FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 20:46

fidius wrote:

dode74 wrote:

imposing your version of better on the game designer's desires is not your remit at all.

How DARE we.

Quite. How dare the pathetic plebs that play game attempt to express an opinion. All that matters is that the BBRC's vision of Blood Bowl is satisfied at all costs and that the players accept it without question.

_________________
"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!!" Razz

Wreckage

Joined: Aug 15, 2004

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 20:47

dode74 wrote:

Nextflux - sorry, who's the noob here? I ask because I assume it's not you as you've played over 1000 games, and I know it's not me because I have too, just not here on FUMBBL (I have issues with the sideways pitch).

Dode can you link to some account stats? It's probably not gonna matter to most here, but to me at least it would be a source of credibility that would help me better to see past your general attitude.

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 21:00

dode74 wrote:

Your definition of "broken" is something you've acknowledged is entirely a subjective matter for you. Since you have no authority within the game to define "broken" then I choose to not accept that definition. I don't have that choice with the BBRC's definition because they do have that authority. None of which prevents you from house ruling it.

And I don't accept your definition, or your claim that the definition for 'broken' that the last set of game designers used is the only one that is valid and must be used by anyone else who is contemplating future changes to the game. By that same logic, we may as well say that the LRB6 ruleset itself is sacrosanct and no changes to it can possibly even be contemplated, because it was decreed by the last body that had authority over changes to the game. Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, in a hypothetical exercise anything is fair game and I am free to use use whatever definition of 'broken' that I choose. You are also free to use whatever definition you wish; however, I am not required to agree with you (and it seems so far that not many people are).

By the way, another point that nobody has yet mentioned: when has anybody on the BBRC ever said that this design guideline was intended to be the only, absolute criteria for determining whether Blood Bowl is 'objectively broken'? Please point me to a legally binding document they have created that says that this is the only criteria for 'objectively broken' that can ever be used and nobody is ever allowed to consider any alternative criteria. Frankly, all of this seems to be coming from your mouth, rather than theirs.

dode74 wrote:

You misrepresent my "core premise". Licker agreed with it, btw, which rather counters your statement that nobody does. My core premise, for clarity, is "CPOMB is not objectively broken".

Again, this is a matter of what definition you are using for 'objectively broken' ..

_________________
"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!!" Razz

Nextflux

Joined: Jan 22, 2008

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 21:16

dode74 wrote:

- sorry, who's the noob here? I ask because I assume it's not you as you've played over 1000 games, and I know it's not me because I have too, just not here on FUMBBL (I have issues with the sideways pitch).

10,000 games is one thing. Half a million games of data is another. I'm not dismissing experience, but your assumption is that all those players with thousands of games behind them think the same, and they don't. I'm one of them.

If you're not trying to impose this change - to say the game designers have to change it - then why are you insistent it is objectively broken? After all, if it doesn't meet their own design criteria then they have failed, and they have a duty to themselves to correct that failure. I get that you don't like it, and I have no issue with that. It's the "objectively broken" I have a problem with.

I know about your activity, not to worry about that.

I don't think all people think the same! how can you say that?
What I think is: if an experienced coach says its wrong, you only refer to your half million data and conclude that he is wrong, but you don't know that!
he might be right! even if the data hasn't showed anything wrong, it doesn't mean it could be better.

Besides you can't use numbers to hide behind the fact that some would find it better if something would be changed.

I have never insisted that it was broken! What I want is to see if it could be changed.
What could we change it to?
We haven't reached that point .... yet we are still discussing if its broken.. I never was interested in that. I said some people have a problem with it, we should listen to them, not tell them to sod off and read data.

as for game designers:

Why isn't new input desirable? especially in game design, first hand player knowledge. Not data, though It can be supported by data, sure.
They have no duty to do as I command, again .. I dont understand why you think I think I am the King here? Im just a player, 1 guy, I have no command over them!
IF I were them however I would value first-hand player knowledge and experience, I would listen to them, not throw them out the door. They all help with making the right decision, when its time for it.

Tripleskull

Joined: Oct 12, 2003

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 21:29

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.

You think the data available is representative for the part of blood bowl where CLAWPOMB is a problem. I don't think it is.

Also the poll had no mention of broken or not. but just of a problem or not.

I think the many ways that people avoid playing in those contexts bares witness to the fact that it is a problem.

