Why ClawPOMB is broken

[Tripleskull]

Why insist on the importance of the remit? The game has not changed for a while. I believe we have more knowledge now that we did at the time of the BBRC - given this knowledge I believe the BBRC would have made different rules but of cause that is just guessing. Even so someone could be given remit and I would say everyone has the right to try and impose their subjective opinions on this given body including arguing for it to be made.

On a side note I also think the date available is not representative because CPOMB is messing with the meta and because people are avoiding the issues with house rules etc. and that is some of the main reasons I consider it broken but not the only ones.

[dode74]

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.

No definition based on a subjective metric is meaningful. The metric must be objective in order to be meaningful outside your own head. Otherwise it's simply preference. We only have one objective metric which was agreed on by the designers.

Why not have a discussion about what broken should mean and not just repeat the definition many people does not agree with?

Because anything which is subjective is meaningless. Anyone is free to accept or reject a subjective metric, but objective ones are either met or not met.

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...

That they consider it a "bad cake" is subjective. They don't have to eat it, you don't have to play BB.

Why insist on the importance of the remit?

Because changes based solely on subjective metrics are entirely based on individual preference. Nobody has the right to impose their own preferences on other players: I can't demand you play one way, and you can't demand I play another. The only people who have that remit are GW, and they devolved it to the BBRC. With the BBRC dissolved the remit lies with GW once more.

Even so someone could be given remit and I would say everyone has the right to try and impose their subjective opinions on this given body including arguing for it to be made.

I've got no issue with that. Never had. That doesn't make the game broken, though.

[Tripleskull]

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.

No definition based on a subjective metric is meaningful. The metric must be objective in order to be meaningful outside your own head. Otherwise it's simply preference. We only have one objective metric which was agreed on by the designers.

Why not have a discussion about what broken should mean and not just repeat the definition many people does not agree with?

Because anything which is subjective is meaningless. Anyone is free to accept or reject a subjective metric, but objective ones are either met or not met.

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...

That they consider it a "bad cake" is subjective. They don't have to eat it, you don't have to play BB.

Why insist on the importance of the remit?

Because changes based solely on subjective metrics are entirely based on individual preference. Nobody has the right to impose their own preferences on other players: I can't demand you play one way, and you can't demand I play another. The only people who have that remit are GW, and they devolved it to the BBRC. With the BBRC dissolved the remit lies with GW once more.

Even so someone could be given remit and I would say everyone has the right to try and impose their subjective opinions on this given body including arguing for it to be made.

I've got no issue with that. Never had. That doesn't make the game broken, though.

Summed up: because I say so!

You don't get to define what is meaningful! Deciding that is a social process not a matter of facts and you are short-circuiting the discussion.

[hutchinsfairy]

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.

I guess that a metric objectively measures something but it still has to be subjectively chosen and meaning has to subjectively be applied to it's values. In this case Jervis and/or the BBRC made the decision to aim for a particular metric, presumably because they thought it would be likely to make the game better in some way. It would be a very odd result to aim for in and of itself for no other purpose.

If the sole purpose of Blood Bowl is to generate that metric then it is massively over engineered. If that had really been the only consideration then LRB6 should have been pared down to a single die and a post-it note. It seems self-evident to me that the implicit aims of anyone creating rules for a game would be to make that game enjoyable.

I would also argue that the win% metric is just a crude abstraction for one small part of that enjoyment. Game designers try to make balanced games because those are the games that people most enjoy playing, not because they feel inexplicably compelled to do so. You might measure any number of things to try to determine if a game is good but they will necessarily be very lossy models because it's a game and it's purpose is intangible.

The BBRC was subjectively appointed and given an arbitrary design goal metric. They then made largely intuitive changes to the rules and asked people to play them and feedback with opinions. The fact that they had a codified voting system demonstrates that their remit went beyond just win%, otherwise they could have made all decisions with no reference to personal preference.

All of the above is also irrelevant. Designing something does not make you the arbiter of it's success so design goals are not an objective way to measure brokenness.

[hutchinsfairy]

No definition based on a subjective metric is meaningful.

Tell that to the Oxford English Dictionary. Most of us are human beings and everything from language, art, politics and board games is predicated on a mutual consensus about what things mean. The fact that your objections to a single rules discussion for a discontinued board game have reduced you to denying that basic precept of human interaction should show you just how far you are reaching with this one.

That they consider it a "bad cake" is subjective. They don't have to eat it, you don't have to play BB.

Both factually correct and completely tangential to the discussion.

