2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll

Proposing 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22. Please add comments and vote.

Reasons:
It's inline with the other CCL leagues. i.e. XBOX1 and PS4
The game was designed to induce stress with a finite amount of time. Less time means the critical decision/turns are harder to deal with.
Not the primary reason but 2 minute turns mitigates AFK issues.

https://www.strawpoll.me/17181352/r

Suggest COL is moved to 3 mins if this happens.

2min turns would decrease the player base by getting rid of many casual CCL players.

As although 3min turns might seem to drag on and be a minor annoyance to some players, comparatively 2min turns would be a dealbreaker for many who are used to having longer turn timers.

To play 2min turns, especially when you’re used to 4min turns in private leagues, you often need to get into the habit of milking the clock. Otherwise when you need to do something even slightly complicated, you’ll run out of time.

Having to win an extra 2-3 games in CCL because you were 10s short of time on one turn and picked up a loss, would definitely ruin CCL for some players too.

Also as Dode has shown in the past, median game durations are still relatively similar between 2min and 3min turn timers anyway.

Oh and just to point out a potential bias of the poll here. Generally only players quite focused on CCL (as opposed to the more casual CCL players like myself), are likely to check the forum here.

last edited by PapaNasty

Hello all,

I would very very much like it to stay at 3 minutes.

For me the best bit of Blood Bowl is working out those complicated plays and checking that there isn't something else that is better. Yes I could do this in 2 minutes, but it would feel rushed and I would feel hampered.

Can I ask, why the proposed change? 3mins is fine and I don't see why it needs to move?

If however someone could arrange for a 'time bank', that would be ace!

Hi

I am not very active in online play( I play a game a week in OCC) but I do ones in a while do a streak of CCL games. That would very likely newer happen again given a change to 2 min turns. As a table top player I find it stressful to play bloodbowl2 and I am way to competitive and accustomed to winning to accept loosing because of time issues. Contrary to the belief of some online players this game has not been about time limits for the majority of the time it has been played. 🙂

Please feel free to not care if I ever play CCL again this is just me putting my thoughts out there.

Best regards
Nicolai

Agree with above posts. 2mins is not enough to play complicated turns. Please leave it 3mins.

Voted

There are a number of teams that this would cripple Vampires being the main example. I can see how it would be annoying if you play the same simple team alot but one of BBs strengths is it’s diversity of teams and this would make people less likely to play the more complicated teams.

Please keep 3 minute turns, for the following reasons:

  1. Here are the stats about how people play in 2 minute and 3 minute champ ladder environments. I used Extra Arms bot to look at the average game times of all players whose coach names I a) know and b) could find out, who had played in champ ladder on both console in a 2 minute environment and pc on a 3 minute environment. Below are the results. The important information being the highlighted yellow column which is the difference in players' game times between console and pc:

0_1547901144645_Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 12.31.23.png

The average difference is just over 2 and a half minutes for people who have played at least 99 games on both platforms in 3 and 2 minute turn times (2.6 mins to be exact). *

As you can see nobody has a larger than 7 minute game time difference in 3 minute and 2 minute environments.

What you can also see is that a coach whose games take 56 minutes on PC takes 57 minutes on PS4 (ie the lowest average game length in these stats), and a coach whose games take 83 minutes on PC, takes 81 minutes on PS4 (ie the highest average game length).

I think its reasonable to conclude that lowering the turn times will not shorten the game times, and that it is very much dependent upon how you and your opponent play, ie, if someone takes a "long" time to play in 3 minutes, they will still take a "long" time to play in 2 minutes. The stats above support this.

Just having 3 minutes available doesn't mean that people will take 3 minutes every turn, but it is useful for harder turns.

So really, the debate is whether it is worth changing the turn time for what is, on average, a 2 and a half minute saving in time (on the basis of actual stats in the CCL). In my view, absolutely not, the gain is so minimal vs the cost in doing so.

