| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 464 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 840 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
 Posted:
Oct 10, 2015 - 04:25 |
 
|
| licker wrote: |
Some rosters should lose some of their spammed S access. This would also help a little, but you'd have to split Beastmen into 2 different kinds, maybe one has G/M and the other has G/S. Nurgs already sort of there, but 9 cpomb potential. Pact and Chaos need a tweak. CD are already perfectly fine as they are. (and necro and norse don't matter in this discussion)
|
Well seeing as one of the BB2 reviews said that the Chaos team was still not finished since it has no Throwers and Catcher, we might have an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone here  |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2015 - 05:35 |
|
| Fabulander wrote: | While simplicity is good, it is not always the main concern - if it was, no one would play complex games.
Anyhow, as a case for pure simplicity I wonder if anyone has mentioned limiting Piling On use to once per turn, like fouling, passing, blitzing etc.? One line of clear, unambiguous text in the skill description should have a major impact on the unwanted and uncool spamming of a skill that seems like it should be more niche. It's not my favourite solution, but at least it would limit the ridiculous impact of the coin toss in some matches.
Just a stray thought... |
I think one of the biggest lessons I've learned in games I enjoy is that no matter how simple or complex a game or mechanism is, the most important thing is making a player cognizant of the choices they make and making the outcomes of choices important for further actions.
The reason for simplicity in this case stems from a few things:
1. I am designing a variant of dungeon bowl and have poured over impediments to getting people to play. I look at my friends who have played WHFB and have kids now and their time is eaten up. We recently tried and failed to do a D&D campaign during a bachelor party because we spent so much goddamn time referring to the rules because you couldn't generalize one mechanism to another at all. The time it takes to remember or refer to a chart interferes with adoption. I thought about a lot of things and the easiest thing to remember is "can I move this player".
2. I love opportunity cost. And one of the biggest problems I have with Piling On is there is none really. Your movement for a Blitz is neutered and you give up a potential foul.
Fouling is weak in two ways:
Depending on the Piling On players positioning and a successful KO+ and personnel they can protect from a foul. So it's up to you to position in a way where the PO player is exposed enough to foul if they use it.
Then there's the obvious that fouling isn't an efficient means of removing players. The investment in assists and the ejection threat make it hard to justify especially if the POMB worked and you're short a man.
The Blitz Range doesn't matter too much for a killer CPOMBer if there are targets in range. So you have to position around him and/or dry up his blitz options with positioning and heaven forbid you provide fodder with a failed foul.
But I'm not going to change entire other parts of the game to fix another part of the game. That would be a last resort.
3. Piling On puts too much on the opponent while not asking much of the player.
We already have a pretty good idea of when it's good to Pile On is optimally used - always on all mens. I'm joking of course but seriously, CPomb is almost automatic on an injury roll. To wit, your PO players are usually going to enjoy the lion's share of Blitzes as a matter of getting the most blocks per game with them and to get around a lack of Jump Up to maximize their damage. I'm generalizing how a game plays out, yes, you will have situations where the PO player is not the best Blitz choice. I might be off base completely and if I am correct me, but CPOMB is meant to enable a gameplay style that is related to depicting, by design.
So to change the axiom "Pile On All Mens", I went with "Pile On Some Mens when you can afford a stun on the pitch".
4. It scales to coach risk appetite. Coaches with 4 pombers might have a very compelling reason to use all 4 on a turn with this change but the risk is you're giving up positioning like whoa. Currently there's not really that trade off especially because a prone player can blitz and ST4 players can usually drum up a 2d6 against a player within blitz range and do it again next turn and Chaos and Nurgle have that on demand.
5. I don't want people to be afraid of using it or taking it as a skill across every team. Having them sent off the pitch would be terrible for teams outside of CPOMB.
Ogres would be instantly worse because you'd have Ogres going off the pitch.
Any team with 0-2 ST3 S access Blitzer would be in a larger team building predicament than 0-4 S access Blitzers.
You might see less POMB Elves, especially if you were basing being sent off on armor rolls. As an elf coach there is a special joy in having a POMBer and it's a nasty surprise (That Tmoila will fix for you, poste haste  ).
Lizardmen surely would enjoy losing a Saurus for a drive at the least.
I just see it as too punishing to all the other teams in BB and with the reduction in action and that opportunity cost, it's enough.
