FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

plasmoid

Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:57

I suppose it is also a problem with measuring the power of CPOMB that we don't measue the power of CPOMB. We measure the power of certain teams. No matter how they are built. And the 'lifetime' definition ensures that a lot of the data is explicitly not CPOMB data, when we examine those teams.

plasmoid

Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Posted: May 03, 2016 - 23:59

One final thing: Yay for house rules Very Happy

thoralf

Joined: Mar 06, 2008

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:02

dode74 wrote:

The volleyball "example" is a matter which was changed by the body which had the authority to change it.

There's no goalposts in volleyball, yet I see some moving.

The question of authority is something that has been discussed already.

licker

Joined: Jul 10, 2009

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:04

I'm sure I won't be the only one to suggest that lifetime data is a pretty poor representation of the actual strength of a team.

There are just too many different metas possible within blood bowl to make lumping everything together give much useful information.

The 40% removal rate for CPOMB is another number which cannot be argued with, it's just the math of it.

Still, interpreting what it actually means requires more context than just throwing it out and screaming OP at the top of ones lungs.

Eventually it will all boil down to 'commissioner discretion' because maybe some of us need to give the BBRC more credit than we do. In that they knew they had an impossible task, and no matter how much you think they bungled whatever decisions you think they bungled, they at least left much of the rules open when it comes to how individuals want to construct their formats in which the games are actually played.

Still though, addressing the rule set for the metas which see the majority of the matches is appealing.

JellyBelly

Joined: Jul 08, 2009

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:11

Let's consider for a moment the game of Blood Bowl as a product (which it clearly is). Any product that is being developed will be designed to meet some set of specifications, which are laid out at the start of the development project. However, it is quite possible for a product to meet all of the design specifications and yet still be poor quality. This happens all the time, with all sorts of products, consumer and industrial. It often happens when the design specifications are poorly conceived. Ideally, meeting the design specifications will ensure that the quality is adequate, but not necessarily.

I think this may be the crux of the disagreement that we have. For you, Dode, 'broken' means 'does not meet the design specifications'. However, I think myself and many others in this thread are interpreting 'broken' to mean 'poor quality', or possibly 'lower quality than before'.

It seems that many players are of the opinion that, yes, cpomb met the design specifications, BUT they perceive that it has reduced the quality of the product.

I agree that quantifying the 'quality' of the game is not easy, compared with assessing whether the initial specifications were met; however, if we want to achieve a better quality product, quality has to be measured somehow, from the point-of-view of the end user.

Another point I would like to add is that design specifications themselves can be broken/poor quality/not-fit-for-purpose, which is often what leads to poor quality products.

As a consumer of the product (i.e. the game), I have the right to question or criticize the specifications that the product was made to, if I feel that the quality has been reduced. The designer is not some almighty being that cannot be challenged or questioned. I am entitled to have an opinion on how effective the design specifications are and to suggest alternative specifications, if I feel that they could be improved. I am not trying to impose anything on anyone (although, surely you are familiar with the phrase 'the customer is always right'?).

Furthermore, if I am hypothesizing about how I would design the product myself, if I were in their shoes, I am free and perfectly within my rights to chose my own set of specifications, if I think they would lead to a better product. Again, I am merely hypothesizing and not trying to impose anything on the next set of designers that will actually design the next version of the game.

Again, to summarize, you say that cpomb meets the design specs, therefore it is not 'objectively broken'. Fine. I say that, in my opinion, it has reduced the quality of the game, and many other people on this forum seem to agree. I think it is quite possible that, in a way, we are both right and we are really just arguing over semantics.

dode74 wrote:

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

I agree that we're not really getting anywhere with this debate. I have spent far too much time typing about this, rather than actually playing the game .. Sad

_________________
"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

Lorebass

Joined: Jun 25, 2010

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:24

FUMBBL Staff

BillBrasky wrote:

Dorks.

Play more.

Theorize less.

I just want to thank a lot of people. I, to tell you the truth, I didn't prepare for this speech. But I definitely want to thank the Academy and its members. And I want to thank all those special people in the film(Website). And I can name them: (All you fun guyz complaining on my thread). And I want to thank (other people too). They are here tonight with me. And I just want to thank all of you. I love you.

Sure I stole half of it from Marlee Matlin but well.. you guys keep me less-board on evening shifts!

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:29

About my personal balance definition (but it should be universal, no need to be a scientist): a team is balanced when it has 50% theoric win rate vs any other team (assuming average dice, same TV, and equal coaching skill of both coaches).
BBRC just showed to be clueless by using a bad balance definition.

plasmoid

Joined: Nov 03, 2009

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:36

In all fairness, the definition was applied to the only data set available at the time. This was before Cyanide, and before FUMBBL switched. That data sample was fairly small, was unsorted, i.e. "lifetime" data, and the team/meta-spread was what it was.

I'm not sure anybody ever considered that we'd all one day have this much data to compare it to. And that a more refined definition would ever be useful.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:42

MattDakka wrote:

About my personal balance definition (but it should be universal, no need to be a scientist): a team is balanced when it has 50% theoric win rate vs any other team (assuming average dice, same TV, and equal coaching skill of both coaches).
BBRC just showed to be clueless by using a bad balance definition.

"Clueless"? I think it would be more "Clueless" to come up with the definition that was impossible to achieve.

_________________

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

DeathJester74

Joined: Oct 11, 2015

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 00:45

Cpomb will NEVER be nerfed, I won't allow it!! It needs to be enhanced and embraced as a lifestyle!!

