Why ClawPOMB is broken

Don't understand a particular rule or just need to clarify something? This is the forum for you. With 2 of the BBRC members and the main LRB5/6 writer present at TFF, you're bound to get as good an answer as possible.

Moderator: TFF Mods

Locked
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by VoodooMike »

plasmoid wrote:Considering how many people have had to be told this, that "I" isn't alone. But just how many people feel this way? Perhaps worth investigating?
A similar number of people have had to be told that the RNG isn't broken or cheating in... any games that involve RNG. Perception, even mass perception, doesn't influence fact. It was considered an unquestioning truth that the earth was flat once upon a time... turns out people were just wrong. So far the data says people are "just wrong" on CPOMB as well unless we start talking about something other than winning games.

You go ahead and investigate the feelsies of people. I'm a pretty strong advocate of following the facts and letting people get their shit in line with those facts rather than the alternative.
plasmoid wrote:But we don't know which percentage of CPOMBers actually enjoy it, and which percentage only play CPOMB because they see it as the least unenjoyable of the options "a) score TDs, have your team destroyed, start over" and "b) destroy others so they have Little chance of destroying you". Again, perhaps worth investigating.
Its a game, plasmoid. Not only is it a game, it's a game you don't have to play... and there are a million other games you could be playing in its stead. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the people who are choosing to play the game are doing so because they're having fun. Other than profit and mental illness and coercion what reasons can you think of for someone to play a game they don't enjoy?
plasmoid wrote:True. Very true in a rez environment.
In non-rez, the nature of injuries makes this a lot harder to gauge.
Nope, sure doesn't. We have data from non-rez environments and CPOMB teams are not winning all their games. They're not even winning an insanely high number of their games especially against agility teams. They're good at beating other bash teams when those bash teams try to out-bash them and fail.
plasmoid wrote:Given a, say, rating 1800 High Elf team and a rating 1800 Chaos CPOMB team, which team would win? High Elfs?
How about best out of 3?
Best out of 5? 7?
Pretty disingenuous, that. What are we matching them on... plasmoid's opportunistic example matching? In a TV matched environment any damage sustained by the elf team during their first fairly likely victory would mean they're unlikely to play that same chaos team again any time soon. The same is true in a TVPlus environment. In a challenge environment they'd have the option not to play that team again (or, if done with RAW, they'd be prohibited from doing it again without facing other teams). In a league they'd almost certainly face other teams several times before facing that chaos team again. In most tournament formats they'd be done facing that chaos team after one play.
plasmoid wrote:Eventually, my Money would be firmly on the Chaos team to carry the day. I'm thinking from best out 5 and up. YMMV.
You're talking about long-term attrition and its effect on open play environments. That's not a cpomb thing.. cpomb just happens to be at the upper end of attrition causing. Remove cpomb and we'd have the exact same discussion about the SECOND best method for causing attrition, which would now be the first best.
plasmoid wrote:Just curious here, would there be any valid information in setting up a poll on TFF, FUMBBL and Cyanide saying:
"Blood Bowl would be more enjoyable to me, if the combo Claw + Piling On + Mighty Blow was less efficient."
I don't know... would it generate any valid information to set up a poll asking if the RNG is broken? Would having more yes votes than no votes make it broken? My guess is no.
Wifflebat wrote:Do their TVs plummet dramatically compared to games vs. non-ClawPOMB teams?
Do their W-L records suffer significantly more after playing ClawPOMB teams?
Replace "ClawPOMB" in your questions with absolutely any bash roster, bash skills, etc. The real issue here is not CPOMB itself, it is uneven levels of attrition in long-term play. Any imbalance in the way attrition is distributed to teams is going to be exponentially obvious in an environment where you can (and probably will) play far, far more games with your team than you would in a structured league or tournament.
Wifflebat wrote:The real question for me is, does playing a ClawPOMB team unfairly cripple a team's ability to function in future games?
To answer that we need to define "unfair", and give "future games" context. Even if you play a game in which 10 of your 11 players die, and you wind up with 0 gold, you're able to continue playing your team... and you'll be able to rebuild it. I wouldn't, of course... neither would you, but that's why we need to establish definitions for what we're talking about rather than leave them ambiguous.

For me the real question is: do uneven rates of long-term attrition adversely impact the general play environment? By "adversely impact" I mean create an environment where a small set of rosters are overwhelmingly represented and the rest are very significantly less represented. If CPOMB were totally removed (and nobody is actually saying it should be, we should note) or toned down a bit, would it significantly impact that long-term attrition imbalance? I absolutely do not believe it would.