I think BB would be less interesting if PO was just the domain of CPOMBers and 0-4 Blitzer S Access teams.
On to your idea:
Limiting to once per turn is simple but more lenient on the PO coach's decision making but is effective in inducing a choice: Who do I PO with when I go through my blocking progressions. Lots of ways to make that read. I like it but I think making the choice less automatic is the direction to go, especially because it fits with the meta game idea of trading in bodies for losing position.
Anywho, it's fun to think about.
Addendum for what I talk about with simplicity and CRP fixes:
If I was going to 'fix' fouling I would do it in a simple way: Make doubles on an armor roll ejectable. It's absurd that the type of injury would somehow matter to a ref. Taking ejection from 1/3 to 1/6 seems a reasonable risk to undertake with a good amount of assists. I don't want to change skill functions and how assists work for the sake of fouling. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 10, 2015 - 06:55 |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 04:22 |
|
> there's not much point discussing anything else.
Meanwhile, we can watch masterpieces like this one. |
|
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 04:53 |
|
In other games, if there is a tactic that completely dominates all other tactics, it is called an exploit. Players are not technically going outside the game or the rules to gain the unfair advantage. But the developer has left the possibility open, possibly because they simply did not think of all the different combinations of actions a player can do in the game. Many people think such exploitations should be left alone as a reward for mastering the game. Others feel that developers should fix them in order to restore the competitiveness of the game.
In our game, we have CPOMB, which very clearly dominates other tactics. It does not always lead to wins, but it does make winning much more likely. It also very often damages the long-term team-building aspect of the game, which is arguably its worse effect. The combo is not a reward for mastery in our case, because it is well-known and easy to obtain with perseverance.
The trouble is that we have no developer to fix it. However we do have house rules. We either need to introduce house rules, or start treating it like the exploit it is. It is cheap, mindless, and contrary to everything most of us play this game for. It does enormous damage to the perception of the game, and culls coaches perhaps faster than it cuts down players on the pitch. |
|
|
LudakkBB
Joined: Oct 13, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 05:58 |
|
its much better to have a Gutter Runner with AV5 or 6 and MA11 + more skills to make sure its always a 1 turn TD every time, I'd say that's fair and balanced.
AMAZING STRATS are involved for sure. |
|
|
delusional
Joined: Jan 18, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 08:20 |
|
I still don't understand why Claw often takes the focus of CPOMB complaints.
Truth be told I think Claw scares the Chaos and the Orc teams allot. the Av9, becomes AV8 and that frightens tougher teams that are used to fewer causalities.
IMHO, move Piling on to a foul style action and I reckon you got this problem sorted. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 09:02 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Christer had the two nerfs ready to roll. If we're not going to even try those then there's not much point discussing anything else. |
Did he? Where was that and what were they ? |
_________________
 |
|
Squiglet
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 09:28 |
|
| delusional wrote: |
Move Piling on to a foul style action and I reckon you got this problem sorted. |
THIS! Definitely this...
PO becomes an additional foul action after opponent knocked down. It fits the fluff for fouling, it no longer stacks with Claw or MB (but does with DP) and has the added negatives of a good chance of getting sent off and cas caused do not provide SPPs.
Oh and this too while we're are it..
| mrt1212 wrote: |
Make doubles on an armor roll ejectable. It's absurd that the type of injury would somehow matter to a ref. Taking ejection from 1/3 to 1/6 seems a reasonable risk to undertake with a good amount of assists. I don't want to change skill functions and how assists work for the sake of fouling. |
|
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 09:40 |
|
| Squiglet wrote: | | delusional wrote: |
Move Piling on to a foul style action and I reckon you got this problem sorted. |
THIS! Definitely this...
PO becomes an additional foul action after opponent knocked down. It fits the fluff for fouling, it no longer stacks with Claw or MB (but does with DP) and has the added negatives of a good chance of getting sent off and cas caused do not provide SPPs.
Oh and this too while we're are it..
| mrt1212 wrote: |
Make doubles on an armor roll ejectable. It's absurd that the type of injury would somehow matter to a ref. Taking ejection from 1/3 to 1/6 seems a reasonable risk to undertake with a good amount of assists. I don't want to change skill functions and how assists work for the sake of fouling. |
|
Meh; might as well remove the skill altogether. If it doesn't stack with the rest of the killstack, why would you want to foul with your damage-dealing player to begin with? |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
Emphasy
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 09:43 |
|
You just need enough dps to foul the shiznit out of them when they PO.
