MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
 Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:45 |
 
|
I play any team, not just the AV 9 ones, as you can see from my stats, and I don't care about losing pixels, as long as I win the match I'm playing, if you are insinuating I'm a pixelhugger.
Even without Decay they would be still removed too easily from the pitch by clawpomb. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:50 |
|
I's say lets focus back on the topic and on sages post, but it isn't really very interesting, pretty mainstream. Perhaps the most controversial claim is to add a skill progression cost again. Personally I find the only really good reason to do that would be CPOMB lol.
Other than that it's not a terrible idea to go back to equal developed teams. Not an important idea either. Just a matter of taste really. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %01, %2016 - %18:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:53 |
|
Matt's missed my point. It's not about being a pixelhugger, it's about perception bias and recognising that the more "extreme" results you see against CPOMB are actually a balancing factor for AV9, particularly in leagues. It's supposed to be worse against CPOMB teams. I've played a lot of high TV Orcs in particular against CPOMB in OCC and yeah, it's hard (so is Zons vs Dorfs at low TV) but it's certainly not a done deal.
Anyway, we're back to the same-old, same-old. I'll bow out: it's been done to death. |
|
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:53 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | You absolutely can question the validity of a poll, one method being by identifying the sources of bias to see if they have been controlled for. I'm suggesting at least two sources of bias which have not been controlled for.
Then there's the question of whether a poll is the right tool to use to decide whether a game mechanism is actually flawed. Popularity is not the same thing as in-game power.
|
Yeah sure It could be a better poll, like having different questions, making more options to answer etc.
Still its the poll we currently have, and it answers 1 simple question, YES or NO to CPOMB, result= 57% against COMPB.
Now you can disagree with that all you like, but it is currently a majority, so unless you can show me a source claiming that YOU are right and we are wrong, then lest have it.
That or hold a poll yourself, my prediction is that you will get the same result +/- 5%.
the 150 number I have from my teacher, so I challenge you to call any business school teacher and ask about marketing polls, how many people you need to make it valid. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:03 |
|
| Nextflux wrote: |
the 150 number I have from my teacher, so I challenge you to call any business school teacher and ask about marketing polls, how many people you need to make it valid. |
If that were true - that speaks more to problems with marketing than any validity of a poll. |
_________________
 |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:10 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | I've played a lot of high TV Orcs in particular against CPOMB in OCC and yeah, it's hard (so is Zons vs Dorfs at low TV) but it's certainly not a done deal.
Anyway, we're back to the same-old, same-old. I'll bow out: it's been done to death. |
Orcs, unlike Khemri, have AG 3 and a decent passing option if outnumbered.
Ageing would be, in my opinion, a better tool to trim out AV 9 players over time, assigning the duty of trimming the AV 9 player to a small group of clawpomb teams is bad because if a league has too few or too many clawpomb teams the attrition rate will be very different.
Of course, a smart Ageing, not the LRB4 one.
An Ageing check from 31 SPPs on, for example. |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %01, %2016 - %19:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:13 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | It's not an "insignificant" number, but it is subject to multiple biases, not least of which is the self-selection bias of "people who play FUMBBL". Then there's the probability that people who don't think CPOMB is an issue tend not to bother with "CPOMB discussion and complaints" threads, for example. There are others, of course, but those spring to mind. |
To your first point: yes, it is obviously a poll limited to FUMBBL coaches. However, I have yet to see a similar poll conducted on any other publicly available Blood Bowl discussion board that shows any different outcome. So, right now, the only gauge we have of the opinion of the BB community indicates that cpomb is not popular.
To address your second point: that coaches who are happy with cpomb would be less inclined to vote in a poll. What is that based on? It seems to be little more than unfounded speculation that conveniently supports your opinion. I would think that any coaches that felt strongly that cpomb is fine as is would spend the 5 seconds that it takes to vote to defend it, on seeing the subject of that thread. Besides, if your claim is true, then it suggests that coaches that are happy with cpomb don't feel particularly strongly about their opinion anyway.
| dode74 wrote: | | Then there's the question of whether a poll is the right tool to use to decide whether a game mechanism is actually flawed. Popularity is not the same thing as in-game power. |
I would say a poll is the right tool to gauge the opinion of the community as to whether a game mechanic is popular or not. It doesn't have to necessarily be 'broken' (however that is determined) to be unpopular and to reduce players' perceived enjoyment of the game. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:24 |
|
Nextflux - there are plenty of polls. How about this one giving 65% saying "everything is fine". There are others but that was the first which sprang to mind. And I question all of those polls: they are all subject to biases and none of them is conclusive. The only thing we can conclude is your +/-5% is balls.
And your marketing teacher needs a course in psephology if he really thinks that "150 makes a valid poll". I suspect 150 is enough for market research needs, but this isn't that. Ask him about relevance.
Matt - Ageing was removed because it was disliked by some members of the community. Now people want CPOMB removed and replaced with ageing because CPOMB is disliked by some members of the community. And so the wheel keeps turning. I guess it comes down to this: do you want your attrition to be on-pitch (and therefore something somewhat under your control) or off-pitch? Because it's the latter which was the disliked aspect of ageing.