So what it boils down to is subjective feel. Some people just want it toned down, though doing so will not actually result in anything but them feeling a wee bit satisfied. Heavy bash teams will continue to be over-represented in open matchmaking just as they will continue to mostly lose their games and accomplish little in other environments - possibly performing even worse in those other environments.

Reason: ''
Image
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Darkson,
nope, not making up facts. You were just itching to get in a jab so bad that you didn't bother to read properly.

I said we didn't know the percentage of people why play CPOMB because they like the alternative even less.
I also didn't say that teams actually get destroyed, but that the fear of getting your team destroyed might make you opt for the "join them" in the "if you can't beat them, join them".

As for the High Elfs vs Chaos example, I did say:
In non-rez, the nature of injuries makes this a lot harder to gauge.
I know this isn't an actual test, but just to clarify
I'm astounded that neither you nor Dode bothered to understand that.
My point was that beating CPOMB isn't just about the touchdowns. It is also about surviving. Or you will just lose down the line.
Kind of the point Wifflebat was making - but apparently my wording was too complicated.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
User avatar
Bakunin
Star Player
Star Player
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:39 am
Location: Norsca

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by Bakunin »

+1 to Wulfyn and this thread

Reason: ''
Galak 3:16 says "There is a point in time that a player really should read the rulebook."
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by Darkson »

plasmoid wrote:I'm astounded that neither you nor Dode bothered to understand that.
I understood you were talking a load of twaddle in the hope that someone would think you were talking from a position of actual information, which we both know you aren't.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
User avatar
Wifflebat
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:56 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by Wifflebat »

VoodooMike wrote:
Wifflebat wrote:The real question for me is, does playing a ClawPOMB team unfairly cripple a team's ability to function in future games?
To answer that we need to define "unfair", and give "future games" context. Even if you play a game in which 10 of your 11 players die, and you wind up with 0 gold, you're able to continue playing your team... and you'll be able to rebuild it. I wouldn't, of course... neither would you, but that's why we need to establish definitions for what we're talking about rather than leave them ambiguous.

For me the real question is: do uneven rates of long-term attrition adversely impact the general play environment? By "adversely impact" I mean create an environment where a small set of rosters are overwhelmingly represented and the rest are very significantly less represented. If CPOMB were totally removed (and nobody is actually saying it should be, we should note) or toned down a bit, would it significantly impact that long-term attrition imbalance? I absolutely do not believe it would.

So what it boils down to is subjective feel. Some people just want it toned down, though doing so will not actually result in anything but them feeling a wee bit satisfied. Heavy bash teams will continue to be over-represented in open matchmaking just as they will continue to mostly lose their games and accomplish little in other environments - possibly performing even worse in those other environments.
Understanding that I'm not advocating for changes to ClawPOMB here--I've not experienced problems, perceived or measured, with ClawPOMB teams, but I haven't played much under LRB6.

Let's imagine that data showed that, say, for games as a whole, TV delta was typically in a range of +30 to -30, while for games against "bashy" teams the range was +10 to -40, while against ClawPOMB teams, the range was -30 to -120. Would that be enough to consider changes? A knee-jerk reaction might suggest so--but then, would changing ClawPOMB nerf the win rate of ClawPOMB teams?

I think attrition is a pretty good metric; obviously everybody isn't playing Chaos Dwarves, so ClawPOMB is not game-breaking by any reasonable standard. (In leagues or tourneys, long-term MM doesn't concern me at all...) But, there may be a "fun" factor that's worth considering--If Dark Elf teams have to be restarted twice for every ClawPOMB team that makes it three seasons into a league, does that mean the rules are worth looking at? Would you include restarted and abandoned teams in your definition of 'attrition'?

Like I said, I've got no agenda, but it may not be as simple as win rates and league composition, and there may yet be data to help figure it out.