Tripleskull

Joined: Oct 12, 2003

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 21:46

licker wrote:

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

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 took objectively broken to mean more than 55% lifespan wins if played by a representative sample for enough games. I believe that this is the case for some of the teams in question and I believe it can be the case without showing in the stats because I think there are good explanation to why the stats are not representative.

I do play league games. I have played about five league games a month for as long as I can remember and more before that, but Since I don't like to play in demanding online leagues and I don't like Ranked because I can't figure out who to play I would prefer to play in an open league, MM or box setting. But I would prefer to do that without having a significant part of the games be much more random and much more skill independent. Much like I would like to see a significant short term nerf to wood elfs. Maybe combined with some sort of survivability?

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 22:05

JellyBelly wrote:

Quite. How dare the pathetic plebs that play game attempt to express an opinion. All that matters is that the BBRC's vision of Blood Bowl is satisfied at all costs and that the players accept it without question.

At no point have I ever said you should not express an opinion. Quite the opposite. I take umbrage at any implication I have.

The definition of broken is not my definition. If you want to change the definition used by the game designers then you need the permission of the IP owners. Only they can do that. Anything else, for any reason, is a house rule. Any claim of objective brokenness has to be supported by relevant metrics, otherwise it's just opinion, and the only relevant metric we have from the BBRC is the win percentage. You can hypothesize all you like about any other metrics they might have used, but the fact is we know of no others, and unless you can provide evidence they exist then you are making stuff up. Feel free to ask them if you want a definitive answer, ofc.

"Objectively broken" means "does not meet the design criteria", not "some people don't like it"; the latter is an opinion and, while it is a perfectly valid position to hold, it is subjective, not objective. CPOMB was designed as is with the BBRC having full knowledge of what it was designed to do. It meets the design criteria. It is therefore not objectively broken.

Wreckage - no. The data I had was on BBManager, a 3rd party Cyanide tool, but it has since deceased about 6 months ago, iirc. Everything else I have is my own spreadsheets, unfortunately, and it is aggregated data (as opposed to match-level) now.
I'm curious what problem you have with my "general attitude" other than holding a contrary position to you and some others here. Some other time, perhaps.

Nextflux - you say it is wrong, I say it is not, so what do we do? We're both experienced coaches. Let's look at the data! That's an objective measure rather than our subjective experience. What does the data say?

Of course some people would find it better if some things were changed. Hell, I would find it better if some things were changed. That's never been my position.

If you're merely saying you don't like it, and not that it's objectively broken, then I have misread you. It's an opinion and I won't argue with it - in fact, I never have. As I said, suggestions of objectively broken are the problem.

Of course new input is desirable. It's when player input is varying that a look at the data can help make decisions on which way to lean. I'd have no issue whatsoever if the new designers looked at other criteria, other metrics, for balance, and changed things accordingly: they have the remit to do so.

Tripleskull - "part of Blood Bowl"? Lifetime win percentage: you have to look at all of it, perhaps splitting it down by environment.
I didn't say people don't think it is a problem, or that the poll said it was broken. I said the poll could not be said to be representative of BB players as a whole. It's a straw poll, nothing more, and cannot be reasonably extrapolated into an opinion poll without any controls.

--------

Seems quite clear to me that we're at an impasse. Repetition abounds, and frankly I can't be bothered to type about it any more - my position is as clear as it is going to be: no problem with opinions, problem with redefining balance if you're not the game designer, and with claims of "objective brokenness" based on the opinion of those without the remit to set the goals.
To that end I will bow out. Probably for about a month or so if previous form is anything to go by Wink

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 22:40

Tripleskull wrote:

licker wrote:

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

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 took objectively broken to mean more than 55% lifespan wins if played by a representative sample for enough games. I believe that this is the case for some of the teams in question and I believe it can be the case without showing in the stats because I think there are good explanation to why the stats are not representative.

No idea where 55% comes from or why 55% matters.

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/racevsrace.html

CPOMB vs. non-CPOMB is a tad over 50% That seems fine to me. But sure, those stats there are not 'perfect', but they seem to be this lifespan wins thingy.

Thing is, anyone who argues that CPOMB is a shortcut to a high win rate clearly has no idea what they are talking about (not suggesting you are doing this). The only issue with CPOMB is the effect it has on the meta in terms of how people enjoy the meta they are playing in. At high TV it has an effect on removing certain teams from the meta because they are bad against it.

