of fact and then, if you're wrong, I'll come hunting for you! Don't care if you are hiding in the UK, I'll find ye! 
Babs - Sep 24, 2005 - 09:03 PM
Post subject:
No - as confirmed by email - only the one game on the Monday.
And the reset rule is just fine. Several people in this format have reset their team after one or two games and still finished in the top four, with the possibility of winning the tournament.
But I thought you were referring to 3 MNG's over the entire seven games, not 3 in one match! However, the fact that you can be injured and it matters in the next game, means that buying an apothecary and protecting your players is important in this format. I like the fact that the game can till matter after the score outcome is decided.
Babs - Sep 24, 2005 - 09:07 PM
Post subject:
Last call for MOAB. We have quite a few entries already (15+ and climbing - a lot of entries dribble in during the last week - for instance Cancon which has 30+ attendees often has about 10 entries registered with a week to go) but I am wanting to make this event very posisitve so if you haven't already thought about who can come with you to MOAB then now's the time. I'm taking two others from the Central Coast and we're road tripping again!
Chunky - Sep 25, 2005 - 06:21 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, I used the reset myself at Leviathan, having 3 MNGs after the initial Khemri game. I had an apoth too - I think it failed though.
Is there any chance of accelerating the timetable a bit on the Sunday? The last game is due to finish at 6:30, which is when the grand final starts - I know I intend to be out of there by 6pm regardless of how my match is progressing.
Babs - Sep 26, 2005 - 12:23 AM
Post subject:
Yeah - that shouldn't be a problem. I think we will speed the sessions up on that day for that sake.
Doubleskulls - Oct 02, 2005 - 03:46 PM
Post subject:
How's it gone?
Babs - Oct 03, 2005 - 07:23 AM
Post subject:
Excellently. 19 registered players in the end. However, since one missed day one and one only played for day one (but not a team) it worked out just nicely. More details some other time.
Babs - Oct 05, 2005 - 07:27 PM
Post subject:
The question I now have is what, if anything, needs to be done about ensuring that I don't have 5 cheesy coaches turning up with cookie cutter clones of Beefy's Undead team with Count Luthor as a starter?
Any suggestions?
I have 4:
1. Beefy played well all tournament, and while it gave him a slight leg up, it was his good coaching ability that allowed him to run all of MOAB undefeated - despite relying heavily on the count. Do nothing.
2. Make the count cost more. The undead team is about the only team that can afford such a powerful starter.
3. Give the count "off for a bite" and _lower_ his cost a little to compensate.
4. Don't allow Star Players on the team rosters permanently at all! (poor goblin coaches!)
5. Something else?
...Overall I was pleased with the way the tournament went. IO have had a few loud objectors to a few details of how the tournament was run and would appreciate any feedback, so that CanCon 2006 can be better.
GalakStarscraper - Oct 05, 2005 - 07:33 PM
Post subject:
Babs what was his Undead roster with the Count?
Galak
GalakStarscraper - Oct 05, 2005 - 07:41 PM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
2. Make the count cost more. The undead team is about the only team that can afford such a powerful starter.
PBBL 1.10 is raising the price of the Count to 390k ... should it be 400k?
I'm willing to go as high as 420k if that is the answer ... but I'd like to believe that 420k would be enough without going higher.
Galak
freckles - Oct 05, 2005 - 07:52 PM
Post subject: Count Luthor comments
Hi there,
Just a quick reply to the Count Luthor thing. I didn't play against him at MOAB but do believe that he is too valuable. Either he needs to have his cost goe up or gain something like Off for a Bite. JMHO.
Re: comments about how the tourney ran... As always I think you did a great job in running MOAB Stephen. My only comment is about sportsmanship. We have discussed this at length, and I still believe that, although there is no good way to do it , it is an extremely important part of the game. A thought is that you could up the 35 points to spread over 7 games to 49 points over 7 games. This would allow an average score of around 5 with room to move. As I said, there's no 'good' way to do it, so you just have to go with the option that you think works the best. If, at the end of the day, the person who gets best sportsman is a realistic result of the tourney then you are ahead. Personally, I will probably still go with sportsmanship out of 10, with each player nominating one player as thei best opponent of the tourney, using the 'best opponent' thing for tie breaks. Again, just my thoughts.
