43 coaches online • Server time: 12:07
* * * Did you know? The oldest player is debog with 649 games played.
Recent Forum Topics  7s for fummbl? | Exempt teams | Secret League Americ... |
2014-11-16 00:43:36
16 votes, rating 2.9
16 votes, rating 2.9
Big Decisions
Who to take to the 1900TV minors?
The classic side? Pig Sty Alley have accidentally rounded off at 1900TV!
A legend? Officer Gordon's Minotaur Ministry have been kept at or close to 1900TV for some time with such a tournament in mind.
Or some dirty cheating rats? A one turner, a claw pomber, a leaping AG5 ball handler, and an ST5 freak - at 1710TV... ew. (EDIT: stat freak bites the dust! Hah!)
--------------------
Actually the real reason I wanted to blog was because of the over-the-top debates relating to "solving" claw/pomb. It's funny, when an agility team wins by a huge margin, you don't get people crying over agility teams being overpowered. I jestingly digress...
As evidenced by the fact that agility teams are very competitive against a claw/pomb team and even high AV teams don't always suffer like Malmir's did, the ruleset doesn't need to have its wrists slit.
I strongly like these two ideas:
1. The +AV skill becomes a mod; that is, it is taken into account after claw, not before it.
This alone represents a massive counter to claw.
2. Big guys are immune to claw.
I think this makes sense - perhaps give them a skill 'Tough Hide' for the fluff.
These 2 ideas represent specific tweaks to the ruleset to counter specific issues. Piling on itself already has counters in fend and fouls. Fend is a really under-utilized skill. Improving +AV will make it more commonplace.
I strongly dislike these ideas:
3. Piling on a ST5+ (i.e. big guy) skill only.
This is total BS - it is a huge change to the ruleset and kneecaps bashing teams. Agility teams, as far as I am aware, already win more than they lose against bash teams. The problem is in attrition - specifically the clawpombers do better over a large number of games in Blackbox. To try to solve this problem by taking a rusty axe to the ruleset instead of a scalpal (which I argue ideas #1 and #2 figuratively represent) is sheer stupidity. You'll present a whole bunch of other problems in 1-2 years and a whole bunch of other boneheaded ideas in order to solve them.
On top of that, you are inventing a whole new fictional category (Big Guy? ST5+?) and it is a big departure from the skill categories currently in use. Conditional skill choices will be opening a can of worms. (X should be only available to Y etc).
4. No modifiers for piling on.
This basically destroys the skill. I've played in a league with it. It made it worse IMHO. I quit after 2 seasons due to boredom. You basically strike PO from the ruleset, because that's what this change does more or less - nobody takes it any more. You may as well go back to the old days of adding ST to the AV roll, because at least then there's an incentive for it.
Concluding Thoughts
The problem is wiping out PO won't change games like Malmir's vs liquidorange. Of those casualties, 6 were done without piling on and 1 was completely unmodified. Another was a foul. It was just a dicing of sorts. That'll still happen, and people will still cry over dead pixels. Hell, I've had orcs destroyed by elves more than once. It is a simple fact of a game of chance, sometimes it goes against you in a big way.
As much kvetching as there is over the power of clawpomb, if you massively nerf it then it'll be too much damage to the ruleset in the other direction which will create problems of its own. It needs a tweak - a tweak that will benefit the other weaker (and thus under utilized) aspects of the game. That's what ideas #1 and #2 represent. Ideas #3 and #4 represent throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMHO.
Tweak the rules, don't garrote them. In the heat of a debate, we all act like we are great game designers, but that's arrogant. There was a lot of thought put into CRP and it has created a game that - for the most part - most of us love playing. Just every now and again we get smashed by clawpombers but some of those problems are niche and already solved (e.g. praying on new teams in Blackbox is now eliminated) and some are simply unsolvable (dicings happen).
The classic side? Pig Sty Alley have accidentally rounded off at 1900TV!
A legend? Officer Gordon's Minotaur Ministry have been kept at or close to 1900TV for some time with such a tournament in mind.
Or some dirty cheating rats? A one turner, a claw pomber, a leaping AG5 ball handler, and an ST5 freak - at 1710TV... ew. (EDIT: stat freak bites the dust! Hah!)