  1. The fundamental principle of CCL was that it was designed as a competition for all races to be able to compete in, and qualify for, a knockout tournament.

Changing to 2 minutes actively harms some of the races in doing this - Kislev and Vamps in particular when you are trying to calculate hypno gazes, leaps etc. There has been no reasons put forward for changing such a fundamental part of the structure.

  1. My view is that changing the turn times down to 2 minutes will lead to less players playing agility teams. I think that agi teams need longer in some turns when they are considering stealing the ball, and removing this time from them will lead either to players not playing, or players resorting to bash teams. I have had players on console telling me they do not play agility teams anymore because of the 2 minute turn timers. I am similar, and will now only play bash on console, because for me, it is a lot easier to play in the constraints of 2 minute turns . On PS4, in the last few seasons, the complaints about all the bash, in particular the chorf teams, has escalated to huge proportions, I believe this is in part (I don't know how much though) due to the turn timers and people not wanting to play agility teams.

  2. Turning to the reasons put forward at the top of this thread.
    a) "It's inline with the other CCL leagues. i.e. XBOX1 and PS4"

This is the exact opposite of the arguments used when console changed to 2 minutes. Then, it was "we do not have to stay with PC and can do what we like for turn times".

There is absolutely no reason to keep the turn times the same between the platforms.

If someone can explain the benefit of having the same times between platforms, I would like to understand this.

b) "The game was designed to induce stress with a finite amount of time. Less time means the critical decision/turns are harder to deal with"

A turn time limit does induce stress. The question is how much is reasonable, and what benefit does reducing it get you? On the basis of the game length stats, it gets you very little.

I agree with the second part, less time does make the critical decision turns harder to deal with. However, what is the outcome of this?

As can be seen from the statistics, the outcome is very little in terms of length of games.

Does this mean that therefore the RNG involved in the game increases as there is insufficient time to find a better play and therefore more dice are involved and luck becomes a more prevalent factor? I would argue yes, a better solution can be found in 3 minutes than 2 minutes if the situation is such that it needs those 3 minutes to think through. And you have to ask yourself, do you want to be trying to qualify in a competition, for money, and have that decided more by luck, or your own skill and ability in finding a way to do something? I know which one I would want.

I have seen a number of players coming into Twitch streams and talking about how much they struggle in open ladder with 2 minutes, to understand the game, the icons, the rules etc. There isnt the luxury of having a huge player base for the game, so the last thing that we need to do, is to alienate people coming into the game by making it a less enjoyable experience because they don't have time to play. It's not as if there is a comprehensive tutorial on how to play, or a great open ladder experience where concedes are rife and you run into a vast number of killer teams.

c) "Not the primary reason but 2 minute turns mitigates AFK issues."

afk players are reported and, where appropriate banned. This system appears, to me, to be working very well judging by the reports and admin responsiveness in the ccl discord, so changing turn timers will have minimal, if any effect here.

  1. To the postings that have appeared in ccl discord about the long game times that have taken place of 140 minutes or so and how "terrible" they are.

a) did anyone ask the coaches involved what they thought about those games? were they tactical games where both of the coaches put each other in difficult spots each turn and those required them to think through their turns carefully? Did those coaches involved enjoy the games?

Were those games where a number of riots took place increasing the number of turns? Were they high scoring games which involved a number of setups and then kick off events that caused other things to happen?

We don't know.

The only thing that can be said about those posts, is that the person posting believes they would not enjoy being in a game that long. Notwithstanding the fact that if they play quickly anyway, they wouldn't be in games that long because both players would need to be taking time to consider their turns/RNG events would have taken place and limiting turn times would have no effect in that situation.

  • I did the average calculation by hand because I don't have the time to ensure those minus numbers (ie where console game times are quicker than pc game times) don't artificially lower the average number.

