NAF Logo
leftstar Mar 28, 2024 - 09:09 AM
capleft
spacer
NAF World Headquarters
home forum rankings tourneys nyleague faq
Smashed Ankle! rightstar
capright

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
generaljasonOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 21, 2013 - 08:52 PM



Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
      Vanguard wrote:
My apologies, I have the feeling that this will be a long post. Smile


No worries I make those all the time. Wink

      Vanguard wrote:

First off, I'm the Commissioner for the BBBL, a small league based in Glasgow. We have eight coaches at the moment as we start our second season, the first we're using OBBLM to record. I'd be more than happy to offer the league data for this project and help out in any way I can.


That's awesome. Looking through your "Matches" link you play with a schedule. Brilliant. And your using the latest form of OBBLM to my knowledge.

      Vanguard wrote:

I am very excited by the project and think it has the potential to offer many benefits to BB coaches around the world and re-vitalise the NAF. However, I'm not entirely clear on the scope of the project as it stands. There seem to be a few different ideas and views in the topic so far. Hopefully it is still open ended and all up for discussion.


This project is still in the formula stage. It is entirely open for discussion and open ended. Right now we are presently at a standstill that is entirely out of my control which I'll explain in another post. So at present we are in the discussion stage as well as the discovery stage where leagues are introducing themselves here.

      Vanguard wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see something along the lines of OBBLM on steroids crossed with Facebook for Blood Bowl, meeting all of the requirements suggested on here so far. At its heart it would be a database that recorded Blood Bowl matches, but how you record that and what you do with the data afterwards offers huge potential. I beleive it should record all matches, league and tournament, progressive and regeneration, LRB4/5/6, friendly and competitive, house ruled or otherwise. The important thing (and the hardest) is to establish a flexible and robust data format that will allow this.


While I like the idea of 'one database to rule them all' I have to be clear that the league side of NAF and the tournament side of NAF will always be separate. We will discuss a great many things here while we pound the league side of NAF into shape, but the aspect of mixing those Blood Bowl worlds into one database is not open to discussion. My apologies if that sounds closed and rigid but it's the NAF mandate which is outside the control of this discussion.

      Vanguard wrote:

On top of this, you can build support for tracking leagues and tournaments, provide front pages for organisations and leagues to advertise and attract players. There can be individual team pages with pictures and fluff along with the stats, coach pages with similar information. It should support every league, tournament and match played around the world and allow them to be accurately recorded.


Anything that can augment the League side as far as tracking matches, or coaches, or advertising for local leagues to attract new players within a database is something I'm all for. As user friendly as feasible and possible. But anything to augment the Tournament side is a discussion that you'd need to have with the Tournament Director, aka Pippy.

      Vanguard wrote:

I dis-like the talk of Gold/Silver/Bronze leagues, that should be irrelevant at the data capture level. Once the matches are in the database, if you want to filter to just Gold standard matches, you can do that. Equally, if you want to include all matches, you can do that too. Sure, the NAF will have their standard for Official ranking, but that's a feature of reporting not recording. And if I want to see which gobbo has the most kills in matches with at least 400k of inducements and played on a Wednesday, then I should be able to do that too!


That's all Gold/Silver/Bronze are meant to be are filters. I was actually having a discussion with one of my own members when we were discussing names of filters and he was also against those names for the polarizing byproduct and non-existent idea that somehow Silver and Bronze were somehow less due to what they represent in real life. I told him that I believe that NAF members were more sophisticated and would see through that, and would see beyond like what that would look like on a db page and whatnot. Clearly I was wrong and owe that guy a beer. Smile

Going forward we will be using terms like Scheduled, Open and House. These terms are hopefully less incendiary to the gp.