JellyBelly - see above for another poll.
Regarding the bias, the poll is titled "CPOMB discussion and complaints thread". Why would you go there unless you have a complaint about CPOMB or particularly want to defend it? Your assumption that it is a truly random sampling is one of the flaws of the poll: it's up to the person taking the poll to show that potential biases have been controlled for, not for me to pull it down by saying it might be biased one way or another. I only have to suggest it, the burden of proof lies with the one using the poll as evidence.
| Quote: | | I would say a poll is the right tool to gauge the opinion of the community as to whether a game mechanic is popular or not. |
If taken correctly I would agree. There's little evidence this one has been, though.| Quote: | | It doesn't have to necessarily be 'broken' (however that is determined) to be unpopular and to reduce players' perceived enjoyment of the game. |
How are you determining "enjoyment"? Another poll?  Perhaps "do they keep playing" is a better metric. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:30 |
|
Why would a poll be that much different somewhere else? You can't throw out a poll without any evidence it would be different on another forum or game patform. Just making it up as you go along, if you think it would be significantly why is that? I tend to find FUMBBL more hardended to pixel loss and other issues than most other places I have seen.
Other than that most of the rest is total speculation. You throw out a 600 vote poll infavour of your own assertions about pro CPOMB coaches being less likely to vote. Where is your evidence that makes it more valid than a 600 vote poll? |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:41 |
|
Matthueycamo - Don't know if you saw, but I posted a link to another poll with very different results.
As for questioning a poll's results, they are suspect if they have not been corrected for errors, or the errors at least identified. This isn't the statistics of dice we're looking at, it's peoples' opinions and they vary wildly with context. At best what we have here is a straw poll with no controls for all the sources of error (in both directions), which means extrapolating it to assume it is representative of the BB community as a whole is simply incorrect. The best you can say of the poll taken here is "of the 598 FUMBBLers who voted 57% thought CPOMB was a problem in the game". Similarly, the best you can say of the poll I linked is "of the 245 TFFers who voted 65% thought CPOMB was fine". You'll note that I'm NOT using a poll to back up my opinion regarding CPOMB at all, and I am questioning those who do (in either direction). |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:53 |
|
| dode74 wrote: |
Matt - Ageing was removed because it was disliked by some members of the community. Now people want CPOMB removed and replaced with ageing because CPOMB is disliked by some members of the community. And so the wheel keeps turning. I guess it comes down to this: do you want your attrition to be on-pitch (and therefore something somewhat under your control) or off-pitch? Because it's the latter which was the disliked aspect of ageing.
|
Ageing was disliked because it was badly designed: a player could age when getting their first skill up:
an Ageing starting at 31 SPPs would prevent this.
Cpomb is badly designed too because it removes too easily players that should not be easily removed from the pitch, the AV 9 teams generally play a running game and lack an alternative plan when outnumbered, unlike elves.
In my opinion a better Ageing and a weaker synergy of damage skills could improve the game. |
|
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 19:58 |
|
ok, so you have a 2011 poll, about the time it was all new.
I didn't conclude with anything, I mean it was representative, while you think it isn't, if you don't want to belive it or not isnt that interesting, Im just shocked that you dismiss any poll thats been in forms, simply because people just is having fun, throwing pies and answering randomly.
Well, thats just normal in any polls. So maybe your just trolling, in that case Im just going to withdraw, as others said, this isnt the point of the thread eater. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 20:15 |
|
Matt - ageing was hated because it was off-pitch, whether you think it was badly designed or not. I'm not against ageing, personally, but like you I think there are better ways of doing it than the old way (the Cyanide way is not one of those better ways!). I also think it's important that attrition rates in general be maintained as I think people have more of an issue with the variance of (C)POMB than with the mean number of casualties caused: the occasional game where it pitch clears you is remembered, at the cost of those occasional games where it does absolutely nothing.
You and I have been over CPOMB hundreds of times. I'm not doing that again, as I said. Suffice it to say the data does not support your intuition.
| Nextflux wrote: | | ok, so you have a 2011 poll, about the time it was all new. |
Oh, so you're throwing out on the basis of age? I see. So your objection is fine, while mine is not. Sounds perfectly objective to me, that...
And again, I am not using that poll (or any poll) to claim CPOMB is fine. Only you are doing that, and I am questioning your methods.
| Quote: | | I didn't conclude with anything, I mean it was representative, while you think it isn't, |
I don't "think" it isn't representative, I am saying that you cannot say that it is. The methodology simply isn't there. Ask your marketing teacher.
| Quote: | Im just shocked that you dismiss any poll thats been in forms, simply because people just is having fun, throwing pies and answering randomly.
Well, thats just normal in any polls. |
Actually it's not normal in any properly carried-out poll. Look at something from YouGov, Number Cruncher Politics, FiveThirtyEight or any other company which does opinion polls and you will see they are very interested in finding sources of error. Straw polls, such as the two which have been presented thus far, do none of that and cannot, therefore, be claimed to be representative of anything other than themselves. |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 20:49 |
|
The most basic problem with citing a poll for anything to do with blood bowl is that you have no idea of the total active numbers of coaches (even on fumbbl alone) to begin with. No population, no confidence interval, no representative sample size.
