 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
kikurasis |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Sep 17, 2013 - 02:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 05, 2011
Canada
Posts: 42
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
+1!
imho, *THIS* is what the NAF should be to us league players.
Craig, we have a league run at the local store and is using OBBLM to keep track (since the current season -- 3rd) at www.bkbbl.com. There is currently 22 players, but will be increasing for next season. Let me know if you need anything. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
tlawson |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 17, 2013 - 02:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 24, 2012
Hamilton
Posts: 80
Location: Hamilton
Status: Offline
|
|
kikurasis wrote: +1!
imho, *THIS* is what the NAF should be to us league players.
Craig, we have a league run at the local store and is using OBBLM to keep track (since the current season -- 3rd) at www.bkbbl.com. There is currently 22 players, but will be increasing for next season. Let me know if you need anything.
Hey Craig,
As kikurasis stated we have an awesome league in Hamilton, growing each season, this is my first year as commissioner, and I expect to be close to 30 teams in our next season.
If you need any information that is not on the Bkbbl.com site please feel free to contact me.
Thanks
Tlawson. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sann0638 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 17, 2013 - 02:37 PM
|
|
President
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
England
Posts: 1113
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
| I'm in, anyway, with whatever happens - currently Commissioner for Cakebowl, a 14 strong league in Wiltshire, England, and very keen (obviously) on getting something organised. |
_________________
NAF President 2016-17
Founder of SAWBBL, Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.co.uk
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 17, 2013 - 05:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Couple of quick question (which determine if we can help or not).
Why limit it to leagues with an online presence? We use the Halfling Scribe, as that's adequate for our needs, and I know of at least one other local league that does the same (bigger than ours).
Why all-NAF only? We've just gained a new club member who's just starting to learn BB, and has indicated that he'd like to play league next time we run a season. He's non-NAF obviously.
Other than that, good luck. Long overdue, so I look forward to seeing what comes through, whether I can help or not. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 17, 2013 - 08:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Darkson wrote: Couple of quick question (which determine if we can help or not).
Why limit it to leagues with an online presence? We use the Halfling Scribe, as that's adequate for our needs, and I know of at least one other local league that does the same (bigger than ours).
Why all-NAF only? We've just gained a new club member who's just starting to learn BB, and has indicated that he'd like to play league next time we run a season. He's non-NAF obviously.
Other than that, good luck. Long overdue, so I look forward to seeing what comes through, whether I can help or not.
Hey Simon,
Other than using the program to allow people to make their teams for Spike! I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with Halfling Scribe. Ultimately we just need people to be able to show their work. Ideally I'd like everyone to use OBBLM, but that would be selfish of me because I use it, and it would be ignoring the fantastic program Casper uses. If a program could be employed to translate to one hub I'd be in favour of that, but I question the know-how or feasibility of such software.
For those that wish to make the conversion we will have IT guys to help set up the software.
As for NAF only - currently not even all MY members are members of the NAF. But if our database was in a position to be added to something bigger and global I'd be sure to sign them up. Much like tournaments, non-NAF members will always be able to participate, but their stats and the stats of those who played them are never recorded until they become members. Given that NAF is putting up all the resources I don't believe it's uncalled for to insist that those who wish to tap those resources be NAF members. We are potentially talking about thousands upon thousands of games to store.
I don't want to jump the gun either. Dave and the committee have empowered me to research the feasibility of the project. Whether this ultimately comes to fruition will be based on that research.
Thanks to everyone that has volunteered so far. Once I'm able to set the forum up I'll be sure to add you to my list of interested volunteers - as well as your databases.
Craig. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 02:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Ah, you mean that you only want NAF vs NAF results, as opposed to all-NAF-only leagues (which is how I read it). In that case, we're all good.
As for Halfling Scribe, I guess it depends on what info you need to collate as to whether it will be any use.
I guess that's a long way of saying that if we can help, we will.  |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
WeeManBiggins |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 05:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Undisclosed
Posts: 21
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
The project sounds inviting and very interesting. I have a few comments to make and some questions to ask.
1. The league I run, the HDWSBBL, has it's own system which we have developed for the last 5 years and is totally unique to us. Please feel free to take a gander at how we run it. Would custom systems be allowed to participate or would they have to conform to the two systems you have stated? Obviously if it's a conform that is required we would have to sadly rule ourselves out of the participation of this.
