 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
zootsuitjeff |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 06:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 29, 2010
United States of America
Posts: 125
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
Khail wrote: 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 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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 07:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 16, 2005
Canada
Posts: 376
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
@ 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. |
_________________
20/21 GLAM Series Champion
2020 CCKO Champion
2018 DeathBowl XV Champion
Rats gone wild! (.)(.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
fe2mike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 07:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 130
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Iron Mike Green
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
daloonieshaman |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 07:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 883
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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  >) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Khail |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 07:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 63
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
NAF Regional Tournament Coordinator
United States Pacific Northwest
Commissioner
Rat City Blood Bowl League
Seattle, WA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lizardcore |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 08:22 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Posts: 513
Status: Offline
|
|
@ 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  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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 13, 2012 - 11:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 01, 2009
United States of America
Posts: 56
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 01:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 63
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
Lizardcore wrote: @ 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 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.
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. |
_________________
NAF Regional Tournament Coordinator
United States Pacific Northwest
Commissioner
Rat City Blood Bowl League
Seattle, WA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SierraKiloBravo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 08:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 22, 2008
Dublin CA
Posts: 60
Location: Dublin CA
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Control the lightning.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 09:30 AM
|
|
Joined: May 19, 2010
Posts: 110
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 09:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 29, 2010
United States of America
Posts: 125
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 09:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Posts: 513
Status: Offline
|
|
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
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 10:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 899
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 10:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 63
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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.
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? |
_________________
NAF Regional Tournament Coordinator
United States Pacific Northwest
Commissioner
Rat City Blood Bowl League
Seattle, WA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Taxal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 14, 2012 - 10:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
Canada
Posts: 915
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
I prefer everything up front. (thats what she said)
Who`s that..my Mum? |
_________________
*** 2023 ***
Dominion Cup - Stunty Cup
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