That's without even thinking about the other controls. |
_________________
|
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
I kinda agree with Dode on the polls. They don't really mean anything expect to the people taking part in them. There would be no easy way to take an accurate poll of the 'BB community' as we all play the game in different ways (Edit: ArrestedDevelopment just said pretty much this). If I asked here I'd expect CPOMB would show up as a problem, but if I ask my tabletop group (who play maybe a dozen games a year) I doubt they'd see anything wrong with it. It depends on how connected to the game and the meta you are too, but in a poll everyone's answer is equally valid no matter how informed they are. One guy at my tabletop group said he thought Big Guys were overpowered. Life's about opinions eh 
Anyhow, I thought as we've gotten a little off-track I'd provide my own answers.
1. Would Blood Bowl benefit from being less random in both team-building and on the field, or is the random nature what makes it fun?
I think BB could benefit from some aspects of the game being less random, but in general the randomness is necessary for the fun. Making some actions more reliable would make different strategies more viable. I like that failed dice rolls change the game and make it exciting, but repeated failings early in turns make it less competitive and less fun overall.
2. Would Blood Bowl be better if inducements were worth their listed value (making games 'fairer') or is a favourable match-up the reward for building a team?
I'm quite surprised by a lot of people's answers to this one, as I always thought their purpose was to bridge the gap between teams and make the match fairer, but they just failed a bit. Turns out no-one wants them to do this. Personally I dislike the mechanic generally, but ins a TV matched environment you need something to close gaps and in this environment I think it should do it better (ie. be more effective and worth their TV). In leagues I'd consider dropping them entirely though. Playing TV gaps in leagues is part of the fun of the environment.
3. While it is commonly accepted that CPOMb is is powerful, is the problem that it's too good, or that it's not available to everyone? Or that it's too easy to achieve?
My dislike for CPOMB isn't it's power, it's the availability. I like rock/paper/scissors mechanics in-game (like tackle/dodge or frenzy/fend) but dislike them on a team level. Claw 'balancing' AV9 doesn't help if you're facing AV9 and have a team with no claw. Likewise I dislike that Dwarves counter Zons/Skaven/Stunties early on due to mass tackle.
4. Disregarding how it's achieved, do you think Blood Bowl needs lower or higher attrition levels than are currently in the game?
I think the attrition level is good, but I speculate that the environment would be even better if it was higher (making great players rarer).
5. Is TV a good mechanic, a wholly bad mechanic, or a flawed mechanic that could be implemented better?
I like TV for what it does. It's flaws have been mentioned already.
6. Are Spiralling Expenses good, bad, or flawed?
I think they're ok, but I don't have enough high TV experience to be an authority on it.
7. Would the game benefit from Fan Factor being worth it's TV, or does it serve the purpose of a 'success tax'?
I think it should probably be worth it's TV, but I think rather than making it free FF should probably do more in a game or post match.
8. Should Star Players be priced according to their abilities, or is their over-inflated cost correct?
Again surprised by a few answers here. Lots think they're fine but they hardly ever get used? I think the Stars are a great fluff part of the game and should be used more, so I think they're mostly too expensive at the moment. There are exceptions. I dislike the current 'induced stars' mechanic though. I think they should play a better part in the game.
9. Should rosters strive to be completely balanced against each other, not at all balanced, somewhere in the middle, or some teams balanced while others are 'novelty'?
I think the majority of rosters should aim to be reasonably well balanced. They'll never be totally balanced, but within a close proximity. The Novelty rosters should stay novelty and shouldn't be balanced against the others.
10. Would the game benefit from encouraging faster play, more TDs and higher scoring?
Hmm, dunno. Maybe a little bit more exciting. I think it could be encouraged but shouldn't be forced.
11. Would the game benefit from making stalling less desirable?
Same as above really.
12. Should ageing be a thing (recently re-implemented on BB2)? As LRB4, or as Cyanide, some other way or best gone completely?
This one has been covered a lot. I disliked aging as a player, but am now seeing benefits of an ageing-like mechanic to the overall team development meta. It needs to be well thought out though.
13. Should secret weapons and other 'sillyness' be encouraged, discouraged, or is the current balance about right? Should weapons be auto-banned?
I love the sillyness in Blood Bowl so I'd like to encourage it, but also not go over the top so a 'serious' game can be had by those who desire it.
14. Would Blood Bowl benefit from removing the Wizard option, increasing it's cost, decreasing it's cost, or something else?
Not sure how I feel about wizards. I think I'd like to remove them completely, but they're always been part of the BB fluff. I dislike that they are strictly the best option at 150k though, so that should alter in some way.
15. Would Blood Bowl benefit from Gold being more useful/having more uses?
I'd like to see more uses for gold. Seeing teams sitting on 5mil seems like a missed opportunity to do something cool.
16. Should Kick-off table results have more of an impact on the game, less of an impact on the game, their current impact is about right, or they should be removed entirely?
I think most are fine. I'd like to see them impact more often, but without such serious consequences for the really bad ones.
There we go. That's probably about where I am at the moment  |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
