Claw - any armour roll of 8 or more

[Mossman]

I edited the earlier post with my proposed system since I accidentally mixed up two different systems I had in mind which made Chaos to good. RSC is removed now and Claw is still +1 to armor but stackable with MB.


Another system that is very often proposed and with less changes to the skills is simply turning back Piling On to how it worked in lrb4 and let the rest of the skills stay the same.

Compared to the first system I presented this will make clawpomb a little bit better against av9. The damage will be +3/+0 or +2/+1 in both systems but the difference is that in the first one you have to go prone more often with Piling On in order to get that +1 to the armor roll.

Compared to the first system this will also make Chaos worse against av7 teams since they wont get +1 to their armor.

And compared to the first system this will also make hybrid teams worse against av9 teams since they wont get +1 to the armor roll when piling on.

Since the first system nerfed clawpomb more against av9 (which I think is needed) and since the first system helped hybrids more against av9 teams (which I also think is needed) I think the first system is superior to this one. But this one is still much much better than CRP's though.


But another system that might be good also is this one:

Mighty Blow: +1/+1
Piling On: may only re-roll armor roll
Claw: reduce armor to 8
Razor Sharp Claw: +1 to armor

everything stacks.

Compared to the other two systems this one would perhaps be the biggest nerf to clawpomb against av9. Because to get +3/+0 or +2/+1 damage you would now have to take one more skill which would increase the cost of the clawpomber by 20 TV.

But in this system hybrid teams like humans would struggle more against av9 compared to the first system since they wouldnt get +1 to armor rolls against them with Piling On. Also the attrition against av9 would be less compared to the first system for the same reason.

[daloonieshaman]

just take out claw

[dode74]

That's a change in design goals though, is it not?

As I'd say at work, its a clarification

Question: why? If the game isn't designed to be played in a TV-matched environment then why would it matter what the win%s are at certain TVs? If there is an issue then make inducements better at making up the difference and then people can choose the TV they play at and still have a decent chance. I'm not advocating that inducements should make things 50-50, but 30% as an average (which is what is being achieved) is to the advantage of the high-TV efficient teams.

Mossman - I still don't see any numbers, so I can't really form an opinion on the basics.

[Darkson]

just take out claw

And your alternative proposal for removal of AV9 teams is...?

[daloonieshaman]

just take out claw

And your alternative proposal for removal of AV9 teams is...?

bring back igmeou

[Mossman]

Mossman - I still don't see any numbers, so I can't really form an opinion on the basics.

What kind of numbers do you want? The probability to cause a casulty or knockout with these skills and combos? For that you only need the numbers for the lrb4 skills. But cant find those anywhere at the moment.

But when clawpomb is so unbalanced as it is right now you dont exactly have to be precise, just taking it to the right direction is a big improvement of the game.

Also you can get far by just using comparsions like I did in my last post when I compared different systems.

[dode74]

are you sure more armor points will be reduced totally with POMB than currently with CPOMB? I dont think so.

It's not about armour points being reduced, it's about the relative balance of ability to cause a casualty.

I dont think the importance of AV would be reduced relatively to now. I think it would have been increased.

Really? When anyone can take a skill which negates points of it?

Yes, a nerf against Chaos by removing the special bonus of not being affected by Claw and a general boost against every other team. Definitiately worth it.

No, a nerf against the AV7 teams who will have an effectively lower AV against anyone with S access.

There is nothing that says that av7 teams need a special bonus against Chaos, and only against Chaos, that not any other team need.

Chaos, Nurgle, Necro, Norse, Skaven. All of them have access.

Another system that is very often proposed and with less changes to the skills is simply turning back Piling On to how it worked in lrb4 and let the rest of the skills stay the same.

I'd be happier with that than your proposal, although I doubt PO would be taken much at all then.

But when clawpomb is so unbalanced as it is right now you dont exactly have to be precise, just taking it to the right direction is a big improvement of the game.

You say that as if it is fact - I don't think it is.

[Chris]

What would be the problem with claw affecting both the user and the target? So any player with claw counts as armour 7? That would make people stop spamming it - but you would still have a couple for targeted assaination.

[daloonieshaman]

What would be the problem with claw affecting both the user and the target? So any player with claw counts as armour 7? That would make people stop spamming it - but you would still have a couple for targeted assaination.

are you talking kinda like chain saw?

[DoubleSkulls]

That's a change in design goals though, is it not?

As I'd say at work, its a clarification

Question: why? If the game isn't designed to be played in a TV-matched environment then why would it matter what the win%s are at certain TVs? If there is an issue then make inducements better at making up the difference and then people can choose the TV they play at and still have a decent chance. I'm not advocating that inducements should make things 50-50, but 30% as an average (which is what is being achieved) is to the advantage of the high-TV efficient teams.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I'm saying that humans, for example, should be somewhere between .450 and .550 from 0.8m to 2.8m. So Chaos who start off very bad still shouldn't be worse than .450, and as they get better at higher TVs shouldn't exceed .550. So I'm talking absolute TV, not relative TV.

I can't see the relationship to TV based match making or inducements.

[dode74]

I'm saying that humans, for example, should be somewhere between .450 and .550 from 0.8m to 2.8m.

Against who, and at what TV are they? I doubt you're suggesting that 1000TV humans should be 0.45 vs a 2000TV WE team, so I can only assume you mean that they should be playing a similar TV team, which is why I mentioned TV-based MM. If, however, you mean that humans should have an overall win% of 0.45-0.55 no matter what TV team they are playing against then the inducement system needs overhauling so that things are closer than the 30% aimed for which seems to be being achieved.

