| 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 - 10:52 |
 
|
| dode74 wrote: | | JellyBelly - "boredom" can be measured by people stopping playing the game. If people are still playing a game they are bored with we can only conclude they want to be bored. |
People can continue playing because there are ways to avoid it it. e.g. keep your TV/number of games down, play Ranked or League.
I have still only managed one game so far this year though.
| dode74 wrote: |
You, me, or anyone else outside GW (and then the BBRC) don't get to make another definition of balance because it's not our remit to do so. That's down to the game designer and the game designer alone. |
Actually, we can do whatever we like including quitting the game completely.
The only reason the GW, the BBRC or the NAF matter is because Christer chooses to follow them.
The commissioner's word is law.
| dode74 wrote: |
Your "counterexample" is a red herring. The BBRC didn't turn the game into a coin toss and, if they did, the game wouldn't be said to be unbalanced but might, if people stopped playing, be considered a failure because people don't like it. Not liking it is fine, but that doesn't make it broken: it's merely a matter of preference. |
I don't think I've ever used the word 'broken' in this context. Even so, it depends on how you define it.
| dode74 wrote: |
"Majors winners" is a subset of the overall stats and is skewed by coach skill, which can only really be controlled for by having large sample sizes. If the race was unbalanced (as defined by the BBRC) it would show up in the data. It doesn't, so it's not. |
Your idea of balance isn't the only thing that counts. The effect on the site is more important. The commish has weighed the arguments and decided to stick with the official rules.
The numbers, the NAF, the BBRC are factors but not the whole story.
The point of JellyBelly's example is that you can change the rules and still have balance. You could also try changing them for the better. |
_________________
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 - 11:00 |
|
Koadah, since you are here, can I have a link to those sheets of yours that proof that CPOMB has no effect? |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:07 |
|
I think "CLPOMB wins to much" is a strawman. People complain not because they win to much, but because of a way they win. It is not fun mechanic (when you are on receiving end). |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:17 |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:18 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: |
Let's say I rewrite the rules so that every game of Blood Bowl is decided by a simple coin toss to see who wins. That would be perfectly balanced according to the BBRC's criteria, so clearly there can't be anything 'objectively' wrong with it .. sounds like a great game! |
This is literally what Dode and VoodooMike want with TV+ heh. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:23 |
|
| bigGuy wrote: | | I think "CLPOMB wins to much" is a strawman. People complain not because they win to much, but because of a way they win. It is not fun mechanic (when you are on receiving end). |
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. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:26 |
|
Oh just another question since I have been also looking into that for a couple Fumbbl projects: Are you actually paying for that server space or are you getting it for free somehow? And also, is there a way for me to get a couple megabytes of free server space somewhere?
Edit: Looking at these tables I actually feel reassured about an old dream I had which was to base tiers on number of games played in blackbox and to always 'fix' the two least and most taken races a little bit every month. In this case that would be Ogres and Halflings on the low end and Chaos and CDs on the high end. Why go with number of games played in stead of win%? Because win% doesn't really tell you who is playing those games. Number of games played is a much better indicator of the type of balance we ultimatively want to archieve, which is diverse balance, or rather to make choosing every individual race equally attractive.
So what I would expect is that as top teams get always a little worse and low teams always a little better, less respectively more people pick them up with the end goal to archieve a relative stability between all racial picks. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %03, %2016 - %11:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:38 |
|
koadah - so you agree there is no problem in League and Ranked. Which is what I have said all along. B/MM is where the issue lies.
Christer can do whatever he likes. You, me and the rest of us outside GW/Cyanide can either play or quit. If Christer decides to change things that's entirely up to him. None of which is relevant to my point, which was that we (the players) don't get to redefine balance in BB. Even Christer doesn't get to do that. He can do what he likes with FUMBBL, of course, but that would be a house rule in FUMBBL. I have absolutely no problem with such house rules, especially if they improve the site. I've long advocated house ruling in B and MM.