I had a great time at MOAB incidentally. I got whooped (still the lowest ranked Dwarf coach in Aus! 
) but played some really great guys and enjoyed myself. Thanks for running it!
Cheers!
biggy - Oct 05, 2005 - 11:19 PM
Post subject:
Yeah but she still whipped me 4-0!!! 
How's that for ogres being 'overpowered'? 
Andrew
Doubleskulls - Oct 06, 2005 - 06:02 AM
Post subject:
? Did you use PBBL rules or LRB? Was it a resurrection style or league? If its league he shouldn't be able to have Luthor permanently under either rule set.
If its resurrection then I think the cost is about right. Other tournanments don't appear to have been too unbalanced by them at LRB4 costs.
Doubleskulls - Oct 06, 2005 - 06:05 AM
Post subject:
You could allow Gobbos to have permanents and no one else - but I don't think that is necessary. They will freeboot them often enough anyway.
GalakStarscraper - Oct 06, 2005 - 06:54 AM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
If its resurrection then I think the cost is about right. Other tournanments don't appear to have been too unbalanced by them at LRB4 costs.
I ask because a similar team won the Zlurpee Bowl.
Luthor
2 Mummies
1 Ghoul
8 Skeletons
1 Re-roll
2 FF
See went undefeated in 6 games.
I've never seen a team with a Star Player do well at any tournament I've allowed them for 3 years. This team was the first and it sounds like it showed up at MOAB as well.
Galak
Chunky - Oct 06, 2005 - 03:22 PM
Post subject:
I don't really think its a problem to be honest. I was the first one who got stomped by Beefy. I had a shot to do well that game, but my luck wasn't there. Beefy played very well, and with excellent luck at the same time - he only had to use a single reroll the entire game - and that includes the counts dodge reroll.
If he had of been playing Wood Elves with that sort of luck and skill he'd have whooped me 4-0 like at Euc Bowl.
If you have a look at his report on AusBowl you'll see that he both played very well and was very lucky right through the event. You'd be hard pressed to beat the man whatever team he takes in that situation.
I think the situation was also exacerbated by upping the freeboot cost on the rest of the star players. This made it very difficult to hire a star to counter the Count.
Doubleskulls - Oct 07, 2005 - 12:40 AM
Post subject:
Eh? Now I'm hopelessly confused. What rules were you using?
biggy - Oct 07, 2005 - 12:52 AM
Post subject:
You're not the only one. Everyone was confused. The plethora of rules editions, addendums, reviews and experimentals out there meant that even Babs was confused at times as to what was canon and what wasn't
OZjesting - Oct 07, 2005 - 09:10 AM
Post subject:
Was it really that confusing? It was straight LRB 4. The only "extra" was the ability to hire star players permenantly for REALLY BIG money (400ish for count i think) and freeboot them for BIG money (180K for Griff etc). (I don't pay much attention to them as a High Elf coach)
Other then that it was straight progression, normal rules. Babs may get confused as he IS dealing with all the variations...but from THIS players perspective it was all right there in the book.
Chunky - Oct 07, 2005 - 07:34 PM
Post subject:
I didn't have any trouble myself, but given the number of times I had to try and explain the thing with freebooting, it was definitely hard to explain. It was something you really had to have read IMO. The problem was a lot of people hadn't read the rules for the tourney - whether it was due to a lack of knowledge they were out there or not I don't know.
Babs - Oct 07, 2005 - 09:47 PM
Post subject:
It was straight LRB 4.0 - with the house rules document from www.geocities.com/blood-bowl. Players could hire Stars permanently (Luthor was 380K, for example) ,or freeboot them for half the _full_ price, not that listed. (so to freeboot Luthor would have been 190K)
However, I don't think that exacerbated the problem, because I don't want to see it become the winner being the one with the most star players - and an 'arms race'.
