Darkson wrote:
And let's be honest here, the formats where Clawpomb might be a problem (I say might because all the data shown has not shown Clawpomb teams win more than they should), such as Fumbbl and Cyanide, are not the formats the rules were written for - I've yet to see a TT league where you can play one of 100s/1000s of opponents, often with no end goal in sight.
Those formats should be pushing for a 'house rule' that works for their "league", rather than blindly following rules written for TT leagues for say 20 people playing one or two games a week, as is allowed by the rules.
I fully agree. TT shouldn't suffer for an online problem. There was nothing wrong with the PO rules for resurrection or short progression leagues. Having the rule changed removes an aspect of the game for no reason.
I'd also agree that CPOMB teams win rate probably isn't too far out of line. The problems are that a. Winning with CPOMB is less skill biased. b. The long term and continual effect it has on teams damage and recovery. c. The amount of CPOMB you will find. d. Turns games into what is referred to as a 'coin toss' game. i.e. winning the coin toss to some extent determines the outcome of the game. e. How enjoyable these games become (that being not).
The problem with house ruling is how it's perceived. A lot of coaches really dislike house ruling. Also with house ruling is that it's not universal. One site has one rule, another site something different. Both of these are unappealing to the general punter. However if the powers in charged made the decisions for say 3 environments; non-progression, closed divisional leagues, open perpetual. That would help out a lot.
Ok JPB
JPB wrote:Still, if you don't mind PO/MB, as you said it's fine,
Steady there JPB. I speak in a wonderful array of colours, not just black and white. I dislike POMB. I dislike it because of the conveyor belt of POMB/tackle blitzers being reproduced on a mass production level. I dislike the bias of player removal by one player type and I dislike it because there's little thought put into whether or not to leave your 10 spp per game blitzer prone or not. Pre-LRB 5 fouling was so powerful you'd really think twice about it and whether you could protect your blitzer. Now there's little thought gone into it.
What I said was there's little broken about the combo. It doesn't break the game. Therefore my opinion on the combo isn't relevant to game balance.
JPB wrote:why do you support a PO nerf to nerf Clomb? (You called PO the skill to address). That nerfs MB/PO too. Isn't that a contradiction? From that angle (i.e. MB/PO is fine, Clomb isn't) you would have to nerf Claw.
Hmmmmm I don't know you and I see you are a very recent joiner. I am wondering how much experience you have with online perpetual gaming. Without knowing the environments and lets be fair it is Cyanide and FUMBBL where this is a problem; I really don't think you can understand the issue. I feel you don't understand the issue and are looking too much into damage percentages.
The fluff behind chaos rosters is that they are the most damage inflicting rosters. So much so that some famous teams care so little about the ball, they spend more time hurting players than scoring. In this sense CPOMB is doing the job how the fluff describes.
Another point is that chaos rosters have already had a severe damage nerf. Pre lrb5 they had more powerful claw and a skill called Razor Sharp Claws (RSC). This as a combo gave you 2+ on the armour (any armour value) and 2+ on the injury roll. This is more powerful than CPOMB and yes was a problem. The difference being that both of these were double rolls for the chaos rosters. This meant you tended to see less of them. It also meant (and something that lrb5 onward changed) that the luckier you were with rolling doubles or the more games you played to recycle players, the more you would see these players.
So claw was reworked. And reworked claw works beautifully (although a bit of a fluff sore). So with claw already reworked and working from a mechanical point of view, very well why would you pick on claw because of its effect on a combo.
Affecting or removing PO has less of an effect on the game that tinkering with Claw or MB. It really is only put on one type of player. That being the player tasked with having no balling duties and simply there to remove other players. MB is a massively important skill. It comes as standard on most big guys. You tinker with that, you tinker with a whole player type. The more you tinker, the more you are predicting what will happen in gaming environments. Stats do not tell the whole story of coach morale regarding the gaming environment. You simply cannot solve issues like these by not knowing them and looking at figures.
JPB wrote: And the Fend counter not working is apparently not a counter problem
I'm really not going to get into the 'Fend' debate more than I have. However if you wish to I suggest you go to FUMBBL and start a 'Why not take fend to combat cpomb' thread. You will get a lot of replies by coaches with 1000s of games of experience of working in a CPOMB environment.
JPB wrote: but this twisted TV problem of shaping, inducements and min/maxing, which has basically everything in a knot and a conundrum.
Yes and no. Which takes us back to my points made to Darkson. How about Fend costing 0TV in a perpetual match maker division? I wonder what affect that would have? For me min/maxing from lrb5 onward in progression is much more of a problem than CPOMB, but that's me.
