FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Nextflux

Joined: Jan 22, 2008

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 16:50

BillBrasky wrote:

I think most of you enjoy talking about blood bowl more than playing.

Activate!

Im beginning to think BillBrasky is always right, not J.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 16:58

Wreckage wrote:

Hm this is something I wanted to discuss way earlier in another thread but since we are here, how many players do you think Dode would CPOMB have to be able to remove on average per game for us to be able to call it broken?
I mean clearly player removal is a strong effect, right?

I don't think it matters so long as no team's ability to win matches is taken outside the desired lifetime bracket. I think you're looking at the wrong metric, as koadah suggested I might say. Why? Because that what the BBRC chose as their metric, and that's their call to make.

Nextflux - have I actually insulted you? I don't think so. If I have it was unintentional and I apologise.
I don't think I've said you "can't ask people in FUMBBL". What I've said is you "can't say the opinions of 598 people in FUMBBL is representative of the BB community as a whole."
This is not about "random guy on the street", it's about BB players, of which FUMBBLers are a subset with an individual way of playing and enjoying BB. There is crossover, of course, but it's still one part of a very large Venn diagram of BBers.

I've got no issue if you want to change CPOMB as a house rule here or anywhere else. My argument is not that it can not be changed, it is that there is no need to change it because it's not been shown to be objectively broken. Note the difference between "want" and "need".

I've not called people biased. Please don't misrepresent me. I've said the poll is subject to biases, which is a very different suggestion.

thoralf - no, it's not "optimised strategies", it's bias for player skill. "Optimised strategies" would look at overall win percentages of the "best" coaches (how are you defining that?) in all formats, not just majors. The tiny sample size of the majors makes it subject to a LOT of variance due to the randomness inherent in matches, too.
Your volleyball analogy is flawed, btw: there are no "races" in volleyball which we are trying to compare. You could, of course, look at individual teams and rank them as "races" to see if there are any which are objectively better, and that's what we do. Tournament winners are not necessarily the best teams in the long run, though: they are simply the best teams that tournament. When looking at the long term you should, of course, include those tournament games, but you also need to include other data where it is available.

The "stated goal" was stated by the BBRC: the win percentages of the race over the lifetime as set by the tiers. You look at the goal, you look at the performance as measured, and you check to see whether the design goal has been met (or at least cannot be said to not have been met, which is the best you can do really).

The chess issue you linked to is interesting, but it comes back to remit. The ICCF has the remit to make the changes it is making in order to achieve a new design goal (fewer draws). We do not have that remit. GW can change it, or Christer can house rule it, but we can't outside our own TT groups and leagues.

I didn't decide what matters. This is a point I've made many, many times yet people seem to think it is me deciding these things, or even wanting to. To answer your question, the BBRC decided these things.

The effect of CPOMB is not the issue, lifetime win percentage is. Which is why the whole dataset is needed.

--------

Some people seem to think this is somehow personal. It's not. I'm not choosing the relevant metric or the dataset, the metric was set by others and I have gathered data as it has been made available and shared it. Anyone can do that. That people want to look at other metrics is neither here nor there: they are not the ones chosen by the body which had the remit to choose them, so they're a matter of preference rather than a matter of objective brokenness.
To be clear, I'm not saying anyone can't or shouldn't play any way they want to play: I wouldn't say that and thoroughly advocate house rules to play the way you find most enjoyable. I am ONLY saying that claims of objective brokenness (and consequent justifications for rules changes) are spurious based on the only design goal metric we have for BB. Whether you agree with the metric or the design goal is moot: they are what they are and they were set by the people with the power to choose them. Play the way you want to play, but the game as it stands isn't broken.

Tripleskull

Joined: Oct 12, 2003

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:30

I don't play on fumbbl (other than res.) or on Blood bowl 2 because I don't like to play blood bowl in the box or in TV matched Open league. The main reason for this is CLAWPOMB. In a game with enough killers coaching skills matters very little and I find that very boring.

If you think CLAWPOMB is not a problem then I think your intuition about the game is plainly terrible.

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.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:32

It's not about intuition. It's about whether it is objectively broken or not, which can only be measured as whether the design objective is met.

If you think that CLAWPOMB is a problem then it is solely a matter of preference.

