| 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 |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 16:52 |
 
|
I think that could only be of benefit to the site.
That might even deserve it's own thread..................(looks around warily for enevitable shooters) |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 17:17 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | I think that could only be of benefit to the site. |
The argumentative wrap-up or Kalimar's option? The former would be easy to do, but it takes time. Perhaps in exchange for donations to Fumbbl?
Reading through this kind of thread is like series' binge-watching: once in a long while should be enough. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2016 - 19:48 |
|
Kalimar's options. Argumentative wrap is worth as much as a bottle of urine. |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 16:55 |
|
Clawpomb is really mean. People foul the clawpombers, and that is animal cruelty. PETA WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:09 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | Clawpomb is really mean. People foul the clawpombers, and that is animal cruelty. PETA WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS. |
Wait, hold on for just one moment.
Are you saying that my stance on CPOMB is to foul any CPOMB laying on the ground every stinking time, no consideration of the tactical situation, that player must get a BOOT driven into his skull, cruel? That, Iam kicking a sleeping dog or clubbing a baby seal?
  |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:17 |
|
Bouncing off of Chainsaws post on the 21st of Jan. Yeah, this is the first time I have looked at this mangled dead horse of a thread, turning into a skeleton this year.
We have been running PO to KO option in the KPL. It works really good. Why?
Well, lets compare to the OLC. They run you can only PO on the injury roll, cool, ok.
Here is why PO to KO is equal to and better than the other option. IF you only PO on injury you run a 1/6 chance of getting KO'ed, now there is a down side to PO, not huge but enough. IF you PO on the AV check, well then you have the same chance as a foul to get sent to the KO Box if you break AV. If you PO on teh AV check and fail you have a 1/6 chance of going to the KO Box. I like the risk/reward element now introduced.
Buff the Git. I solved that one 2 years ago and just get ignored, the plan is to good, makes to much sense, is to easy to understand that it must be ignored.
I will once again state how to buff the git.
A player with sneaky git is only ejected IF he rolls a double on the injury check. So, bottom line, a Sneaky Git only has a 1/6 chance for ejection on a successful foul. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
mdd31
Joined: Oct 23, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:29 |
|
| PainState wrote: |
Buff the Git. I solved that one 2 years ago and just get ignored, the plan is to good, makes to much sense, is to easy to understand that it must be ignored.
|
When you talk in absolutes and that your way is the best way and that your way is the solution (because other people are too dumb to understand) then you are suggesting that no one else's opinion matters and you are the one who decides everything. There are plenty of people who like the rules the way they are and of course those that do not.
It doesn't matter to me either way as I will usually lose regardless of the rules but don't tell me I have to play a certain way because YOU say it is the right way. There is a reason why leagues exist that allow people to modify the rules how they want. Fumbbl has their main rule set and there is no reason to change it unless the person running Fumbbl wants to change it. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 17, 2016 - 17:34 |
|
| mdd31 wrote: | | PainState wrote: |
Buff the Git. I solved that one 2 years ago and just get ignored, the plan is to good, makes to much sense, is to easy to understand that it must be ignored.
|
When you talk in absolutes and that your way is the best way and that your way is the solution (because other people are too dumb to understand) then you are suggesting that no one else's opinion matters and you are the one who decides everything. There are plenty of people who like the rules the way they are and of course those that do not.
It doesn't matter to me either way as I will usually lose regardless of the rules but don't tell me I have to play a certain way because YOU say it is the right way. There is a reason why leagues exist that allow people to modify the rules how they want. Fumbbl has their main rule set and there is no reason to change it unless the person running Fumbbl wants to change it. |
You need to chill out man, it has now become obvious to me that my stance on the Git is an inside joke based on the discussions "we" had many years ago about the git.
And do not worry about me. No matter what I say it will never, ever be considered serious, no matter how well I state my case and will most likely just be ignored and some instances I will have to don my flame retardant suit when I post.
  |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Elijah
Joined: Feb 16, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2016 - 14:03 |
|
One thing I've never understood about this big debate: if a skill could be completely denied by another skill, is it op?