--------------------
Actually the real reason I wanted to blog was because of the over-the-top debates relating to "solving" claw/pomb. It's funny, when an agility team wins by a huge margin, you don't get people crying over agility teams being overpowered. I jestingly digress...
As evidenced by the fact that agility teams are very competitive against a claw/pomb team and even high AV teams don't always suffer like Malmir's did, the ruleset doesn't need to have its wrists slit.
I strongly like these two ideas:
1. The +AV skill becomes a mod; that is, it is taken into account after claw, not before it.
This alone represents a massive counter to claw.
2. Big guys are immune to claw.
I think this makes sense - perhaps give them a skill 'Tough Hide' for the fluff.
These 2 ideas represent specific tweaks to the ruleset to counter specific issues. Piling on itself already has counters in fend and fouls. Fend is a really under-utilized skill. Improving +AV will make it more commonplace.
I strongly dislike these ideas:
3. Piling on a ST5+ (i.e. big guy) skill only.
This is total BS - it is a huge change to the ruleset and kneecaps bashing teams. Agility teams, as far as I am aware, already win more than they lose against bash teams. The problem is in attrition - specifically the clawpombers do better over a large number of games in Blackbox. To try to solve this problem by taking a rusty axe to the ruleset instead of a scalpal (which I argue ideas #1 and #2 figuratively represent) is sheer stupidity. You'll present a whole bunch of other problems in 1-2 years and a whole bunch of other boneheaded ideas in order to solve them.
On top of that, you are inventing a whole new fictional category (Big Guy? ST5+?) and it is a big departure from the skill categories currently in use. Conditional skill choices will be opening a can of worms. (X should be only available to Y etc).
4. No modifiers for piling on.
This basically destroys the skill. I've played in a league with it. It made it worse IMHO. I quit after 2 seasons due to boredom. You basically strike PO from the ruleset, because that's what this change does more or less - nobody takes it any more. You may as well go back to the old days of adding ST to the AV roll, because at least then there's an incentive for it.
Concluding Thoughts
The problem is wiping out PO won't change games like Malmir's vs liquidorange. Of those casualties, 6 were done without piling on and 1 was completely unmodified. Another was a foul. It was just a dicing of sorts. That'll still happen, and people will still cry over dead pixels. Hell, I've had orcs destroyed by elves more than once. It is a simple fact of a game of chance, sometimes it goes against you in a big way.
As much kvetching as there is over the power of clawpomb, if you massively nerf it then it'll be too much damage to the ruleset in the other direction which will create problems of its own. It needs a tweak - a tweak that will benefit the other weaker (and thus under utilized) aspects of the game. That's what ideas #1 and #2 represent. Ideas #3 and #4 represent throwing the baby out with the bathwater IMHO.
Tweak the rules, don't garrote them. In the heat of a debate, we all act like we are great game designers, but that's arrogant. There was a lot of thought put into CRP and it has created a game that - for the most part - most of us love playing. Just every now and again we get smashed by clawpombers but some of those problems are niche and already solved (e.g. praying on new teams in Blackbox is now eliminated) and some are simply unsolvable (dicings happen).
Comments
Posted by pythrr on 2014-11-16 01:03:14
PO is s stupid skill
most of us would be happy to see it nrefed/restricted/removed.
most of us would be happy to see it nrefed/restricted/removed.
Posted by Dominik on 2014-11-16 01:12:39
Ive no problem with PO for Big Guys only. It makes Ogre playable, brings back Mino's and if it includes Tomb Guardians, Khemri would get back their old pride.
Posted by huff on 2014-11-16 01:30:38
So, the nerfs in [L] with PO made it the Pass Block of Strength skills? I'm alright with that.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-11-16 01:53:48
> most of us would be happy to see it nrefed/restricted/removed.
Yeah, and most of you don't realise how much more boring it'd make BB by removing it.
Yeah, and most of you don't realise how much more boring it'd make BB by removing it.
Posted by Dalfort on 2014-11-16 02:19:38
Just for clarity... the Ranked Minor is 1900 TW not 1900 TV...
