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.
It's not circular, nor is it a straw man... it's ad absurdum. You're advocating an arbitrary turn limit in place of another arbitrary turn limit... so what makes your arbitrary value better than any other arbitrary value? If shorter is more competitive, then why is shorter-still not even more competitive? Supposedly "more competitive" is better, since it was one of the points being made by the pro-2m crowd, right?
Obviously without even needing to say it to anyone who has basic common sense...
...and there it is: it always comes down to a hand-waving "right thinking people agree with me" sort of schtick. The simple fact is this: all the arguments you make in favour of 2m can be countered using the same arguments, because there's no objective evidence or logic supporting it over what's already in place. The only data we've got suggests it won't do any of what is being claimed.
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.
Heh, riddle me this: what percentage of games in CCL last longer than the maximum length of matches possible under 2 minute turns? It must be mighty high for us to care about maximum match time rather than focusing on median match duration.
@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.
Probably a better topic for a separate thread, really. In short, you set up a web-based reporting system that lets people flag matches they played in the last <x> hours as being instances where their opponent engaged in <whatever> form of abuse. If someone is engaging in ongoing misbehaviour, they'll demonstrate it in multiple, separate instances... if they are isolated incidents then there's no real reason to take action. The system tallies the reports of a given sort filed against a given coach, possibly weighting them based on frequency with which the reporter flags matches (the more they do it, the less weight their reports should have... some folks just rage-report) and once it surpasses a certain threshold, they get tossed out of the season automagically (or it gets kicked up to a human to decide, if you're not feeling brave).
So, the short of it is... you don't trust one person to tell the truth, you trust that collectively people will arrive at the truth.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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).
@2gutta GW are doing very well commercially the last thing they'd want is a game they're associated with handed over to the general public, they're awful.
Gnoblars being replaced with tiny penises would happen within a week, Nazi themed uniforms quickly as well.
They didn't seem too concerned with it with the original Dawn of War game - the 3rd party mods kept that game going for years. Penises in nazi uniforms will only appeal to people who are into that sort of thing rather than diluting the franchise.
The issue with modding, I suspect, is that it opens the door to content that Cyanide can't sell us as DLC.
First, this is not about consecutive bad rolls, though that is a factor raw numbers don't show either. 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 is a much better roll pattern then 1 1 6 6 1 1 6 6... Skull pow followed by skull pow is way better than double skulls followed by double pows (two good blocks, as opposed to 1 good block with a reroll burned. But data can't really account for that, so we'll leave it.
Ah yes, the magic "I can see it but mathematics and statistics cannot" argument. We see that a lot from people whose excuses don't match the numbers.
I care because I am a stats geek.
No, you're a persistent liar and failed agitator. Not all of us have forgotten you were banned under multiple names, each time coming back and trying (badly) to pretend to be someone different. The problem is you're not very good at starting trouble for Focus/Cyanide.. you mostly just convince people you're not particularly bright.
It's been tried. It's too good.
"Too good" as determined by the same metric that built the rest of the system, which is the BBRC's eyeballing, correct? I'd be interested to know the actual effect as opposed to what a couple of people felt about it.
Those are my rolls for the last game, my opponents were also quite bad, but he did not have a single turn over over double 1´s
The last two games recorded on goblinSpy at the moment are concession matches for you. So here's the analyses on the last non-concession match that is available for you via goblinSpy:
d6 rolls: n = 52, χ2 = 4.54, p = 0.4748
d6 ac1: r = 0.1546, p = 0.1350
d6 mean: 3.2692
d6 mean t = -0.9508, p = 0.3462
Block rolls: n = 16, χ2 = 1.25, p = 0.8698
d6 rolls: n = 76, χ2 = 4.37, p = 0.4977
d6 ac1: r = 0.1169, p = 0.1558
d6 mean: 3.6053
d6 mean t = 0.5045, p = 0.6154
Block rolls: n = 44, χ2 = 0.66, p = 0.9563
d6 rolls: n = 128, χ2 = 4.19, p = 0.5227
d6 ac1: r = 0.0972, p = 0.1367
d6 mean: 3.4688
d6 mean t = -0.1973, p = 0.8439
Block rolls: n = 60, χ2 = 0.35, p = 0.9864
Nothing out of the ordinary there. Even if we ignored family-wise error problems (which we shouldn't) we still don't see anything reaching the level of statistical significance. Not a single p value is below 0.05, much less the 0.004 we'd use to maintain the guaranteed of only a 5% false positive rate across the whole battery of tests.