Notes on the stats:
I carried out the searches using the EAB channel in CCL discord if you want to check the numbers. Searches were carried out 12 January. I used 99 games as a cutoff as EAB normally uses 100 games as a metric when calculating ranks etc, but Onannia had played 99 games so seemed churlish to exclude those results. I didn't pick and choose the results, all the coaches whose names I have been able to find the results for have been included. Below are the coaches who have played less than 99 games for info, the results are the same:

0_1547901915794_Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 12.43.15.png

Why was this an issue in the first place? Are there any meaningful metrics or data showing 3 minutes to be a problem at all?

I prefer 3 minutes and agree with similar opinions reasoning above. While I rarely consume the full 3 minutes I often find myself needing to go over the 2 minute mark, even if slightly, especially in those delicate moves that often happen.

Capping it to 2 minutes will probably mean I stop playing CCL.

If the issue that needs addressing is AFK then that should be handled in a different way, like accelerating timers after a certain cumulative time (maybe across a couple turns) with no detected client activity or similar.

last edited by Viajero

Yes, please switch to 2 minute turns, 3 is just way too long.

@Fantfox

Problem is not the average game time, but the matches where people abuse the 3 minutes and only start moving with 20 secs left on the clock. I'd even vote for 1 minute turns, because nobody should really need more, but I guess that will remain a dream.

@camelotraider

Ok, so taking it at face value that somebody is abusing the timer rather than thinking about their turn/kids are fighting/phone call etc (and yes, if it is indeed every turn then it is probably not the irl issues mentioned), then the question that needs answering is “what is the scale of this problem of abuse, balanced against the number of people who want the times to remain at 3 minutes”

For me, I haven’t encountered people behaving like that for a long time, and in cases where I have they have been reported. It has then been up to the admins to review and decide what action, if any, to take.

If this is happening every other game, or 1 in 100 would be useful to know in pointing towards what action to take in relation to it.

I'm in favor of switching to 2 minute turns and i'll give a few reasons.

1st. Obviously game time is a factor. What people will argue is that it only has a small effect on average game time. CCL is a ladder that actively bans you for not finishing your games and competitively any loss on your record is incredibly negative if you want to qualify, you cant PLAN around being able to play CCLs average or slightly over average game time, you have to plan to be able to play the max game time and 2 minute turns lowers the max game time undeniably.

Additionally the comparisons used to say it wont lower average game time are flawed to begin with. Its comparing the same players times on PC vs PS4. That already makes it flawed data as different turn times aren't the ONLY factor, platform being changed is an additional factor we can't account for. On top of that most of the players averages compared aren't terrible to begin with... only a couple are. A lot of ps4 players are simply used to playing under 2 and if they come to pc there is no reason a player already adapted to 2 minutes will suddenly start using three over and over. Its the guys who only play under three and are used to using that time available who will need to adapt and see their average game time change.

2nd. A common point is that 2 minutes is BAD for new players. I think this is actually just outright false. 2 minutes is bad based on the image experienced players have in their head of a new player, NOT an actual new player. An experienced player thinks "Blood bowl is hard, new players are new, how could they possibly make good plays quickly"... New players themselves don't yet have a concept of all these complex good plays, they just play the game and when you don't even understand a chainpush or whatever yet turns don't take that long to pull off.

A great many of us LEARNED blood bowl on 2 minute turns and are still here. This is what blood bowl 2 launched with. I saw tons of players lose patience and leave the game when the primary way to play became 3 minute turns, it is just too long to be locked in a match over and over in random matchmaking, 3 minutes is fine for private leagues where you play once a week, but its terrible for repeated random matchmaking. Furthermore what I consider actual proof that this isn't some massive new player issue is just going to look on goblinspy and sort matches by duration, look at all the longest matches in ccl, what you are going to find is primarily experienced veteran coaches. it is undeniably the experienced veteran coaches of ccl that are the ones dragging these games out and obsessed with staring and hoping a better play appears to them.