Ohh, and all elves suck! |
|
|
Squiglet
Joined: Aug 13, 2015
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 09:44 |
|
| the_Sage wrote: | | Squiglet wrote: | | delusional wrote: |
Move Piling on to a foul style action and I reckon you got this problem sorted. |
THIS! Definitely this...
PO becomes an additional foul action after opponent knocked down. It fits the fluff for fouling, it no longer stacks with Claw or MB (but does with DP) and has the added negatives of a good chance of getting sent off and cas caused do not provide SPPs.
Oh and this too while we're are it..
| mrt1212 wrote: |
Make doubles on an armor roll ejectable. It's absurd that the type of injury would somehow matter to a ref. Taking ejection from 1/3 to 1/6 seems a reasonable risk to undertake with a good amount of assists. I don't want to change skill functions and how assists work for the sake of fouling. |
|
Meh; might as well remove the skill altogether. If it doesn't stack with the rest of the killstack, why would you want to foul with your damage-dealing player to begin with? |
You wouldn't, that is the point... claw MB on killer blitzer but PO goes on another specialist player with DP and Sneeky for the purpose of getting extra armour rolls on high value target... for a risk |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 10:43 |
|
Fidius, that stats for blackbox games played show that CPOMB is a common build for teams that live a long time at high TV (you can survive longer as a squad by putting your opponents off the field), but it's not the best build for winning. It's not even close.
Zons, Chorfs, Necro, WElf, and DElf are the biggest winners, with PElf, Lizards, Undead, and Skaven also doing alright. The most common factor is high speed with either blodge-spam or tackle-spam. Blodge wins games.
Chaos doesn't win that much. Nurgle teams mostly lose. Humans have POMB aplenty, and it's rubbish, because they lose too.
If you nerf claw, you help the teams that already win all the time (but mostly the high AV teams, naturally). If you nerf POMB, you hurt Humans and Orcs and Dorfs and other below-average teams more than you do the actual teams that win all the time.
The problem is the balancing method for elves and co being too good is to let Chaos and friends murder them. People don't really like it, even though it totally works. |
_________________
  |
|
Catalyst32
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 11:18 |
|
| tussock wrote: | Fidius, that stats for blackbox games played show that CPOMB is a common build for teams that live a long time at high TV (you can survive longer as a squad by putting your opponents off the field), but it's not the best build for winning. It's not even close.
Zons, Chorfs, Necro, WElf, and DElf are the biggest winners, with PElf, Lizards, Undead, and Skaven also doing alright. The most common factor is high speed with either blodge-spam or tackle-spam. Blodge wins games.
Chaos doesn't win that much. Nurgle teams mostly lose. Humans have POMB aplenty, and it's rubbish, because they lose too.
If you nerf claw, you help the teams that already win all the time (but mostly the high AV teams, naturally). If you nerf POMB, you hurt Humans and Orcs and Dorfs and other below-average teams more than you do the actual teams that win all the time.
The problem is the balancing method for elves and co being too good is to let Chaos and friends murder them. People don't really like it, even though it totally works. |
The reason Elves, Skaven, Zons, Blodge Spam wins so often is two-fold.
1) Chaos Teams get Block, Claw, Mighty Blow and Piling On om enough players to win Bash vs Bash games and CLPOMB vs Humans/Lizards/Necro/Undead... but hey won't take enough Tackle to rip through Elves like they should.
2) Because Chaos teams are ripping Human/Necro/Lizard/Dorf teams to shreds with CLPOMB these other teams that WOULD rip Elf teams to shreds IF they were able to develop an maintain viable teams ARE NOT ABLE to develop the kind of Elf shredding teams it would take to ruin Blodge Spam winning percentages.
In short, if your damn CLPOMB team was ripping my Humans apart... then my Humans would tear those Elves apart... and your CLPOMB team with ENOUGH TACKLE could beat those damn Elves. |
|
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 29, 2015 - 11:35 |
|
Must TYPE using MORE RANDOM capital LETTERS to drive HOME my POINT |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
[L] OBBA Smack Talk ...
Search