Posted by member1234 on 2014-11-16 02:21:03
I wouldn't blanket any option. I'd perfer the second to be tested or given as options in league or whatever.
Going ST5+, or higher ST than your opponent, or any other change, could see a chain of impacts. It's not as simple as taking it in isolation.
If CWs/NWs/CDs don't take PO at for example, that could mean more non-basy teams make it higher, which in turn leads to more tackle, Tents or DT (on doubles) taken, which in turn, limits them, etc etc.
The Meta could shift any number of ways, and in varying environments. It could actually make things worse for them. Right now, with on dimensional anti-bash, they have a cakewalk often.
Personally, if we could get bash vs bash back to mostly positioning and tactics again, and shake up the meta a bit, I'd be all for ny change. I read elsewhere where stagnation is one of the big issues with an old ruleset and I'd go along with that to an extent as well. Even a "perfect" ruleset can use changes to keep it fresh. Or at least a Meta that can evolve/revolve with rock, paper, scissors rather than run to the end and stagnate as it has now. (Sign of flawed design, or in need of some change IMO, if we take Box is the base and gospel environment, which it isn't)
Long ramble, changing things at the top level is a pipe dream at best but good fodder for house rules. ;)
Going ST5+, or higher ST than your opponent, or any other change, could see a chain of impacts. It's not as simple as taking it in isolation.
If CWs/NWs/CDs don't take PO at for example, that could mean more non-basy teams make it higher, which in turn leads to more tackle, Tents or DT (on doubles) taken, which in turn, limits them, etc etc.
The Meta could shift any number of ways, and in varying environments. It could actually make things worse for them. Right now, with on dimensional anti-bash, they have a cakewalk often.
Personally, if we could get bash vs bash back to mostly positioning and tactics again, and shake up the meta a bit, I'd be all for ny change. I read elsewhere where stagnation is one of the big issues with an old ruleset and I'd go along with that to an extent as well. Even a "perfect" ruleset can use changes to keep it fresh. Or at least a Meta that can evolve/revolve with rock, paper, scissors rather than run to the end and stagnate as it has now. (Sign of flawed design, or in need of some change IMO, if we take Box is the base and gospel environment, which it isn't)
Long ramble, changing things at the top level is a pipe dream at best but good fodder for house rules. ;)
Posted by Tymless on 2014-11-16 03:24:39
Just make Dirty Player +2 again and all teams will be even.
Posted by Dominik on 2014-11-16 04:05:48
Can't see this with Lizardmen, Tymless. They would actually cry in pain...
Posted by Wizfall on 2014-11-16 09:26:34
1. and 2. would make the game much better for some teams.
Also Tomb Guardian as well as mummies are not Big Guy (built on a blocker base) ;)
Also Tomb Guardian as well as mummies are not Big Guy (built on a blocker base) ;)
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-16 09:30:51
Bash was never really about positioning and tactics. If you notice all the old school coaches who harp on about it had Orcs or Dwarfs with 9+ Guard. They may think they were tactical geniuses but it's pretty hard to win with superior tactics and positioning when you can't get a 2 dice block.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-11-16 12:03:56
There's the kernel of a good point in there. Sidestepping the never ending skill debate; I could the fallout over Malmir's Orc game puzzling.
I like Mal, I think he's a great coach. That Orc team is ridiculous. It should be the pantomime villain in any game it plays; to me it's a good advertisement for why open TV cups aren't really what one would call competitive (heavy forum topic ahoy).
And yet, when they're thinned out a bit as any team eventually is with the dice being prominent in the game, it's used as a pillar of the 'why the kill stack is bad' argument. If anything, didn't it do the game a favour in that case?
Regardless of what I think about it; the kill mechanic in BB had always been moaned about. Unless we want every team to look like Malmir's Orcs (and we should not), a kill mechanic must exist.
When I play Elves v ClawPOMB later, I hope the game is not one sided in either direction. I don't want the killers to go mental, I don't want to roll 2+ Blitz! kickoff results. But we play Blood Bowl, we know it might happen. And if I get two Blitz! kick offs, we are not going to have a 50 page forum topic on nerfing the kickoff table.