2. We run our league format much like the NFL with play-off, a SuperBowl and also a plate tournament (for the bottom teams who miss out on the play-offs) all matches are scheduled and each teams plays the same amount of league games. Which category does this come under? Would it be scheduled (which I would of thought it would be) or would it be a different category altogether?
3. (Removed, I didn't read the entire topic!! DOH!!)
4. I would suggest that leagues host a separate competition which is counted towards the NAF League Rankings under certain guidelines which are set by yourself. This will allow the option for leagues to still run their own competitions for their league and only their league, but also they can run a competition which would count towards the NAF League Rankings to keep things fair for all. It would also allow leagues to still have non-NAF members play in their leagues but not the competitions which count towards the NAF.
5. How would the rankings be calculated? Would they be the current ELO system (hope that is correct) or would a new system be devised?
Please visit our league site at: http://www.hdwsbbl.co.uk/ to see how we run things. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 06:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
WeeManBiggins wrote: The project sounds inviting and very interesting. I have a few comments to make and some questions to ask.
1. The league I run, the HDWSBBL, has it's own system which we have developed for the last 5 years and is totally unique to us. Please feel free to take a gander at how we run it. Would custom systems be allowed to participate or would they have to conform to the two systems you have stated? Obviously if it's a conform that is required we would have to sadly rule ourselves out of the participation of this.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I admit I didn't look through the site in great detail but I noticed on the front page a recent post of the Draw. From my understanding you raffle to see what teams end up in what divisions? If so this precludes you from nothing. This is a meta-gaming league structure feature of your league that every league adopts in their own form to fill in the gaps left due to lack of language covered on pg. 24 and pg. 30 of the LRB 6 (my copy anyway, but the pages regarding Leagues and Tournaments). Thunderbowl employs 2 divisions - b and c, the former for veteran teams, the latter for rookie teams.
The Gold Standard is no rules other than what is found in the current LRB 6. This does not exclude what optional rules Commissioners may wish to employ found on pg. 34. And scheduled league matches. This can be done in a few ways: either strict 1-10 scheduling for example, or scheduled but can be played out of round order, or guys show up on the day, pick random names out of a hat based on who is there. Bottom line you do not pick your opponents.
The Silver Standard is still no house rules but incorporates open play - ie. play an opponent of your choosing. Thunderbowl does have matches of this sort. They are called Challenge Matches. We allow and sanction them within our League only twice a year on our Play-off days, and are there for coaches who get knocked out of our single-elimination play-offs and wish to play others who have suffered the same. These matches are rare, but we do have some of this sort.
Bronze covers all house rules not found in the LRB 6 regardless of whether your league is scheduled or open.
WeeManBiggins wrote:
2. We run our league format much like the NFL with play-off, a SuperBowl and also a plate tournament (for the bottom teams who miss out on the play-offs) all matches are scheduled and each teams plays the same amount of league games. Which category does this come under? Would it be scheduled (which I would of thought it would be) or would it be a different category altogether?
Thunderbowl also has lower bowls for teams that didn't place high enough to make their divisions regular play-offs. Scheduled with an equal amount of games - your league sounds like it would be categorized into the Gold standard.
WeeManBiggins wrote:
4. I would suggest that leagues host a separate competition which is counted towards the NAF League Rankings under certain guidelines which are set by yourself. This will allow the option for leagues to still run their own competitions for their league and only their league, but also they can run a competition which would count towards the NAF League Rankings to keep things fair for all. It would also allow leagues to still have non-NAF members play in their leagues but not the competitions which count towards the NAF.
This idea is not meant to impede on how individual commissioners run their leagues. It is to gather, correlate, and unite all the various leagues under one hub where NAF leagues from around the globe can explore other leagues in one page yet still default to their own home pages. It is to identify the similarities between all the global leagues, and after identifying them, separate them into divisions of their own where ranking them against each other, and one day pitting them against each other, would be valid.
WeeManBiggins wrote:
5. How would the rankings be calculated? Would they be the current ELO system (hope that is correct) or would a new system be devised?
Underdetermined and something I'd want to discuss with a Committee once that group has been established. And only after the Committee can answer the scope of how much data we are dealing with.
WeeManBiggins wrote:
Please visit our league site at: http://www.hdwsbbl.co.uk/ to see how we run things.
