plasmoid wrote:My question is whether they could be having more fun playing the game.
No doubt I'd have more fun playing the game if I was getting a blowjob from a supermodel at the same time. I'm not sure that suggests it's a necessary addition to the game. Additionally, as you wanted to quip about opinion rather than fact, any response given to such a poll would only be opinion about one's own feelings, not fact about them - they'd be guessing at their fun as they'd be theorizing about something they had not experienced.
plasmoid wrote:Calling that fact "stupid beyond belief" doesn't make it any less true.
That's not what I called stupid. You're now throwing random things in front of my statements to deflect them away from what you've actually said.
plasmoid wrote:They're also fairly good at stomping the non-bash teams that don't have a lot of blodge.
Do we have a "stomping" metric I'm unaware of? Certainly they're not "fairly good" at winning matches against the non-bash teams.. unless we're talking about goblins or halflings?
plasmoid wrote:Actually, it was a way of saying that the more you're beat up, the less likely you are to outscore your opponent.
That's only true if the method of matching two teams for a game doesn't take it into account, hence the "plasmoid's imaginary matching system". As I said, there is no known environment in which that hurt elf team ends up playing against the chaos team again. If we get to manipulate the matching system then hey, we can make it support any point we want!
plasmoid wrote:That's opinion, not fact. For the record, I disagree that we'd have the same discussion.
Heh, it's entertaining to see the guy who is sitting here masturbating about using opinions to support his position suddenly think only objective facts matter. Hopefully that fence you rock ain't topped with those pokey bits.
There will always be differential outcomes between different rosters. That's an intentional part of the design, and it doesn't seem to be an issue for people outside of perpetual open play environments. That this particular differential outcome is important while others is not seems questionable.
plasmoid wrote:The apoth and the game winnings define what is a tolerable level of attrition. If you consistently suffer more than (roughly) 1,5 lost player (pre-apoth), then you'll be in a perpetual downward spiral. Less than that, and you can cope.
And have you used the data to calculate which rosters do or do not cross this metric of yours, or are you planning to run an opinion poll instead? To claim this is your metric is deeply disingenuous if you don't already have that information handy as it means it is something you thought up after deciding what your position is, rather than it being what your position is founded on.
As it happens, the effect you're talking about will still be environment-dependent, heavily affected by racial demographics. Even if a CPOMB team results in a net loss to your treasury that is only going to be a problem for you if you play more games against teams that produce that net loss than you do against teams that produce a net gain that outweighs those losses.
Wifflebat wrote:If I'm the only one this deep in the thread who's discussing this based on Wulfyn's "broken in all formats" premise, then I'm just a fading echo, I guess.
You're not, though. You've specifically stated you're only talking about leagues. We're all discussing the concept of "broken in all formats" but I'm not sure there's more to be said than the fact that all data that exists fails to show that it is broken in any format outside completely subjective views.