Why ClawPOMB is broken

[Darkson]

By the first definition then I find Dwarfs and Elfs broken.
By the second ifind Goblins broken.
The third has been proved repeatedly not to be the case.
The fourth has also been shown not to be the case.

So your point is?

[Regash]

- Its result in a disappointing play
- poor play can lead to a victory
- the strategy invariably wins
- the only counter is to have one of your own.

If this was true for CPOMB, why the hell arent these teams on top of any win % in any poll of match data?
I'm sorry but this is bu... Nevermind.

Well, as Galak stated, it was designed like that on purpose, not by error.
'Nuff said, at least for me.

[dode74]

BGG did not write the rules for BB; the BBRC, approved by JJ and GW, did.

Besides, the BGG definition is entirely subjective.

[Bakunin]

BGG did not write the rules for BB; the BBRC, approved by JJ and GW, did.

Besides, the BGG definition is entirely subjective.

Like your definition...

[dode74]

No, that definition is objective: it sets out numerical criteria (chosen by the game designers) which can be objectively assessed.

The BGG criteria primarily relies on a subjective statement: "disappointing game experience". On the other 3 criteria:
- "even poor play can lead to a victory" - far more than just CPOMB does that. The game is heavily RNG reliant. What we do know is that CPOMB doesn't lead to victory more often than other mechanisms.
- "frequently ends in a stalemate" - nope.
- "one strategy invariably wins" - nope.

So by the few measures BGG suggests which might be taken to be objective, CPOMB does not make the game broken. The other criteria is subjective. You can consider it broken, think it is broken, or believe it to be broken all you like, but it is not objectively broken.

[VoodooMike]

That seems to be a good why to define 'Broken'. And from there, this is why cpomb is broken.

You really don't seem to be listening to anyone, just sitting there talking.. everything you state as fact has already been addressed, but hey, lets do it again.

Its result in a disappointing play

"Disappointing" is subjective. It's obviously not disappointing to the person playing the CPOMB team or they wouldn't be playing a CPOMB team. Likewise, as we've seen, the dislike of CPOMB is not universal... so only some people are being "disappointed" by games involving it. Subjective is straight-up "I don't like it".

poor play can lead to a victory

That's blood bowl as a whole - you can play really well and lose, or half-assed and win, all depending on how the dice fall. It has nothing at all to do with CPOMB. That said, it implies that your next little bullet point is true...

the strategy invariably wins

...which it isn't. CPOMB is not a winning strategy except against pure bash teams. In fact, the data says it's not even a very good strategy for winning games. Agility teams still wipe the floor with CPOMB teams even at high TV levels. It makes me wonder if you even play Blood Bowl.

the only counter is to have one of your own.

Again, that implies that CPOMB always wins, which we know for a fact is not the case... in fact, we know that CPOMB isn't all that good at winning!

People like you have your heads up your asses - you make up facts to suit your opinions and then whine like little girls that nobody respects them. Nobody respects your opinions because they're based on made-up facts... nobody SHOULD respect that sort of opinion.

[Bakunin]

Now you just talking non-sense. Your definition of what is 'broken' is just as subjective as every one else (There is no point from nowhere). Or are you claiming not to be a subjectiv? ...Your definition my try to set out objective criteria, but I dont disagree with the data, but with your definition. So I dont care about what your data says.
I think that the BBG definition hits the nail on its head. Does this mechanic make the game non-fun and so on.

Its like you guys have never heard of the social sciences, when saying things like "you cant measure fun". No, but you can do polling on what people think about cpomb. And thats the data that would be great to see.

Do you find cpomb broken?
Would you look forward to playing a league match, where your opponent have cpomb and you dont?
etc.

I know there no central unified hub for all Blood Bowl players, so this kind of polling will always have its problems. - Seems the World Cup in Lucca was a missed opportunity to do one there.

[adhansa]

I read up some more on BGG forums on "broken". This was the most informant thread.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1558293 ... ken/page/1

"Broken" is a loosely defined term whose meaning changes according to the author. In the strictest game-theory meaning it is only "non-functional" or "predetermined" and in that meaning ClPoMB certainly doesn't make the game broken. But other uses has an array from unfun to overpowered, with different opinions un how much impact it requires to make something broken. So nobody can be wrong for just calling something broken within those perimeters, defining their meaning and explaining what made that conclusion. Others might disagree, but that is as an subjective statement as the first one. And nobody is right in declaring something unbroken with an equally subjective other meaning of broken.

[dode74]

Bakunin - my claim is it is not objectively broken. As I said, you can consider, think, believe, or whatever you like about it, but there are no objective criteria by which you can claim it is broken.

I did chuckle about "polling on what people think about CPOMB". This has been tried many times and all the polls used are, at best, straw polls. They are not representative opinion polls in any form. Even if you'd tried in Lucca you'd have been carrying out a straw poll: attendees at the WC are not representative of all BB players. Even then it'd be a subjective answer.

As for my opinion on CPOMB - no, it's not broken. I don't mind playing against it.

adhansa - see above regarding objectively broken. Everything outside objective measurement is subjective and nobody has called anyone's subjective opinion wrong.

[Darkson]

So if you can't agree on a way (or what) to measure "broken" (which in this case is the "I don't like it" sort of "broken") you're left with the only measurable thing, which the BBRC defined as w/l% (not Cas taken, not TDs scored, not net SPP lost per game, just w/l%) and the data all shows that Clawpomb isn't "broken" in that sense.

Anything else is just "I don't like it" in more words, and "I don't like it" <> "broken".

