Anzelak
Joined: Nov 26, 2009
|
 Posted:
Dec 15, 2013 - 23:50 |
 
|
| Overhamsteren wrote: | It's also funny that the people who call coaches in favour of nerfing clawplomb for pixelhuggers happily ignores that the team best suited for pixelhugging in the box right now is in fact clawplomb chaos.  |
Can't be a pixel hugger if you're not playing CLAWPOMB because all your menz are going to get toilet flushed.  |
_________________
Proud Commissioner of the EEL. |
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:17 |
|
My problem with this idea is that people who do not even play black box are going to spam up this post.
People that complained about fouling in LRB4 are probably the ones who are going to complain about kill stack in LRB 6.
Killing pixels is part of blood bowl.
I have no data. However I do play more blackbox than anyone. And I do not like these suggestions.
I personally do not find kill stack remotely part of any problem at all.
The problems with black box, are anti-social coaches, and sweet spotting or "min-maxing" teams that poach new teams. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:25 |
|
| BillBrasky wrote: | My problem with this idea is that people who do not even play black box are going to spam up this post.
|
The problem with this is, that you've marked it as 'your' turf. This shouldn't be the case. Blackbox was never intended to be an extreme environment, but has been allowed to be so, because it has been so successful.
Because the success has gone beyond what the creator thought, should it be allowed to continue? Especially as it's become an extreme version of BloodBowl.
I think we can all agree, that BlackBox has become the Marmite of bloodbowl. You either love it or hate it.
I'm sure with tinkering, it could become an environment where more people invested time in it, but kept the hardcore players (who were there for positive reasons). |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Since it seems no one is providing math to the discussion, I've put together a little utility for you to consider:
The FUMBBL Killstack Calculator
It shows Stun / Ko / Injury rates for various combinations of armour, skill and client options and behaviours. Note that there may be problems with the numbers as it's relatively hard to verify everything. It does seem to match all the sources I've compared against though. Enjoy playing around with it. It's only tested in Safari on OS X, since it's mostly a little helper utility for me. Let me know if it breaks down on other platforms. |
|
|
nufflehatesme
Joined: Nov 02, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:29 |
|
i like the idea of a changed blackbox, but the new rules is hurting a lot more teams than just clpomb spam. humans and other non elf av8 teams get nerfed (slightly better against clpomb builds, much worse against elves without a killer pomb). does pomb need to be nerfed? or just clpomb? do humans really need to be nerfed?
either way, all the elven teams (who already win the most in the box) get a major buff if claw, AND piling on is weakened, with absolutely no nerf (- the occasional pombing elf). that alone should be a major red flag to the proposal.
quite simply, you are improving balance by buffing the races that win the most?
fix how games are matched before fixing the rules imo.
as others have said, changing the rules is a very slippery road to go down.
if you were to do this, i would use all of plasmoids suggestions, or none and something else. |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:37 |
|
The simple fact that you're considering changes to improve Box makes me want to play here more, thanks Christer.
My main concern with the proposal is that both address only one side of the equation: both are armour buffs. While there is a small effect on casualty rate overall, it is indirect via the Claw and PO armour roll nerfs. I'd rather see rule changes that address the problem directly (see below), which is easy removal (and permanent team devastation) of AV7 (adjusted or not). NTBB doesn't do this imo.
My secondary concern is that the fluff doesn't work. Exactly why wouldn't MB apply to Claw, if it applies to AV7? Claw makes it as if the armour wasn't there. Well then MB should work too. Also, PO on injury is a non-sequitor: you've made your "hit", your opponent is on the ground, now you're getting up and hitting again? Well then you need to break armour again, of course. PO should always be armour and only armour for this reason, imo.
* It should be noted that while both armour buffs hurt CPOMB, they also simultaneously help mutating teams keep their players alive. The result could perversely result in bigger, stronger, higher-TV killer teams than ever before. *
So I would say (at the risk of going off-topic):
a) Claw is good as-is and should stack with damage skills, although the effect needs to be available to all races somehow;
b) PO is the problem as long as MB is MB, and should be removed or changed;
c) MB ultimately needs to be separated into 2 skills, which could then interact with each other and with Claw, but not with PO in its current form;
d) Injury modifications need to be Stunty-esque: a "9" should be auto BH.
