A similar number of people have had to be told that the RNG isn't broken or cheating in... any games that involve RNG. Perception, even mass perception, doesn't influence fact. It was considered an unquestioning truth that the earth was flat once upon a time... turns out people were just wrong. So far the data says people are "just wrong" on CPOMB as well unless we start talking about something other than winning games.plasmoid wrote:Considering how many people have had to be told this, that "I" isn't alone. But just how many people feel this way? Perhaps worth investigating?
You go ahead and investigate the feelsies of people. I'm a pretty strong advocate of following the facts and letting people get their shit in line with those facts rather than the alternative.
Its a game, plasmoid. Not only is it a game, it's a game you don't have to play... and there are a million other games you could be playing in its stead. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the people who are choosing to play the game are doing so because they're having fun. Other than profit and mental illness and coercion what reasons can you think of for someone to play a game they don't enjoy?plasmoid wrote:But we don't know which percentage of CPOMBers actually enjoy it, and which percentage only play CPOMB because they see it as the least unenjoyable of the options "a) score TDs, have your team destroyed, start over" and "b) destroy others so they have Little chance of destroying you". Again, perhaps worth investigating.
Nope, sure doesn't. We have data from non-rez environments and CPOMB teams are not winning all their games. They're not even winning an insanely high number of their games especially against agility teams. They're good at beating other bash teams when those bash teams try to out-bash them and fail.plasmoid wrote:True. Very true in a rez environment.
In non-rez, the nature of injuries makes this a lot harder to gauge.
Pretty disingenuous, that. What are we matching them on... plasmoid's opportunistic example matching? In a TV matched environment any damage sustained by the elf team during their first fairly likely victory would mean they're unlikely to play that same chaos team again any time soon. The same is true in a TVPlus environment. In a challenge environment they'd have the option not to play that team again (or, if done with RAW, they'd be prohibited from doing it again without facing other teams). In a league they'd almost certainly face other teams several times before facing that chaos team again. In most tournament formats they'd be done facing that chaos team after one play.plasmoid wrote:Given a, say, rating 1800 High Elf team and a rating 1800 Chaos CPOMB team, which team would win? High Elfs?
How about best out of 3?
Best out of 5? 7?
You're talking about long-term attrition and its effect on open play environments. That's not a cpomb thing.. cpomb just happens to be at the upper end of attrition causing. Remove cpomb and we'd have the exact same discussion about the SECOND best method for causing attrition, which would now be the first best.plasmoid wrote:Eventually, my Money would be firmly on the Chaos team to carry the day. I'm thinking from best out 5 and up. YMMV.
I don't know... would it generate any valid information to set up a poll asking if the RNG is broken? Would having more yes votes than no votes make it broken? My guess is no.plasmoid wrote:Just curious here, would there be any valid information in setting up a poll on TFF, FUMBBL and Cyanide saying:
"Blood Bowl would be more enjoyable to me, if the combo Claw + Piling On + Mighty Blow was less efficient."
Replace "ClawPOMB" in your questions with absolutely any bash roster, bash skills, etc. The real issue here is not CPOMB itself, it is uneven levels of attrition in long-term play. Any imbalance in the way attrition is distributed to teams is going to be exponentially obvious in an environment where you can (and probably will) play far, far more games with your team than you would in a structured league or tournament.Wifflebat wrote:Do their TVs plummet dramatically compared to games vs. non-ClawPOMB teams?
Do their W-L records suffer significantly more after playing ClawPOMB teams?
To answer that we need to define "unfair", and give "future games" context. Even if you play a game in which 10 of your 11 players die, and you wind up with 0 gold, you're able to continue playing your team... and you'll be able to rebuild it. I wouldn't, of course... neither would you, but that's why we need to establish definitions for what we're talking about rather than leave them ambiguous.Wifflebat wrote:The real question for me is, does playing a ClawPOMB team unfairly cripple a team's ability to function in future games?
For me the real question is: do uneven rates of long-term attrition adversely impact the general play environment? By "adversely impact" I mean create an environment where a small set of rosters are overwhelmingly represented and the rest are very significantly less represented. If CPOMB were totally removed (and nobody is actually saying it should be, we should note) or toned down a bit, would it significantly impact that long-term attrition imbalance? I absolutely do not believe it would.
So what it boils down to is subjective feel. Some people just want it toned down, though doing so will not actually result in anything but them feeling a wee bit satisfied. Heavy bash teams will continue to be over-represented in open matchmaking just as they will continue to mostly lose their games and accomplish little in other environments - possibly performing even worse in those other environments.