      Vanguard wrote:

Capturing this meta-data for matches will probably be the hardest part. However, my gut feeling is that the 80/20 rule will apply. There's a handful of common rulesets that'll cover the majority of matches. Additionally, these will be defined by the League or Tournament Commissioner and so won't need to be captured every match. I envision it as a panel of options or switches:


Prior to going live filters will be established to any NAF league that applies and wants to be included in the NAF database. These will be based on one-time questionnaires when League Commissioners wish to have their league join. Those questionnaires will be the product of discussions here, like what constitutes 'straight rules', how open is 'fixed' or 'scheduled', as well as what formats we're using for House. Maybe Variant can be a separate filter from House - for games like 7's, Streetbowl, Deathbowl and Dungeonbowl.

      Vanguard wrote:

- Base ruleset LRB4/5/6
- Additional NAF Teams Y/N
- Illegal Procedure Y/N
- 4 Minute turn limit Y/N
- Progression/Regeneration
- Round-Robin/Swiss/Knock-Out/Open/Manual
- New team value?
- Which inducements are allowed?
- etc.


I know you are just citing things off the top of your head as examples so I'll try not to put too fine a point on each of them:

Ruleset: I understand that back in 2004 LRB 4 tournaments were the rage, but in 2013 it's LRB 6.0, Composition Ruleset or however you want to call it. If League was established on NAF back when LRB 4 was current then fair enough, but going forward now all Leagues and Tournaments are using the current ruleset. Why would this be any different? It would be like going back to Latin. What's the value of tracking that?

Additional Teams: Anybody not using them? They were sanctioned by the BBRC, they are sanctioned in NAF Tournaments. It's kind of a dead issue.

Illegal Procedure/ 4-minute Time Limit: These are league rules that I wouldn't even consider house rules, whether leagues play with them or not. It certainly would not be a filter in a database.

Progression/Resurrection: Progression is League. Resurrection is Tournament. Those two worlds are filtered right there. Tournament results will not appear in the NAF League db and vice versa. If coaches are playing progression but eliminate the pitfalls of progression by also allowing resurrection in between matches I see no value in creating a "Cheeseball" filter for them.

Round-Robin/Swiss/Knock-Out/Open/Manual Most of these are considerations for tournaments. In League it's really just scheduled and open with regards to how matches are set up.

New team value: This is also something that is mostly in the domain of Tournaments, like a TV1.1 Tournament or what have you. In Tournament play fluctuating TVs is simply called Core. In League changing the starting Team Value in an already progressive game would be considered House.

      Vanguard wrote:

I also object to recording NAF member only matches, for several reasons. Firstly, the more data we have, the better. It provides a better base for analysis and decision making. Secondly, (and I admit I'm veering into the political here) the NAF should be inclusive, rather than exclusive. Membership should have it's benefits of course, but it shouldn't prohibit recording matches. For example, non-member matches may not be linked to a central profile, so games across different tournaments or leagues will not be linked while members have profile pages recording their careers with all their teams. Also, in order to accurately track progession leagues, you'll need all matches, not just the NAF v NAF matches. I would also advocate this policy for the NAF forums, they should be open to all, with benefits such as signatures and profile pictures for members. We need to show users the benefits of joining, rather than insisting that they pay up front and see what they've bought afterwards. However, I'm digressing here.


I agree that all matches regardless of membership should be recorded, with privileges such as access to the db withheld to non-members, but this is not a discussion for this thread as it won't be changed here. This is NAF tournament policy. It is also the NAF forum policy with regards to whether it should be accessible to non-members. This is a discussion members may want to have during the NAF Presidential Elections. If this policy changes then so would my position.

      Vanguard wrote:
I hope this comes across as positive and constructive as I do hope this project bears fruit.


It has and again I invite any constructive ideas or criticisms, and the project will bear fruit in the long run. We are in no hurry if this means that quality will suffer. We have the power of hindsight with regards to setting up league which is why we are having discussions regarding filters for example.

      Vanguard wrote:

I agree to an extent, but rankings in general don't excite me. (The fact that I'm usually near the bottom of those rankings is entirely irrelevant Wink ) However, a system that supports leagues and tournaments will also allow for ranking, and ranking in what ever way you see fit. If and how you use it is up to you.


