| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 465 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 841 |
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
 Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 18:33 |
 
|
| dode74 wrote: |
"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. |
Yeah we tend to remember the bad things, that ca also mean something can be wrong, maybe it is, maybe its not. Perception bias should be take into account, but if you played 1000 matches you can still get to the same conclution as before, based upon experience there is lesser chance of a persception bias, thats why I don't think it is as significant as you think it is, but thats maybe only a matter of opinion.
As for convincing/persuading game developers if I thought it to be wrong is another matter, Im not there yet, and I might never be, still it can be done, everything can be done if you put your mind to it.
I find CPOMB Predictable:
I need to explain why, maybe its not that amusing after all?
This is a personal opinion though, I find it predictable in its own randomness, altough it is more random because it is a random dice roll that is rolled may times. block/blitz+armour+injury then the next guy.
So I can more away from blocks to slow the attrition,
if I (and my opponent) do the same, it becomes a blitz contest, we have 1 mino each, both is best to blitz with, it all ends up in who got the best dice on their blitz.
Now.. some people might interpret that as more random, because more dice are rolled, but the game itself is very similar, ergo predictable. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 18:35 |
|
| 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. |
A quite religious view I hadn't heard of before outside of that particular field. But then again one that always irritated me in terms of debates about religion. After all it is the content of a religion that makes following it worthwhile and not the religion that makes it worthwhile following its content but w/e.
Then there is of course always the question of the supposed prophet (you) actually represents the word of the gospel. I can tell this is a matter that gets rather complicated to proof in modern systems, where you work with representatives. For instance, whats his name Gallack? Garrak? like the guy from star trek? When it's one person that's making the game it's easier to determine what that person wants. When it's a group it's really tricky.
As an example how far this can go think about laws. When a judge interprets a law he has to obviously consider what the law was intended to do. For instance when a law originally says: "You must not take cookies from jars." into "You should not take cookies from jars." Although those two statements sound relatively similar if you look at them in their historical context you realize that the reworking of the law loosens conditions from absolute law into something that is more of a recommendation.
But yet, when you are dealing with say a parliament, you may not realize that what is actually happening is that the government offered to loosen the law but couldn't convince its coalition partner to go along with the change of the cookie law.
So the outcome of the debates was that both could agree to a terminology that was intentionally obscure so that everyone involved could feel a sense of having things done their way. That puts the judge in the awkward position that he has to interpret a law that was generated by a majority although there never was even a consensus on what it is supposed to mean.
But coming back to gaming, the most important question I wonder about: Based on which criteria would the game designers chose to develop the game themselves? Would they use equally arbitrary criteria like the will of their forefathers? Or would they be willing to say: Look, this is why people play the game, this is what we should do.
Ahem, now I'm not a friend of the whole 'how people feel thing' and I know, rather than just guess CPOMB is broken (broken being a relative term but easily applicable here at a 40% from pitch removal chance based on whether it allows an individual game to be still playable -even tho the BBRC knew about that) because I have spent quite some time actually playing the game and planning strategies around using and countering it.
Then the question arises if rules should ever be changed at all if we simply follow the will of the designers. In BB we have a long tradition of game modification, we had in fact something called 'living rulebook' implying that it was supposed to be altered and improved over time. This process was halted not by the BBRC but by GW that did no longer want to invest money into the game.
I guess on a strictly religious base one could argue the GW is part of the holy trinity and we shall not question their decision to not pump money into the game anymore. I'm not sure that's healthy but we certainly could do it.
But I guess my main point is, when the question is Quo Vadis with the rules, what is it we should put our focus on? The Fanfactor? Inducements? Or Clawpomb? I don't think changing any of these things is ultimately merited when you base it on the will of the developers because the way things already are is ultimately what brought us here. And although you can argue there was some debate over the implementation of the banking rules you can't really argue that this is a topic that came up and that they did know about it.
But from a designer perspective I guess one would have to ask, if you were in charge, what would you base developing the game on? I think generating an environment where every game is winnable is something BB archives in most of its game in spite of its high diversity and that that is something worth to thrive for and to continue to try to archive. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %03, %2016 - %18:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 18:37 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | A question for you regarding "enjoyment" which might save you a little work providing your means of measuring it: if someone doesn't enjoy a game does that make it objectively broken? |
Frankly, yes. Given that the #1 goal of the game is obviously player enjoyment, if it can be shown objectively that enough players are not enjoying the game, then that makes it 'objectively broken' for all intents and purposes, and in need of fixing, regardless of whatever balance metric the BBRC set.