One can argue about how ridiculous zons are at lower TVs too (and they break the 56% line!) But of course no one can avoid them in the sense that you have to start at a low TV to get to a high TV, but you can always choose to never allow your teams to get above a certain TV if you want.

But you already want to fix woodies too, though they are not as 'broken' as zons. Ultimately though it just boils down to what kind of games you prefer, there is nothing remotely objective about that.

Tripleskull wrote:

I do play league games. I have played about five league games a month for as long as I can remember and more before that, but Since I don't like to play in demanding online leagues and I don't like Ranked because I can't figure out who to play I would prefer to play in an open league, MM or box setting. But I would prefer to do that without having a significant part of the games be much more random and much more skill independent. Much like I would like to see a significant short term nerf to wood elfs. Maybe combined with some sort of survivability?

I won't argue about the effect cpomb has on open leagues, you're not wrong that they drive out a certain amount of skill and create more games where it's simply about how well the CAS dice were rolled. But, that's a different kind of argument than trying to use statistics to show that CPOMB is broken. Because you can't. It's not broken in that sense, it does exactly what it's supposed to do. Problem being, that what it does is being rejected as 'fun' or 'interesting' by enough people that there is always a drive to 'fix' it.

I will argue that it should be 'fixed', even while I will maintain that it's not a game balance issue. It's not even really an issue for (most) leagues, but again, that's frequently because of how leagues self police themselves and can be that much more responsive to the desires of their members since there are not many, and they usually share the same opinions on what they want out of the league (else they wouldn't be in it).

So totally fair to say that R and B and BB2 and whatever isn't your cup of tea because cpomb spam kill teams ruin it for you. I get that, I even agree with it (though it doesn't bother me personally, but I still think it's bad for these divisions generally). It's not fair to call it broken though.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:03

licker wrote:

No idea where 55% comes from or why 55% matters.

That is what Dode has been banging on about all this time.

55% was on the tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain.

I don't know whether or not Jervis, the BBRC or any one ever actually used the term "broken" though.

_________________

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 - 23:12

koadah wrote:

licker wrote:

No idea where 55% comes from or why 55% matters.

That is what Dode has been banging on about all this time.

55% was on the tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain.

I don't know whether or not Jervis, the BBRC or any one ever actually used the term "broken" though.

Oh, I understand that part, I don't know where cpomb teams winning at 55% over their lifespan comes from.

Tripleskull

Joined: Oct 12, 2003

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:41

licker wrote:

Tripleskull wrote:

licker wrote:

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

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 took objectively broken to mean more than 55% lifespan wins if played by a representative sample for enough games. I believe that this is the case for some of the teams in question and I believe it can be the case without showing in the stats because I think there are good explanation to why the stats are not representative.

No idea where 55% comes from or why 55% matters.

http://www.cmanu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bb/stats/racevsrace.html

CPOMB vs. non-CPOMB is a tad over 50% That seems fine to me. But sure, those stats there are not 'perfect', but they seem to be this lifespan wins thingy.

Thing is, anyone who argues that CPOMB is a shortcut to a high win rate clearly has no idea what they are talking about (not suggesting you are doing this). The only issue with CPOMB is the effect it has on the meta in terms of how people enjoy the meta they are playing in. At high TV it has an effect on removing certain teams from the meta because they are bad against it.

One can argue about how ridiculous zons are at lower TVs too (and they break the 56% line!) But of course no one can avoid them in the sense that you have to start at a low TV to get to a high TV, but you can always choose to never allow your teams to get above a certain TV if you want.

But you already want to fix woodies too, though they are not as 'broken' as zons. Ultimately though it just boils down to what kind of games you prefer, there is nothing remotely objective about that.

Tripleskull wrote:

I do play league games. I have played about five league games a month for as long as I can remember and more before that, but Since I don't like to play in demanding online leagues and I don't like Ranked because I can't figure out who to play I would prefer to play in an open league, MM or box setting. But I would prefer to do that without having a significant part of the games be much more random and much more skill independent. Much like I would like to see a significant short term nerf to wood elfs. Maybe combined with some sort of survivability?

I won't argue about the effect cpomb has on open leagues, you're not wrong that they drive out a certain amount of skill and create more games where it's simply about how well the CAS dice were rolled. But, that's a different kind of argument than trying to use statistics to show that CPOMB is broken. Because you can't. It's not broken in that sense, it does exactly what it's supposed to do. Problem being, that what it does is being rejected as 'fun' or 'interesting' by enough people that there is always a drive to 'fix' it.