I care not for rankings but others do. Whether there is a CR system or what not is a whole other discussion. Even if I don't care for them I have no objections to including them if feasible. Right now I just want to get as many Leagues out there to establish themselves digitally. Cheapest way is OBBLM. From there we can further establish how much data we are dealing with, and work out the feasibility of hosting as well as the possibility of updating existing software or similar.

Thanks for your post Mike. You (or anybody) can always email me at thunder-bowl@hotmail.com .

Best regards,
Craig.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Darkson
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 21, 2013 - 11:48 PM



Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
      generaljason wrote:
Ruleset: I understand that back in 2004 LRB 4 tournaments were the rage, but in 2013 it's LRB 6.0, Composition Ruleset or however you want to call it. If League was established on NAF back when LRB 4 was current then fair enough, but going forward now all Leagues and Tournaments are using the current ruleset. Why would this be any different? It would be like going back to Latin. What's the value of tracking that?

Not sure on that. We have, and probably will again, play a season that was a house-ruled LRB4, just because, in our view, it was more fun. The only reason we mainly use LRB6 now is because of tournaments.
Also, I was under the impression a LRB4 (or earlier) tournament would still be sanctioned (or did that change, I honestly can't recall). If it would, I don't see why a league db should disallow it.

      Quote:
Additional Teams: Anybody not using them? They were sanctioned by the BBRC, they are sanctioned in NAF Tournaments. It's kind of a dead issue.

I might be wrong, but I read that as things like Bretts and Khorne?

      Quote:
Round-Robin/Swiss/Knock-Out/Open/Manual Most of these are considerations for tournaments. In League it's really just scheduled and open with regards to how matches are set up.

What about end-of-season play-offs? We have an open season (to crown the league champion), followed by a knock-out comp for the top 2/4/8 to see who's the Bowl champion, and I'd guess we're not alone in that. I know the ECBBL (lycos's home league) do something similar (and bigger).

_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
BonelessOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 22, 2013 - 01:23 AM



Joined: Jun 12, 2009
Scotland
Posts: 135
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
Just a question, would this league ranking cover online based BB leagues? I'm thinking about the cyanide client and fumbbl.

_________________
Proud Captain of Team Wales 2011-2013. 2016

nafwales@gmail.com

UK NTO / NAF Rep
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
blammahamOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 22, 2013 - 09:00 AM



Joined: Sep 20, 2009
Canada
Posts: 202
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Personally, I see the online community as having their own rankings already built into their platforms. I know everyone jumps to rankings right away with this type of project, however, on my list "rankings" are really low on the list.

For me this is about the ability to be able to play coaches from other leagues with teams built in another like league and data collection and how that data is sorted. This would put the NAF in a position where it would control, essentially the largest set of play test data possible. The NAF isn't the keeper of the rules, but it should be IMO the keeper of TT data. S.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
generaljasonOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 - 08:05 PM



Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
      generaljason wrote:
Ruleset: I understand that back in 2004 LRB 4 tournaments were the rage, but in 2013 it's LRB 6.0, Composition Ruleset or however you want to call it. If League was established on NAF back when LRB 4 was current then fair enough, but going forward now all Leagues and Tournaments are using the current ruleset. Why would this be any different? It would be like going back to Latin. What's the value of tracking that?

      Darkson wrote:
Not sure on that. We have, and probably will again, play a season that was a house-ruled LRB4, just because, in our view, it was more fun. The only reason we mainly use LRB6 now is because of tournaments.
Also, I was under the impression a LRB4 (or earlier) tournament would still be sanctioned (or did that change, I honestly can't recall). If it would, I don't see why a league db should disallow it.


LRB 4 Tournaments when LRB 4 was the rage were certainly sanctioned. However the updated Tournament Approval Document is explicitly LRB 5 or greater. So is Cyanide as well as Fumbbl now.