This all comes down to the definition of 'objectively broken'. You're choosing (which is a preference of yours) to use a definition that was provided some years ago as a design criteria by the BBRC (which is a now defunct body), which takes into account only the numerical win/loss data for the game and nothing else. Frankly, I do disagree with using that as a black-or-white criteria for 'objectively broken' and the fact that my coin-flip example satisfies it shows that it is insufficient.
Personally, my definition of whether the ruleset as a whole, or any particular mechanic within it, is successful or 'broken' would be: 'do most of the users/players think that it works?', given that player perception/enjoyment is the end goal.
Tbh Dode, even though you are shouting very loudly and tenaciously defending your opinions, I have yet to see a single other person on this forum that agrees with what seems to be your core premise, that numerically satisfying this balance criteria laid out by the BBRC is all that matters and is more important than players' enjoyment of the game. If we were to ask most Blood Bowl players what they think is more important, between numerical balance and their enjoyment, what do you think their answer would be?
I think it's a shame that this debate has become so pedantic. Surely we are all striving towards the same overall goal here, which is to try to make Blood Bowl a better and more enjoyable game? It's a shame we can't all just focus on that, rather than pedantic definitions of the word '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!!"  |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:01 |
|
Dode worships the BBRC for some reason. It is known. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:07 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | Dode worships the BBRC for some reason. It is known. |
No. That is not it. Dode worships the authority of the Authority. In this case GW.
| JellyBelly wrote: | | Frankly, yes. Given that the #1 goal of the game is obviously player enjoyment... |
I'm not sure that Dode agrees with that. IIRC the goal is to win the game. If you can win without enjoying it I assume that is fine.
So I don't expect to get much agreement with Dode. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:41 |
|
Nextflux - Actually experience feeds perception bias. That's a reason to look at the data.
I've got no issue with you trying to convince the game designers as you wish. That wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that you trying to impose your view on them is not for you to do.
Wreckage - it's interesting how people often move into a diatribe of ad hominems and loaded terms when they have nowhere else to go. There it is, though.
My comment on "broken" is not anything "religious" or otherwise, it's a methodological rather than theological statement. For evidence that the criteria is what I have said it was you only need to look at TFF, for example, where it is clearly stated that's what happened. You can see even there that there were opinions within the BBRC, but they had a laid-down set of criteria.
As for where the rules are going, the answer is "wherever the designers take them", and that direction could be anything (included influenced by Nextflux et al). And if you don't like it then house rule it. I've not once had an issue with that. The ONLY thing I've said is that claiming that CPOMB is objectively broken is incorrect.
JellyBelly - Enough people not enjoying the game simply shows it is not popular, which is not the same thing as broken. Some games are popular while others are not. Just because Chess enjoys far more widespread gameplay than BB does that make BB "more broken(?)" than chess, or does it simply appeal to different people? Besides, what does "enough people" look like? Where's the line?
I'm not choosing a criteria myself, I am repeating the criteria laid down by the game designers with the blessing of the IP owners. They get to decide, not me. If they'd chosen something else I would use that.
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.
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".
While I would love to be able to say what a "better" and "more enjoyable" game would be, those concepts are entirely personal and subjective. To that end there will likely be little agreement as to what "better" and "more enjoyable" looks like. I know things I would like to apply as house rules which I think would be "better" and "more enjoyable", and they may be very different to your ideas. They might be the same as you personally, but I know others think otherwise. I have no issue with that. This is not that, though. This is discussing whether CPOMB is broken or not. My contention, as stated above, is that it is not.
koadah - I don't "worship" anything. I recognise that GW have that authority. |
Last edited by dode74 on %b %03, %2016 - %20:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 19:46 |
|
The advantage of chosing authority above else is that one can speak in absolutes, and dont need to create criterias on their own. |
_________________
 |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:05 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | no, it's not "optimised strategies", it's bias for player skill. |
Saying "bias" instead of "skewing" doesn't make this argument by assertion any more valid. Unless you can show that selecting Box games above 1300 is unrepresentative of the population you wish you study, it's hot air according to your own desideratum.
Run some stat tests and report.
***
| dode74 wrote: | | [I]t'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. |
Another set of assertions.
First, skill and strategies may very well be correlated. How the hell can you show your skill if not by strategies? OTOH, not all B players have legendary skills, so if we assume a normal (it could be logistic, whatever) distribution of coach skills, what should emerge are strategies first and foremost. That players have found *one* strategy that dominates all the others *is* a freaking problem for a game.
Second, I have no idea what "optimised strategies would look at," but *I* sure would qualify the term "optimised strategies" to the relevant environment under study. I don't even need to go beyond what seems to be educated common sense, since I'm not the one sealioning this thread over and over again with ad hoc demands.
