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
straume
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:21 am

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by straume »

I believe the problem is the variance (I might be stealing this argument from dode). As in: "Some" (too many) matches are made non-matches because the combination is in an effective mood (rolling above average). Those matches are not fun.

Fun matches at high TV (for me!) would be Khemri vs Orcs with plenty of pitch control skills on both sides (stand firm, grab, frenzy, juggernaut, and ofc guard). Chaos vs Nurgle? Not so much. Really a different game.

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 »

straume wrote:I believe the problem is the variance (I might be stealing this argument from dode).
Yeah, I think this is the reason some people don't like it. The mean is fine (or it would show up in performances), but sometimes it can make for a not-fun match.

Reason: ''
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 »

Wulfyn, the data is in dode's post about two posts above yours.

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

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by plasmoid »

Concerning what the game was designed for, it is worth noting that CRP was explicitly intended to work on very long term leagues. Number of coaches was never specifically adressed. Matching criteria wasn't either. So I'm not sure it is accurate to say that CRP wasn't supposed to work with big MM leagues(?)

Either way, CRP were originally called Perpetual Blood Bowl League. So it was supposed to work at extreme TV too. Not many Leagues actually go there. But that it was supposed to work was the design goal.
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 »

Perhaps Dode could add something about which teams were available for which seasons?
As a BB1 league I figure many seasons could be a fair bit removed from a TT/CRP meta.
Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
Wulfyn
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by Wulfyn »

Ah dode, ever the keeper of the stats. You are the Tycho Brahe of blood bowl :-)

Do you have any more info on the top graph? I think it is easy to draw any conclusion you want at present. Some might look and see chaos in the middle and say - aha! ClawPOMB is not broken. Others might see how much higher chaos and chaos dwarf place compared to tournaments and say - aha! ClawPOMB is broken.

Quickly on your points about blocking. The base cas amount (2) takes into account failures of the block dice which I have assumed to be the same for the ClawPOMBer and the rest of the team. I think this is the worst case scenario as many ClawPOMBers will have block and othet offensive skills which would increase that ratio. Also 50 blocks is a top end to also take worst case scenario by reducing the %age of blocks that are from the ClawPOMBer. If I took it as 32 blocks of which 16 are from the ClawPOMBer then the base cas goes from 0.67 to 1.00 and the x6 multiplier results in an even higher amount. But yes thanks for supporting my position by showing how my lowest case scenario is unrealistic and in effect we should see more cas.

Plasmoid - totally agree.

Darkson - As you see I have asked dode for more info on the data as it doesn't seem to support either my point or your point at present. Certainly you cannot conclude just on that graph that ClawPOMB teams are no more likely to win.

Darkson & Sann - win%age is not the most important factor here and may not be fully reflective of the broken mechanic. For example in the shooty army of death scenario if both sides are playing it then you would not expect to see these armies have a high win%. You'd expect to see a 50% average with a normal distribution, with players mostly getting between 55% and 45% win rates regardless of skill. I expect that this is exactly what you would see in free choice MM such as fumbbl ranked as killer teams will be avoided except by other killer teams. The data dode has seems to be more promising but we need more info to analyse properly.

Over to you dode!

Reason: ''
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 »

Win % IS the most important factor here, because its what the game is balanced on.

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.
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:So I'm not sure it is accurate to say that CRP wasn't supposed to work with big MM leagues(?)
Given Tom and Ian have both said as much I think it is accurate.

For OFL all teams are available. For OCC it was BB1 (9 races) from seasons 4 to 7, LE from 7 to 15 and CE from 16 onwards. Racial numbers are loosely indicated by the size of the 95CI bar: the smaller the bar the more data we have for the race.