As for League, recording is far more complex than Tournaments. In Tournaments you mainly just need to record Coaches, Races, Round, Day, and the Score. In League you record Spps, permanent injuries, Fan Factor and money in addition. In the Tournament context it wouldn't matter what version of the rules you played because the Tournament db doesn't require any info beyond those 5 stats. All current databases designed for progressive League play have all been updated to LRB 6.0.

      generaljjason wrote:
Round-Robin/Swiss/Knock-Out/Open/Manual Most of these are considerations for tournaments. In League it's really just scheduled and open with regards to how matches are set up.

      Darkson wrote:

What about end-of-season play-offs? We have an open season (to crown the league champion), followed by a knock-out comp for the top 2/4/8 to see who's the Bowl champion, and I'd guess we're not alone in that. I know the ECBBL (lycos's home league) do something similar (and bigger).


Play-offs are play-offs, I'm only talking about how regular season matches are normally set up - scheduled or open. Play-offs in open or scheduled leagues are generally set up as you describe.

Gj.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
VanguardOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 26, 2013 - 12:34 PM



Joined: Feb 18, 2010
Scotland
Posts: 36
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Thanks for your in-depth response.

      generaljason wrote:

While I like the idea of 'one database to rule them all' I have to be clear that the league side of NAF and the tournament side of NAF will always be separate. We will discuss a great many things here while we pound the league side of NAF into shape, but the aspect of mixing those Blood Bowl worlds into one database is not open to discussion. My apologies if that sounds closed and rigid but it's the NAF mandate which is outside the control of this discussion.

If that's the mandate, then I guess you have to work within that. However, I admit I am a little puzzled and disappointed by this. Are there any good reasons to keep them separate?
I'd certainly advocate a softly,softly approach, and not attempt to combine the two immediately. However, leagues and tournaments are just two different structures for playing BB games. Much of the stored data will be similar and to my mind makes sense to store together.

      generaljason wrote:

That's all Gold/Silver/Bronze are meant to be are filters. I was actually having a discussion with one of my own members when we were discussing names of filters and he was also against those names for the polarizing byproduct and non-existent idea that somehow Silver and Bronze were somehow less due to what they represent in real life. I told him that I believe that NAF members were more sophisticated and would see through that, and would see beyond like what that would look like on a db page and whatnot. Clearly I was wrong and owe that guy a beer. Smile
Going forward we will be using terms like Scheduled, Open and House. These terms are hopefully less incendiary to the gp.


It's not the terms I disagree with, it's the concept. You are essentially grouping leagues into distinct groups at the data capture stage. This removes many reporting options at a later stage.
Instead, I'd recommend that you simply capture data on the leagues and if you want to report on them in Gold, Silver and Bronze groups then you can. You lose not of your required functionality but potentially gain lots.

It's a little akin to recording the heights of a group of people as Short, Medium and Tall. This is fine if all you want to know is how many people are in each category. However, if you later decide you want more detail or you'd like to change the properties of each category then you can't.
However, if you record actual heights, you can group them however you like when you report. Additionally, you can change the report at a later date.

      generaljason wrote:

Prior to going live filters will be established to any NAF league that applies and wants to be included in the NAF database. These will be based on one-time questionnaires when League Commissioners wish to have their league join. Those questionnaires will be the product of discussions here, like what constitutes 'straight rules', how open is 'fixed' or 'scheduled', as well as what formats we're using for House. Maybe Variant can be a separate filter from House - for games like 7's, Streetbowl, Deathbowl and Dungeonbowl.


Again, my recommendation would be to not group or filter leagues at the start. Simply capture all the details/options of the league and you can use that data as and how you like.

      generaljason wrote:

Ruleset: I understand that back in 2004 LRB 4 tournaments were the rage, but in 2013 it's LRB 6.0, Composition Ruleset or however you want to call it. If League was established on NAF back when LRB 4 was current then fair enough, but going forward now all Leagues and Tournaments are using the current ruleset. Why would this be any different? It would be like going back to Latin. What's the value of tracking that?