Having said all that, I think the proposal is a positive step. I just think it misses the core issues. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:39 |
|
| Christer wrote: | Since it seems no one is providing math to the discussion, I've put together a little utility for you to consider:
|
Personally (and I don't think I'm alone here) maths formulas mean diddly squat COMPARED TO play testing.
I'd like to see something chosen, given a run and then if it doesn't work how predicted, for that to be discussed and improved.
BB was invented without complex formula and the foundations of what we run were made without them. Sure I think they can be helpful, but not the be all and end all and are occasionally the wrong decision. |
|
|
nufflehatesme
Joined: Nov 02, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:51 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Christer wrote: | Since it seems no one is providing math to the discussion, I've put together a little utility for you to consider:
|
Personally (and I don't think I'm alone here) maths formulas mean diddly squat COMPARED TO play testing.
|
you are joking right?
flix told everyone clpomb was too strong 5+ years ago as it removed a player from the pitch 58% of the time. now, i am not sure if he playtested heaps and it averaged out to 58% of the time a player was removed, or he just did the maths to work out the probability, then decided 58% is too high. what do you think he did?
you need both imo. you need to know exactly how your changes are affecting the probabilities. no point introducing a fix if it doesn't change the probabilities in any significant way.
then playtest to see if that is the right fix. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:52 |
|
Not read the whole thread so this may already have been pointed out:
Has anyone pointed out that the LRB/CRP rules weren't designed for a straight up TV matchmaking system?
This is why the whole inducement system was created. Access to more Apothecaries, Chainsaw players, Wizards, Bloodweiser Babes etc.
I may be behind the times but from what I recall Fumbbl has never had a division that implements the rules as designed? This was the main reason behind me not playing again when the new client was created.
Would it not be worth trying to follow the rules before deviating further away from them to fix an issue that's arisen from creating a division that already deviated from them...?
Before people start screaming hellfire at this, consider the pros and cons from each of the different kinds of TV match ups this will create.
/Devil's advocate |
|
|
nufflehatesme
Joined: Nov 02, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 00:57 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: | Not read the whole thread so this may already have been pointed out:
Has anyone pointed out that the LRB/CRP rules weren't designed for a straight up TV matchmaking system?
This is why the whole inducement system was created. Access to more Apothecaries, Chainsaw players, Wizards, Bloodweiser Babes etc.
I may be behind the times but from what I recall Fumbbl has never had a division that implements the rules as designed? This was the main reason behind me not playing again when the new client was created.
Would it not be worth trying to follow the rules before deviating further away from them to fix an issue that's arisen from creating a division that already deviated from them...?
Before people start screaming hellfire at this, consider the pros and cons from each of the different kinds of TV match ups this will create.
/Devil's advocate |
this |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:02 |
|
| nufflehatesme wrote: | i like the idea of a changed blackbox, but the new rules is hurting a lot more teams than just clpomb spam. humans and other non elf av8 teams get nerfed (slightly better against clpomb builds, much worse against elves without a killer pomb). does pomb need to be nerfed? or just clpomb? do humans really need to be nerfed?
either way, all the elven teams (who already win the most in the box) get a major buff if claw, AND piling on is weakened, with absolutely no nerf (- the occasional pombing elf). that alone should be a major red flag to the proposal.
quite simply, you are improving balance by buffing the races that win the most?
|
This seems a good point to me. Sure, this whole thing ends up making some builds worse - the more claw and PO you have, the worse your build is going to be. That is going to also create some winners - and elves surely stand to gain from this.