Nextflux

Joined: Jan 22, 2008

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:36

dode74 wrote:

have I actually insulted you? I don't think so. If I have it was unintentional and I apologise.

yeah you said something about me hitting my wife,
again dismissing my remark, guess I didn't understand what you said, you didn't answer my question other than questioning my question.
Never mind, I forget it now.. (its gone)

dode74 wrote:

I don't think I've said you "can't ask people in FUMBBL". What I've said is you "can't say the opinions of 598 people in FUMBBL is representative of the BB community as a whole."

but the people that is asked is representative of this community, its just a matter of having enough people to answer the question. wich I think was enough to get an indication where people stand.
Sure you can't say 57% majority conclusive, and act that the whole world wants to change it, for that you need ballots, supervision etc.. like an election.
I was surprised you dismissed the whole poll as being insignificant for fummblers.

dode74 wrote:

I've got no issue if you want to change CPOMB as a house rule here or anywhere else. My argument is not that it can not be changed, it is that there is no need to change it because it's not been shown to be objectively broken. Note the difference between "want" and "need".

I've not called people biased. Please don't misrepresent me. I've said the poll is subject to biases, which is a very different suggestion.

Ok, at least some misunderstandings are cleared now,

I think though it CPOMB can be made better, and IF it is better, then it can be changed, then maybe we can all compare that to all the other data, and test if that makes things better.
Another reason I think I can be made better is because a significant number of people doesn't like it right now, and when people talk about it a lot emotionally, it tells me people think it is a problem.
You can't dismiss that saying "people remember all the bad matches" because a lot of people had hundreds of "bad matches", some have a lot of experience, we are after all trying to make things better, that people are more happy and to make the game more enjoyable.
I personally dislike the short-cut CPOMB gives, it makes the game too predictable, Mino blitzes, Mino kills, Mino blitzes, Mino KOS, etc. its just a dice contest, you might just play Ludo.

Tripleskull

Joined: Oct 12, 2003

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:38

dode74 wrote:

It's not about intuition. It's about whether it is objectively broken or not, which can only be measured as whether the design objective is met.

If you think that CLAWPOMB is a problem then it is solely a matter of preference.

Why do you get to decide what it is about? For me it is about a game I would not like to play vs a game I like to play.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:49

Trippleskull - I have to say I find it surprising to see someone with a background in science throw out the data when it disagrees with their intuition.

As I said quite clearly before, I don't get to decide what it's about. The BBRC did. Why do people insist on making this personal?

Nextflux - the question was "when did you stop beating your wife?" It is a classic example of a loaded question designed to show that the premises behind such questions should be questioned themselves. Not an insult aimed at you at all.

Are the people who answered a leading question such as that the thread title suggests really representative of the community? Or are they simply a group of people who self-selected to click on a thread called "CPOMB complaints and discussion thread"? That's the question I was asking with reference to the poll's validity as being an arbiter of the BB community's opinion.

Glad the misunderstandings have been cleared up. Hopefully the "wifebeating" question will further clarify.

"Made better" is a thoroughly subjective matter. If you want to house rule it to make it "better" then crack on, but imposing your version of better on the game designer's desires is not your remit at all.
I'm not dismissing bad matches, I'm saying peoples' responses are coloured by perception bias. We do tend to remember the bad things: the quad skulls, the snake eyes, and the time the opponent made a dodge into a TZ to pickup the ball and make a long bomb with a zombie and score (true story!), while we rarely remember the double-pows or 6s. That kind of perception bias is one reason I prefer to look at the data to see if there is an objective problem.
I find your claims of predictability amusing given how others have claimed it makes the game too random. Those kind of responses - one person claiming one thing with another claiming the opposite - tend to mean it's about right.

Tripleskull

Joined: Oct 12, 2003

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:54

dode74 wrote:

It's not about intuition. It's about whether it is objectively broken or not, which can only be measured as whether the design objective is met.

If you think that CLAWPOMB is a problem then it is solely a matter of preference.

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. Saying anything else is equivalent to saying 2+/2+ DP was just fine and the dislike of it was just a matter of preference.

Face it we are not going to be able to optimize on this game solely based on numbers. And I am not differentiating between house rules and official rule changes because I have no idea what dynamics are in play in regards to the official rules so I take this to be a potential part of the process.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:59

Tripleskull wrote:

What I am also saying is that mine and others intuitions are better than your numbers.

Yeah, no. Data > intuition, even if it disagrees with intuition. Mine, yours, whoever's. As I said before, I find it surprising to see someone with a background in science throw out the data when it disagrees with their intuition.

Quote:

CLAWPOMB is objectively broken even though you haven't been able to identify it.