You say that all leagues use the current ruleset, but without tracking it how can you confirm this? Assuming that a large dataset of league matches can be used for further rules development, tracking changes between rulesets would be immensely useful.

      generaljason wrote:

Additional Teams: Anybody not using them? They were sanctioned by the BBRC, they are sanctioned in NAF Tournaments. It's kind of a dead issue.

I don't know? I would assume until the database starts collecting information, there's no way to know. I'd certainly hazard a guess that some leagues restrict which teams are available, such a Stunty only. I'd really expand that out to selecting which teams are eligible in the league.

      generaljason wrote:

Illegal Procedure/ 4-minute Time Limit: These are league rules that I wouldn't even consider house rules, whether leagues play with them or not. It certainly would not be a filter in a database.

Why not? Where is the downside to having this information? This is a decision that League Commissioners have to make and publicise to coaches. Therefore, it should be part of the database.
      generaljason wrote:

Progression/Resurrection: Progression is League. Resurrection is Tournament. Those two worlds are filtered right there. Tournament results will not appear in the NAF League db and vice versa. If coaches are playing progression but eliminate the pitfalls of progression by also allowing resurrection in between matches I see no value in creating a "Cheeseball" filter for them.

This was from the point of view of capturing both league and tournament matches.
      generaljason wrote:

Round-Robin/Swiss/Knock-Out/Open/Manual Most of these are considerations for tournaments. In League it's really just scheduled and open with regards to how matches are set up.

As Darkson mentioned, leagues can combine league and knockout formats.

      generaljason wrote:

I agree that all matches regardless of membership should be recorded, with privileges such as access to the db withheld to non-members, but this is not a discussion for this thread as it won't be changed here. This is NAF tournament policy. It is also the NAF forum policy with regards to whether it should be accessible to non-members. This is a discussion members may want to have during the NAF Presidential Elections. If this policy changes then so would my position.


I'm glad we're in agreement here.


My gut feeling, and I apologise if I'm wrong, is that your current intention is to create a database for leagues that conform to a very specific structure. It'd be much more useful (and admittedly much more of a challenge) to create a flexible system that can support all sorts of leagues. If there was one thing I'd put money on, it's that no matter how crazy a league you can design, someone else is already playing a whackier one! Smile
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
generaljasonOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 26, 2013 - 06:22 PM



Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
      Vanguard wrote:

If that's the mandate, then I guess you have to work within that. However, I admit I am a little puzzled and disappointed by this. Are there any good reasons to keep them separate?


They might resemble one another, but progression and resurrection are completely different games. Resurrection allows teams like Amazons to avoid the pitfalls of playing an AV7 team because injuries are wiped at the end of the game, which is why they fair quite well at tournaments. Progression Amazons start having problems right where you'd expect they would and start to degrade at higher TV. It's a completely different team in league. Same can be said of Wood Elf performance in tournaments vs. leagues.

I'd venture to say that putting both stats together would be like combining the stats of Axis & Allies + Risk. I love both formats, but recognize that they are completely different games. Adding both stats together on one page - I don't see the validity to it. Both formats stats combined would taint the other and make whatever information you wish to glean from it useless.

      Vanguard wrote:

I'd certainly advocate a softly,softly approach, and not attempt to combine the two immediately. However, leagues and tournaments are just two different structures for playing BB games. Much of the stored data will be similar and to my mind makes sense to store together.


League data is far more complex and requires way more details then at the tournament setting. Tournament details per game are 6 cells max. There is no information required about the teams entered other than race. The NAF database for Tournaments has everything it already needs. It can be tweaked for sure, but certainly would not require a database that needs to include money, spps, fan factor, purchases, inducements, journeymen and permanent injuries. NAF Tournaments do not require an OBBLM database for example, whereas tracking Leagues online it is a necessity due to the expanded variables required to document progressive play.

And again separating the 2 formats - Tournaments and Leagues, is a NAF mandate. I'm not putting any blame on them when I say that because it's a mandate I agree with.