I will. Thanks for the post,
Craig. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Gaixo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 06:58 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: May 08, 2009
United States of America
Posts: 811
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
generaljason wrote:
The only criteria that would be minimum off the top of my head would be:
01. All the members of your league need to be NAF members.
02. 6 player minimum.
03. LRB 5/6
04. An online presence like OBBLM or Aros.
So really, this is going to be considerably more restrictive than the rules for tournaments. Item 01 certainly doesn't apply to tournaments, for better or worse. The same with item 04 (which is going to count out any number of established leagues in my region).
The "house rules" downgrade is somewhat similar. Are there many long-running leagues that don't have ANY house rules? And how boring must those be?
What constitutes a house rule? Getting rid of Illegal Procedure? Technically, isn't a scheduled league diverging from what the LRB lays out as a standard format?
From afar, it looks like you're holding your own league up as the ideal (the "Gold standard," if you will) that all others should move toward. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
WeeManBiggins |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 10:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Undisclosed
Posts: 21
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Thanks for the reply Craig that's cleared the questions I had, so thank you. Please feel free to message me if you require any other information.
Another thing to consider before I forget about it is, do you allow coaches to play with historical teams like the Reikland Reavers? I would say no personally. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
kikurasis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 10:39 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 05, 2011
Canada
Posts: 42
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Gaixo, Darkson had the same issue above with NAF-only, and Craig clarified it would work like current tournaments (non-NAF allowed, but not counted in stats).
For the argument for/against an online league presence, my thoughts are that is likely needed to start. In order to develop a league-based tool like SCORE (so results could be uploaded), it would be best to do it in phases (as with most software), where the first iteration of the application goes into standardized database schemas (OBBLM, etc.), extracts what is necessary and then uploads that info. Later phases could, imho, include a manual interface to input game information to upload. But, as information already exists, it might as well be leveraged.
Craig, one question:
For OBBLM, I've used it in leagues where 90% of the games are tabletop, but a few are played with Cyanide's client, with the games uploaded to OBBLM to integrate. How would this be handled? What if someone had a "Tabletop" league played mostly like that? Would one game like that invalidate the league?
Just food for thought... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 18, 2013 - 07:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Gaixo wrote: generaljason wrote:
The only criteria that would be minimum off the top of my head would be:
01. All the members of your league need to be NAF members.
02. 6 player minimum.
03. LRB 5/6
04. An online presence like OBBLM or Aros.
So really, this is going to be considerably more restrictive than the rules for tournaments. Item 01 certainly doesn't apply to tournaments, for better or worse.
No it works exactly like tournaments, a coach would need to be a NAF member to be included and get rankings. The coach would not need to be a NAF member just to play in their league.
Gaixo wrote:
The same with item 04 (which is going to count out any number of established leagues in my region).
You need to show your work. Just like any algebraic equation where the final answer was realized after many steps, you can't just produce the answer - you need to show how you came about that answer. We demand that even after a 6-game resurrection tournament, but with teams that maybe have played 50 games and have a ST4 AG5 Wardancer to boot, of course online records of how that came about would have to be produced otherwise it's way too open to abuse.
Also we will need something to extract. And this is also the first iteration. If after such time there is a NAF program that's easier for all the paper and penners still out there to use after, then this requirement may not be an issue later. But for now it is. The only way I or anybody else can see someone's league other than line of sight is from their computer.
Gaixo wrote:
The "house rules" downgrade is somewhat similar. Are there many long-running leagues that don't have ANY house rules? And how boring must those be?
What downgrade are you referring to? And why would you imply that anybody's league is boring if they don't play with house rules? That's like saying every other game on the planet that doesn't employ house rules is boring.
Gaixo wrote:
What constitutes a house rule? Getting rid of Illegal Procedure?
We all know what a house rule is.
Gaixo wrote:
Technically, isn't a scheduled league diverging from what the LRB lays out as a standard format?
Top of pg. 31 (my copy) of the LRB 6 in the Tournaments section:
Quote: Finally, you can decide to run the regular season as a league with scheduled matches (like the FA Football League in England and Wales). Teams score points depending on how well they do in matches (typically 3 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss). At the end of the season the four teams with the most league points get to go to the semi-finals.
They have rules for open challenges as well, but they define structured leagues in the LRB 6 right there above.
Gaixo wrote:
04. From afar, it looks like you're holding your own league up as the ideal (the "Gold standard," if you will) that all others should move toward.