I will argue that it should be 'fixed', even while I will maintain that it's not a game balance issue. It's not even really an issue for (most) leagues, but again, that's frequently because of how leagues self police themselves and can be that much more responsive to the desires of their members since there are not many, and they usually share the same opinions on what they want out of the league (else they wouldn't be in it).

So totally fair to say that R and B and BB2 and whatever isn't your cup of tea because cpomb spam kill teams ruin it for you. I get that, I even agree with it (though it doesn't bother me personally, but I still think it's bad for these divisions generally). It's not fair to call it broken though.

Maybe you are right. Maybe it is not objectively broken in the given sense and maybe it is not a shortcut to a high win rate but it is a shortcut to getting some wins even if you are terrible at blood bowl, and as you say it makes several races unplayable under some circumstances and I find that very undesirable and would call it a flaw in design. I am not sure how fixed the meaning of broken is and I am not inclined to spend a lot of time on that specific issue.

My point is that CPOMB is a problem and should be fixed. Call it broken or not - but please fix it.

I think the parallel to +2/+2 DP is clear. I have no idea what that skill did to balance but just about any team would pick DP on first skill given the choice of a normal skill to a lineman. Whatever this did to balance it was a bad design. For other reasons CPOMB is the same. I don't buy in to the idea that the only type of flaw is not meeting design goals. Design goal can de met with good and with bad games. Lets Make Blood bowl a better game. It is very possible even though it is great as it is - in some forms.

DarthPhysicist

Joined: Jun 14, 2015

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:41

BillBrasky wrote:

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

Activate!

Was all set for my inaugural Blackbox match last night and my opponent never hit play... His Chorfs (with CPOMB access no less) were afraid of a fresh Elf team... My legend precedes me...

plasmoid

Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:44

Hi all,
I've talked a bit with Dode about the balance issue previously, so allow me to relay an additional point.
Dode, I mean no disrespect, I just think the point is relevant (and thought it might help clear things up).
If you think I'm portraying this the wrong way, by all means set the record straight.

As Dode has stated many times now, he is going by the only (measurable) balance criteria stated by the BBRC:
That each team should perform within set 10-% TV brackets, when looking at their lifetime performance - i.e. all games played at all TVs.
For tier 1 teams, that bracket is 45-55% - so that's where the 55 came from.

The BBRC did call other things balance (or at least they called certain skills too weak or too strong, and changed the rules accordingly), but while that may well be called balance in casual talk, it is in fact just a statement of preference, because "balance" can only be something that can be measured. Or that is the argument, as I understand it.

So the BBRC could change the rules for whatever subjective reason back then. But now no-one can. Only thing that matters now, is an actual, measurable, imbalance.
(And, might I add, perhaps not even that, because even if CPOMB or anything else was objectively broken, just WHO the f*ck is going to do anything about it).

So, Dode's point is: If FUMBBLers in general think that CPOMB is broken, they should house rule it. Or take it up with Christer. And since Christer hasn't house ruled CPOMB, he must believe that the complaint isn't relevant enough or widespread enough.

So - what I wanted to clarify: Things that we casually Refer to as balance can't be used for balancing, because they can't be measured.

Cheers
Martin

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:46

FWIW, CPOMB scores for 55,62 at 1900 TV in koadah's stats. "Only" 9K games, though. Still 9 times dode's unsubstantiated authority.

The (outdated?) major stats are a bit lower than 55%. "Only" 50% for CPOMB teams, "only" for the Majors.

plasmoid

Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:56

On a personal note, I don't think the 45-55% lifetime performance definition is a very good reflection of what balance is.
If a team is grossly below 45% for a big chunk if it's TV-span, and and considerably above 55% for another part, that definition would mean that the team was fine.

There is also a sort of moving goalposts problem: If the 45-55% is in any given meta, then as a team grows powerful, there will be more of those teams (dragging down their stats) while "uncompetitive" teams will be increasingly less represented - again "dragging Down" the winb percentage of the powerful team.

Even more so with a powerful/dominant tactic, that can be employed by several teams. Like CPOMB or the old DP. These teams will drag Down eachothers stats, while less playable teams will be less represented. Perhaps there might even be a "hard counter" (blodge?) whuch drags Down the numbers hard, making very few teams or tactics viable.
Not saying that that is the actual situation - but that the definition of balance would then help hide the problem.

But it's the definition that the BBRC used all the same.
Cheers
Martin