      Vanguard wrote:

It's not the terms I disagree with, it's the concept. You are essentially grouping leagues into distinct groups at the data capture stage. This removes many reporting options at a later stage.
Instead, I'd recommend that you simply capture data on the leagues and if you want to report on them in Gold, Silver and Bronze groups then you can. You lose not of your required functionality but potentially gain lots.

It's a little akin to recording the heights of a group of people as Short, Medium and Tall. This is fine if all you want to know is how many people are in each category. However, if you later decide you want more detail or you'd like to change the properties of each category then you can't.
However, if you record actual heights, you can group them however you like when you report. Additionally, you can change the report at a later date.


We are on the same page I'm only saying it differently than yourself. It's a technical discussion that will not be overlooked. For all database issues and proposed sorts Kavin (warpstone) will be running point.

The only point I'm trying to drive home is that there will be filters in the proposed global League database - filters that are not present in the NAF Tournament database, such as the stats of Variant Games such as 7's being mixed with Core Tournament rankings. It is a decision that in hindsight the TD would filter in a heartbeat but he inherited it.

League on the other hand has the power of hindsight, doesn't need to follow that track, and can correct the lack of filters when recording our own stats. Complete League stats of all formats in one header is not precluded as a result - this will still be an available sort on the proposed global League db. We will certainly not chose any data sort that limits the possibilities of the db further down the road. Kavin will know how to do this without being told rest assured.

      Vanguard wrote:

Again, my recommendation would be to not group or filter leagues at the start. Simply capture all the details/options of the league and you can use that data as and how you like.


See above.

      Vanguard wrote:

You say that all leagues use the current ruleset, but without tracking it how can you confirm this? Assuming that a large dataset of league matches can be used for further rules development, tracking changes between rulesets would be immensely useful.


I see validity in tracking a house League like Martin's LRB 6 Tier one race revisions. I'd like to see the stats of that on a larger scale. That is moving the game forward. Tracking LRB 4 stats in the present when dbs, video games and the current NAF tournament scene have already made the conversion to the LRB 6 is moving the game backward. The juice has to be worth the squeeze, and paying someone to code the entire LRB 4 ruleset into a proposed League database when everything else is LRB 6 is in my opinion a waste of money. Same for Third Edition stats (which I still have, as well as LRB 4 stats)

      Vanguard wrote:

I don't know? I would assume until the database starts collecting information, there's no way to know. I'd certainly hazard a guess that some leagues restrict which teams are available, such a Stunty only. I'd really expand that out to selecting which teams are eligible in the league.


I heard of one League in Oregon that set up the Human League - every coach could only play Humans. As a result they set up drafts and trades. Setting up Stunty Leagues would be a valid filter as well that again shouldn't be lost in the process. Provided the initial League entries and teams are slated generic they can be filtered into other accepted formats later.

      Vanguard wrote:

Why not? Where is the downside to having this information? This is a decision that League Commissioners have to make and publicise to coaches. Therefore, it should be part of the database.


Commissioners certainly do need to publicize to respective members their League's rules regarding IP and the Time Limit rule. And they do: in person, on message boards, and in printable league rules. The info needs to be made clear, but no NAF Tournament has a check box for IP or not. If it's a simple one line of code that a programmer can add I have no objections whatsoever. But it's something that whether or not the info of Illegal Procedure and 4-minute turns were in the db or not, these two rules will never affect the stats of whether Claw/Mighty Blow/Piling On/Jump Up is broken or not for example. They make for a fun 'did you know' I guess, but again neither stat is recorded at any NAF tournaments. Has anybody learned whether Undead perform better at tournaments when IP is present? It's why I'd consider both those factors flavour rules in that don't affect the game in a meaningful way.

      Vanguard wrote:

This was from the point of view of capturing both league and tournament matches.

As Darkson mentioned, leagues can combine league and knockout formats.


I did actually qualify this above in my answer to Simon.