Chunky - Oct 07, 2005 - 11:18 PM
Post subject:
You allow Undead players to take the Count (as has been suggested, they are one of the few teams that can really take advantage of the fulltime stars), while denying other teams the chance to match him with someone vaguely equivalent it exacerbates the situation. The fact you don't want to make a star player arms race is irrelevant to that problem. The arms race already exists simply because one player has one.
I think you either need to ban them altogether or at least make it vaguely fair (ie fair to those teams that have decent ones) and allow open slather. By trying to make a compromise solution it effectively made things worse.
BeefyGoodness - Oct 08, 2005 - 05:13 PM
Post subject:
Hi everyone, as the team in question I'll post it quickly here for those interested:
The count
2 mummies
2 ghouls
6 zombies
1 RR and FF 1
My experience through the tourney was one that highlighted the obvious benefits of having the count as a ball carrier, but by the same token, I really suffered whenever something failed. I do beleive that I should have lost against Twahns amazons...he knocked the count over 4? times in our match laid the boot into him a couple and generally had it all over me. The only thing that mitigated his ownership on the pitch was some really terrible crucial plays...mainly failing 3+ rolls with rerolls. As for chunkies example really he only needed to actually make a 3+ dodge with a RR and a pickup of the ball with his catcher and he would have been home free 1-0 in the first half. So whilst the count was IMO overpowered for a starting team (against same tr starting teams) it wasn't just the Count Luthor show. Also I suffered several injuries over the course of the tourney 7 or 8 iirc all of which were successfully regenerated...except for 1 bh zombie, I didn't fail anything important.
I agree with your stance on freebooting starplayers for critical matches babs but would go further than just upping the price to try and prevent it. I would ban star players use in the tournament totally (freebooting and otherwise), but making and exception for both goblins and halfings allowing both these teams to freeboot their respective stars.
GalakStarscraper - Oct 08, 2005 - 05:49 PM
Post subject:
Okay ... that team doesn't bother me as much as the Zlurpee one as in the new rules that team will be 90k more expensive that when you used it. That means you'd really need to slice something out to make room for the extra cost overhead.
Thanks for the details of the roster.
Galak
Doubleskulls - Oct 10, 2005 - 02:48 AM
Post subject:
Ah - its the messing around with the stars that really through me. I couldn't work out why Beefy had Luthor the whole match, yet there didn't seem to be the usual load of freebooting in the last few rounds.
biggy - Oct 10, 2005 - 06:18 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, I think raising the cost of all just meant we couldn't counter the players like Luthor with freebooters. Not that my ogres could counter much of anything. I lost the casualty count to woodies 2-0.
I rock !!!
Andrew
Babs - Oct 10, 2005 - 07:22 PM
Post subject:
I had players complain about the 'usual load of freebooting' occurring at CanCon and so the more expensive freeboot measure was to try to counter that. Perhpas in hindsight it let Beefy through wit an easier run. There is no doubt however, that Beefy won the tournament by solid BB coaching and more than a little luck - but the Luthor on the roster was a leg up. What I am trying to prevent, however, is 5 or 6 coaches turning up with 'copycat' rosters at CanCon in '06. That would be really disappointing.
biggy - Oct 11, 2005 - 05:56 PM
Post subject:
I never 'copycat'. It wouldn't make any difference. With my dice I could play 11 Luthors and still lose!
Andrew
Babs - Oct 11, 2005 - 08:04 PM
Post subject:
Yeah! 11 Luthors is balanced
Seriously Andrew. Maybe we need to work on some counselling - because this seems to be a case of 'self fulfilling prophecy'. You think you will fail, so you do?
I'm not saying somehow your mind influences your dice, but there is definately something strange going on with your record. What is the go? You're actually a good coach!
biggy - Oct 13, 2005 - 09:50 PM
Post subject:
It is actually dice. I know the statistics say otherwise but I NEVER roll well. It's not just BB. Ask anyone who has played ANYTHING with me. My dice are consistently bad. As I say quite frequently I have rolled seven ones in a row on a D20 playing D&D and I frequently roll 4 or five in a row. Ask the guys I played against at MOAB. If one of my players fails a roll there's no point my re-rolling it because I VERY rarely pass the re-roll (even 2+ rerolls).