Because changes based solely on subjective metrics are entirely based on individual preference. Nobody has the right to impose their own preferences on other players:

1) And yet this is exactly and solely what the BBRC did. A handful of people imposed their opinions on other players. They also incidentally used self-selecting focus groups and straw polls to do so.
2) No one has tried to impose anything on you since and they are not doing so now.
3) This is not a discussion about rights or remits so why do they kept getting thrown around if not as a smokescreen?

[dode74]

Summed up: because I say so!

Nope. Summed up: because a subjective metric can be disagreed with by anyone.

You don't get to define what is meaningful! Deciding that is a social process not a matter of facts and you are short-circuiting the discussion.

It's not "short circuiting" anything, and deciding what is meaningful is a process for the game designers.

I guess that a metric objectively measures something but it still has to be subjectively chosen

Subjectively chosen by the people with the remit to choose it, in this case the BBRC.

Designing something does not make you the arbiter of it's success

"Success" is not a definer of whether something is broken or not. Things which work very well can be unsuccessful, and things which are objectively broken can be highly successful.

The fact that your objections to a single rules discussion for a discontinued board game have reduced you to denying that basic precept of human interaction should show you just how far you are reaching with this one.

I'm not objecting to the discussion. I am saying that basing the discussion on a flawed premise - that the game is broken - is itself flawed. There's nothing wrong with the discussion, but everything wrong with assuming it is necessary.

Both factually correct and completely tangential to the discussion.

On the contrary, it is the very basis of the discussion.

And yet this is exactly and solely what the BBRC did.

Because they had the remit to do so.

No one has tried to impose anything on you since and they are not doing so now.

Defining a need for a change presupposes a change itself. Otherwise this would be in the house rules section and I would have no argument with it.

This is not a discussion about rights or remits so why do they kept getting thrown around if not as a smokescreen?

Because the only people with the remit to make changes based on subjective opinion are GW. That matters. If the game is not objectively broken but you don't like it then house rule it and have this discussion in the appropriate section; otherwise get on with it.

[dode74]

I feel I may need to explain my position more clearly.

- There are objective metrics (e.g. win%) and there are subjective metrics ("I don't like that bit of the game").
- Selection of metrics is subjective.
- The only people who have the remit to choose the objective metrics by which the game can be objectively assessed by anyone are the game designers.
- The game designers also have the remit to change anything they don't like - any of their own subjective metrics - as they see fit.
- We, as players, can select whatever metrics (objective or subjective) we like and house rule them to suit as we see fit.
- We, as players, cannot say the game is objectively broken based on those self-selected metrics because they are not ours to choose and/or they are subjective measures themselves.

Now, the BBRC had the remit and changed the game to please themselves (or the community, or GW, or whoever else they wanted to please), but they set, as the objective metric, the win%. This is backed up here.
The objective metric is therefore lifetime win% (whether we as individuals like that or not), and that can be assessed by anyone and can be seen to be within parameters. The subjective metrics were their own, and it's not unreasonable to suggest they met those, too (again, if the BBRC feels otherwise then I would be happy to be contradicted). To that end the game is not objectively broken. We may not like some of the mechanisms, we might want to make changes, but what it is not is broken.

[hutchinsfairy]

deciding what is meaningful is a process for the game designers.

Subjectively chosen by the people with the remit to choose it, in this case the BBRC.

And yet this is exactly and solely what the BBRC did.

Because they had the remit to do so.

Appealing to a higher power is the last resort of a failed argument. Some people were asked by some other people to amend some rules. You have chosen this as your line in the sand but don't pretend it isn't your choice and that other choices are less valuable. Neither the inventors of a game nor its copyright holders have exclusive rights to opinions on their work, not do their opinions hold some extra quality that makes them right without debate.

Defining a need for a change presupposes a change itself. Otherwise this would be in the house rules section and I would have no argument with it.

This is your own creation. You have jumped erratically from someone highlighting a perceived issue to arguing against an imaginary solution that had not yet been suggested. There is no house rule being discussed. The fact that you have lurched into discussing the technicalities of sub-fora says a lot.

Because the only people with the remit to make changes based on subjective opinion are GW. That matters.

It matters to you! To paraphrase yourself, that's your opinion, stop trumpeting it as fact. I guess I'm glad you seem to have backed down from telling people your opinion is more objective than theirs but saying that one lot of opinions is better than another because of their origin alone is nepotism.

Anyone has both the right and remit to discuss what they think and why they think it. I would be perfectly within my rights to call LRB6 house rules if that's how I saw them. The rights that you assign to the BBRC are irrelevant to the discussion of whether someone considered ClawPOMB to be broken.

[dode74]

Appealing to a higher power is the last resort of a failed argument.