I'm no saying I like ClawPOMB; I've never had a player with that skill combination, and I think that tells you all you need to know. I just think the hysteria is hugely over the top, and actually detracts from the 'con' side of the argument.
I like Mal, I think he's a great coach. That Orc team is ridiculous. It should be the pantomime villain in any game it plays; to me it's a good advertisement for why open TV cups aren't really what one would call competitive (heavy forum topic ahoy).
And yet, when they're thinned out a bit as any team eventually is with the dice being prominent in the game, it's used as a pillar of the 'why the kill stack is bad' argument. If anything, didn't it do the game a favour in that case?
Regardless of what I think about it; the kill mechanic in BB had always been moaned about. Unless we want every team to look like Malmir's Orcs (and we should not), a kill mechanic must exist.
When I play Elves v ClawPOMB later, I hope the game is not one sided in either direction. I don't want the killers to go mental, I don't want to roll 2+ Blitz! kickoff results. But we play Blood Bowl, we know it might happen. And if I get two Blitz! kick offs, we are not going to have a 50 page forum topic on nerfing the kickoff table.
I'm no saying I like ClawPOMB; I've never had a player with that skill combination, and I think that tells you all you need to know. I just think the hysteria is hugely over the top, and actually detracts from the 'con' side of the argument.
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-11-16 12:04:47
*found. Tiny keyboard.
Posted by happygrue on 2014-11-16 15:57:52
I think the larger issue that is often glossed over is how much better the big bash teams could be against elves and ballers if they didn't constantly self-design themselves to play against other bash teams - which they do because the kill stack is so powerful they have no other option (or feel they don't). I fear a chaos or nurgle team so much more if they are built with a killer or two and some major tents, positional players (guard, some diving tackle, grab a frenzy/jugg surfer, etc.). Those guys can really shut elves down, but we don't see them much because even if they can beat bash teams too they end up hurting and take much longer to build up. Which is a shame, because those teams are also a blast to play against, with a real strength vs speed positioning dynamic and far less of the "score while I have players left" kind of game.
If the killstack wasn't so one sided I would *imagine* that we could actually see people play those hilariously fun chaos and nurgle teams taking fun mutations over clawspam. Or maybe I'm dead wrong, but I think sometimes the "killstack is needed" argument - while true at it's core - doesn't tell the full story. I think those teams are competitive now but they are just too frustrating to build up and so few people try. I think a better equilibrium could be reached between the needed killstack mechanic and making those other paths for the main offenders look more tempting. At least, that's my opinion. Maybe in practice it would not work out that way.
If the killstack wasn't so one sided I would *imagine* that we could actually see people play those hilariously fun chaos and nurgle teams taking fun mutations over clawspam. Or maybe I'm dead wrong, but I think sometimes the "killstack is needed" argument - while true at it's core - doesn't tell the full story. I think those teams are competitive now but they are just too frustrating to build up and so few people try. I think a better equilibrium could be reached between the needed killstack mechanic and making those other paths for the main offenders look more tempting. At least, that's my opinion. Maybe in practice it would not work out that way.
Posted by Wizfall on 2014-11-16 16:51:26
The orc team was/is ridiculous, if anything it shows how much CPOMB is needed.
How can anyone roots for such a ridiculously powerful team is beyond me.
CPOMB make fo potential one sided boring/displeasing games but between that and the alternative (lizards/orcs/dwarves guard/resilience extraordinaire) i know which one i choose without a doubt.
And i dislike CPOMB, never had a single CPOMBER as Purplegoo (difference though is that i play lot of chaos/Nurgle unlike him hehe).
How can anyone roots for such a ridiculously powerful team is beyond me.
CPOMB make fo potential one sided boring/displeasing games but between that and the alternative (lizards/orcs/dwarves guard/resilience extraordinaire) i know which one i choose without a doubt.
And i dislike CPOMB, never had a single CPOMBER as Purplegoo (difference though is that i play lot of chaos/Nurgle unlike him hehe).