Wulfyn - since BBManager died recently and without warning I have little more. I'll take a look later to see what there is. Thing is, the criteria set by the BBRC was lifetime performance of 45-55%. If the team is performing within those brackets in leagues and tournaments then where's the issue?
I don't think it's reasonable to look at worst case in order to assess whether a mechanism is broken. The mean is far more relevant, and then we can look at the variance to see if that is the problem (and I think the perception of the variance is the problem - there are plenty of games where CPOMB does nothing but they don't get remembered/reported).
But yes thanks for supporting my position by showing how my lowest case scenario is unrealistic and in effect we should see more cas.
Again, as I said (and you appear to have ignored): not every block or blitz can be done with your CPOMBer (particularly if he has used PO last turn, limiting his movement and therefore target options), your CPOMBer can be injured himself rendering him ineffective for the remainder of the match, or your opponent may position well denying you the chance to make effective use of your CPOMBer, perhaps by forcing him out of position or into a position where PO would result in a nasty foul. Solid play can counter the ability to use skills as effectively, meaning the simple mathematical increase in effectiveness does not translate to actual effect on the pitch. I'm not denying it's effective as a method of removing players, simply not as effective as the simple maths suggests.
The theorybowl is all well and good, and we can theorybowl all day, but unless you can show it is actually breaking the game then it remains theorybowl. Your OP seems to contend that it breaks the game because it increases the effect of randomness on the game, and I disagree with that as being a definition of "gamebreaking". Or have I misunderstood that argument?

Reason: ''
User avatar
Loki
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2553
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: Why ClawPOMB is broken

Post by Loki »

One aspect which I don't think has been picked through is the co-dependence of 'min/maxing' to magnify the success of Clawpomb as a strategy. As has been discussed above if a player has Blodge then the damage a straight Clawpomb does is reduced. So in a straight developed team vs another the effect is minimised. Where a team is specifically built with 2-3 clawpombs and then unskilled chaff to pad them out the effect is magnified as it is unlikely an equal TV opposing team will have the same development.

As primarily a TT player where our leagues go to a maximum of 20-30 games (and that is rare) then you just don't see those type of Shenanigans. I suspect that even if our league got it its 'poop' together and ran a long 50+ game league you just wouldn't see a Min/Max Chorf/Chaos/Nurgle - it's just not worth the time investment vs. enjoyment when you factor in the fact you pay for a table and buses and give your evening to go and play with friends.

In my eyes, the only place Clawpomb is 'broken' (I would actually contend it is the 'anti-social' use rather than the skill set itself) is online in an environment where people can min/max most easily, frankly I would say, leave them to it. Don't try and 'fix' CRP.

Reason: ''
Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana.
Image
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 »

Loki - we have almost exactly that in OFL. I started this season as a Chaos team with a Block/Tackle/CPOMB beastman and a Block/Guard/CPOMB CW, with 3 other CW, 6 other BM and 2 RR to make 1150TV. They've certainly done a lot of damage and I think that mechanism whereby we can bring those players forward might itself need review, but the OFL data above seems to suggest no long term issue.
In my eyes, the only place Clawpomb is 'broken' (I would actually contend it is the 'anti-social' use rather than the skill set itself) is online in an environment where people can min/max most easily, frankly I would say, leave them to it. Don't try and 'fix' CRP.
Barring the above house-ruled example, I tend to agree, but think that where teams are TV-matched it makes min/maxing for TV preferable. To that end it is, as has been said multiple times and on many fora, the TV-matched MM environment which is itself broken and requires a fix.

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 »

Wulfyn wrote:The following commentary is an explanation of the reasons why the rule is broken.
And you've failed to demonstrate it. For all your blathering attempts to make your argument sound rational (despite describing opposing viewpoints as "counter-whines") it still boils down to subjectivity. You subjectively feel it isn't fun. You subjectively feel the percentages are too high. You subjectively feel that every advantage in BB should have a skill to counter it. At no point are any of the arguments you made based on stated design goals from the people who made the game, nor is any of it based on performance data from the game.

It means everything you're saying can be summarized as "I don't like it".

Here's a good method for determining if your position is objectively true or just another case of you trying to pass your opinion off as objectivity: when you say something is "broken" ask yourself "according to whom?" if your answer is no more profound than "according to me!" then your argument is "I don't like it".

Additionally, any time you bring up "fun" you're running naked and laughing into the realm of pure subjectivity. It is safe to say if nobody found something fun then it wouldn't exist in a game... since the complaint about CPOMB is its prevalence in certain environments obviously someone is finding it fun.. just not you.. because "I don't like it".
Wulfyn wrote:It is clearly very powerul but this by itself does not make it broken.
Actually it is NOT "clearly" very powerful. When we talk about power we're talking about a quality representing the ability to implement one's goals. If the goal we're talking about is taking players off the pitch then CPOMB does represent a powerful combination of skills... but people like you stop there as though that alone has meaning. It does not.

