Bakunin wrote:Well im a league commissioner and I and others in my league find it broken. Once you got clawpomb, is was a winning Strategy, with no real on-pitch counter.
Amazing that your league holds a significantly different opinion from all the other tabletop leagues and reports a significantly greater effect on wins than other leagues do and the online data does, and only gets brought up this late in the discussion.
Bakunin wrote:You get that the inserted bracket was my doing, as in the sentence would be more clear with that insert. As in I play in tabletop leagues where people find clawpomb overpowered/broken. And not a comment what Oventa has experienced.
You
quoted his post and inserted a word but it had nothing to do with him or his experiences? Sounds like a load of poop to me, but hey, we can add rational expression to the list of things you suck at along with basic logic if that's what it comes down to.
straume wrote:Subjective assessment of that fact: At late game TV (once you get to CPOMB) you start to play differently (ie: worse). Less emphasis on positioning. The 58% is so juicy that you emphasize more on getting a blitz with one of your killer pieces on "someone". It is a different, and to me, a less interesting game.
So don't play a CPOMB team if it isn't interesting to you. Bash teams are called bash teams because they bash... improving your ability to bash improves your overall ability to win games. How much it improves your ability to win games depends heavily on what sort of teams you're going to be facing.. if you're playing against non-stop elves you probably won't see much improvement. If you're playing against non-stop dwarfs you'll see a huge improvement.
straume wrote:Is this a problem? Well, for many TT-leagues CPOMB seldom enters play at all. For Fumbbl-BlackBox? Probably, but who cares? That is a special environment. For perpetual online leagues, such as OCC? Perhaps a little bit.
It's a problem for environments like BlackBox, and the people who care are the ones who abandon those environments in favour of challenge leagues where they can specifically avoid it. It's unlikely to be a major issue in environments like OCC because teams that are only good at bashing and not winning will end up in the lower tiers of play owing to the fact that they're pretty crap at winning - people who don't care about winning and just want to bash are going to gravitate away from things like OCC in favour of places like B.. faster and more opportunity to do what they're trying to do.
mubo wrote:Exactly. At high TV it feels a little less like a fantasy football game, and a little more like a war game. I wouldn't apply the label "broken", but instead of thinking about positioning and pressure on the ball, I'm thinking about how to minimize/maximize the killer players on either team. Which I find less enjoyable.
Again, this assumes you're facing it often. I also dispute the idea that it isn't about positioning... if you're worried about player removal then positioning is everything. Personally, I find Dwarf teams far less enjoyable, even at low TV levels... they're like playing against bricks... but I do understand that the point of having a wide variety of rosters is that you have to change your strategy game to game as you face different races with different strengths.
straume wrote:I would be more interested in opinions on how this affects gameplay (and hence the game), rather than looking at what "broken" means.
Maybe you should start a different thread, then. Take a look at the title of this one.
RoterSternHochadahl wrote:...but this part is pure assumptions:
If you're bleeding out the side of your head and haven't sought medical attention the rational
assumption is one of two things: either you haven't noticed the problem, or you've decided it is not a problem. If you've noticed a problem, and think it's a problem, and opt not to act on that problem, you are clearly a moron of the first order. Contrary to popular belief, I don't automatically assume people are morons.. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for correcting me.