[Chris]

What would be the problem with claw affecting both the user and the target? So any player with claw counts as armour 7? That would make people stop spamming it - but you would still have a couple for targeted assaination.

are you talking kinda like chain saw?

Yes.

[Mossman]

Okay I have the numbers now for my proposal.

Chance to cause KO or CAS:

POMB vs AV7: 44,27%
POMB vs AV8: 34,82%
POMB vs AV9: 34,82%

C+MB vs AV7: 39,81%
C+MB vs AV8: 31,25%
C+MB vs AV9: 21,99%

CPOMB vs AV7: 50,87%
CPOMB vs AV8: 44,27%
CPOMB vs AV9: 44,27%



Lets compare with LRB4.

Some numbers for LRB4:

POMB vs AV7: 44,27%
POMB vs AV8: 34,82%
POMB vs AV9: 24,72%

C+MB vs AV7: 42,13%
C+MB vs AV8: 34,03%
C+MB vs AV9: 24,31%


As you can see my proposal will make pomb better against av9 compared to LRB4. I dont think thats a bad thing because Piling On was rarely taken in LRB4 and therefore I don't think it's a bad idea to improve it a litte bit against av9 which it was weakest against in lrb4 since you seldom dared to use it against such high armor. This will also increase attrition against AV9 which I think is good and it will help hybrid teams perform better against av9 teams.

You can also see that C+MB has been weakened in my proposal compared to LRB4. This nerf is important since a double isnt required for Claw anymore.



Now lets compare it to CRP.

Some number for CRP:

POMB vs AV7: 58,45%
POMB vs AV8: 44,95%
POMB vs AV9: 31,47%

C+MB vs AV7: 31,25%
C+MB vs AV8: 31,25%
C+MB vs AV9: 31,25%

CPOMB vs AV7: 58,45%
CPOMB vs AV8: 58,45%
CPOMB vs AV9: 58,45%


As you can see my proposal has nerfed POMB a lot compared to CRP except against av9 teams where it has been made a little bit better thanks to Piling On reducing armor to 8 in my proposal.

C+MB has been nerfed against av9 in my proposal which is a good thing since Chaos has way to high win% against av9 teams in CRP.

And CPOMB has of course been nerfed against everything.

An overall nerf to POMB and CPOMB is the single most important change you can do to CRP. The reason for this has nothing to do with balancing teams against each other, the reason for this is POMB and CPOMB itself. In CRP it is way to easy to remove players from the pitch by simply blitzing them with POMB/CPOMB and that makes these combos to game deciding. The problem with POMB/CPOMB being to game deciding is that blitzing with a hitter doesnt require enough skill from the coach to deserve being that game deciding. By nerfing POMB/CPOMB the simple tactic of blitzing with a pomber every turn will be less game deciding and instead a variety of tactics that require more skill and thought from the coach will start to shine more instead. Strategy and thinking will play a bigger roll in the game and luck will play less.

[dode74]

Interesting, and I'd like to see them split down into KO and cas probabilities individually. This is where my major issue is:

Code: Select all

Your proposal:
CPOMB vs AV7: 50,87%
CPOMB vs AV8: 44,27%
CPOMB vs AV9: 44,27%
CRP:
CPOMB vs AV7: 58,45%
CPOMB vs AV8: 58,45%
CPOMB vs AV9: 58,45%

A reduction across the board, which is great, but a smaller reduction for AV7 players/teams. Now before you start telling me that elven teams don't need the help, many elven players are actually AV8, and there are lots of other players, some of which are quite crucial to the team (GRs, ghouls, various catchers, the whole amazon team, many norse) who will be effected. This is a relative nerf to their survivability and, as such, to the teams on which they play. Teams with all AV8 and 9 (Orcs, Dwarves, Chaos...) stand to gain the most, while those with any AV7 gain the least.

That said, the idea is interesting.

[Mossman]

Probability to cause CAS in my proposal:

POMB vs AV7: 20.33%
POMB vs AV8: 15.88%
POMB vs AV9: 15.88%

C+MB vs AV7: 18.52%
C+MB vs AV8: 14.35%
C+MB vs AV9: 10.03%

CPOMB vs AV7: 23.66%
CPOMB vs AV8: 20.33%
CPOMB vs AV9: 20.33%


Probability to cause CAS in LRB4:

POMB vs AV7: 20.33%
POMB vs AV8: 15.88%
POMB vs AV9: 11.16%

C+MB vs AV7: 20.06%
C+MB vs AV8: 16.20%
C+MB vs AV9: 11.57%

CPOMB vs AV7: 25.63%
CPOMB vs AV8: 22.96%
CPOMB vs AV9: 18.33%


Probability to cause CAS in CRP:

POMB vs AV7: 26.77%
POMB vs AV8: 20.45%
POMB vs AV9: 14.17%

C+MB vs AV7: 14.35%
C+MB vs AV8: 14.35%
C+MB vs AV9: 14.35%

CPOMB vs AV7: 26.77%
CPOMB vs AV8: 26.77%
CPOMB vs AV9: 26.77%


As you can see the switch from LRB4 to CRP decreased the relative survivability of av7 against POMB.

My proposal changes that back and on top of it it is also increased even further thanks to the armor reduction on av9 teams. So against POMB the relative survivability of av7 is increased a lot compared to CRP.

So it is only against Claw it is relatively decreased compared to CRP. However against clawpomb it is a pretty small difference.


Relative survivability between AV7 and AV9:

vs no skills
2.50

vs MB
2.21

vs POMB
lrb4: 1.82
crp: 1.88
proposal: 1.28

vs C+MB
lrb4: 1.73
crp: 1
proposal: 1.85

vs CPOMB
lrb4: 1.40
crp: 1
proposal: 1.16