Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
 Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 10:58 |
 
|
More math is needed on this one,
Question1:how much longer does it take to spam claw mutation as a double?
Question2:is it in reality not a slow down? since well you know, some people grind.
I might have an answer, looking back again I remember one of my first matches on fummbl, I got cherrypicked against a spam chaos team got chewed up and spat out again, (also he fouled me every round).
Back then chaos had mutations on double right? claw and fangs? -2 armour +2 injury and +2 fouls.
A few teams had spam claw+fangs teams most chaos teams had a few claws and such.
Fangs was removed, but now all teams have spammed claw(and mb).
Still after all this time, and all CPOMB discussions, we still haven't found the right answer, although the majority thinks it should be nerfed.
Also this thread is beginning to reach its end, no more questions are answered by people. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 13:28 |
|
| Nextflux wrote: | | now all teams have spammed claw(and mb). |
All teams? Really? And don't "all" elven teams spam blodge, and "all" dorf/orc teams spam guard?
| Quote: | | although the majority thinks it should be nerfed. |
I'm not 100% sure that is entirely true, nor am I sure that it is true for all environments. Is it a problem in R and L, or just in B (and Cyanide MM)? |
|
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 14:49 |
|
Ugh.. don't get me started on Dorfs... Claw is nothing compared to the annoyance of Dorf teams.... Guard, Mighty Blow...done. |
|
|
mdd31
Joined: Oct 23, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 15:36 |
|
| Nextflux wrote: |
Still after all this time, and all CPOMB discussions, we still haven't found the right answer, although the majority thinks it should be nerfed.
|
That is simply untrue. If "the majority" wanted it changed then it would get changed. The reality is YOU and a handful of complainers want it changed. Cpomb can get nerfed as soon as blodge/SS is nerfed or all the block/guard/mb dwarves are nerfed. If you can't handle Cpomb that is a learn to play issue, not a game imbalance. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 15:40 |
|
Are you actually serious? |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 15:44 |
|
Tbh, I think I would also change both the Dwarf and Orc rosters in LRB Jelly. I don't like the fact that Orcs have blanket AV9 (imo, that should be Dwarves' exclusive 'thing') or that they can almost make an entire 11-man team from positionals. For Dwarves, I don't like that 'linedwarves' start with more skills than the Blitzers. Rookie Dwarf teams seem much too reliable 'out of the box'.
I am going to work on it and produce a full document summarising my ideal ruleset ... one day, it will be complete! I don't expect that everyone will like it, or that anyone will ever use it, but at least I'll have 'my LRB' down on paper, rather than just talking about it all the time ..  |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 15:46 |
|
| mdd31 wrote: | | Nextflux wrote: |
Still after all this time, and all CPOMB discussions, we still haven't found the right answer, although the majority thinks it should be nerfed.
|
That is simply untrue. If "the majority" wanted it changed then it would get changed. The reality is YOU and a handful of complainers want it changed. Cpomb can get nerfed as soon as blodge/SS is nerfed or all the block/guard/mb dwarves are nerfed. If you can't handle Cpomb that is a learn to play issue, not a game imbalance. |
Mdd31, have you been smoking? And where can I get it? |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 15:50 |
|
| mdd31 wrote: | | Nextflux wrote: |
Still after all this time, and all CPOMB discussions, we still haven't found the right answer, although the majority thinks it should be nerfed.
|
That is simply untrue. If "the majority" wanted it changed then it would get changed. The reality is YOU and a handful of complainers want it changed. Cpomb can get nerfed as soon as blodge/SS is nerfed or all the block/guard/mb dwarves are nerfed. If you can't handle Cpomb that is a learn to play issue, not a game imbalance. |
57-odd-page thread here, where 57% out of almost 600 respondents voted 'yes, absolutely' that clawpomb is a problem (only 19% voted that it's not a problem). Personally, I wouldn't say 600 is an insignificant number ..
https://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=25152 |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 16:13 |
|
Wacky backy! Always a laugh.
Joking aside. It is disliked by a majority. Though just because something is disliked is not a reason in itself to change it. I kind of lean on the side of a small change to take the edge off. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 16:41 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | Wacky backy! Always a laugh.
Joking aside. It is disliked by a majority. Though just because something is disliked is not a reason in itself to change it. I kind of lean on the side of a small change to take the edge off. |
The thing is that CPOMB wasn't a good idea was forseeable at the time before it's introduction. It's bad purely from a mathematical point of view.
It is not a division specific problem, it is simply a problem that is amplified in certain environments in a way that you can see it more clearly.
Obviously it is not a problem in short lived leagues but only because it can't be obtained in a short amount of time. It's moot to argue about something nobody has. Where it appears it dominates.
Before its introduction when discussed with the BBRC (the problems were actually pointed out to them) they argued the mechanic was necessary for attrition. Today I can confidently say the statement itself is pretty questionable. Yet most rule change suggestions have picked up on the argument and looked for ways to generate attrition in different ways. The main issue is however that the added attrition is only generated through certain teams, so fails to generate attrition regardless of environment. The teams who have it gain an unnecessary advantage.
Let me also point at this point that one of the dumber things people often repeat is CPOMB is a one-trick-pony or a luck dependent strategy that can either work or not work. Bloodbowl is a dice based game and as such depends on probability maximisation. Probability maximisation you obtain through accessing various tools. CPOMB is unique in that only few teams can obtain one of its key skill components. But it is universially effective.