The goal of a Blood Bowl match is to score more TDs than the other team. If we're going to evaluate the "power" of something we need to determine how strongly it affects the final goal of the game - how much it influences one person's chances of winning over the other person. This is where your arguments run head-first into a brick wall: the data has never shown any indication that CPOMB teams have an unusual or unreasonably high win rate especially if we correct for environment composition (which we need to when we're discussing general effect rather than effect within one environment).
Wulfyn wrote:1. There is no player skill counter to ClawPOMB.
So what? You counter a CPOMB team by scoring more, which most rosters that focus on scoring points seem very capable of doing according to the data.
Wulfyn wrote:2. There is no common build counter to ClawPOMB.
Being better at scoring seems to be a very good counter to CPOMB. If, when playing your team, my team wins more often than you do, either my team is built better than yours or I'm a better player.
Wulfyn wrote:3. Mirror matches are luck.
No, mirror matches are a test of coaching skill. You're applying a personal bias in implying that people who play CPOMB are mindless coaches with no personal skill with the game - that's ridiculously unlikely to be true. Instead, if both teams have identical mechancial advantage the only factors left are the dice and the skill of the coaches.

It should be noted that this isn't a point against CPOMB, it's true of any two teams that focus on the same aspect of play. Two wood elf teams built around OTTDs face the same situation.
Wulfyn wrote:4. There is no down side to taking ClawPOMB.
Well that is patently false. The down side to taking any 3 skills is that you didn't take 3 other skills.. and whether or not that is a "down side" depends on whether the 3 skills you chose significantly improves your team's ability to win games. Every claim that people make about CPOMB being a game-winning skill combination are anecdotal - they are not reflected in the actual data.
Wulfyn wrote:ClawPOMB is a 60-80TV payment for a skill combination that can single handedly win the game.
...and there we go! The core of your position is the data-contradicting belief that CPOMB represents an unfair advantage in winning games. If it did we'd see the teams capable of fielding CPOMB players with an unreasonably high win rate even when corrected for environment composition. We never see that.
Wulfyn wrote:5. It removes the entertainment from the game.
Woohoo, we're running naked and screaming into the land of gumdrops and subjectivity again! Lets swim in the marshmallow pond and have a sugar-cone snowball fight, besty!
Wulfyn wrote:Q4. It is only a problem in endless open matchmaking, so it is the fault of that environment.
A4. This is just a plain dumb point. It is not the environment that makes it broken because the environment doesn't get broken for the million other things that is in the Blood Bowl rule set. Is AG5 broken in short leagues? No. Is it broken in MM? No. Is ClawPOMB broken in short leagues? Yes. Is it broken in MM? Yes. All the same rules apply; like tournaments just because an environment does not reduce its accessibility does not mean the fault is with the environment. This claim is an admission that ClawPOMB is broken because if it is not broken at all then it is not broken in any environment.
What a moronically lame attempt to shore up a shit argument. Your assertion is that if something is broken somewhere then it is necessarily broken everywhere. Lets look at a few examples of things that are (potentially or consistently) a major problem in one place and how big a problem they are elsewhere!

1) Toothbrushes. In prisons they are used to make shivs in order to injure or kill other inmates. So prevalent is the problem that there are competing product lines and ongoing research involving "security toothbrushes" that cannot be used to create deadly weapons! Wulfyn's assessment: the government must ban toothbrushes as they represent a deadly stabbing hazard to everyone especially children! think of the CHILDREN!.

2) Matches. If you light a match near a gas pump it can ignite the fumes and cause a massive gasoline explosion killing you and everyone else nearby. In fact, the same is true of your cellphone! Wulfyn's assessment: open flame is a global menace. We need to eliminate fire altogether.

3) Water. Did you know that if you try to breathe water you will die? Wulfyn's assessment: if water is a deadly hazard in the ocean then it is a deadly hazard in a dixie cup. Anyone who says otherwise is a stupid lying motherf*cking fishman! You won't win this time, Dagon!