Reason: ''
I was Puzzlemonkey, but now I'm Wifflebat. Please forward my mail...
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by VoodooMike »

plasmoid wrote:I said we didn't know the percentage of people why play CPOMB because they like the alternative even less.
We know that people have the option to play in other environments or play other games. Your assertion that some people just can't handle doing anything but playing Blood Bowl with a CPOMB team but hate every second of it, throwing block after block with tears in their eyes... is stupid beyond belief.
plasmoid wrote:I also didn't say that teams actually get destroyed, but that the fear of getting your team destroyed might make you opt for the "join them" in the "if you can't beat them, join them".
Who cares? The fear of vampires might make you stock up on garlic and wooden stakes but it doesn't mean the world needs to put anti-vampire measures in place just because you've got the IQ of a houseplant and a very loose grasp on reality.
plasmoid wrote:My point was that beating CPOMB isn't just about the touchdowns. It is also about surviving. Or you will just lose down the line.
In plasmoid's imaginary play environment, you mean? Again, let me remind you that we don't see CPOMB being an issue in structured play leagues, tournaments, challenge leagues, etc.. in fact, the only place we see CPOMB even being a complaint is open perpetual play environments. If you're trying to make a case that CPOMB is a problem for the entire game of Blood Bowl then you need to make a case that it affects the entire game of Blood Bowl. If you can't then all we're really talking about is a metagame issue that can be dealt with using a metagame adjustment.
plasmoid wrote:Kind of the point Wifflebat was making - but apparently my wording was too complicated.
Hah, I'm sure if we search hard enough we'll find someone who actually thinks the reason people don't appreciate the things you say is that you're operating at such a high intellectual level that they can't understand you.

Personally, I think you're just much less well-spoken than you imagine you are.
Wifflebat wrote:Let's imagine that data showed that, say, for games as a whole, TV delta was typically in a range of +30 to -30, while for games against "bashy" teams the range was +10 to -40, while against ClawPOMB teams, the range was -30 to -120. Would that be enough to consider changes?
No. Two reasons: first off, your example involves eyeballing numbers to guesstimate statistical significance rather than calculating it (which we can't do using just the numbers from your example). So the better question is whether or not the TV change vs. general bash or CPOMB bash at the same TV level is significantly (in the statistical term) different.

If it is then the answer is still not "yes" as we need to ask whether or not those games occur in the context of anything but open play. I have seen countless CPOMB complaints over the years but every single one of them came from open environment play. If our problems only occur in a single play environment then making changes that will affect ALL environments simply to assuage a feature of one environment is insane, especially if there exist other options to handle that one environment's issues.
Wifflebat wrote:I think attrition is a pretty good metric
Only if "attrition" is constant between play environments, which we know it is not. If we want to discuss attrition then we can, but understand that attrition issues are not the same as CPOMB issues - a fact that many of the anti-CPOMB people don't seem able to wrap their heads around. CPOMB contributes to differential attrition rates, but they exist with or without CPOMB.

To be more clear... lets say we use your above example of the imaginary data saying there is a significant difference between TV delta vs. a cpomb team than vs a non-cpomb bash team. What if the data shows a significant difference in TV delta when facing non-cpomb Orc teams and non-cpomb Dwarf teams? Would that convince you that changes need to be made? Do we repeat the process with every type of team until there is no difference in general TV delta, or are we claiming it only matters when CPOMB is involved?
Wifflebat wrote:But, there may be a "fun" factor that's worth considering
There is no way to consider individually subjective factors. There isn't even a good way to consider subjective opinions even when people are willing to offer them up: you end up with dramatic overrepresentation of highly vocal, involved netizens who happen to be the people who are showing up to voice them. Do they represent the norm? How would we know? Take a poll of the same people? ;)
Wifflebat wrote:If Dark Elf teams have to be restarted twice for every ClawPOMB team that makes it three seasons into a league, does that mean the rules are worth looking at?
No. Again, we know this isn't the case outside of certain environments.. why the hell would we change the rules that apply to ALL environments just because one environment runs into problems? Instead we would alter the way we run that one environment... we could, for example, simply make open play a non-attrition environment and voila, we keep the same rules but we no longer have a differential attrition problem.
Wifflebat wrote:Like I said, I've got no agenda, but it may not be as simple as win rates and league composition, and there may yet be data to help figure it out.
All the data we've seen tells us that CPOMB is not an objective issue with Blood Bowl. When you find real data that says otherwise we can talk about it... until then it's all just talking shit, right?

Reason: ''
Image
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by plasmoid »

OK, Darkson, seems you aren't interested in any actual conversation. Fair enough.

Dode, as stated above, the Chaos/HE repeat performance was just a way of saying that while it is possible to beat CPOMB teams by outscoring them, it does get a harder if the previous game (or indeed a large portion of your games) was also against a CPOMB team. Due to expected MNG/death.