      Vanguard wrote:

My gut feeling, and I apologise if I'm wrong, is that your current intention is to create a database for leagues that conform to a very specific structure. It'd be much more useful (and admittedly much more of a challenge) to create a flexible system that can support all sorts of leagues. If there was one thing I'd put money on, it's that no matter how crazy a league you can design, someone else is already playing a whackier one! Smile


Ignore your gut - it is never my intention to dictate to the community what structure to use when setting up their league. Agreed that there are plenty of wacky Leagues out there just as there are plenty of wacky Tournaments. In tournaments they're just sorted as tournaments, whether they play dungeonbowl, streetbowl, deathbowl or the actual game. In League they would be listed as Variant. If a League outlawed Stars for example they be listed as House. The goal is to be as inclusive as possible, while still satisfying the purists that want degrees of data separation.

I hope that puts your mind at ease Mike.

Craig.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
keggiemckillOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: May 01, 2014 - 11:47 PM



Joined: May 13, 2011
Undisclosed
Posts: 30

Status: Offline
I know this probably further than anyone can think about but dividing the House Rules into more Categories would be a good idea from the beginning. It's better to start with the separation rather than going back and doing it after. Can I suggest Calling them house <blanks> for a separation? Example: the leagues that have started introducing Unapproved Races like Apes of Wrath could be called "House Play Testers." Food for Thought.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
generaljasonOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: May 04, 2014 - 07:25 PM



Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
Hey Keller,

The only issues I see with adding as per your example the Apes of Wrath team is that code would have to be written into the OBBLM to include them as a Variant Team, much like Khorne or Brettonians. Ethically I see no issues as I'm all for including House in all forms provided there are filters in place to separate these types of Leagues from what I'd call Straight LRB 6. Agreed that many filters may need to be established in order to separate data sorts. Again we wish to be as inclusive as possible for NAF League, not dictate at all how NAF Members wish to run their Leagues, while still satisfying the purists like myself who play the straight game and wish to compare those stats vs those who play the same way. We are only limited by what we can do with software. The overall goal of NAF League is to unite all the Leagues of the world onto one central database.

Best regards,
Craig.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
nickjmereelOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jul 16, 2014 - 02:41 AM



Joined: May 03, 2013
SE UK
Posts: 2
Location: SE UK
Status: Offline
Happy to volunteer the Isle of Wights Bloodbowl League if the data will be useful Smile
http://swwg.obblm.com
We are just about to start season 3 (a bit young by your standards but happy to help if we can)
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
BigSexyOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Aug 02, 2014 - 08:51 AM



Joined: Jul 01, 2009
SE MIchigan
Posts: 21
Location: SE MIchigan
Status: Offline
Gauntlet of Blackwaters Blood Bowl Organization

www.gobbbo.obblm.com

Six active coaches scheduled matches.

A couple questions.

1. Forgive me, I'm still a little fuzzy on how this will operate. Will individual leagues still function as indiviual leagues their own independant league managers and the database will just funtion to track rankings or will leagues have entirely operate from one megaleague managment system?

2. Because I believe new coaches first Blood Bowl experience is in a league setting. When I first started are league I was a little lost when it came to league managment. Do I do it on paper or Excel? OBBLM or AROS? How do I set it up? How do I get webspace? I think the focus should be on providing commisioners the tools and knowledge to easily setup leagues that will draw in new players. Will this system provide that?
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
generaljasonOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 18, 2014 - 03:14 PM



Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
      nickjmereel wrote:
Happy to volunteer the Isle of Wights Bloodbowl League if the data will be useful Smile
http://swwg.obblm.com
We are just about to start season 3 (a bit young by your standards but happy to help if we can)


Cool. The more the merrier. Thanks.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
generaljasonOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 18, 2014 - 03:19 PM



Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
@ BigSexy:

1. The goal is to have your league management system operate just like your regular obblm homepage ONLY this page will be linked with all the other obblm pages out there in one central db.

2. I've been working on a downloads section. Sadly I've only put the game sheet for now in the sticky section of this forum, but it is the goal to offer support for ALL League players - regardless of whether they are hook up on obblm or whether they still record their stats on paper.

I hope this answers your concerns.
Craig.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2009 The Zafenio Team
Credits