But recall that the larger goal here is to have fun. Some people do indeed have fun with these heavy claw heavy MB/PO builds. And yet, even though elves beat these builds, there are as of now 104 active elf teams of ALL types, compared to 85 active chaos teams. Why aren't the elves, who win more - I daresay even win EASILY - against the chaos clawpombers played more? Shouldn't the box be full of the teams it's easiest to win with? Well, I can't answer that question for sure, but in my experience even wining games against monster teams usually isn't much fun. As Bill points out, some coaches are much more fun to play against then others. Since we're all here to have fun, the only conclusion I can draw from the current VERY STACKED race distribution of the box is that playing those races isn't much fun right now EVEN if you end up winning a lot.
Would some changes to nerf the monster teams (and yes, humans suffer a bit but gain in not having to recover from getting clawpombed back to the stone age quite so much) mean more elves? Surely it would. More elves and other stuff too I'd imagine. That's one more reason to make the change IMO!
And finally, what if the changes are a total flop and everyone who is wailing at the moment - let's call them "Current Fantastic-Rules Huggers" - is dead right. The box is destroyed by a mass exodus and everyone hates the new tweaks while none of the folks who are interested in testing them play more. What is lost? The changes get revered in a month and we all have learned something. Oh the horror! |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:05 |
|
| nufflehatesme wrote: |
quite simply, you are improving balance by buffing the races that win the most?
|
Ding ding ding we have a winner!
Maybe there are more Chaos teams because more people have fun using them? I mean I guess all these people who are using Chaos and Cds don't hate the fact they are playing loads of games. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:09 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: | Not read the whole thread so this may already have been pointed out:
Has anyone pointed out that the LRB/CRP rules weren't designed for a straight up TV matchmaking system?
This is why the whole inducement system was created. Access to more Apothecaries, Chainsaw players, Wizards, Bloodweiser Babes etc.
I may be behind the times but from what I recall Fumbbl has never had a division that implements the rules as designed? This was the main reason behind me not playing again when the new client was created.
Would it not be worth trying to follow the rules before deviating further away from them to fix an issue that's arisen from creating a division that already deviated from them...?
Before people start screaming hellfire at this, consider the pros and cons from each of the different kinds of TV match ups this will create.
/Devil's advocate |
The Dook is back, NOW you know this discussion is serious!
As for me, I support both of Christers changes in post #1 & would likely begin playing box again if they are activated to help in the testing. I do also tend to agree w/ others that they should maybe be implemented in [R] as well, but maybe that waits until the change is deemed successful. |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley
Last edited by Nightbird on %b %16, %2013 - %01:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
nufflehatesme
Joined: Nov 02, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:16 |
|
@happygrue
so for elf coach's to have fun, they need to not only win more than any other race, but not suffer attrition as well?
and every other coach just has to accept that you will probably lose to elves, but hey it 's nice to see them in the box?
i am all for nerfing clpomb as chaos v orcs or dwarves at high tv is just silly, but nerfing pomb will have much larger ramifications. |
Last edited by nufflehatesme on %b %16, %2013 - %01:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:17 |
|
| nufflehatesme wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | | Christer wrote: | Since it seems no one is providing math to the discussion, I've put together a little utility for you to consider:
|
Personally (and I don't think I'm alone here) maths formulas mean diddly squat COMPARED TO play testing.
|
you are joking right?
flix told everyone clpomb was too strong 5+ years ago as it removed a player from the pitch 58% of the time. now, i am not sure if he playtested heaps and it averaged out to 58% of the time a player was removed, or he just did the maths to work out the probability, then decided 58% is too high. what do you think he did?
you need both imo. you need to know exactly how your changes are affecting the probabilities. no point introducing a fix if it doesn't change the probabilities in any significant way.
then playtest to see if that is the right fix. |
I'm not sure you made a point. You are unsure of Flix's method of finding that flaw (ok he pointed out the maths involved). However, what is clear is that clawpomb was not tested in a high TV perpetual league, and that's what counts.
Sure I'm not going to deny that the maths helps out, but intuition counts for more IMO. And both need to be used to play test a system, which should be the major quantifier.
And of course, this topic is heading off of topic. Wouldn't be a forum without it.... |
|
|
|
|
| |
Borg Invasion
Search