It's not my standard but a NAF one. As you point out open formats are presented in the rulebook. These rules in the LRB 6 are interchangeable when talking about leagues and tournaments, both on pg. 24 and 31. Yet NAF tournaments are never set up as open tournaments - they are scheduled, they are round robin, they are swiss, they are random, but they are never ever open. I, nor my league created that standard - it's the NAF tournament standard. So logically when classifying a standard of League play for NAF wouldn't you consider the tournament standard as the ideal one?
Same with house rules. Talking about which league's house rules are better is about as senseless an argument as which side of the egg should be up. That's fine that people play Scrabble without Qs but ideally the standard should be only the rules found on the back of the box right?
Perhaps Gold, Silver and Bronze are too iconic. The Silver and Bronze classifications are only viewed as lesser if you consider winning a Silver or Bronze as some sort of tragedy which I don't. I care not if Leagues play Open matches, or they play house rules. Just like I don't care if people play Deathbowl, Streetbowl, Dungeonbowl, 7s or whatever - I just don't think they should be mixed with core stats.
If the words Structured, Open and House do not bother you, then neither should Gold, Silver and Bronze. The art department of this project can do a lot more with the latter than they can do with the former.
If you have anymore concerns Nate please feel free to post again. Like I said we are trying to be as inclusive as possible, and we want commissioners to submit their leagues, but without an online presence what are we looking at? If at such time going forward there is a program that players can submit their data to other than the ones mentioned then great, but the cheapest way to go is with programs out there right now that are free. At this point this is a data collecting search, and for the first iteration we'd go with the data already there and visible and not the data that could be there later via a hypothetical program.
Best regards,
Craig
To everyone else - still looking for submissions. We will be collecting data for a while. Anybody wanting to make the conversion to OBBLM or Aros has time. I had to add 623 past games into the OBBLM when we did our conversion from spreadsheet, so please bear that in mind. If you need help setting it up you only need to ask. 
Thanks.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sann0638 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 19, 2013 - 06:59 AM
|
|
President
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
England
Posts: 1113
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: Like I said we are trying to be as inclusive as possible, and we want commissioners to submit their leagues, but without an online presence what are we looking at?
This is kind of what I was referring to - I think that a handful of guys playing games and recording on paper should be registered in a NAF database somewhere as a league, such that a new BB player can find those guys and join in. This is before anything complicated like "NAF sanctioning" of leagues. As inclusive as possible, absolutely.
Cakebowl link: http://xenolith.me.uk/cakebowl/, and before that we were on stuntyleeg.com. |
_________________
NAF President 2016-17
Founder of SAWBBL, Wiltshire's BB League @ sawbbl.co.uk
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 19, 2013 - 09:18 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
kikurasis wrote:
Craig, one question:
For OBBLM, I've used it in leagues where 90% of the games are tabletop, but a few are played with Cyanide's client, with the games uploaded to OBBLM to integrate. How would this be handled? What if someone had a "Tabletop" league played mostly like that? Would one game like that invalidate the league?
Just food for thought...
No I see no reason to invalidate the data of using a client to play a table-top match when you are using it instead of meeting in person, and you're switching the results over to OBBLM in the end. Provided it's still a table top league, and the client can do everything the current rulebook can do (ie. bombardiers work, wizards are legal, ect.) I see no issues if the convenience of using the client is a substitution of a table-top match and it's an anomaly. Anything more than that and you're basically playing an online league. But I get your meaning and see no issues with here and there matches provided the rules you use for table top and the teams you're using are identical in digital.
Hope that answers your question. If not let me know.
Craig. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Kilowoggy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 19, 2013 - 09:37 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 09, 2007
Undisclosed
Posts: 363
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
sann0638 wrote: Quote: Like I said we are trying to be as inclusive as possible, and we want commissioners to submit their leagues, but without an online presence what are we looking at?
This is kind of what I was referring to - I think that a handful of guys playing games and recording on paper should be registered in a NAF database somewhere as a league, such that a new BB player can find those guys and join in. This is before anything complicated like "NAF sanctioning" of leagues. As inclusive as possible, absolutely.
.
+1 to this for sure.
Our home league should be included in a registry at least if we choose to promote it.
Or the store leagues that don't have online presences.
To me, that's much more important than ranking. |
_________________
Co-Host of BOTH DOWN:The #1 Blood Bowl Podcast... that you can find at Both Down!
Or on Twitter @BothDown
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
