Improvement table awarding a given value of improvements.

[Ghost]

But I am so tired of not being able to say my opinion, without having to go around stats of win%. The ones Dode will keep on posting until it gets too tiresome to tell him, why I don't see the same in them as he do. I am doing exactly the same thing in the passing thread, as he is doing when people talk about bashstacking. And I am quite sure, that he will find it tiresome too.

I will put in a DodeDisclaimer whenever I talk about bashstacking from now on. The opinions on bashstacking are subjective, so lets have that subjective discussion, instead on having a subjective discussion on stats on win%, which was not what many of us found interesting in a thread like this.

And thrust me; judging from the 800 pages on Cyanide, he is not going anywhere constructive. Most of those pages was about win%. It never stops. Very little was about actual constructive opinions on the skills.

[dode74]

And we understand you don't think so, for heavens sake. And understand, that others don't see the same in the stats on win% as you. You do seem to use the argument of not changing things based on win% awfully often, though. Forcing us to bring you stats to prove otherwise, as the "burden... blah blah blah".

Well win% is a well defined statistic which is easily measured. I bring it up only to counter claims that cpomb dominates - the win% shows otherwise. Further dissecting the data by TV and the like rather skews things though, since different teams will have differing win%s at different TVs. What we can do though is ask for the win% to be within the bracket for the life of perpetual leagues (which would appear to be the design goal). For those leagues for which we have data, it is. Please feel free to present anything to the contrary.

But I am so tired of not being able to say my opinion, without having to go around stats of win%.

So you want to be able to state an opinion and not have to justify it at all? Not even be challenged on it? You come across as someone who is more mature and intelligent than to think that is even reasonable as the start to a debate.

And thrust me;

I'd rather not
(please note I'm not taking the p!ss, I just found the typo amusing )

judging from the 800 pages on Cyanide, he is not going anywhere constructive. Most of those pages was about win%. It never stops. Very little was about actual constructive opinions on the skills.

Most of those were about win% because win% was brought up as the measure. There were several other threads, which you would have noticed had you read them, including stuff about the probabilities, the purpose of claw, and the effect on hybrid teams.

As I have said, if the "restricting skill selection" thread bears fruit then I will happily admit there may be merit to change.

Rhyoth -
I can probably take the point in Big Hand (although I do think it is a superb skill for taking advantage of errors).
Sprint - The 42% chance of failure for a 1TTD is not particularly high given the rewards (a TD!). There is more risk with an AG3 pass to an AG3 player.
Shadowing - it has other uses. High ST, lower MA (5 or 6) players can use it in the scrum to prevent other high ST low MA players from moving around on blocks, or to gain positional advantage and screw up a bunch of assists if the shadower has guard. En masse it has a good chance to cause a turnover or pin your opponent. On very high MA players it can cause your opponent's player to have to dodge a lot (exponentially reducing the odds of making the move), and can cause him positioning issues due to not wanting to have your shadower in contact with other players (he may stop next to a player who has not yet moved and then shadow him). I really can't see it as a 10k skill and think it is undervalued in general.

[Ghost]

And thrust me;

I'd rather not
(please note I'm not taking the p!ss, I just found the typo amusing )

lol Well, that is what comes from being a non-native englishspeaker. That one is embarrasing, and I take full responsibility Well, at least you gave me a good laugh amongst all this nitpicking Dode.

Let us make each other a promise here; Lets try to be constructive and discuss the skills and ideas. The use of win% as be all, end all is going nowhere, and will derail any subject with lightning pace. There is no argument in the world, that will ever get around those, if the one using the win% does not want it to.