It's called an appeal to authority, and it is a valid appeal if the authority is legitimate. The courts would be a valid place to appeal for something legal, and the game designers are the valid place to appeal for game metrics.
It's not MY line in the sand. It's the line drawn by the people who own the game.

Neither the inventors of a game nor its copyright holders have exclusive rights to opinions on their work, not do their opinions hold some extra quality that makes them right without debate.

When it comes to deciding whether the game is broken or not they absolutely do have the quality that makes them right when it comes to subjective matters: ownership and/or valid delegated authority.

You have jumped erratically from someone highlighting a perceived issue to arguing against an imaginary solution that had not yet been suggested.

Nonsense. I've continually said that the game cannot be said to be objectively broken. And it can't.
You've also missed the initiation of this thread, which was started from a discussion of what to do about CPOMB. Nothing imaginary there, and my answer is "house rule it as you like".

To paraphrase yourself, that's your opinion, stop trumpeting it as fact. I guess I'm glad you seem to have backed down from telling people your opinion is more objective than theirs but saying that one lot of opinions is better than another because of their origin alone is nepotism.

I have not once said my opinion is more objective than anyone's, so please don't misrepresent me. As for the remit: it belongs to GW. They own it. It is theirs to do with as they see fit. It is not yours, mine, TFFs, the NAFs or anyone elses. That's not opinion, it's fact.

Anyone has both the right and remit to discuss what they think and why they think it.

Of course, but don't trumpet it as objectively correct, nor state that you can change it anything outside a house rule.

I would be perfectly within my rights to call LRB6 house rules if that's how I saw them.

You could call them Brian for all I care. You couldn't call them broken though.

The rights that you assign to the BBRC are irrelevant to the discussion of whether someone considered ClawPOMB to be broken.

I didn't assign anything to the BBRC, GW did and it is theirs to assign.
Someone can think CPOMB is broken all they like. What they can't do is say it is objectively broken

[Tripleskull]

I feel I may need to explain my position more clearly.

- There are objective metrics (e.g. win%) and there are subjective metrics ("I don't like that bit of the game").
- Selection of metrics is subjective.
- The only people who have the remit to choose the objective metrics by which the game can be objectively assessed by anyone are the game designers.
- The game designers also have the remit to change anything they don't like - any of their own subjective metrics - as they see fit.
- We, as players, can select whatever metrics (objective or subjective) we like and house rule them to suit as we see fit.
- We, as players, cannot say the game is objectively broken based on those self-selected metrics because they are not ours to choose and/or they are subjective measures themselves.

Now, the BBRC had the remit and changed the game to please themselves (or the community, or GW, or whoever else they wanted to please), but they set, as the objective metric, the win%. This is backed up here.
The objective metric is therefore lifetime win% (whether we as individuals like that or not), and that can be assessed by anyone and can be seen to be within parameters. The subjective metrics were their own, and it's not unreasonable to suggest they met those, too (again, if the BBRC feels otherwise then I would be happy to be contradicted). To that end the game is not objectively broken. We may not like some of the mechanisms, we might want to make changes, but what it is not is broken.

It is terribly arrogant of you just to insist on a definition that people are explicitly disagreeing with you about.

If this discussion should really be about wether or not CPOMB is broken we should first try to agree on a definition of broken. the discussion is unfruitful because of your claim to the truth on the matter.

Maybe the title of the post should have been "is ClawPOMB a problem in parts of blood bowl" but that is besides the point. The interesting thing to explore is wether or not there is a problem and what character the problem has if it exists. On this matter Licker had some interesting points on fumbbl. All I hear from you is insistence on some weird formalism that I find utter boring, quite meaningless and irrelevant.

If you had a real interest in the issue (not just the meta-issue) you could try to convince me that the data is representative in stead of insisting on a definition I don't agree with and don't care much about. It would make a difference to me if I believed that the combo was not objectively broken given your definition but it would not mean I would not think it was still broken because of other metrics that I find universal for game mechanics. I would be willing to discuss these metrics and try to get some kind of consensus on this. But I get that you would most likely veto any such suggestion.

Maybe you will say that the games being played are representative of blood bowl as it is but I would say if a certain game mechanic is systematically making people abstain from certain choices or making them make similar choices the game is flawed. Of cause this is to high a standard for any complex game. But I think it would be nice if we could agree that some level of uniformity would be a flaw? Say all games above TV 1500 was X vs X and all X won the first half and lost the rest until reaching 1500 TV. This would put X at 50%. Lets say all other team was perfectly balanced under TV 1500 and not played over. You are seriously making the discussion about wether or not this could be called broken?