About the poll:
You'd need MUCH more information. How many games played, in what environment, with which teams, at what TV etc etc to even begin to make inferences.
Are you saying that some opinions should be worth than others, or what is the sorting for?
I just wanted to know if a majority considered the current iteration of CPOMB detrimental to their enjoyment of the game.
Then there's the clear bias of such polls whereby people opt into the forums themselves, there are many TT players you won't reach, and there will be a whole bunch of people who simply don't care enough about the issue to even vote, meaning there is a bias towards "yes" before you even begin. People who are bothered about CPOMB will be more likely to respond to CPOMB threads or polls than those who aren't.
Wouldn't that need to be proven post poll? I mean, it's easy to claim, but is it actually true?
I'd say that CPOMB is such a hot button issue, that people who think it is fine will want to make that point.
I'd also say that there is a bias towards no, given that we're only asking people who actually still follow the game, and presumably enjoy it - rather than people who have given up on it due to a bad experience.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by VoodooMike »

plasmoid wrote:Wouldn't that need to be proven post poll? I mean, it's easy to claim, but is it actually true?
No. In fact, you even saying that is a prelude to scumbag dishonesty whereby you use more unfalsifiable shit and then demand it be falsified or accepted as true. The point of a poll would be to attempt to find out the attitudes of a population... then you demand that someone prove that the poll is inaccurate? You understand that to do that you'd need accurate attitude information to compare it with... recursive stupidity.
plasmoid wrote:I'd also say that there is a bias towards no, given that we're only asking people who actually still follow the game, and presumably enjoy it - rather than people who have given up on it due to a bad experience.
It doesn't matter which direction the self-selection bias goes in - it's bias, which is a source of error and confound. We already know from decades of research that self-selection results in major inaccuracies because the only people inclined to self-select are people with strong feelings on the matter... which means you don't end up with data on how everyone feels, you get data on which way feelings go among people who have strong feelings on the matter... and what the hell use is that?

Reason: ''
Image
User avatar
Wifflebat
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:56 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by Wifflebat »

VoodooMike wrote:All the data we've seen tells us that CPOMB is not an objective issue with Blood Bowl. When you find real data that says otherwise we can talk about it... until then it's all just talking shit, right?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing here. Trying to identify what data might make sense to gather, and what skeptics might find compelling. So I left some stuff out, and I picked imaginarily different stats. I wasn't estimating or anything, I was trying to create a picture that might illustrate that imaginary statistical significance.

And, to state it explicitly, I'm only talking about league environments. Other people may care about other ones, but I'm restricting my thinking to the one environment which should be driving any discussion--MM is an environment which doesn't seem like the "intended" application of the rules, and nobody seems worried about tournaments, so if there's a problem, league play would be the place to identify it. (If you don't agree with this, fine, but then obviously, my model has nothing to do with solving your problem).

So, my intention, which I should have stated, was to assume a long-running league environment. If, in such a case, we saw that ClawPomb teams did significantly more TV damage to their opponents than other bash teams (choosing, perhaps, TVs where four ClawPOMB players were possible on such a team--or even only matches which featured a certain number of ClawPomb players), and that other bash teams were more or less on a par with each other, would that be data worth considering?

Likewise, my question about team attrition is one that applies to that league environment--do we think that non-bashy teams having to restart to keep up with bashy teams is 'working as intended' or is it something to address? My comment about "fun" was attached to this--I'm assuming that team restarts is a quantifiable metric for somebody having no fun, and if that can somehow be correlated with ClawPOMB, it could be considered as useful data?

I'm not in opposition to you here; just genuinely interested in how we could mine some data on the "problem." If we really care to...

Reason: ''
I was Puzzlemonkey, but now I'm Wifflebat. Please forward my mail...
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by dode74 »