That's why I've all but given up playing 'serious' teams. Tactics and strtegy are sound, but as soon as a dice is rolled everything falls apart.
Maybe one of my ancestors pissed off a witch or something and the whole family line was cursed??
[shrugs]
Andrew
Twahn - Oct 16, 2005 - 01:05 AM
Post subject:
My 2 cents on the Count...
BEEFYGOODNESS with extra CHEESE 
I think we all agree the Beefy deserved to win MOAB because he's a very able coach, played very well (he certainly did against me and in the Final I spectated), and from all account didn't suffer any major luck swings (quite likely considering only 1 reroll and very little in the way of skills on the team). Beefy is a champion, no doubt, and did well to win.
That aside, his team was broken.
I agree completely with earlier comments that upping the Freebooter fee worsened the Count issue, as it simply meant that if you didn't hire a Star to start with you just weren't going to be able to afford to freeboot one (or even want to at that huge price for a one game showing!) later in the tournament. This left us with a situation where Beefy's Undead were the only team (barring stunties) with cheap enough linemen (and no Apoth to be bought) to cough up for a Star to start with and still manage to field a decent team (2 Mummies, 2 Ghouls).
I think if you want to prevent wholesale Star hiring in the finals rounds, just ban them altogether. Otherwise, have your half the permanent price to freeboot thing but don't allow them to be bought permanently at all.
The simple fact is that other teams just cannot afford them, and the option of starting with either Galak's or Beefy's Count led lineups is a pretty bloody tempting option if we allow it again.
My game with Beefy was a tight battle and I really enjoyed it. I had some VERY good luck in the midterm though, the only thing that allowed me a hope of winning the game, though it was a close battle to make it a draw...
Also, I think I'm a skilled and mature enough player to know what I need to do to combat a player like the Count. A less experienced player would really struggle. It certainly isn't an easy thing to do.
When you've got a guy with ST5 and Blodge, on a team that also has two ST5 mummies to tie up players, it's not a hard thing to wipe out enough assisting tackle zones around the Count to ensure a two dice against block in every instance. You need two helpers to even get a one die block. The limited skills on your team mean it's unlikely you've got enough Tackle or Guard to make your job any easier (I think I had 3 Guarders and 1 Tackler when I faced him in my second last game) and you've got to roll POWs do do anything to him!
I knocked him down like 4 times and fouled him a bit, at one point I was even concocting a plan to surf the bastard! Beefy and I, our game could really have gone either way. Regardless though, he's undeniably a far more powerful presence on the field than any other team can even come close to matching. If you go with the same format at Cancon, I reckon you'll see facsimile teams for sure.
My suggestion would be to just not allow permanent Stars. If you want less of them in the last games, up the freebooting price, sure.
I personally am not one to hire them very often, and I don't think they really add anything of tactical interest to the game.
*****
Regarding confusion with the rules. I had none. There were a few who didn't realise the Freebooting rule, but that's just because they didn't read the rules. There were also a few who weren't familiar with the current Blood Bowl LRB4 rules, but I think that's often the case at Tourneys where you may have players who haven't taken the field for a while and are still thinking in old ways. Most were pretty understanding of the fact that they were out of date and were happy to be helped along with the changes that have been made. Didn't think there were any issues here really...
*****
One criticism I'd like to make however is the scoring system. I've always found the 7 point scoring system to be unfair to low AV, low MA teams like Zons and Norse. These teams lack the ability to score very quickly because of their MA6 across the board, and are likely also to suffer more Casualties than their opponents purely because they have AV7.
Let's imagine I play a 7 game tournament, and win every game 2-1 suffering more Cas than I deal out. I score 4 points every round. Total score 28.
Then there's a Dark Elf team, they get 3 wins 3-1, where they beat their opponents up also on account of their AV8, speedy players, ability to dodge away, and across the board Blodge access.
18 points for these 3 wins.
Then they get 3 draws, they win the CAS in these too. 9 more points makes 27.