3rd. I believe 2 minutes makes the game more competitive. A lot of people will argue the opposite that you lose strategy or 2 minutes is more casual. Consider this. In sports how would the NBA look if you took away the shot clock, NFL there was no longer any delay of game, Chess without the clock is just casual chess. Etc etc etc. To extrapolate on one of the examples, in NBA you'd no longer see players forced to take the best shot they can find in their very limited time, they'd just keep the ball until a perfect shot appeared over and over again, how stale would that be? That isn't competitive that is something people do for an exhibition to show off and a lot of people outside the NBA could do well at it with little issue because it lowers the ceiling. Pressure allows better players to rise to the top and use their skill sets to distinguish themselves more during that pressure

At its core every turn of blood bowl is a puzzle. If you give anyone enough time with a puzzle most can eventually find the solution. As you pressure people more only then will you see who the better puzzle solvers are. 2 minute blood bowl isn't more casual, its more competitive, it widens the potential skill gaps between players and you can see better players distinguish themselves more frequently.

4th and last. People think you can't play certain races with less time. Prior to CCL(aka 3 minutes) my most common team was elves. Post CCL my most common teams are bash. The reason is very simple, elves benefit off ANY positional error. On top of that elves benefit off putting pressure on and forcing their opponent to solve difficult situations. With 3 minutes it just became too easy for even mediocre coaches to figure out ways to generally keep their ball safer and to better solve those difficult pressure puzzles you throw at them. At that point it just became easier to just play bash and focus on consistently out positioning people over giving them those difficult pressure puzzles that elf ball is more centered around. Kislev and Vamps already barely get played, even then they both similarly benefit from players making positional errors and being able to suddenly and decisively put their opponent in a difficult situation.

In closing, I just think 2 minute turns makes for a better ladder environment. You can play more games, you can squeeze games into more situations i.e. times when you only have a bit over an hour instead of needing 2 hours+ cleared up. Conceding is limited and so people will be imprisoned in terrible unfun games for less grueling durations which will result in less frequent and serious blood bowl burnout. It is simply a more healthy and competitive way to play blood bowl in the random matchmaking environment. If you want to sit down and have a 2 or 3 hour game on tabletop while chatting with someone face to face or in a private league in a more friendly environment, by all means, that is incredible. But it isn't the best for us HERE in this environment.

last edited by Tryphikik

I think I must insist that those proposing the change show some actual data set that demonstrates conclusively that there is a problem at all with 3 minutes in the first place. Otherwise the change would not have any actual basis to justify it, other than a straw poll with a few hundred votes, and not really very representative (also straw polls can be easily manipulated with multiple IP based votes etc).

last edited by Viajero

Insist all ya like Viajero for something impossible to prove with 'data'.

The evidence is that people are asking for it, that people are complaining about the length of games and that in the poll 2minutes has been winnniing consistently since it was posted.

3 minutes is an arbitrary number in the first place, some people thought it was too long so thepoll was posted. Apparently more people thinkit's too long than don't.

As you can probably guess, I'm in favour of 2 minutes. Checking the average game time of the 5 people above in favour of 3 minutes, you are all over 70 minutes, some 'well' over 70 minutes and 1 into the 80s. Of course you prefer longer turns, you take the longest times to play 🙂

What's missing from that, is that it's not much fun to play 'against' someone where you spend a long time just watching them think.

Consoles have 2 minute turns, with a slower UI and control mechanism , and they do just fine and there is zero movement to extend the turns because they don't have enough time. And on the console you can't sit down for a game and have to prepare for spinning into a 140 minute game.

At the very least I think the support shown merits a test run of 2 minute turns. Say 2 seasons. Then we can check the data, and maybe even have another poll.

@artemis-black said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

3 minutes is an arbitrary number in the first place

No it's not. BB1 had options for 2 and 4 minutes. FOL, the closest equivalent to CCL from BB1 (i.e. a moderated open league of significant size) started with 4 and went to 2 at the behest of players. 2 was considered too short and the general feeling was that 3 would have been ideal. So CCL was set to 3.