....or, y'know, we can accept the idea that context matters. I know it hurts you to accept that, but it does. In blood bowl the environment is the context. Just because something causes problems in one place doesn't mean it is objectively a problem, it means that the real problem is the interaction between that thing and the environment.
Wulfyn wrote:The key component of a broken mechanic is one that either removes the skill or the fun from the game.
See? The key component is pure subjectivity on your part. You could have saved yourself that entire long, drawn-out posting by condensing it into "I don't like it", which is the real "key component".

If CPOMB removed "skill" from the game then it would mean CPOMB teams win almost every game they play. We know for a fact that isn't true.

If CPOMB removed "fun" from the game then nobody who plays the game would be interested in playing CPOMB teams, yet we know for a fact that some people do, and thus, the claim is not true.

What you're really saying is "I don't find it fun to play against CPOMB teams" which is, again, just you saying "I don't like it". That's cool.. some people don't. Some people don't like playing against Dwarf teams. I've seen people on the steam forums claim Lizardmen are overpowered and its no fun playing them. People all have their personal preference.. their likes and dislikes. I feel absolutely no pressure to change the entire world just to suit yours.

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 »

Quick thought for Mike and Wulfyn,

Mike said:
It means everything you're saying can be summarized as "I don't like it".
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?
since the complaint about CPOMB is its prevalence in certain environments obviously someone is finding it fun..
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.
Being better at scoring seems to be a very good counter to CPOMB.
True. Very true in a rez environment.
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:
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?
Eventually, my Money would be firmly on the Chaos team to carry the day. I'm thinking from best out 5 and up. YMMV.

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."
*Yes
*No

(...not that it would matter to anyone in a decision making capacity)

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
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:Just curious here, would there be any valid information in setting up a poll on TFF, FUMBBL and Cyanide
About the same as any of your many Brett polls, and look where that got us. :P


As for your made-up arguements - is there any evidence that a) (scores and is destroyed) happens, or are you just making up "facts" to fit your premise?

And for your "best of" series of games, did the coaches involved no what they were building towards, or were they building in a "traditional" format? Do they know it's a "best of out X" before they start playing. Why HE vs Chaos? Why not Woodies? Why not drawfs? Why not another Chaos team? Or is it just HE and Chaos in your experimental world?

Or we could look at the data, rather than a small number of anecdotal (and made up) games.

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 »

Other data that could support the broken ClawPOMB theory, of course, would be information about the opponents before and after they play a ClawPOMB team.

Do their TVs plummet dramatically compared to games vs. non-ClawPOMB teams?
Do their W-L records suffer significantly more after playing ClawPOMB teams?

...Good luck collecting that data, by the way.

I would suggest that this is maybe more important than Win-Loss record against ClawPOMB teams (unless ClawPOMB's record is dramatically higher than stats seem to be indicating now). If the sweet spot for Chaos Dwarves is at some TV where you've got 5 ClawPOMBers, and they can win 55% of their games at that TV, then that's the sweet spot. Go build your team. If they're all winning a 70%, then we need to care. But that doesn't seem to be happening. So, are ClawPOMBs opponents all being devastated or retiring after their games?

Playing a team of ClawPOMBers might be painful and boring, but so, some will argue, is playing against a Guard-laden Dwarf team. The real question for me is, does playing a ClawPOMB team unfairly cripple a team's ability to function in future games? Otherwise, trying to prevent an unpleasant loss is just complaining.

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 »

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?
And you think this would be representative of... what, exactly? Have you learned exactly nothing about sample sizes? Are you aware that there isn't a single environment in which this happens?

For reference, there are 43 matches Chaos vs High Elf 1800-1900 TV on FUMBBL B. It's 20-7-16 to Chaos at the moment, which is 54.65% (Chaos have a losing record at that TV against all the other elven races: WE 138 matches - 42.4, PE 48 matches - 41.7, DE 175 matches - 44.6). That 43 match sample comes with a margin of error of 14.9%, though, making it basically useless as far as your "thought" experiment goes. Which is a good summation of the "thought" experiment itself.
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."
*Yes
*No
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. 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.

Wifflebat -
The real question for me is, does playing a ClawPOMB team unfairly cripple a team's ability to function in future games?
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.

Reason: ''
Locked