The last game they lose. They get wiped out 4-0, but still manage to win the CAS by 1. 2 Points are awarded and they win the tournament with a score of 29 (beating my 28 ).
My record: 7-0-0, their record: 3-3-1
There's no justice there. You may well say that that's why you have the final round as a Finals type arrangement, so the tourney winner has to actually win the last game, but my team won't be on that 1st vs. 2nd table most likely, with this scoring system, so what does it matter?
A simple 3-1-0 soccer style scoring system is far more just, and the swiss system works well using it. If you need to have some kind of tie breaker running in the background (perhaps using the 7 point system) as a second tier scoring mechanism, well so be it. The scenario I outlined above though is simply what happens, and it's wrong. Inflicting CAS has very little at all to do with skill and has much more to do with luck and team selection. Scoring excess TDs has more to do with skill, but is still heavily driven by team selection.
I'm not really a super-competative kind of guy, so I've never really cared. The wrongness of it irks me though, so I thought I'd mention it.
*****
Great tournament though. Great fun had by all!
biggy - Oct 16, 2005 - 02:21 AM
Post subject:
I was toying with norse for Cancon but hadn't really considered this. It's actualy a good point. Believe me I know how hard it is to run tournies (I've run my share) and Babs does a great job. This may be something to consider in the future?
Andrew
Doubleskulls - Oct 16, 2005 - 09:53 PM
Post subject:
Twahn wrote:
My suggestion would be to just not allow permanent Stars. If you want less of them in the last games, up the freebooting price, sure. I personally am not one to hire them very often, and I don't think they really add anything of tactical interest to the game.
I think Babs was trying to get away from the "everyone freebooting stars for the last N rounds". Fair enough, and by the sound of it, it didn't really work.
There is part of me that thinks ban stars - but then we are just going to see lots of wizards (apart from the poor undead teams) instead.
Alternatively I think just suck it up. A consequence of a 7 game league is that its optimal play for many teams to spend their income on stars and its an accepted part of the tournament that this gives some teams an advantage over other teams.
Twahn wrote:
A simple 3-1-0 soccer style scoring system is far more just, and the swiss system works well using it.
One really big advantage of not using such a system is that people have much more fun playing games in systems where the TDs and Cas count towards the primary score.
Basically if you are leading 1-0 you've got little incentive to score again - if you are losing 0-3 then you've no incentive to keep on trying. Having TDs and Cas incorporated into the main score (almost regardless of how insignificant) makes people have more fun because they think they have something to play for. Having TD/Cas as the 1st tie break seems to make almost no difference to the majority of coach's perception of the scoring system and incentives offered.
Maybe reducing the importance of margin of victory and cas difference would help reduce the chance of the problem you outlined occurring - but removing it altogether is a bad idea IMO.
Babs - Oct 16, 2005 - 11:06 PM
Post subject:
Really I do actually really like the 7 point system, and there's really only one small problem. Twahn has helpfully pointed it out:
* You get the same points for drawing the game with a winning casualty count as for winning the game by 1 TD but losing the casualty count.
It's the only situation that irks me about the system. Everything else about it I actually like:
1. It's simple. There's only 7 points involved per game played
2. It keeps the leaderboard close
3. There's things to play for (casualties, keeping within 1 TD) even when the final W/D/L is decided.
4. It's been in use for 4 years now - and in leagues even longer. This point in itself is not really a reason not to change - but it has 'status quo' or intertia.
5. People are familiar with it. People who play SWL on FUMBBL use a very similar system.
Anyway. Enough said. I actually don't think the situation really crops up enough except if I was using the wins record as a tiebreak should it matter. If something really unusual was happening such as someone drawing all their games but winning the casualty count would I step in. I honeslty don't think it really hampers the performance of Amazon and Norse teams any more than they are already hampered in a normal progression tournament.
Twahn - Oct 17, 2005 - 01:12 AM
Post subject:
I agree regarding the whole interest point, with people having other things to play for rather than just a 'will I win or will I lose', and as I said I'm not really that fussed.