plasmoid wrote:Dode, as stated above, the Chaos/HE repeat performance was just a way of saying that while it is possible to beat CPOMB teams by outscoring them, it does get a harder if the previous game (or indeed a large portion of your games) was also against a CPOMB team. Due to expected MNG/death.
So what? The same is true if they play any bashy team. And the fact of the matter is that those win percentages in environments where there are a large proportion of CPOMB teams don't drop.
Are you saying that some opinions should be worth than others, or what is the sorting for?
Weighting in an attempt to be population representative, for one thing. We know the number of players on FUMBBL and we know the number of players on Cyanide, and the NAF has an idea of the number of TT players (looking at, say, the past year to keep things current), and there is an unknown in the number of TT players who aren't NAF affiliated. If there is a skew either for or against a particular population then the poll is not representative - it's a source of error. If nobody who plays leagues votes then it's a source of error; if a disproportionate number of people who mostly play at low TV (e.g. tournaments), where CPOMB is rarely encountered, vote then it is a source of error. A straight poll is not necessarily representative of the population in general. Take a look at some sites like http://www.ncpolitics.uk/ and http://fivethirtyeight.com/ or even https://yougov.co.uk/ if you want to see how complex polling actually is if you want anything like an accurate result. And even they get it wrong.
I just wanted to know if a majority considered the current iteration of CPOMB detrimental to their enjoyment of the game.
You have to ask the right questions to be able to know that. Polling a sample of a population for their opinion is not a straight democracy where the greatest number of votes either way is representative of the majority.
Wouldn't that need to be proven post poll? I mean, it's easy to claim, but is it actually true?
Really? You think the sites I mentioned above simply ask questions and present the answers as factually representative without looking for sources of error in their claims beforehand and simply say "prove it" when someone questions them? No, they publish their full methodology, usually including what they considered to be sources of error and how they accounted for them. I'm not saying that you need to do that, but I am saying that "just put up a poll" is not going to provide a satisfactory answer to the question (whatever it is) and will, by definition, be full of errors. Part of your job, should you wish your poll to be considered accurate, would be to find those errors beforehand and account for them.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by dode74 »

Wifflebat wrote:If, in such a case, we saw that ClawPomb teams did significantly more TV damage to their opponents than other bash teams (choosing, perhaps, TVs where four ClawPOMB players were possible on such a team--or even only matches which featured a certain number of ClawPomb players), and that other bash teams were more or less on a par with each other, would that be data worth considering?
If that extra damage isn't leading to them winning more matches then is it a problem?
Likewise, my question about team attrition is one that applies to that league environment--do we think that non-bashy teams having to restart to keep up with bashy teams is 'working as intended' or is it something to address? My comment about "fun" was attached to this--I'm assuming that team restarts is a quantifiable metric for somebody having no fun, and if that can somehow be correlated with ClawPOMB, it could be considered as useful data?
Some teams have higher attrition by design. We know this simply from looking at AV numbers.

Reason: ''
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by VoodooMike »

Wifflebat wrote:And, to state it explicitly, I'm only talking about league environments. Other people may care about other ones, but I'm restricting my thinking to the one environment which should be driving any discussion--MM is an environment which doesn't seem like the "intended" application of the rules, and nobody seems worried about tournaments, so if there's a problem, league play would be the place to identify it. (If you don't agree with this, fine, but then obviously, my model has nothing to do with solving your problem).
Ah, league only? As far as I'm aware people have never complained about CPOMB in structured leagues.. I'm inclined to say that until we find that people are even noticing a problem it's probably not a problem that needs to be dealt with. That is, of course, in terms of that specific environment.
Wifflebat wrote:So, my intention, which I should have stated, was to assume a long-running league environment. If, in such a case, we saw that ClawPomb teams did significantly more TV damage to their opponents than other bash teams (choosing, perhaps, TVs where four ClawPOMB players were possible on such a team--or even only matches which featured a certain number of ClawPomb players), and that other bash teams were more or less on a par with each other, would that be data worth considering?
Not on that alone it would not. As I said, there are likely to be significant differences in certain outcomes based on which rosters, or types of rosters, we choose to examine as opponents. Does there being a difference equate to there being a problem? If we find that wood elf teams tend to lock out bash teams in terms of TV gain, is that a problem? Even with statistical significance in such difference, there's a question of practical significance.
Wifflebat wrote:Likewise, my question about team attrition is one that applies to that league environment--do we think that non-bashy teams having to restart to keep up with bashy teams is 'working as intended' or is it something to address? My comment about "fun" was attached to this--I'm assuming that team restarts is a quantifiable metric for somebody having no fun, and if that can somehow be correlated with ClawPOMB, it could be considered as useful data?
I cannot offer an opinion on what "we" think, only on what I think... and what I think about what I think is that it's subjective in these cases and thus, not of great value to the question of whether the mechanics of Claw, Pile On, or Might Blow needs to be changed, or even should be changed. I don't like purely subjective stuff because it isn't a useful building block. 100 people will have 100 different opinions. What do we do with that?