There are differences - the 15-second timers from BB2 were not there in BB1, for example - but 3 minutes was not arbitrary.

I sympathise with the argument about sitting staring at the screen, but there's going to be an element of that in any turn-based game. I just question whether the desired reduction in game times is worth sacrificing those occasional turns where you need 2:10 or so to play effectively. There are plenty of decent arguments from both sides in this.

Solutions such as chess-clocks or AFK detection would be welcome, but I can't see any programming happening from Cyanide, sadly...

Fine, arbitrary is not the most correct word, what I meant was it could be anything. Any time you pick, someone could want mor eand someone could be annoyed it's too long.

There's no 'data' to back up 3 minutes being the turn length, it was just apparently based on past consensus. It could have been 2 minutes 30, or 3 minutes 30 or pretty much anything whoever was in charge of it chose.

The argument for neeeding 2:10 is 'also' just pulled out of nowhere. What about all the turns someone needs 3:10? or 5:10? Someone will 'always' want/need more time.

There is no perfect number. So let's go with the more popular one. Appparently that's exactly how it got set to 3 in the first place.

@tryphikik said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

Additionally the comparisons used to say it wont lower average game time are flawed to begin with. Its comparing the same players times on PC vs PS4. That already makes it flawed data as different turn times aren't the ONLY factor, platform being changed is an additional factor we can't account for.

This really is a false dilemma. You're pointing out a potential confound in the comparison, and that's valid... but is it a larger or smaller confound than with the data being used to support the change, which is nothing at all?

@tryphikik said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

A common point is that 2 minutes is BAD for new players. I think this is actually just outright false. 2 minutes is bad based on the image experienced players have in their head of a new player, NOT an actual new player. An experienced player thinks "Blood bowl is hard, new players are new, how could they possibly make good plays quickly"... New players themselves don't yet have a concept of all these complex good plays, they just play the game and when you don't even understand a chainpush or whatever yet turns don't take that long to pull off.

So why not 1 minute? Or what about 30 seconds? I mean, by your logic new players don't know any better and thus, will adapt to whatever time limit is set, right?

From what I've seen the best players of the game seem to favour the three minute timer, and always have (even when it was a 4 minute timer). It's possible new players won't have as complex strategy as the best players, but that's hardly a reason to limit them such that they can never get to that point, is it?

@tryphikik said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

I believe 2 minutes makes the game more competitive. A lot of people will argue the opposite that you lose strategy or 2 minutes is more casual. Consider this. In sports how would the NBA look if you took away the shot clock, NFL there was no longer any delay of game, Chess without the clock is just casual chess. Etc etc etc.

So... the advantages of 2 minutes over 3 minutes, based on your logic, should be even larger with a 30 second clock! Why aren't you pushing for that? That would be super competitive!

@artemis-black said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

The evidence is that people are asking for it, that people are complaining about the length of games and that in the poll 2minutes has been winnniing consistently since it was posted.

...and people are saying they don't want it, too. Also, people are saying that there's a desperate need for a giant wall between the US and mexico, and people are saying that there isn't. People say a lot of things... a lot of contradictory things... because people, as a whole, are pretty stupid. That's why objective evidence trumps a show of hands in pretty much every serious situation: opinions are going to be all over the place, but genuine facts are going to be the same for everyone.

@artemis-black said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

Apparently more people thinkit's too long than don't.

More people responding to a poll by someone who has an opinion on the matter, and who is considerably more likely to be pushing that poll toward people who share that opinion. Online polling is garbage for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is self-selection.

@dode74 said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

Solutions such as chess-clocks or AFK detection would be welcome, but I can't see any programming happening from Cyanide, sadly...

Neither of which is needed, since both are simply ideas to deal with timer griefing... something that, among other issues, could be handled with an automated reporting system - something that has the benefit of being possible without Cyanide's involvement, using only the moderator tools that already exist (albeit, having software do the accessing of those tools instead of much slower humans).