The main point though is exactly as you say, Babs, and I think the best resolution is surely to simply award more for the actual win! Having a draw with CAS won worth the same as a tight win with CAS lost is just plain crap. Why not a 9 point system where you have 2 extra points for winning? That gives my example Amazons a 6/3 scoreline for winning instead of a 4/3 one, and also means you get at least 6 for winning to compare with 5 for drawing and winning the CAS. At least it's something, though deep down inside, I'm still dubious...
For the record, SWL uses a straight 5-2-1 scoring system with anything else only being used for tiebreakers. We've tried 7 point systems but gave them up in favour of rewarding the actual result, because of the inherent lack of equality in rewarding how the result is obtained.
GalakStarscraper - Oct 17, 2005 - 07:43 AM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
* You get the same points for drawing the game with a winning casualty count as for winning the game by 1 TD but losing the casualty count.
I'm not sure how the 7 point works. The system I've used for my tournaments sounds similar to the 7 point but we don't have the issue stated above:
Win: 55 points
Tie: 35 points
Loss: 10 points
Won by 2+ points = +10
Lost by only 1 point = +10
Caused 2 or more casualties than opponent = +10
Caused one casualty more than opponent = +5
So a Draw with +1 CAS is 40 points and +2 CAS is 45 points compared to winning the game by 1 TD but losing the casualty count which is 55 points.
In effect you get these range bands with the above system:
Win: 55 to 75 points
Tie: 35 to 45 points
Loss: 10 to 30 points
Galak
Chunky - Oct 17, 2005 - 03:18 PM
Post subject:
I still don't like that system either.
IMO, in any system, the baseline should have:
1 win >= 2 Draws
1 Draw >= 2 losses
GalakStarscraper - Oct 17, 2005 - 03:58 PM
Post subject:
Chunky wrote:
I still don't like that system either.
IMO, in any system, the baseline should have:
1 win >= 2 Draws
1 Draw >= 2 losses
That system in my experience leads to folks going home and leaving the tournament after the first two games as they have no hope to compete if they didn't win the first two games (or in your case the first game).
You might not have that issue in Oz ... but I DEFINITELY have it where I am. So the point system because of this insures that if you are playing close and tight and lose a game ... you are not completely out of the running.
I'm not saying its the best ... not by a long shot ... just was trying to understand Bab's 7 point system as it sounds similar to what I use ... but I don't have the problem he mentioned.
Galak
Twahn - Oct 17, 2005 - 05:26 PM
Post subject:
7 point system is basically...
*1 point each for playing
*1 point for winning the CAS (0.5 each for a draw here)
*1 point for scoring 2+ more TDs
*1 point for losing by 1 TD only
*3 points for winning
*2 points for drawing
Your system above, Galak, is basically a more sophisticated version of the same thing, yes.
GalakStarscraper - Oct 17, 2005 - 06:36 PM
Post subject:
Twahn wrote:
7 point system is basically...
*1 point each for playing
*1 point for winning the CAS (0.5 each for a draw here)
*1 point for scoring 2+ more TDs than opponent
*1 point for losing by 1 TD only
*3 points for winning
*2 points for drawing
Your system above, Galak, is basically a more sophisticated version of the same thing, yes.
Okay I think I understand ... so the version I use in those terms would like this ... helps me to compare ...
*1 point each for playing
*0.5 point for winning the CAS
*0.5 point for scoring 2+ more CAS than opponent
*1 point for scoring 2+ more TDs than opponent
*1 point for losing by 1 TD only
*4.5 points for winning
*2.5 points for drawing
biggy - Oct 17, 2005 - 07:24 PM
Post subject:
You might not have that issue in Oz ... but I DEFINITELY have it where I am. So the point system because of this insures that if you are playing close and tight and lose a game ... you are not completely out of the running.
Galak[/quote]
Geez, if you're only in it to win 'get a life'. It's Bloodbowl not the superbowl. My basic attitude to people like that is 'you're an utter loser and we're better off without you'. Bloodbowl is a 'beer and pretzels' game at it's core and if your taking it that seriously then you really need to assess your priorities. I rarely win anything, my luck is just that bad and I keep playing because it's fun.
