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.