[dode74]

I've not insisted on a definition. What I've said is that there are no valid definitions which are objective other than those chosen by the people who had the remit to choose them.

The interesting thing to explore is wether or not there is a problem and what character the problem has if it exists.

Objectively there is no problem. Subjectively people have their own opinions, but that is not the same as it being objectively broken.

All I hear from you is insistence on some weird formalism that I find utter boring, quite meaningless and irrelevant.

Then don't take part in the discussion. Nobody is forcing you.

It would make a difference to me if I believed that the combo was not objectively broken given your definition but it would not mean I would not think it was still broken because of other metrics that I find universal for game mechanics.

I have no issue with that. You can use whatever metrics you want. What they aren't, though, is any sort of objective definition of broken.

I would say if a certain game mechanic is systematically making people abstain from certain choices or making them make similar choices the game is flawed

Subjective metric. It's also applicable to numerous parts of the game: block, blodge where possible, guard etc.

You are seriously making the discussion about wether or not this could be called broken?

Yes. Because, regardless of your thoughts on how the game should be, how the game should be was actually decided by people with the remit to do so. They chose lifetime win%, and that implicitly allows for a start-poor-become-good team, just as it allows for a start-good-become-poor team. That you don't like that it allows for that is neither here nor there.
Furthermore, I would question the use of TV-matched as an environment which would be useful to claim any sort of brokenness for, given we know TV-matched is not an environment for which the rules were designed. TV matched is a house rule, and if the game breaks in a house ruled environment then I would say that the house rule needs to be looked at first and foremost. If the game works in that house ruled environment, of course, then there is no issue.

[Tripleskull]

I've not insisted on a definition.
Objectively there is no problem.

LOL

[hutchinsfairy]

When it comes to deciding whether the game is broken or not they absolutely do have the quality that makes them right when it comes to subjective matters: ownership and/or valid delegated authority.

What? How? Do you intend to back that up at all? Is this some divine right? If the authority is delegated, who granted the original authority? You are making an erroneous link between creating something and somehow having a divine edict. No-one can be right or wrong about subjective matters, that's what it means!

You've also missed the initiation of this thread, which was started from a discussion of what to do about CPOMB. Nothing imaginary there, and my answer is "house rule it as you like".

That is not what the OP says, it's right there for anyone to read. Your answer is to another question.

I have not once said my opinion is more objective than anyone's, so please don't misrepresent me.

You may not see it as that but I stand by my assessment. You are expressing opinions about who has the right to do what and what constitutes broken whilst presenting it as fact without any serious attempt to qualify those opinions, presumably because you don't see them as such.

As for the remit: it belongs to GW. They own it. It is theirs to do with as they see fit. It is not yours, mine, TFFs, the NAFs or anyone elses. That's not opinion, it's fact.

Still opinion. GW own some trademarks and IP related to the game but no-one owns the rules (although GW probably own copyright for their current expression). Even if they did you are missing some fundamental steps drawing a link between ownership and this mythical beast "objective opinion". I own my car and my neighbour thinks it's ugly. My ownership is irrelevant to the discussion as is any pretense at objectivity.

Someone can think CPOMB is broken all they like. What they can't do is say it is objectively broken

No one can! The definition of broken is always going to be subjective.

[dode74]

What? How? Do you intend to back that up at all? Is this some divine right? If the authority is delegated, who granted the original authority? You are making an erroneous link between creating something and somehow having a divine edict. No-one can be right or wrong about subjective matters, that's what it means!

By creating it they have that authority. As far as the world of BB goes, their edict is divine as the creator of that world.

That is not what the OP says, it's right there for anyone to read. Your answer is to another question.

And insofar as the OP goes it is not in any way an objective statement. If he had said "I think it is broken because..." then that would be one thing (and something which could be rejected out-of-hand), but he did not. Read the last sentence of the OP: he presented it not as opinion but as fact.

You may not see it as that but I stand by my assessment. You are expressing opinions about who has the right to do what and what constitutes broken whilst presenting it as fact without any serious attempt to qualify those opinions, presumably because you don't see them as such.

GW have the right to edit the rulebook. Nobody else does. Do you deny that?

Even if they did you are missing some fundamental steps drawing a link between ownership and this mythical beast "objective opinion". I own my car and my neighbour thinks it's ugly. My ownership is irrelevant to the discussion as is any pretense at objectivity.

No, I've said that ownership gives their subjective opinion the authority required to choose objective metrics. Your ownership of your car means only your opinion as to whether it is ugly or not matters.

No one can! The definition of broken is always going to be subjective.

