| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 464 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 840 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:29 |
 
|
| plasmoid wrote: |
1) 'Pointless' games. CRP was designed on the premise that all games lead somewhere, like towards a championship. Having games played where winning does not matter, will make bashing so much more prevalent.
|
Bashing and winning a match are compatible things, even in one-off MM games.
In my opinion bashing is prevalent because relying on 2 dice actions to remove players, especially with clawpomb, is one the easiest ways to win, which doesn't require a lot of brain power invested, unlike positional play, also, killing stuff is fun for many coaches, even when they are losing.
Many coaches can't stand losing players and playing an uphill game.
So I guess that bashing popularity has psychological reasons (easy way to play, pixelhugging, human being's natural aggressivity).
| plasmoid wrote: |
2) TV-Matched (in a huge environment): It was never the intent that you could stay in one TV-zone and keep getting opponents at your TV. In a League, someone/everyone will outgrow you, and you'll end up being an underdog. That discourages sweet-spotting.
|
After you got all the players and rerolls you really need, raising your TV further is not wise even in a private league, you don't want to give your opponent inducements, and maybe you want to get some.
Khemri don't want to inflate unnecessarily their TV because Wizard is very powerful against them, agile teams want to have a Wizard whenever possible, joke teams want bribes/chef etc. |
|
|
Vanguard
Joined: Nov 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:46 |
|
there are the extremes:
woodies and chaos.
woodies run and dodge
chaos bash
woodies run and dodge extrem good
chaos bashes extrem good
i think we can all agree to that 
now chaos without bashing is a crap team. they lack too much skills and cheap linos. but i think thats even not the prob.
the prob is that all this av 9 crap was nearly immortal. and now its paper . po is broken. but people complain about claws ... and claws have a limited effekt on av 7 .... the right thread name should be: needs po a change ?
edit: and why can my orc team die  |
|
|
Traul
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jul 15, 2014 - 06:31 |
|
How about: only one skill can modify an armor or injury roll?
So no more armor breaking on 7+, and Claw/MB don't work on rolls re-rolled with PO. It hits ClawPOMB harder than POMB or Claw/MB. |
|
|
gamelsetlmatch
Joined: Mar 05, 2013
|
| Posted:
Aug 02, 2014 - 04:21 |
|
CPOMB..
Reminds me of how huge Mammoths were dealt with..
Just push them off a cliff (surf)
..
simple! |
_________________
Stargate!
“In our play we reveal what kind of people we are.” |
|
Overhamsteren
Joined: May 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 02, 2014 - 04:49 |
|
You can't surf prone players.
If all mammoths had just piled on they would still be alive today!!!
Instead they probably took something silly like fend. Fending while getting surfed is pretty awesome but not very effective. |
_________________
Like a Tiger Defying the Laws of Gravity
Thanks to the BBRC for all the great work you did. |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 02, 2014 - 06:21 |
|
I have a practical solution - at least for the League division. Being able to run table top style ressurection tournaments with that Swiss round robin thingy. I doubt CPOMB is the best tactic to win such a tourney, at best it helps mediocre coaches get their game win percentage closer to 50%. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Kill-Kill
Joined: Nov 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 02, 2014 - 07:55 |
|
| Overhamsteren wrote: | | You can't surf prone players. |
Not with that attitude.
But really, while certainly more difficult, you absolutely CAN surf prone players. |
_________________
Your words are just bloody fallacy
A house of cards, painted white
Tried to recreate Normandy
But you made up the reasons to fight |
|
Lorebass
Joined: Jun 25, 2010
|
| gamelsetlmatch wrote: | CPOMB..
Reminds me of how huge Mammoths were dealt with..
Just push them off a cliff (surf)
..
simple! |
If the saddening flashback wall-paint scene from Ice-Age is any indication Mamoths were actually forced UNDER said cliffs when peoples dropped large rocks on them. |
|
|
selfy_74
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 07, 2014 - 21:17 |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2014 - 01:02 |
|
Y'know, I rarely watch a top, top coach get smashed off the pitch by a clawpomber.
Too many coaches give up 35 to 40 or more blocks vs clawpomb then wonder where their team went. A top agility coach will limit you to close to 20.
When you factor in scoring a knockdown for getting a casualty, it really brings down the % (funny how the stats nay sayers post never include it). Then you have to think of fend as well.
