| 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 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:31 |
 
|
| DarthPhysicist wrote: | So if we got rid of Claw (or made it so claw cannot combine with PO for example), wouldn't Dorfs just be the new boring? Dorfs are a great trainer team so as much as I hate them and their cookie cutter approach, they are great for the new guys. And what makes them great for the new guys makes them tough as nails at higher TV which is why a skill like Claw is so important. I for one don't want to see Claw nerfed only to have the new OP be Dorfs with Guard and Mighty Blow combined with Block and Tackle; none of which anyone would argue are not good core skills. We would then have as king of the heap the MOST BORING TEAM rather than Chaos. Claw is also one of the only reasons to take things like the Yeti and the Werewolf on Necro (or give you any reason to play Underworld at all).
Nerfing CPOMB would have far reaching impacts into the rest of the game which I don't think can be ignored.... also giving rise to mutant pig-boys. |
Depends how you nerf it.
As it stands in the Box Orcs and dwarves look look pretty poor if not terrible after 1600.
Only Norse, flings, gobbos & ogres are worse.
I'm not that worried. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:32 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | koadah - we may not agree what the problem is, but we agree there is no problem in League or Ranked. How do you avoid CPOMB playing in leagues.
You might not see a difference between house rules and changes to the rules, but it is as relevant as the difference between FUMBBL and Blood Bowl. |
Actually I wonder how many long running leagues we currently have that don't have some sort of house rule for CPOMB implemented. |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:33 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | Yeah that's a nice idea, but no, that's not it. I have made my way to no.1 in the box that way too once. It's a winning strategy for sure. It's not dull, it's in fact much more fun than say using a dwarf team.
Sure, the games can be very one-sided. But I think that's only true for about a third. The remaining 66% are actually regularly very interesting if you don't let it scare you too much. |
I'm sure that it is easier to become no.1(whatever that means) with Chaos than with Khemries, but I don't see it as a problem.
Woodies or Skavens are good way t become no.1, too, yet nobody cries for nerf. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:35 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Actually I wonder how many long running leagues we currently have that don't have some sort of house rule for CPOMB implemented. |
I've got data for 25k+ games of OCC where there are no house rules for CPOMB - no racial limitations, nothing. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:37 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: | | Actually I wonder how many long running leagues we currently have that don't have some sort of house rule for CPOMB implemented. |
I've got data for 25k+ games of OCC where there are no house rules for CPOMB - no racial limitations, nothing. |
I said we. And I don't think there were any complains from the chaos coaches here in league. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:54 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | koadah - we may not agree what the problem is, but we agree there is no problem in League or Ranked. How do you avoid CPOMB playing in leagues.
You might not see a difference between house rules and changes to the rules, but it is as relevant as the difference between FUMBBL and Blood Bowl. |
No Dode. Your memory must be failing you. We do NOT agree that there is no problem in League and Ranked.
To me avoiding playing is a sign that there is a problem.
In open ranked you can avoid playing CPOMB teams or any team/coach combination that you do not like. That is not proof that CPOMB in "fine". In tournaments you cannot avoid them and I am sure that at least some people will consider them a problem.
In leagues of course you can choose leagues with rule changes and/or race restrictions. On fumbbl that is probably a lot of them.
People are also less likely to go the full CPOMB route for social reasons. Also because chaos starting with no skills take a long time to build at one game a week.
I wouldn't call that 'fine' though.
If your view is that only the numbers count then there is no point arguing with each other.
All this comes down to is that you prefer to stick with the official rules and I don't. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:01 |
|
koadah - I think you're rather missing my point. There is a difference between needing to change the rules and wanting to change the rules. My point is that there is no need to change the rules: they are not objectively broken. If you want to, and are able to, apply house rules to play the way you want to then more power to you. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:02 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | JellyBelly - we're talking about the game being broken, which is an objective statement. |
No, this is not objective. It depends on what definition is being used for 'broken', which is inherently subjective. Sure, the BBRC made a definition of broken, but I would say that is also subjective - they were a committee of four(?) people who made an arbitrary call on how to define broken. Yes, they may have had a 'remit' to change/define the BB rules, however, that doesn't make their criteria any less arbitrary than one that I or someone else could dream up.
