gamelsetlmatch
Joined: Mar 05, 2013
|
 Posted:
Sep 12, 2013 - 03:32 |
 
|
So, as I, from time to time, sit here and consider each reply and clicking on a few coaches and their teams to see their past match ups, like who they played last and stuff and recalling the times I check out who is on top and their teams (queue run on sentence =p) and consider the feelings (almost girlish) that are expressed (more run on sentence) and check out what the people who I can tell are having fun....
The simple truth of the matter is whether you understand that there are basically two living breathing levels; in Leagues, Ranked, Blackbox and even stunty.
I personally love this game because it offers so many platforms to play on as well as how deep some of the meta-gaming; that I get to see with my own two eyes! (truths)
But as I get involved...
wait...let me tell you what those two levels are:
1) New teams level- this is where you basically take the skills a team starts with, maybe up to 10 added, before you are able to function outside of what the team is designed to do.
2) FUMBBL level- Oh the drama the drama the drama...hahaha
Let's be honest here! If you so choose to play against developed teams, teams with all sorts of objectives; remember that these objectives all roll down into why the coach committed their time and energy to trying to achieve these objectives --->For Drama! |
_________________
Stargate!
“In our play we reveal what kind of people we are.” |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 12, 2013 - 04:23 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | JackassRampant wrote: |
The problem with ClawPOMB isn't that it's over-powered. It's that 1) it's very good and specifically tailored against the mix of opposition it tends to meet in open perpetual environments, and 2) it's friendly to low-skill coaches but unfriendly to new teams (and hence new coaches, really only benefits the ones who have given up on the game). These are two critical design errors: the first one renders non-viable two of the most traditional rosters (absolute no-no in fantasy game design), while the second punishes both stalwarts and new blood in favor of the coaches with no sense of community (okay in some game design, but problematic in progression gaming). |
The designers probably don't consider those 'errors'.
They didn't target these kind of leagues and these kind of leagues didn't offer them any data. |
Actually, the game was explicitly designed for open perpetual play. Maybe not the crazy extremes and odd matching formats of R/B/MM/FOL, but if you read the league rules as published, it's clear that open-perpetual was their intent. So yeah, GW and Galak and co. failed on those two counts, no matter whose standard you use.
As far as being unfriendly to new coaches and to old-school stalwarts, I don't see that as as much of a problem from a strictly match-to-match TT consideration, but this is a product of the lack of profit motive in TT BB. If they were looking to sell BB product, they'd want to build a community, and mechanics that are bad for community-building wouldn't get in so readily. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 12, 2013 - 06:36 |
|
| Quote: | | They didn't target these kind of leagues and these kind of leagues didn't offer them any data. |
| Quote: | | Maybe not the crazy extremes and odd matching formats of R/B/MM/FOL, |
Are you agreeing? A league with maybe 10-20 teams that play once or twice a week is not the same kind of league as R/B/MM/FOL.
The rules seem to work pretty well in the 'open perpetual' leagues that I play in.
If the rules don't suit your particular league then, well, you know... "The commissioners word is law". |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 12, 2013 - 06:38 |
|
Run that open league with 20 coaches for a year or three and you'll see 50 serious teams and some of them with a hundred or more games. ClawPOMB starts feeling broken about 50 games in.
@ Garion, I think re: ClawPOMB as the problem, there may be more agreement than it sounded like. I'm not saying ClawPOMB isn't broken, not at all, I'm just saying one guy with ClawPOMB is not in the aggregate more dangerous than one guy with TPOMB, and that specifically the teams that ClawPOMB truly breaks, the ones that don't care about TPOMB, usually don't ClawPOMB themselves. Chaos and Nurgle can run afoul of their own medicine here or there, but it's the Orcs and Dorfs who don't have Foul Appearance/Regen or AG3/MA5 to build with that take it the hardest. And it's the easy access to lots and lots of it at high development levels that's the problem: TPOMB is only really great on two guys, after that it's overkill. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 12, 2013 - 07:10 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | JackassRampant wrote: | | Lot's of varied way out there stuff, stated as fact not opinion. |
sorry but that's just a load of balls. |
This. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Sep 12, 2013 - 07:29 |
|
Well, what I'm saying is that one CPOMB is a 40% buff over a POMB against an AV8 linefodder, while TPOMB is an 82% buff on a POMB against probably a pretty important (or at least expensive) Blodge player. On a one-off basis, there's some vague parity, especially considering that all the players who can CPOMB on a normal for a Tier 1 team need 4 skills before Tackle. It's multiples that are the problem. 5x CPOMB lets you faceroll some rosters (critically, ones that peak high), while 5x TPOMB is just an overload of a combo that would be good with a smaller investment. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