This was my main objection to the ogre changes. The 'fun' of playing teams like gobbos or 'flings is the occasional win against the odds. The changes being made to ogres mean you NEVER win and your team gets crippled more often than not due to snotling deaths. It's no longer fun so they won't be played. Anyway I digress. Keep up the good work Babs. I'll still show up and get well and truly rodgered by every team I come up against.
Hmmm, Norse for Cancon? I'll have to think....
Andrew
Chunky - Oct 17, 2005 - 07:49 PM
Post subject:
I think part of the reason we don't have this problem so much in Australia is geographical isolation. Very few people over here have enough blood Bowl that they can dismiss a bunch of games just because they ain't going to win the tourney. We are also in general a lot more laid back.
Just another quick question though Galak - what is the social scene or camaraderie like for the tourneys over there? It sounds to me like it could do with a boost. People will tend to be happy to keep playing when they are getting to see mates they haven't seen since the last tourney IMO, and promoting a good bit of socialising during and after tourneys tends to promote this IMO.
You'll also notice when I did my win > 2 draws> 2 losses I said it was a baseline. For reasons of tournament necessity, I'd still have some effect for casualties/TDs, I'd just like to make sure its in a better proportion to the win/draw/loss framework.
Doubleskulls - Oct 17, 2005 - 09:00 PM
Post subject:
Maybe Babs's system would work better with 9 point split - just giving an extra 2 points for the win and 1 for a draw.
Such scoring differences rarely make a difference to the overall winner - but they can make a huge difference to the final ranking in the pack.
Twahn - Oct 17, 2005 - 10:23 PM
Post subject:
Yeah, that's what I said yesterday too, so I guess it's no surprise that I'm right behind you on this one Doubleskulls!
It's basically the same as the current system, which would keep those set in their ways happy enough, but rewards more for actually winning.
Babs - Oct 18, 2005 - 07:42 PM
Post subject:
Galak,
slight problem with the way you explained it:
There is no 0.5 points for 2+ casualty win.
It works this way:
7 points distributed between the two coaches
1 point to each coach for playing the game
3 points for a win
2 points to each coach is the score is tied
1 point to the winner if the win is by more than one TD
otherwise that point goes to the loser (if the win is only by one TD)
1 point to the winner of the casualty count
(0.5 points if it is drawn)
~~~~
Twahn,
Please explain how a 9 point system would work that would:
* keep the current (6-1 point) winners from streaking away from the pack so that the leaderboard is close
* Keep the fair system and balance between casualites and TD's
I don't know how it would work. The 7 point system is tried and true - and although the draw scenario is icky - the system results in a close contest most of the time.
Just 'whacking' an extra couple of points in for the win might have the disadvantage of stretching those whitewash games out in front too far, leaving too many points between first place and the bottom of the table. I like the 7 point system because the stretch of points is few enough that a draw or close loss doesn't leave you out of the running - in fact a loss in the first round can be easily overcome to catch the top four. This _will_ be effected by a 9 point system as a draw, worth significantly less points than a win, will drop players. 2 Draws will leave you out of the running in some systems. The 7 point system means that a draw or two won't leave you out of the running, even if some others win all their games bar the last round. That's the difference in the systems. Am I making things clear or not?
Now I understand Twahns point that that can make the system _unfair_ as someone who draws a couple of games can overtake someone with some close wins (and I agree that a draw should be worth less than a close win) - but it can also be an advantage in keeping the tournament close and exciting.
Babs - Oct 18, 2005 - 07:47 PM
Post subject:
Chunky,
Actually having people not show up because of poor performance _is_ a problem. I've had people not show for day 2 in tournaments in over half of the tournaments I've run. Having people arrive _late_ for day 2 is even more likely. Actually, MOAB 2005 was exceptional in that we didn't lose anyone we weren't expecting to, and everyone started game 2 on the Sunday by 1/2 past 9.
Chunky - Oct 18, 2005 - 08:26 PM
Post subject:
Are you sure they quit for this reason, or were there other issues at hand?