Fend doesn't completely deny piling on? If piling on is a problem, just take fend? |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2016 - 14:12 |
|
| Elijah wrote: |
Fend doesn't completely deny piling on? If piling on is a problem, just take fend? |
Grab negates fend on a block if you can move the player next to you.
Jugger negates fend on a blitz.
Fend IMO is a nice skill, I like the positional advantages it gives you, Anti PO is just a nice side effect but it is a hard pill to swallow to take it early in a players "build" I try to hold off on fend until 51+ or 76+ on most players.
Linemen are the only exception and I will sometimes take it after Block/Wrestle at 16+ |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
Gartch
Joined: Sep 07, 2012
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2016 - 14:18 |
|
| Elijah wrote: | One thing I've never understood about this big debate: if a skill could be completely denied by another skill, is it op?
Fend doesn't completely deny piling on? If piling on is a problem, just take fend? |
Except that if you have one player with PO on one team and one player with fend on the other team, the player with PO will just blitz other players.
So you need to have enough players with fend to be able to protect any blitz on the rest of the team.
Let's say 5 is enough because it allows you to cover the width of the pitch (I think it's clearly not enough, but let's say it's enough).
Then you need 5 skills on one team just to deny one skill on the other team... |
|
|
Elijah
Joined: Feb 16, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2016 - 14:25 |
|
Yes, I didn't think about grab and juggernaut. The both of you are right.
Just out of curiosity, is there any change in sight, seeing the big amount of complaints about the cpomb? Has there been an experimental league to try solutions? (like modifying po, or putting claw to max av 8 )
It would be nice to gather some results from these brainstorming. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2016 - 14:32 |
|
If you want to take Fend to negate Pile On here is what I would advise.
Especially if you play teams with mass PO.
Do not worry about PO blitz, it is very difficult to stop that.
Fend though, if taken en mass on your linemen can greatly aid you on the kick offs. IF the other team has no grab you can negate their 3 PO blocks.
So lets use this example.
You received at the start of the match, perform a masterful 8 turn stall against the PO monsters. Now here is the issue.
The PO monsters get Turn 8 and turn 1 of the second half to perform 6 free blocks and 2 free blitz. That is when having mass fend on Linemen helps out a lot. I prefer my LOS guys to have Wrestle/Fend. Wrestle is great because it brings down the blocker with you on a both down block. SO, some coaches will elect to push back instead of a double down result.
Now this all sound great in theory. Actually having, lets say 6 linemen with W/F? That is the hole in this theory. I think the Buccaneers on one of their previous builds at one point had 7 linemen with W/F. That was the exception and not the norm. |
_________________
Comish of the:
Last edited by PainState on %b %19, %2016 - %14:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 19, 2016 - 14:36 |
|
| Elijah wrote: |
Just out of curiosity, is there any change in sight, seeing the big amount of complaints about the cpomb? Has there been an experimental league to try solutions? (like modifying po, or putting claw to max av 8 )
It would be nice to gather some results from these brainstorming. |
Yes, some leagues do play with the optional rules that mess with the odds of the CPOMB attack. Now, they mess with the odds, they do not nerf specifically any of the skills directly. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2016 - 23:55 |
|
Hi Dode,
alright - I'll take the discussion here then 
Perhaps others will follow...
| Quote: | | plasmoid - Like it or not, the definition is what it is. |
No argument there. I'm just saying that objectively it doesn't really reflect team "balance". But never mind. This won't go anywhere.
| Quote: | | I'd be most interested in seeing how you filtered out the tiered res tournaments from the NAF data, and which dataset you used to reach your conclusion that it has improved. |
Eh? Oh, common sense is out the window.
I didn't filter anything out. I was making the assumption that if a team is given something for free, then it will perform marginally better than the competition, which was given less. Not worth the discussion I suppose.
| Quote: | | I'd also contest that the CI95 bracket is as wide as you suggest. The reported win% is 44.13 from the data I have |
You're right. I remembered them at 42% off the top of my head. Maybe I was remembering a number from a few years back. Maybe not.
The numbers I did have from early 2014 puts Chaos at roughly the same number of games as halflings. Meaning roughly a quarter of the games played by Undead. No idea what the numbers are now.
I believe the point remains that weak teams play fewer games, making the corresponding CI bracket wider.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
|
|
| |
Exempt teams
Search