[VoodooMike]

Its like you guys have never heard of the social sciences, when saying things like "you cant measure fun". No, but you can do polling on what people think about cpomb. And thats the data that would be great to see.

I have a BA in psychology, so I'm carnal with the social sciences. Don't look to them to bolster your case, however, as they are very, very aware of the limitations and problems associated with trying to collect opinions via polling... to the point that they look for absolutely any other method if possible.

"Broken" is a loosely defined term whose meaning changes according to the author. In the strictest game-theory meaning it is only "non-functional" or "predetermined" and in that meaning ClPoMB certainly doesn't make the game broken. But other uses has an array from unfun to overpowered, with different opinions un how much impact it requires to make something broken. So nobody can be wrong for just calling something broken within those perimeters, defining their meaning and explaining what made that conclusion. Others might disagree, but that is as an subjective statement as the first one. And nobody is right in declaring something unbroken with an equally subjective other meaning of broken.

"There are no eternal facts as there are no absolute truths".
- Friedrich Nietzche (who, like you, didn't think very hard about the circular garbage he was spouting)

I can say you're wrong because there are as many definitions of the term "wrong" as there are authors, meaning you can't say objectively that you're not wrong... according to your pathos-laden crap. In fact, I can say that your definition of broken is wrong for the same reason.

Understand that intellectual and moral relativity are methodologies not ethea - they're a way to understand other people and other cultures, but they're not valid standpoints for someone to take specifically because they lack form and foundation.

So yes, you can define anything any way you want if doing so makes you feel better about yourself, but like opinions definitions are not equal, and personal definitions are not useful as soon as anything that revolves around them leaves your head. Keep them locked up inside your head if you want to preserve the subjective value.. once they're in the world they're no longer sacred.

Everything outside objective measurement is subjective and nobody has called anyone's subjective opinion wrong.

I just did, so no longer true!

[hutchinsfairy]

BGG did not write the rules for BB; the BBRC, approved by JJ and GW, did.

Besides, the BGG definition is entirely subjective.

It's all subjective. You have chosen your own definition for broken that is much narrower than most people seem to use in this context. If you choose to define "broken" as being exclusively those things which would demonstrably affect win% then that is your prerogative but it is just as subjective and arbitrary as any other.

The fact that the BBRC chose this metric as their primary (and only measurable?) design goal does not make it an objective definition for broken. You have chosen to link design goals with the definition of broken. This is your opinion and I see no reason why your opinion should be elevated above anyone elses.

If the whole BBRC sang in chorus to agree with you that this is the only possible definition for broken then this would be their opinion, albeit an extremely well informed one.

For the record I have never played a single game with or against ClawPOMB and have no particularly opinion about whether it is broken or not. My issue here is that people are being told that their considered opinions are dismissable with no more reason given than other peoples' opinions dressed up as fact.

Ultimately this is a discussion forum for people who gain enjoyment from playing a fantasy game where imaginary characters kick a ball and each other. If you think you can objectively measure human enjoyment of a game then your Nobel nomination is no doubt in the post. Until then we are all, yourself included, left discussing what we do and do not like about the game.

EDIT: Re-reading the previous posts I can't actually find an example of dode74 explicitly stating that not meeting design goals would be an objective definition for "broken" so apologies if I have misrepresented your opinion.

[hutchinsfairy]

Bakunin - my claim is it is not objectively broken. As I said, you can consider, think, believe, or whatever you like about it, but there are no objective criteria by which you can claim it is broken.

You're conflating "I don't like" with "broken". If something meets the design goals then it is not broken. That you do not like those design goals does not make it broken.

Bold emphasis mine in both cases.

You seem to be saying that there is no objective way to claim it is broken (I'd agree) but then state as fact a definition for not broken. I realise that I have taken your quotes somewhat out of context and am holding you to the impossibly high bar of expressing yourself perfectly every time, but can you see why I might be left confused about the point you're trying to make?

[dode74]

As you say, I've not chosen an objective definition of broken. The only objective metric we have, though, is the design goals of the tiers. If those were not met then the game could be said to be objectively broken, but without an objective means to assess brokenness then the game cannot be said to be objectively broken. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, is just a matter of opinion, and the only people who had the remit to impose their opinions on the game were the BBRC.

Edit after your repost:
If something does not work as designed then it is broken. That's true for most things, and although it is also true that some things which do not work as designed can have other uses they are not fit for their intended purpose. Therefore "does not work as designed" is a valid objective criterion for "broken". Conversely, if it is working as designed it is not broken by that criterion.

[Tripleskull]

As you say, I've not chosen an objective definition of broken. The only objective metric we have, though, is the design goals of the tiers. If those were not met then the game could be said to be objectively broken, but without an objective means to assess brokenness then the game cannot be said to be objectively broken. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, is just a matter of opinion, and the only people who had the remit to impose their opinions on the game were the BBRC.

As hutchinsfairy said you are making up the link between measurable metric, design goals and definition of broken. Other definitions of broken could be just as meaningful or more.

Even if everybody agreed with this definition of broken it could still be the case that everybody including the whole BBRC where in agreement that a rule change was desirable for the game to get better. Why insist on this narrow definition of broken? Why not have a discussion about what broken should mean and not just repeat the definition many people does not agree with?

I bet a lot of stuff has met design goal and still have been terrible solutions to a given problem. Why this low level of ambition?

I made a cake for my daughters birthday today. The design goals was to include strawberries, raspberries and candy. I can say for a certainty that the design goals was met. I have pictures to prove it. There was no talk of good taste or health risk when the design goals where set. if no-one liked the cake and/or all people who ed of it got terminally ill I would consider it a bad cake. Call it subjective and not broken all you like...