If people are going to quit for this reason, are they really people we want playing in the first place?
If someone is doing badly enough to be out of the running, won't this be the case no matter what system you run? To truly be out of the running you need to be a fair way back after all - I've seen plenty of day 1 leaders ball way back through the pack in my tourney lifetime.
Does it highlight a need to make some changes in those tourneys? Cancon had 4 painting related prizes, and MOAB had 2 - if we had only one, and transferred the rest into other areas, wouldn't this then give people something else to play for?
Twahn - Oct 19, 2005 - 12:32 AM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
Galak,
slight problem with the way you explained it:
There is no 0.5 points for 2+ casualty win.
Galak was transferring his very similar system into something based around the same scale as our 7 point system here. His is essentially very similar except with scores formulated in a way where a win of any discription is guaranteed to be better than a draw, and a draw better than a loss.
Babs wrote:
Twahn,
Please explain how a 9 point system would work that would:
* keep the current (6-1 point) winners from streaking away from the pack so that the leaderboard is close
* Keep the fair system and balance between casualites and TD's
Well, for starters, I'd prefer to see somebody who is completely owned in a match get streaked away from than see someone who consistently wins though is beaten up on whilst doing so get nowhere.
A win is a win in my books. Getting beat up on has it's own consequences and generally makes further winning a little harder (enough of a penalty in my books). Not scoring lots of touchdowns likewise has it's own consequences (less SPP and team development).
I win 4 games and the Orc next to me draws 4, and I look at the table to find we're neck and neck in the middle of the table? Nothing demoralising about that...
What keeps the current 6-1 winners from streaking away from the pack? They get 6, their opponent gets 1. That's a fair difference.
When my team has AV7, and my opponent has AV9, who is going to suffer the most casualties do you think? 5/12 chance of breaking my armour. 2/12 of breaking his. Hmmm? It certainly doesn't take any skill from the Orc coach to turn these maths into what is essentially a bonus point for his well armoured teams. For every casualty I score, he's likely to score 2.5 of them!
I beat him anyway, though my players don't really have the speed (their Amazons) to score very quickly so we only beat him by 1. Still, it's a victory, and we're happy to have achieved it! Until we look at the scoreboard after our fourth such game and see that we're on level footing with some guy with a 2-1-1 record?!
What's going to make ME come back the next day? Do I naturally have a more robust demeanor than these guys who aren't winning and we're trying to encourage to return? Will I just return regardless? They lose and still want a shot, but I win and can't expect one? What's going to make ME come back?
The 9 point system rewards players more for a win, and also more for a draw. Essentially, it offers them less for a loss. Isn't this fair enough? The Swiss system is enough, IMHO, to ensure that the competition is sufficiently close. The winners are stopped from streaking away by the fact that they are forced to play each other, essentially forcing them to stop winning.
What having such a large importance given to piling on the CAS and TD does is encourage playing with teams that are capable of such feats (basically as fast and highly armoured as possible).
Chunky - Oct 19, 2005 - 04:02 AM
Post subject:
The point Twahn raises about winning and getting smashed on casualties is a very valid one IMO - to me these wins mean MORE than any 6-0 5-1 flogging - you've overcome probably bad luck and bad odds to get there. You also have to deal with using bandaids and sticky tape to keep your team together for the rest of the tourney. Yet you look at the scoreboard and find some twat who ignored the ball so long he only managed a draw against 3 players on the pitch is on the same points.
Doubleskulls - Oct 20, 2005 - 05:46 AM
Post subject:
Babs wrote:
Just 'whacking' an extra couple of points in for the win might have the disadvantage of stretching those whitewash games out in front too far, leaving too many points between first place and the bottom of the table.
The 9 point split increases the difference between wins, draws and losses. The difference from the margin of victory is the same. So what you'll see is that the extra points for winning actually make the margin of victory less important - not more.
"Keeping it close" doesn't actually make sense anyway - unless you actually do think Twahns scenario ought to resolve with the 3-3-1 record beating a 7-0-0 record.