However CPOMB isn't just about minmaxing (and actually FUMBBL has combated that to an extent. It also suits the most powerful teams too, possibly even better. Add to the fact that inducements were never meant to be an equalizer and that more 'artful' teams that reach a high TV tend to be 'pruned' by high TV CPOMB teams means that they dominate at high TV. Not by win percentage, but by attrition. You may reach high TV and beat a CPOMB team. However could you keep doing it? No, because you won't have a team left to do that.
This adds another problem. Recycling of teams. Teams other than those that can sustain a TV tend to be recycled. It's easier to start with a new team, that shoots up and reaches a point and then is retired. Or a treading water problem. Where teams find a happy TV area. Here they tread water, avoiding the worst of min maxing but also avoiding the worst in multiple CPOMB rosters. Finding a TV niche and sitting there. The fact an environment forces this sort of gaming is a real problem for me.
JPB wrote: And if that is the case, I would say Clomb isn't even the problem but the TV system and the ability of a coach (or even necessity) to stop team progress to get an edge.
TV is a system that was (for me) primarily developed for TT resurrection or limited progression environment. In those environments it works exceptionally well and shouldn't be touched. However some of the online divisions are totally different animals. Again see my earlier points. Handicapping again. It is perfect in some environments but less than perfect in others. Why in a divisional league would a team with less TV (but maintaining it) top of the division get a handicap vs the bottom team with a higher TV? To award the top coach on his management skill? That goes against the premise of handicapping. Again this is an environment (for me) that needs a certain degree of bespoking.
JPB wrote: Considering that there are more complex and complicated issues at work
Yes it is very complex. Changing one thing has an effect on other things. Not just figures, but coaches. How they will behave and feel with changes. Therefore the less you change, the less likely you'll muck things up.
JPB wrote:And I really don't like this nerfing and rewriting of PO, which makes no sense to me.
I think a lot would agree. Possibly it's a shame. Certainly not how I would deal with it either. However it's simple and in a world where we are now. With GW taking back the reigns but with less experience than 1000s of coaches out there. Small changes that aren't going to come back and bite you, are probably better than massively overhauling a system that........could have an array of effects you cannot predict.
JPB wrote:And this “format” point may be actually taking it too far, as it's actually not different formats, but the same format at different points or in different circumstances, but it is the same campaign format. The boardgame just never gets there (and neglected it). The only different format are one-off games (tournaments) and they should have less problems (or they develop team selection systems to deal with them). It really is for the most part a problem of the campaign (league) format. (And basically since 1993, in one form or another). I'm also not convinced of the idea to “balance campaign”. Always struck me as a bit of a contradiction, if not impossible.
The in game format is the same (and therefore the rules for in game should be the same). Yeah outside of the game there are 2 formats; progression and resurrection. Further to this there are different divisions (particularly in progression). Team management is different depending on the division or format. CPOMB is spammed differently depending on the format/division. I think you can break it down like this:
1. Resurrection. TV works well in resurrection and shouldn't be touched. CPOMB is very rare and usually impossible.
2. Short term progression leagues with an end goal. TV/Inducements work well here. CPOMB is possible but not to the degree it will have an adverse effect.
3. Long term leagues with divisions. TV breaks down to a certain extent (for me here). However minmaxing isn't too much of a problem due to your opponent not being chosen by TV. Inducements don't work well for me (as described above). CPOMB could be a problem, but commissioners can place limits on how many of each race participate.
4. Perpetual open environment where you choose your opponent. CPOMB outside of closed competitions isn't too much of a problem (as you can simply choose not to play them). However coach behaviour follows sheep like patterns. If one coach finds a way of gaming the system, others will follow. Games are suggested via TV, therefore being competitive for your TV is optimum. The environment can lead to a wolves and sheep division.
5. Perpetual environment where matches are chosen by a match maker. Cyanide has one. FUMBBL has one. The premise behind the idea is honest. You don't choose your opponent and you have a fair match up. However the criteria on how the matches are chosen can be gamed. You have no way of refusing a game, therefore you face what is put before you. Here without adjusting the match maker to be biased CPOMB is a massive problem. Minmaxing is a massive problem.
And really the crux of it is number 5. This type of division highlights the fundamental problems of spammed CPOMB. Now if it was say.........1 turning. You wouldn't here so much about it. You get 1 turned to death and move on (with your team). However with CPOMB there's a stark reminder for you next game (your fallen comrades). And if you get spammed CPOMB again? Another reminder. And again? Well how long until you give up or join the CPOMB ranks? Not long for most.