Posted by member1234 on 2014-11-16 17:23:52
I think/hope the same though, and coming from a long time Chaos player that's the environment I'd like to have and build for. I've completely gone off them in their current form. The ideal would be a revolving meta like that where how anti-agil teams go leads to the rise and fall of their numbers, so they go anti-base and they come back again. Rinse, repeat.
As you say though no guarantee of that, may lie more deeply in the mechanics in that attrition will always limit high TV agility sides more than bash, no matter how deadly high TV bash is. Even now those teams go through waves and cycles of how many stacked players they can have/build at once, could be the same thing just with longer cycles and higher overall TV.
Clealry nothing will happen without some change though.
As you say though no guarantee of that, may lie more deeply in the mechanics in that attrition will always limit high TV agility sides more than bash, no matter how deadly high TV bash is. Even now those teams go through waves and cycles of how many stacked players they can have/build at once, could be the same thing just with longer cycles and higher overall TV.
Clealry nothing will happen without some change though.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-11-16 17:38:53
Well here is the fundamental imbalance in the game. Bashers need certain skills to be effective vs other bashers and a different set of skills to be effective vs ballers. However Agility teams just need one set of skills to face everyone.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-11-16 18:04:12
Which is the heart of what I'm saying Jimmy.
This is a pretty well balanced ruleset. The guys advocating nerfing PO don't understand that. Dicings happen either way. I got smashed as rats by orcs and it was almost nothing to do with PO. There is an over-tendency to attribute losses to bash teams to the killstack but it's going to happen anyway. People like their pixels.
I'd rather see an argument made on statistical and reasoned grounds. All I see is emotional nonsense by people who have little idea how to design a ruleset and little understanding of the balance in the current one.
This is a pretty well balanced ruleset. The guys advocating nerfing PO don't understand that. Dicings happen either way. I got smashed as rats by orcs and it was almost nothing to do with PO. There is an over-tendency to attribute losses to bash teams to the killstack but it's going to happen anyway. People like their pixels.
I'd rather see an argument made on statistical and reasoned grounds. All I see is emotional nonsense by people who have little idea how to design a ruleset and little understanding of the balance in the current one.
Posted by happygrue on 2014-11-16 18:40:28
Just because someone disagrees with some of what you're saying doesn't mean they "have no idea how balanced this ruleset is". And just because someone wants to change something doesn't mean love of pixels is the reason. If you want a reasoned debate, how about responding to the points that are made (for example, mine above) rather than throwing the "they all love pixels" generalization ball around again? The statistics speak for themselves in all the various clawpomb threads. Chaos and Nurgle get played all the time, clawpomb has an exceptionally high removal rate... what statistics are you looking for that haven't been laid out a dozen times before?
By the way, I agree with some of your points 'saw, but just lumping anyone who doesn't see it your way into a generalized camp of lamers isn't a debate.
By the way, I agree with some of your points 'saw, but just lumping anyone who doesn't see it your way into a generalized camp of lamers isn't a debate.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-11-17 21:50:25
Sorry for missing (rather than ignoring) your comment happygrue.
You are right in most of what you say.
However I think you are wrong in a key point, and I think a lot of people overlook this. Why build kill-based teams? It's not for survival against the killstack.
It's because killing pixels is the most fun thing to do in the game for some people. Just like Carlo loves fouling, many love inflicting casualties.
You are right in most of what you say.
However I think you are wrong in a key point, and I think a lot of people overlook this. Why build kill-based teams? It's not for survival against the killstack.
It's because killing pixels is the most fun thing to do in the game for some people. Just like Carlo loves fouling, many love inflicting casualties.
Posted by happygrue on 2014-11-18 03:13:50
I halfway agree. Sure, some people do really just love killing all menz and make that kind of team. But there are plenty of frustrated grumblings and teams of that ilk with the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality... which is speaks to how aspects of the rule set are not optimal. Yes, elves are going to do fine against these teams (though have pity on the T2-3 teams that have to deal with them), so maybe it's less about balance than about a few poor design choices that lead to a *large number* of games that are fair from a "who wins" point of view that are totally unfun for one side. That is - even if balanced - quite poor from a game design vantage point. Maybe this debate is more about the semantics of what "balanced" means? Well, no need to drag this on, I doubt we're going to fix it here. ;)