Good luck with trying to mix up every formats together. Perhaps you could splice everything in the same graph too for a vulgar display of statistical power. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %03, %2016 - %20:%May; edited 2 times in total |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:07 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | imposing your version of better on the game designer's desires is not your remit at all. |
How DARE we. |
|
|
Nextflux
Joined: Jan 22, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:11 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | - Actually experience feeds perception bias. That's a reason to look at the data.
I've got no issue with you trying to convince the game designers as you wish. That wasn't the point I was making. I was saying that you trying to impose your view on them is not for you to do.
|
Ok, different opinion on perception bias.
strange that n00bs should see things clearer than an experienced coach though..
also strange that you think it makes such a difference that you think it to be very important.
Also a little annoying since you seem to completely dismiss whatever a coach says in this matter, especially the more matches they play.
What if a coach has played 10.000 games, can't you say that he might be right about this? Doesn't he know the game better? To me it looks like you are blind.
On imposing: I never said I was imposing anything, I can't force anyone, I thought everyone understood that.
I don't see the problem on your assumption, and why you believe it to be important enough to mention, its too obvious. I can't command game designers, using that approach would be futile. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:14 |
|
thoralf| Quote: | | Unless you can show that selecting Box games above 1300 is unrepresentative of the population |
The fact is we know there is a selection bias when you look at Box games above 1300 because we have made that selection. That there is or is not a statistically significant difference between the two selections is neither here nor there: the selection has been consciously made.
Have players found one strategy that dominates all the others? I don't think so, not at all. There's certainly no evidence of it.
Skill and strategies may be correlated. So what? Where did anyone say anything about optimised strategies as far as balance is concerned.
I've got no problem looking at individual environments. In fact, doing so can show that there may well be problems in some environments and not in others - something I have said all along and which licker said earlier. That's not the question at hand, though. The question is "is CPOMB objectively broken", and the data suggests no.
I do find you reference to sealioning amusing given I am on topic and in the right thread. If you don't want to talk about it you don't have to reply. Unless, of course, you wish to redefine "sealioning" as well as redefining "broken". |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:15 |
|
| dode wrote: | | Your volleyball analogy is flawed, btw: there are no "races" in volleyball which we are trying to compare. |
It wasn't even an analogy, but an *example* illustrating how people solve a problem at the (international) competition level without having to look at how volleyball was played in other settings. I also used this example as an *argument* to refute the idea that selection implied bias, which *is* a statitiscal fallacy.
That there are no races in volleyball is irrelevant to make that point, and is therefore a red herring.
Am I clearer this time? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:25 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | The fact is we know there is a selection bias when you look at Box games above 1300 because we have made that selection. That there is or is not a statistically significant difference between the two selections is neither here nor there: the selection has been consciously made. |
Unless your dataset contains every member of the population you wish to study, there's *always* a selection. To *show* there's a bias, you need to run tests. You simply can't presume that your selection creates a bias. The opposite of the representativeness problem, AFAICS. Not that it matters much for my point, which is that CPOMB emerges after some minimal building.
***
| dode74 wrote: | | I do find you reference to sealioning amusing given I am on topic and in the right thread. |
Get your meme straight, dode. |
|
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:34 |
|
fidius - indeed. And more importantly, how dare you impose it on other players.
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).
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.
thoralf - The volleyball "example" is a matter which was changed by the body which had the authority to change it. If GW suddenly decide that TDs should give 5SPP because they think cas gives too many SPP then they can change the rules, but it would be a matter of preference they can choose to make. If you want to make the same house rule you can, of course. What you can't do, and what GW can do, is impose that rule in any meaningful way on the playerbase. Christer can do it for FUMBBLers, Cyanide can do it for Cyanide players, and GW can do it in general. Unless someone else comes up with a widely used client then that's pretty much it.
I'm not sure how I can make any clearer the distinctions between "objectively broken" and "I don't like it", and people who do get to change rules - as opposed to make house rules which account for things - they "don't like", and those who don't.
Regarding selection bias, I specifically said there may or may not be a statistically significant difference between the two datasets. I've not said that choosing 1300+ is necessarily not representative. The fact, though, that we have the data for all matches at all TVs makes it rather nonsensical to make a conscious selection of the sort you suggest. Not only do you reduce your sample size, but you introduce a potential for error.
Nice catch on the typo in your link, btw. I know the meme, and you conveniently failed to quote the bit where I said you didn't have to respond. You're not an unwilling participant, this isn't sealioning. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2016 - 20:39 |
|
Dorks.
Play more.
Theorize less. |
|
|
|
|
| |
RNG speculations
Search