But Dode, without making another discussion about win%. You have to listen to me here. I think you can not use win% detracted from TV Matchmakers, as the matchmaker will sort itself. You game who you will meet. So that leaves the scheduled leagues. OCC is fine, you say. That are so many factors that decides on that. The most important one, is that the ability of the coach mean more than what team he plays. I see it as a fact, that there is a lack of variety in matchmakers. And I think, that addressing bashstacking would help on that. It is my belief, that more races would play at higher TVs if it was adressed. I understand you don't think so. But the win%, I definately think should me left out, as it it not telling. Bashing also makes it harder for teams to win in ther next games, something you can't measure in a TV matchmaker win%. And there are other leagues that OCC. But let us just say, that whether or not win% from a TV matchmaker is a good measurement for gamebalance is an entirely different discussion. One I hope you agree to not take, when we discuss skills and mechanics. I am perfectly fine with you thinking there is no need to adress bashstacking. .

Let us try to keep it to the suggestions and skills here, without saying there is no need for a change a 1000 times. That will get us nowhere. Maybe there is no need, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. No stats will ever tell us if there is.

[dode74]

lol Well, that is what comes from being a non-native englishspeaker.

Really? In all honesty I couldn't have guessed that

The use of win% as be all, end all is going nowhere

I'm not using it as the be all. I'm saying that claims of "domination" are not a justification for the change, because win% is fine and there is no evidence of domination. Skill variation may be a reason though, and I am happy (and have been trying) to continue this on the basis that lack of skill variation will prove to be a catalyst for change. I'm agnostic as to whether it will or not, but it is better to be prepared

[Ghost]

Alright alright. I am sorry for having derailed it now, I take responsibility for that. We disagree on the win% thing. Lets leave that one behind. I don't see the same thing in win% from a matchmaker that you do, let's agree to disagree on what we see in it. And then move along to the actual subject here. My apologies to Joe for my part in this.

[mattgslater]

Ghost, I have a big problem with CPOMB, and it's not about win%, at least not for the CPOMB teams. Chaos and Nurgle, the teams that spam CPOMB best, have lots of built-in deficiencies, and they lose almost as much as they win. Other CPOMB teams pay big costs to get the combos, having to take the skills on doubles, and often after taking other core skills like Guard or Dodge on normal rolls. Norse are sort of an exception, but it takes a little luck or a lot of time to get that POMB Yhetee, and Norse suffer badly from attrition in league formats. So, the problem really boils down to this:

If more than a third or so* of all teams faced carry CMB (not necessarily CPOMB, though that does accelerate it) on an average of two or more players, AV9 teams are over-nerfed. If few or no opponents carry CMB, in a perpetual format, then AV teams are a bit too good. This is true of Dwarfs/CDs and elf-type teams too, but the difference is that it's pretty rare that more than a third of all teams would be Dwarfs, whereas Chaos, Nurgle, and Skaven tend to proliferate.

I think the solution is a different non-respector of AV, one that is weaker but can be taken by most or all teams, except maybe other AV9 teams. AV8 teams don't hate Claw nearly as much, because they get something in return for that useless AV point they didn't have to buy, usually in the form of MA (Humans), AG (Dark Elves), Regen/cheap linos (Necro), or CPOMBs of their own (Chaos). Maybe the real answer is in buffing Dirty Player back to +2, and maybe throwing a Guard-like quality on Sneaky Git (double buff for SG), then softening Claw?

*Unscientific grab at a fraction, but it seems borne out by my experience, which is a pretty good sample.

[Ghost]

I agree with most of what you say Matt. But AV 8 teams certainly cry when they meet spammed (C)POMB. The whole problem to me, is that those skills can be used for removing your opponents TV from the pitch in a mechanic you are sure to use every turn (blitzing). I will have to think a bit more about your post. But I have definately been thinking along the same line as you - that something done to fouling at the same time as adressing the bashstacking, would be a good way to go.

But again. It seem we have drifted away from the OP suggestion. I don't know if it is OK we take the bashstack discussion to its fullest in here. If it is, I will be more than happy to participate. I think we have a lot of views in common.

[mattgslater]

I can't speak for Joe, but I'd guess that the CPOMB stack is the elephant in the room that motivated the OP thread. So it's perhaps a minor or understandable derailment.