Saying that, I still do think the chances are slightly high. I would probably modify piling on to be an armour modifier along the lines of (max(0, blocker ST - target ST)) + 1) that doesn't stack with mighty blow, so you either use piling on or you don't, you don't get to cherry pick using it and it would really be a big guy skill for maximum effectiveness. I haven't done the math (nor likely will since it is irrelevant). |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 07, 2014 - 01:17 |
|
I agree 100% with Chainsaw on his assessment. Coaches like to think it is a external rules "thing" that is hosing them and not sit back and realize it is a "them" thing that is hosing them.
Why change and grow as a coach tactically when you can just change the rules to suite your style of game?
My, Sigmar, if the Elf's ever got their hands on the rule book all Strength and Mutation skill ups would be BANNED!!!! think about that!!!!
** Side Note **
Down in the KPL we are running with the PO goes to the KO box on a double roll. I think this is a great spirit of the game optional rule.
You can reroll that AV check and suffer standard fouling odds of getting KOed OR just pile on injury check which reduces the effectiveness of PO/MB.
The idea that one can risk it but take higher odds of a bad effect sits well with me. It is a risk/reward idea and not a straight up ban hammer approach to make the odds "right" which is what the optional rule of you can only reroll Injury check on PileOn is.
Give coaches a choice on their risk threshold for the best odds which is what PO on a double to the KO box is. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Replikant
Joined: Sep 06, 2014
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2014 - 09:50 |
|
I have to agree with PainState. As I see it, the biggest (although not the only) problem with PO is that it is nearly completely risk-free action. It's a no-brainer, you just decide if you really, desperately need to keep the PO-player upright, otherwise he jumps.
Not many other actions in BB are so risk-free: Blocking, passing, dodging, picking up the ball, TTM, fouling, everything comes with a risk, from turnovers to sending offs to players being eaten. Even Hypnotic Gaze, which does not cause turnovers, is not risk-free: One of your star players will be standing next to a opponent, just begging to be blocked next turn. With PO, you get extra protection by being prone, with fouling being as abyssmal as it is nowadays.
So, PO really needs to come with a risk to make it less of a no-brainer. There's already a number of good suggestions in this thread. The risk could be:
- treat PO as a foul: If a player PO and your opponent rolls doubles on his armour or injury roll, then the PO-player gets sent off. (If you break armour with a doubles roll before you PO, you can still PO, but you know that you will get sent off).
- on a armour or injury doubles roll, the PO player will be knocked out
- on a doubles roll, the PO player also rolls for AV/injury
- the PO player always rolls against AV, modified by the strength difference between the two-players, i.e. the Beast of Nurgle piling on a ST3 player has a effective armour of 11.
P.S.: If anyone checks: Yeah, I haven't exactly played many games on fumbbl, I play "on the other client" or TT. |
|
|
LoxleyAndy
Joined: Sep 11, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2014 - 10:18 |
|
Totally agree with Painstate et al - change your playstyle not the rules. Limit the blocks and protect your stars.
If the rules were to change, I'd prefer to keep something which isn't awful for fluff
- the strength difference modifier just makes no sense from that respect! Nor does "treating it as a foul"
- KO on doubles or av roll (automatically or on doubles) make more sense..
- I like the idea of an av roll for the PO as the risk, though as it is intentional, I don't think this should lead to a turnover if broken (just as failed TTM doesn't).
- another possible modification would (sorry if this has already been mentioned!) would be to limit PO to just armour rerolls (or to just injury rerolls, but not a choice). |
|
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2014 - 10:22 |
|
Laying down isn't risk free, thankfully.
Otherwise King Arthur would still be with us.
If your prepared to foul hard when you can the rewards will come.
Would still like to see the +1 back for fouls. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2014 - 12:44 |
|
Chainsaw, overall I agree but when I've looked at the best coaches playing wood elves against the clawpomb they tend to limit to 30-40 blocks. I am sure there are examples of limiting to 20 but I can't find many who do it consistently. It's just not very likely once you've kicked off a couple of times, received your blitzes and rolled snakes at some point during the game.
So I certainly agree that I am sure this is a bigger problem for us weaker coaches but I wouldn't want the numbers to get drawn out too far.
Very happy to be put right if I've been watching the wrong games. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
