 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
SierraKiloBravo |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 10, 2012 - 08:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 22, 2008
Dublin CA
Posts: 60
Location: Dublin CA
Status: Offline
|
|
| At this point, we will not be altering the ruleset to implement a skill cap. |
_________________
Control the lightning.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 01:57 PM
|
|
Joined: May 19, 2010
Posts: 110
|
|
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: 
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 03:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 29, 2010
United States of America
Posts: 125
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 03:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 20, 2009
Canada
Posts: 202
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 03:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 29, 2010
United States of America
Posts: 125
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 04:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 63
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF Regional Tournament Coordinator
United States Pacific Northwest
Commissioner
Rat City Blood Bowl League
Seattle, WA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 04:47 PM
|
|
Joined: May 19, 2010
Posts: 110
|
|
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.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
blammaham |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 04:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 20, 2009
Canada
Posts: 202
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 22, 2008
Dublin CA
Posts: 60
Location: Dublin CA
Status: Offline
|
|
Warpstone wrote: 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.
This post is the most objective, compelling response I've seen thus far. Thank you for this. |
_________________
Control the lightning.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SierraKiloBravo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 22, 2008
Dublin CA
Posts: 60
Location: Dublin CA
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Control the lightning.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
runki_khrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 16, 2005
Canada
Posts: 376
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
20/21 GLAM Series Champion
2020 CCKO Champion
2018 DeathBowl XV Champion
Rats gone wild! (.)(.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
blammaham |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 20, 2009
Canada
Posts: 202
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SierraKiloBravo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 22, 2008
Dublin CA
Posts: 60
Location: Dublin CA
Status: Offline
|
|
runki_khrum wrote: 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.
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? |
_________________
Control the lightning.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jrock56 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Canada
Posts: 892
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
2008 Bongo Champ,2008 Deathbowl Champ,2011 & 2012 Sweetbun Champ,2014 Warpstone Cup Champ,2015 Q'ermitt Champ,2016 Daggerbowl Champ
http://nafcanada.ca/tournaments/deathbowl/information/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jrock56 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 05:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Canada
Posts: 892
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
SierraKiloBravo wrote: runki_khrum wrote: 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.
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 |
_________________
2008 Bongo Champ,2008 Deathbowl Champ,2011 & 2012 Sweetbun Champ,2014 Warpstone Cup Champ,2015 Q'ermitt Champ,2016 Daggerbowl Champ
http://nafcanada.ca/tournaments/deathbowl/information/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