JellyBelly's example misses the point that changing things like that is not in our remit. That's why it's a red herring. It would also be a house rule. Whether people would like it or not is another matter.
wreckage - at what point did anyone say "CPOMB has no effect"? Please don't strawman.
bigGuy - people don't like losing players. They complained about DP, they complained about ageing and they are now complaining about CPOMB. It's not a surprise. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 11:58 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | koadah - so you agree there is no problem in League and Ranked. Which is what I have said all along. B/MM is where the issue lies. |
No Dode. I thought we agreed long ago that we don't agree what the problem is. 
You can avoid the problem in Ranked or League. Just as you can avoid the problem by not playing at all and playing poker or tetris instead.
I don't really care if you call them changes "house rules" or "turnips". If you change it you can change it however you like. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 12:15 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | bigGuy wrote: | | I think "CLPOMB wins to much" is a strawman. People complain not because they win to much, but because of a way they win. It is not fun mechanic (when you are on receiving end). |
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 haven't analysed your record too deeply but you seem to win with pretty much anything.
I remember Chuck being pretty dominant. I think the bigger complaint is that almost anyone can get to 50% no matter how drunk they are just by duh pile on. If they get the cas early they have good chance of winning. If they don't they probably lose.
The main stat is probably how many are/were trying it. Especially after 1500.
| Wreckage wrote: |
Oh just another question since I have been also looking into that for a couple Fumbbl projects: Are you actually paying for that server space or are you getting it for free somehow? And also, is there a way for me to get a couple megabytes of free server space somewhere? |
I get to use the server for free. I couldn't open it to anyone else though. If you only need a few mb then you should be able to get that for free easily enough.
| Wreckage wrote: |
So what I would expect is that as top teams get always a little worse and low teams always a little better, less respectively more people pick them up with the end goal to archieve a relative stability between all racial picks. |
That list was the basis for ARR. I don't think that it is the number of wins that is the issue but the nature of the wins. Also, the nature of the games whether CPOMB wins or not. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 12:21 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | "Majors winners" is a subset of the overall stats and is skewed by coach skill, which can only really be controlled for by having large sample sizes. |
That's an interesting usage of "skewed," since skill should be used as something like a control variable. The better the strategy, the more it dominates at higher level. Effects that can be observed in competitive settings should be expected to be more robust than in noob games with toothless teams.
***
| dode74 wrote: | | If the race was unbalanced (as defined by the BBRC) it would show up in the data. It doesn't, so it's not. |
Size alone tells very little about significance or whatever statistical criteria you'd wish to apply. We all know that CPOMB races don't dominate 1000 TV tournaments. We even know why.
The best way to skew the data would exactly be to include every single game at every level by everyone indiscriminately. |
|
|
plasmoid
Joined: Nov 03, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:03 |
|
Hi Dode,
| Quote: | | it comes across as him simply wanting to ignore the confidence interval. |
I don't. You're assuming the worst about me. Which is completely discouraging to actual conversation.
Cheers
Martin |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:10 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | JellyBelly's example misses the point that changing things like that is not in our remit. That's why it's a red herring. |
No Dode, I think you've missed my point (or, more likely, dodged it because it is inconvenient). Firstly, what is all this talk about a 'remit'? We're having a hypothetical discussion about possible changes/developments to the Blood Bowl rules. Why do we need a remit for that? We don't need the actual authority to make changes to the game to be able to discuss hypothetical changes/improvements that could be made, either to the ruleset or to which definition of 'balance' should be used to guide it.
Secondly, no, my example is not a red herring by any means. It is a perfectly valid example to illustrate the point that a game can be 'statistically' balanced and still be a bad game. It is a proof by counterexample that balance alone is not a sufficient criteria to make a 'good' game, which people would want to play.
You're assertion that the example is invalid simply because the BBRC didn't try to implement it that way shows that you're frankly clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to defend your entrenched position. |
_________________
"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!!"  |
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:21 |
|
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. |
_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
 |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 13:28 |
|
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.
thoralf - skill is a control variable indeed, but my point is that the same players playing the same races skew the data. You can control for that by using a larger dataset.
I *have* included every game for every level by everyone, and the significance level I have used is 95CI. It's those who wish to cherrypick the data by looking at only the matches they want to look at who are skewing things.
plasmoid - if I am wrong about your intention then I apologise, but ask that you explain your reasoning.
JellyBelly - we're talking about the game being broken, which is an objective statement. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
| |
7s for fummbl?
Search