Voodoo Mike with the most pointless circular argument anyone can make which is the "why not 1 minute or 30 seconds" strawman which then always is countered with the well why not 4 minutes or 5 minutes or no time limit. None of these times are relevant. What is relevant is 2 minutes vs 3 minutes, that is the discussion at hand and if you don't agree with something I said then make an argument why its wrong and 3 minutes is better not this fantasy "okay then lets just play 1 second turns" garbage walking off pretending you've made some sick counter point.

Obviously without even needing to say it to anyone who has basic common sense there is such a thing as too little time, there is such a thing as a point where skill cap actually gets mushed together and deteriorates. I don't consider 2 minutes that point, especially not in this game riddled with 15 second timers and animations that prolong everything.

As for the "nothing at all" data in favor of the change there is plenty of data showing that max times do go down and you cannot play CCL without accounting for max times. CCL is a ladder where you get banned for quitting more than 5 games a season, additionally every loss is very impactful on your record in relation to the standings and chance to qualify. You cannot queue for CCL based on the average game time, you have to queue based on the worst case scenarios. Going to 2 minutes beyond a shadow of a doubt and provable within all of the data shows that the worst case scenarios are improved by 2 minute turns. Meaning 1 you can queue safely in more scenarios and 2 you are less likely to be held hostage for a long duration in a terrible unfun situation when you queue in ccl.

Just to clarify a couple of points:

  1. The stats I posted include those coaches who played on pc initially under 3 minute turn timers and then moved to console under 2 minute turn timers.

Their average game times are, like everybody else’s, remarkably similar. So, it is not a case of console coaches are used to 2 minutes and therefore only take that amount of time as was suggested above.

  1. There is a demand on console to raise the turn time limit to 3 minutes, the last time I saw it raised was in discord in November (and not by me I may add!) so to suggest that everyone is happy with 2 minute turns on console is incorrect.

@artemis-black said in 2 minute turns for PC CCL 22 poll:

There's no 'data' to back up 3 minutes being the turn length, it was just apparently based on past consensus. It could have been 2 minutes 30, or 3 minutes 30 or pretty much anything whoever was in charge of it chose.

Well the data is that it is what people wanted. So they got it when it was available. It's a balance.

The argument for neeeding 2:10 is 'also' just pulled out of nowhere. What about all the turns someone needs 3:10? or 5:10? Someone will 'always' want/need more time.

You misrepresented my position. "I said I question whether the desired reduction in game times is worth sacrificing those occasional turns where you need 2:10 or so to play effectively." Again, it's a balance point as to whether you think it is. As @Tryphikik said, he doesn't consider 2 minutes to be that point while others do.

There is no perfect number. So let's go with the more popular one. Appparently that's exactly how it got set to 3 in the first place.

You're right, there is no perfect number: you can't please all the people all the time. And you argue for going for the "most popular one" when "most popular one" is how it was set in the first place and that's apparently not right! What's to suggest "most popular one" will be right this time?

Honestly, I think the poll itself is lacking in granularity. There is a lot of middle ground here and this binary question is highly polarizing. There is no nuance, no "well, I'd prefer 3 to two, but I won't stop playing if they change it" or "I don't play right now because it's set to 3 minutes and I will play if it is set to 2". What matters is how many people will be alienated or suddenly included by such a change rather than a vague preference one way or the other. Setting too much store in such polls as a means of testing what people actually think on any subject isn't wise - that's how the UK got into the position it's in now! And making it so you can't change your mind seems particularly unwise - some people from each side may well be swayed by arguments made since the poll was posted.

@VoodooMike - if you could go into more detail regarding such a system then please do. I suspect the admin team is all for more automation (certainly they were when I was involved), but things like ensuring it's not abused and ensuring correct identification of AFKers are important. Very happy to discuss it, of course.