The choice of metrics can be subjective, but the metrics themselves can be objective. The choice of metric is down to the person who owns the game and IP.

[VoodooMike]

I always feel such conflicting emotions in these situations... on the one hand I love jumping into a fray where I get to bitch-slap one or more really, really ignorant people (and we've got some doozies now) but on the other I also really enjoy the polite british-style stiff-upper-lip treatment that dode gives them as they vigorously sodomize him with 12 inchers composed entirely of high-density stupid.

Since it has been a good show, I guess I'll try to get a bit of both!

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.

'Fraid not, dingus. The use of win% is not "just as subjective" as it was established by the people who made the game, and is based on objective data. That's infinitely more valid in this context than you using your feelings as a metric. What you're saying boils down to the classic refrain of the uneducated: "everyone is entitled to their opinion!" with the implication that all opinions are equal. They're not and nobody seriously imagines they are. Nobody seriously imagines a doctor's diagnosis based on medical research is equal to some face-painted tribesman who diagnoses people using chicken entrails.

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.

Who cares what you think?

That question is the core of everything here. Why should anyone give a shit what you think or feel? That's exactly where the definitions diverge even if you believe they are, at their hearts, subjective. One side can say "you should care because it is a definition created by the people who made the game, and we base it on data collected from tens or hundreds of thousands of games" and the other side says "well I feel it in my bones and like, you should totally listen to my bones".

You're absolutely welcome to think and feel whatever you want, no matter how objectively stupid those things are... but this isn't about what you think, it's about convincing other people that what you think is true, and the question those people are asking is "why should I?". We can answer that... the other side has a monolithically difficult time doing so specifically because their arguments are based on nothing but subjective feelings.

It is terribly arrogant of you just to insist on a definition that people are explicitly disagreeing with you about.

Before getting into your tripe, I just wanted to point out how ironic it is to see you calling anyone arrogant after you've made statements like the following...

What I am also saying is that mine and others intuitions are better than your numbers. CLAWPOMB is objectively broken even though you haven't been able to identify it.

Bahaha... or this one, my fave:

As a mathematics teacher with a masters degree in mathematics and philosophy I can appreciate both the desire to look for quantifiable evidence and the epistemological and logical discussion about how to know anything about the matter. Given that the data does not give us an answer however I think it is very reasonable to assume that the intuition and anecdotal evidence that I have that CLAWPOMB is broken (a bad design for some formats) is correct.

That one is absolute gold! According to you the fact that the data does not show evidence that your belief is correct is proof that your belief should be considered more objectively solid than the data! Who do you teach math to... grade school special ed? I'd swear you were a low-budget theologian..

"If you think 2 + 2 = 5, and your calculator says its 4, then that proves your calculator is flawed... believe in yourself, kids... Jesus loves you!"

If you had a real interest in the issue (not just the meta-issue) you could try to convince me that the data is representative in stead of insisting on a definition I don't agree with and don't care much about.

Yeah, or he could say "why don't you blow me, weirdo?" (which, admittedly, sounds more like me than dode, but he's still evolving!). Continually you miss the point: the onus is not on people to convince you of anything - you're nobody. You have no control over anything, and nobody cares if you think CPOMB is a problem or if you think the moon landing was faked or if you think numerology applied to the new testament can tell you the exact date of the rapture... you're welcome to think anything you please because you're not in charge of anything the rest of us care about.

This is also where the idea of remit comes in... the people with that remit are the only ones whose beliefs matter because they're the only ones with a serious ability to influence the future of the game. The importance of objective or at least intellectually supportable positions is that those are the ones most likely to influence people who are neutral and attempting to form as objective an opinion as possible. Those people are the ones you need to convince... and telling them that they should just trust you because you're a math teacher that is strong with the force, and to ignore the parameters set out by the creators of the game and all that silly data that has been collected on the game... well... probably going to be a hard sell... but who knows?

No-one can be right or wrong about subjective matters, that's what it means!

The line of douchebaggy subjectivity you're traveling is akin to staring down the barrel of a mugger's gun and declaring that you don't think that you should have to give him your wallet, and that because each of you has your own opinion and the RIGHT to your own opinion, it means that your feelings in the matter are just as important and legitimate as his. The bullet that ends your life is the final remit on the topic... divine right? I suppose we can theorize so... I mean, God didn't stop you from very righteously getting murderered for being mouthy to a mugger. The simple fact is that opinions don't really mean jack shit in the face of action, and with Blood Bowl the action portion sits in the hands of the people who implement the game. Your feelings on whether that is right, wrong, peach-flavoured, or whatever... are irrelevant.