If it is objectively broken you MUST be able to identify it. The fact that people disagree shows it's not objectively broken.

Quote:

Saying anything else is equivalent to saying 2+/2+ DP was just fine and the dislike of it was just a matter of preference.

Not knowing the design goals of LRB4 I can't say if it was broken. I do know the goals of LRB5, though, and so do you.

Quote:

Face it we are not going to be able to optimize on this game solely based on numbers.

Then you're simply making stuff up based on your preference.

Quote:

And I am not differentiating between house rules and official rule changes because I have no idea what dynamics are in play in regards to the official rules so I take this to be a potential part of the process.

Any future changes to the rulebook will be a matter of meeting design goals and meeting designers' preferences. If those preferences consider these discussions then that's all well and good, but they are preferences as to what they subjectively think will make a better game rather than a response to a currently broken design goal. And I have no issue with that: it's their remit, after all.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 17:59

Tripleskull wrote:

dode74 wrote:

It's not about intuition. It's about whether it is objectively broken or not, which can only be measured as whether the design objective is met.

If you think that CLAWPOMB is a problem then it is solely a matter of preference.

Why do you get to decide what it is about? For me it is about a game I would not like to play vs a game I like to play.

1. Dode only cares about the win/loss. If you play to a 50% record that is fine. It doesn't matter if you hated every moment of it and decide never to play again.

2. Dode only believes in the one true Authority when it comes to changing the rules. You cannot talk about changing the rules unless you solemnly swear that you are speaking ONLY of house rules. And not some fiendish plot to usurp the Authority's... um... authority.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 18:03

1. Because it's the relevant metric. Other people enjoy other aspects, so you don't get to tell other people what rules they must change to suit your enjoyment. Only the "Authority" can do that Wink

2. There is only one authority: the IP owner. They can devolve that authority (such as to the BBRC) or individuals can house rule. Fiendish plot or no, the rules are what the IP owner says they are, and you can turnip it as you like.

Last edited by dode74 on %b %03, %2016 - %18:%May; edited 1 time in total

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 18:04

Tripleskull wrote:

dode74 wrote:

It's not about intuition. It's about whether it is objectively broken or not, which can only be measured as whether the design objective is met.

If you think that CLAWPOMB is a problem then it is solely a matter of preference.

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. Saying anything else is equivalent to saying 2+/2+ DP was just fine and the dislike of it was just a matter of preference.

Face it we are not going to be able to optimize on this game solely based on numbers. And I am not differentiating between house rules and official rule changes because I have no idea what dynamics are in play in regards to the official rules so I take this to be a potential part of the process.

I don't agree with Dode all the time, but you're just wrong here.

CPOMB is NOT objectively broken. If that were the case you could objectively show where/how/why/who/when...

CPOMB has a warping effect on SOME metas, but not all of them, and the correct action to take to address it will not be found by people who refuse to play in the metas it warps.

If you only play NAF style res tournaments then I think its OBJECTIVELY accurate to say that I have no interest in your opinion on CPOMB since you never encounter it, and certainly don't encounter it in the form it takes when it begins to actually warp the meta.

I do think that CPOMB needs to be addressed for the health of open ladder type metas, but the real issue isn't CPOMB itself, its the ease with which certain rosters can acquire it en masse.

Now that, I openly admit, has no numbers behind it, because OBJECTIVELY CPOMB doesn't actually help Chaos (and others) to win their matches at a high rate (well it might, when used appropriately, but we're talking more meta specific). What it does is to drive the meta and the mind set of the players in it towards an unhealthy direction.

That doesn't make it broken though, it means the metas that it warps need to find appropriate solutions to it, and those solutions DO NOT AFFECT (this part is for Dode) the metas that it doesn't warp, since it's a non-entity in them in the first place.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 18:06

dode74 wrote:

1. Because it's the relevant metric. Other people enjoy other aspects, so you don't get to tell other people what rules they must change to suit your enjoyment. Only the "Authority" can do that Wink

2. There is only one authority: the IP owner. They can devolve that authority (such as to the BBRC) or individuals can house rule. Fiendish plot or no, the rules are what the IP owner says they are, and you can turnip it as you like.

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 18:15

licker wrote:

...

Oh no Dude! Don't encourage Dode. You know where he'll take it now. Wink

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 18:23

koadah wrote:

licker wrote:

...

Oh no Dude! Don't encourage Dode. You know where he'll take it now. Wink

I'm not encouraging Dode as much as I'm barking about one of my pet peeves.