[dode74]

Matt, I disagree with your sentiment that you need so few teams/players to cause an issue (OCC S9 saw 5 teams from 9 with 2-4 CPOMB players in division one, but they didn't win it), and I've also done the maths on the probabilities as we discussed earlier. I'm happy to continue hypothetically though, so long as we are clear that I reject that as a premise until evidence shows otherwise.

I don't think changing claw is the issue. AV7 would still suffer from POMB (norse?), so you would be relatively nerfing the AV7 teams. As discussed, plasmoid's suggested change nerfs the stack equally across the board (~22% reduction for AVs 7 to 9 - AV6 and below, and stunties, may be a problem though) and would, I suggest, be a better change. I do agree that fouling needs a buff, and like both of the suggested changes should the aforementioned nerf to PO be taken on.

I can't speak for Joe, but I'd guess that the CPOMB stack is the elephant in the room that motivated the OP thread. So it's perhaps a minor or understandable derailment.

He said CPOMB was an aside: viewtopic.php?p=622698#p622698

[Chris]

I am keen on piling on becoming a fouling skill - though that still leaves claws + mighty blow cleaving through things - is that really a problem on its own? The Chaos teams have dissadvantages, its a boon for rats. Though of course if you buff fouling not piling on anymore would make them less vulnerable

[mattgslater]

I am keen on piling on becoming a fouling skill - though that still leaves claws + mighty blow cleaving through things - is that really a problem on its own?

Not nearly as much. CMB is a problem when you factor it en masse on a team with some CPOMB, but just having a lot of CMB gives you a distinctive place on the Paper-Scissors-Rock continuum.

CMB gives you 7/12 to break AV on any pow. On a 5/9 block, that's 35/108, just under 1/3. Those are manageable odds. CPOMB, OTOH, is 1-((5/12)^2) or 119/144, just under 5/6, to break AV. That's like getting +2 on the AV roll. On a 5/9 block, that's 25/54 to break AV, close to half. Then there's the increased chance to KO/Cas, with the 7/12 chance to use PO (and 5/12 to POMB) on the injury roll.

I think the idea of changing PO to +1 is at least enough of a nerf. It comes with the added edge that you know it will work when you use it. Ofc, it should remain a S skill. Maybe there should be another skill for fouling?

[dode74]

I think that perhaps leaving DP as it is, while giving a foul an automatic +1 to AV and using SG as guard for fouls, would be a good place to start. There is a risk of going too far the other way.

[mattgslater]

I think that perhaps leaving DP as it is, while giving a foul an automatic +1 to AV and using SG as guard for fouls, would be a good place to start. There is a risk of going too far the other way.

This would probably satisfy a lot of folks.

[Chris]

I think the idea of changing PO to +1 is at least enough of a nerf. It comes with the added edge that you know it will work when you use it. Ofc, it should remain a S skill. Maybe there should be another skill for fouling?

So that is not as bad as pile on for low AV teams? And does that not make it more effective than currently for high av? Of course that would smooth things out a bit for bash teams without claws.

Regardless I like the idea that pile on doesn't stack with any other skill. After all if you are just landing on a guy its not like you can land a mighty blow at the same time.

[dode74]

Regardless I like the idea that pile on doesn't stack with any other skill. After all if you are just landing on a guy its not like you can land a mighty blow at the same time.

If you do that you give the low AV teams a relative nerf as the effect is to reduce the stack on high AV teams more than low AV teams. AV7 would take one AV roll at 7+ and the PO roll at 8+, whereas AV9 would take one at 7+ and the PO roll at 10+ - currently both take both rolls at 7+.
The +1 idea gives the same relative reduction to all TVs, which I think is important to maintain balance (although I could be wrong ).
Fluffwise it may make sense to you to not be able to use skills on the RR, but it's not good for the gameplay. If it's merely the name or the concept of what the player is doing (i.e. jumping on the other player) then that can be changed - for example, call it "Follow through" and say that it's the player adding extra power due to following through on the hit, hence the +1 on either AV or injury and the need to go prone. I'm not fussed about how we explain it away; I'm more interested in making the mechanic work.