You will never get the data you're "if"ing about here... not about league play.. so this is a dead-end tangent. My answer to your "ifs" is that once the data existed then we'd have a different discussion.
Wifflebat wrote:I'm not in opposition to you here; just genuinely interested in how we could mine some data on the "problem." If we really care to...
I don't consider you in opposition, this is just how I talk. "Data mining" is not about collecting data, btw, its about extracting information from data that has already been collected.

My ultimate viewpoint is this: on anything that is subjective preference, the answer is house ruling not altering the base rules.

Reason: ''
Image
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Mike,
your flat earth example is irrelevant to the situation I described.
I wasn't examining if CPOMB is overpowered.
Nor was I examining if they felt that it was overpowered.
I wanted to know if a majority of respondents considered it to be making the game less enjoyable.
It may well be a fact that CPOMB isn't overpowered.
But it might also be a fact that it makes the game less enjoyable to a majority of respondents. Or not. But that can be measured.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that the people who are choosing to play the game are doing so because they're having fun.
My question is whether they could be having more fun playing the game.
I enjoy the game, but would enjoy it more if CPOMB was toned down. Others obviously feel the same way.
Calling that fact "stupid beyond belief" doesn't make it any less true.
They're good at beating other bash teams when those bash teams try to out-bash them and fail.
They're also fairly good at stomping the non-bash teams that don't have a lot of blodge.
Pretty disingenuous, that.
Actually, it was a way of saying that the more you're beat up, the less likely you are to outscore your opponent.
Seeing as how Darkson, Dode and you didn't get that, I obviously didn't phrase that very well.
Remove cpomb and we'd have the exact same discussion about the SECOND best method for causing attrition, which would now be the first best.
That's opinion, not fact. For the record, I disagree that we'd have the same discussion.
The apoth and the game winnings define what is a tolerable level of attrition. If you consistently suffer more than (roughly) 1,5 lost player (pre-apoth), then you'll be in a perpetual downward spiral. Less than that, and you can cope.
Hah, I'm sure if we search hard enough we'll find someone who actually thinks the reason people don't appreciate the things you say is that you're operating at such a high intellectual level that they can't understand you.
Personally, I think you're just much less well-spoken than you imagine you are.
I assume you tell me that because you think I care.
Maybe I'm not well spoken because English is not my first language.
Maybe I'm exactly the same in Danish.
Maybe you rarely read what I write objectively.

I said that it had been missed/ignored that I stated about my Chaos/HE example that it wasn't meant is an actual test, but was just meant to clarify my point.
Then I said that Wifflebat had made the point better, and that I had obviously worded it in too complicated a way. In other words that I had not written it well.

You take that to mean that I claim to be so clever that no-one understands what I'm saying. So pretty much the opposite.

Makes conversation complicated.
Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by plasmoid »

One more thing - Dode replied to Wifflebat about the effect of long term damage on performance:
The answer would appear to be a no (pending a definition of "unfairly"). Otherwise the win percentages for other teams would be unduly low, particularly in CPOMB-heavy environments.
Given the online environment, a truly horrific beating wouldn't result in losses, but in a dropped team. And hence no losses, and thereby nothing to see.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by dode74 »

Actually, it was a way of saying that the more you're beat up, the less likely you are to outscore your opponent.
This is true, but some teams are better able to deal with taking cas, while others need to cause cas. I took a look a long time ago at the mean "cas point" in FUMBBL B data (limited dataset at 90k games - all I had at the time) at which certain races hit a 50% win% - I sorted by net cas for each team in a match to see at what point the win percentage hit 50. For Pro Elf teams, for example, a net cas of -2.3 to -1.0 was the 50% mark, while for Orcs it was 0.8 to 1.3, for example. It was an early look at the data and the conclusion I would draw from this is probably not very surprising: some teams are better able to deal with being beat up than others and still win the match, while other teams need to beat up the other team in order to win it. In other words, while your statement is true, it isn't a problem in and of itself.
Given the online environment, a truly horrific beating wouldn't result in losses, but in a dropped team. And hence no losses, and thereby nothing to see.
That's simply not true in leagues, since players tend to get banned from them for doing that. And Wifflebat is talking about leagues. It's also not necessarily true in MM, because your TV drops and you play against a lower TV team.

Reason: ''
Locked