| dode74 wrote: | | If it is objectively broken then it can only be declared to be so based on some design criteria, and those criteria can only be set by the game designers. That's their remit. |
Actually, you know what? I agree with you! If the definition of 'objectively broken' is: 'it doesn't meet the balance criteria laid out by the BBRC' then, yes, by that definition, anything that meets those criteria is not 'objectively broken', including my coin-flip example. However, in a way that's a somewhat circular argument. Plus, if such a ludicrous example meets that design guideline, I would have to question it's value, or at least accept that it is not sufficient by itself.
| Quote: | There is a world of difference between "objectively broken" and "I don't like it", and regardless of what changes you want to discuss about the rules or how balance is defined that all comes under the heading of "I don't like it" because, ultimately, both the rules themselves and the balance are defined by the designers, not by us.
I've never said that being statistically balanced automatically makes a game good. I've only said that meeting the design criteria (which in this case is a statistical balance) makes it not objectively broken. I'm curious how you are measuring how "good" a game is, though. I would say that it is an entirely subjective matter. |
I agree with you again - wow! Twice in a single post! The planets must be aligned somehow .. 
So, we agree that being 'balanced' according to some specified criteria does not automatically make a game good. Ok, great. The thing is, let me put this to you: I would say that, for a game that people are playing for enjoyment, the enjoyment of the players is really all that matters. I mean, what else really matters with a game? Surely any gauge of success, if we are going to discuss possible changes to a game's ruleset, should be based on player enjoyment, a that is the end goal. What use is it if we 'balance' a game, but the players aren't having fun?
And yes, I completely agree with you, that 'player enjoyment' is entirely subjective. BUT, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter, or that the 'designers' of Blood Bowl can simply ignore it. |
_________________
"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!!"  |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:07 |
|
* duplicate post *
(sorry, don't know how that happened ..) |
_________________
"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!!"
Last edited by JellyBelly on %b %03, %2016 - %14:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:12 |
|
@Dode, do you have any statistics that show impact of CPOMB on winning stats rather than use of chaos races? |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:14 |
|
They may have been "a committee who made an arbitrary call", but it was THEIR call to make, given to them to make by the owners of the IP. Arbitrary or not, it was up to them. That makes it the valid definition. Anyone else applying any other definition is making arbitrary calls without that remit. I'm not sure how you see that as circular. It is, if anything, an appeal to authority, but it is the valid authority.
A coinflip is not an inherently broken "game". It's used for all sorts of things. Is it Blood Bowl? No, if we define BB as a TT version of a sports game. Is it broken? Also no.
Player enjoyment matters, absolutely, but I ask again: how are you measuring that? The only way I know of is whether the game is popular or not, and BB most certainly is popular. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:21 |
|
Defined as in games with a player on the team who has the skills Claw, MB, Piling On and is not a Big Guy.
I'd be very interested in a table of win percertages for that. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:23 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | @Dode, do you have any statistics that show impact of CPOMB on winning stats rather than use of chaos races? |
No, because I don't have team-level data to go with the matches..
The data suggests that removing more players than your opponent (postive net cas caused) does improves win chances (unsurprising), which in turn suggests that increasing that ability would increase the chances of winning. I would posit that a team with good player removal ability would win more matches, but would ask how many more (I have a cas caused vs win% dataset at home - I'll check). I do recall that some teams hit 50% with a positive (i.e. they "need" to cause more than the opponent to hit 50% - typically bash teams) and some with a negative cas record (agi teams and zons in particular). Chaos was in the positive end, but I don't recall the exact numbers.
The relevant question with respect to objective brokenness is whether that puts the race as a whole outside the tier bracket. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 14:27 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | Player enjoyment matters, absolutely, but I ask again: how are you measuring that? The only way I know of is whether the game is popular or not, and BB most certainly is popular. |
How are you defining 'popular'? That is also a subjective term and I would say a relative one. Compared to Chess, Blood Bowl is extremely unpopular, if we are going by player numbers. |
_________________
"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 03, 2016 - 14:32 |
|
Yes, it's a subjective term - "lots" can mean any number you like, so fair comment. I was working from "it's been around for years and people still play it", but again that is dwarfed by chess. Let's not use that, then.
I ask again, though: how are you measuring enjoyment? You're the one who thinks it needs to be involved in this, after all. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Advice tabletop tour...
Search