MattDakka

Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 03:23

koadah wrote:

MattDakka wrote:

About my personal balance definition (but it should be universal, no need to be a scientist): a team is balanced when it has 50% theoric win rate vs any other team (assuming average dice, same TV, and equal coaching skill of both coaches).
BBRC just showed to be clueless by using a bad balance definition.

"Clueless"? I think it would be more "Clueless" to come up with the definition that was impossible to achieve.

50% is the perfect theoric balance, trying to get as close as possible to it is a reasonable goal.

Irgy

Joined: Feb 21, 2007

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 05:57

MattDakka wrote:

About my personal balance definition (but it should be universal, no need to be a scientist): a team is balanced when it has 50% theoric win rate vs any other team (assuming average dice, same TV, and equal coaching skill of both coaches).
BBRC just showed to be clueless by using a bad balance definition.

I don't even see this as desirable.

I'm commenting here about the balance being 50% for all racial pairings. The rest is probably desirable (though not practical).

Having certain teams be good against other teams in a rock-paper-scissors style balanced arrangement is a good thing. It allows the metagame to self-balance if you don't achieve exactly 50% for everyone, and it allows for designs built around strategies and counter-strategies in a way that would be difficult if not impossible under an all-matchups-created-equal goal.

Also, I don't really agree that it's "clueless" to be realistic and set achievable practical goals rather than simplistic absolutes. If anything it shows a deeper understanding of the issue.

bghandras

Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 08:04

Team lifetime record is not a good indicator. Lets take an extreme example. Lets say that a chaos team loses out during their first 20 games. Then wins out 21 games until loses badly, losing half the team, then retires. In such example the win% is 50%. 21 losses, 21 wins. So definition shows balance. On the other hand it shows being too bad at low TV, and too good at high TV.

Now life is not as extreme. But i think most of us know that killstack teams loses at the beginning, and when up to speed, then wins a lot, until a similar team disintegrates them. So it is not 0% and 100%, but the pattern might still hold.

At this point this is just a hypothesis to be confirmed or rejected, but it is a good example why lifetime result is not a great indicator.

_________________

zakatan

Joined: May 17, 2008

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 09:22

bghandras wrote:

Team lifetime record is not a good indicator. Lets take an extreme example. Lets say that a chaos team loses out during their first 20 games. Then wins out 21 games until loses badly, losing half the team, then retires. In such example the win% is 50%. 21 losses, 21 wins. So definition shows balance. On the other hand it shows being too bad at low TV, and too good at high TV.

Now life is not as extreme. But i think most of us know that killstack teams loses at the beginning, and when up to speed, then wins a lot, until a similar team disintegrates them. So it is not 0% and 100%, but the pattern might still hold.

At this point this is just a hypothesis to be confirmed or rejected, but it is a good example why lifetime result is not a great indicator.

This "lifetime" concept that has recently aroused is confusing to me, but I believe it's not about number of games but stages of development. No skills, few skills, some skills, fully developed team.

That means, the "lifetime balance" design in practice for perpetual play turns into sweetspotting, because teams are designed to have better and worse stages of development.

Chaos will skip the early stages where they suck and develop as fast as possible whereas zons have the Peter Pan syndrome and stay kids forever.

_________________

tussock

Joined: May 29, 2011

Posted: May 04, 2016 - 09:45

Why not use real examples, bghandras?

Teams that can live a while well over 2000 TV basically win 60-65% of their games in box and ranked, and that mostly means Nurgs (or very picky Dark Elves). The lack of a bank rule, regeneration, high AV, free replacement rotters, along with the sheer time it takes them to get there and the money they build up on the way means Nurgs can live high in spiralling expenses for longer than any other team.

Otherwise, teams gain or lose a certain amount with the normal player development along the way to about 1800 TV, where a most teams end up bobbling around with MNG and replacements.

Vamps: +8.0% Reaching grand heights of 44.5% wins!
PElf: +5.5%
Woodie: +4.5%
HElf: +4.5%
Nurgs: +4.5% CPOMB! Improves to all of 48% wins.
DElf: +4.0%
Slann: +4.0%
Chaos: +3.0% CPOMB! Improves to all of 49% wins.
Necro: +2.0%
Chorf: +0.5% CPOMB! Hits 53% wins, not any real help.
Rats: No Change CPOMB! Nothing doing, still a good squad on 51.5% wins.
Human: -1.0%
Pact: -1.0% CPOMB! And yet, they get worse, dropping to 47%.
Unders: -1.0%
Fling: -1.5% Without Loner, the trees almost hold their own, to 25.5%. :/
Lizard: -2.0%
Dorf: -2.0%
Khemri: -3.5% About equal to Vamps at higher TV, though Vamp stars survive much better.
Undead: -4.0%
Zons: -4.5% Zons are still the best team at higher TV, 55% wins, they just don't last.
Norse: -4.5%
Orc: -5.0% While similarly poor development makes Orcs the worst serious team.
Ogre: -5.0%
Gobs: -8.5% Dropping to a low of 18.5% wins, start really bad and just get worse.

So, the teams at the bottom? They all have poor access to the key agility skills of Dodge and Sidestep (or the basics of Block/Wrestle and Tackle). The teams at the top? They either have Blodgestep on AG 4 or CPOMB on ST 4, but the elves all start better than the chaos and so finish better too (aside from High Elves who roughly match them).

So if you want to talk about a team's win rate, and match the real world and stuff, try a 5% shift, remembering that until they get up over 2000 TV they still only win less than half their games, and if anyone gets really big they win a bunch even with Ogres just for being much bigger than all their likely opponents.

So hypothesis rejected, I guess.

_________________