Yet from a probability maximisation point of view you can always go for more CPOMB instead of agility or strength or whatever just because player removal is such a strong benefit and because CPOMB or even specifically Piling Ons boost on an av7 Mighty Blow hit is so significant.
At this point it shouldn't be even a question whether it's bad. Discussing that means just going in circles. I think we are really way past this point. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 17:23 |
|
It's not an "insignificant" number, but it is subject to multiple biases, not least of which is the self-selection bias of "people who play FUMBBL". Then there's the probability that people who don't think CPOMB is an issue tend not to bother with "CPOMB discussion and complaints" threads, for example. There are others, of course, but those spring to mind.
Wreckage - the numbers and maths were known beforehand by the BBRC. The effect was intentional to replace a bunch of other attrition methods.
It absolutely does not "dominate" where it appears anywhere other than MM. The vast majority of leagues have no issue with "CPOMB domination" and those which do are matched by some with "blodge domination" or similar - there are other biases at work within individual leagues.
| Quote: | | At this point it shouldn't be even a question whether it's bad. |
The fact that you don't think it's a question simply highlights your own bias against it. I think it is a question, and it's one which is answered in terms of balance. |
|
|
the_Sage
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 17:55 |
|
1. Yes and no. It's complicated.
2. No. That would make teambuilding much less rewarding.
3. The problem is that it's boring when there is no system in place to ensure some kind of variety.
4. No.
5. A decent enough mechanic that could get way better. Most importantly, by adding a TV to each 'level' in addition to the skill (probably + 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 for veteran -> legend)
6. Pretty decent. I'd drop fan factor from adding to TV, which would effectively lower it a bit.
7. Ha, that's funny. So yeah, I don't like penalizing success. Make it free (as one of the house rule options in the CRP suggests).
8. Same as #2, innit?
9. I think it's fine; for tournaments I like balancing rulesets (better skill packs and inducement options for lower tier races).
10. Yes and no. In case of a complete rethink, probably. However, it's also a masterful and interesting competitive aspect of the current game.
11. Mostly for noobs.
12. Yes, but... relate it to SPPs, not games played. Otherwise you allow fast-built clawpomb legends to play 75% of their matches as a legend, while retiring ST5 blodge guard BT tackle saurus because they take ages!
13. Encouraged, and buff sneaky git to 50% chance of return.
14. Hrmmm... Tough call. 200k seems better to me. Also, I want a 20k inducement that emulates an AC, CL or FF!
15. No.
16. Move blitz! to 1/36 (2 or 12) |
_________________
Content: Twitch / Youtube ; Updates: Facebook / Twitter
(because big banners are compensating) |
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:01 |
|
Dode74: you can't argue away a poll by calling it biased, a poll is a poll, and its a majority, your argument is non-sientific.
besides you need only 150 people in a poll to make it valid.
Anyway, wasn't you agreeing with us before? I though you didn't like CPOMB, I guess I was wrong? I was surprised by your comment, thats why I ask. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:30 |
|
I'd like to watch dode74 playing a Khemri team in a perpetual private league (as I do) vs some developed Nurgle teams with clawpombers (given enough time even in private league clawpombers can be built).
He could notice that bash teams without clawpomb are generally doomed to lose vs bash teams with clawpomb (or claw,mb,guard) because pomb is way less effective than clawpomb vs AV 9 and 8.
Suddenly a Beast of Nurgle with Stand Firm and Guard is a nightmare and Tomb Guardians can't be used as they should (key cornerstones of the team). |
Last edited by MattDakka on %b %01, %2016 - %18:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2016 - 18:39 |
|
| Nextflux wrote: | | Dode74: you can't argue away a poll by calling it biased, a poll is a poll, and its a majority, your argument is non-sientific. |
You absolutely can question the validity of a poll, one method being by identifying the sources of bias to see if they have been controlled for. I'm suggesting at least two sources of bias which have not been controlled for.
Then there's the question of whether a poll is the right tool to use to decide whether a game mechanism is actually flawed. Popularity is not the same thing as in-game power.
| Quote: | | besides you need only 150 people in a poll to make it valid. |
I've no idea where you got this apparent nonsense from! Care to provide a source?
| Quote: | | Anyway, wasn't you agreeing with us before? I though you didn't like CPOMB, I guess I was wrong? I was surprised by your comment, thats why I ask. |
I've no issue with CPOMB and never have had one. Furthermore, a look at hundreds of thousands of matches of data suggests it's not a particularly successful winning strategy. The most which can be said about it is that a not-insignificant proportion of BB players don't like it, but that'd be true of any mechanism which resulted in people losing their players. See the opprobrium LRB4 ageing and DP were subject to for examples. People are loss-averse (i.e. loss of material assets), and they dislike losing players, know there is a good chance of losing them against CPOMB (and TPOMB for elves), and complain. I think its effect is particularly noticeable for the AV9 coaches as they rarely lose players otherwise, hence the finger is pointed at claw.
| MattDakka wrote: | I'd like to watch dode74 playing a Khemri team in a perpetual private league (as I do) vs some developd Nurgle teams with clawpombers (given enough time even in private league clawpombers can be built).
He could notice that bash teams without clawpomb are generally doomed to lose vs bash teams with clawpomb (or claw,mb,guard) because pomb is way less effective than clawpomb vs AV 9 and 8.
Suddenly a Beast of Nurgle with Stand Firm and Guard is a nightmare and Tomb Guardians can't be used as they should (key cornerstones of the team). |
And matt proves my last point quite nicely, although I do think Khemri should lose Decay on the TGs. |
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
