| Poll |
| Is CLAWPOMB really a problem? |
| Yes, absolutley |
|
55% |
[ 464 ] |
| No, Chaos Dwarfs Disagree |
|
20% |
[ 174 ] |
| Still Haven't Decided |
|
8% |
[ 75 ] |
| Pie! |
|
15% |
[ 127 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 840 |
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
 Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 22:25 |
 
|
| bghandras wrote: |
Game theory suggests that to reach an equilibrium in a metagame, at least 3 archtypes are needed (unless it is just a coinflip). |
That's blather. Equilibrium in game theory is just that the players will not adjust their strategies because doing so would put them at a disadvantage. The metagame is how you play based on how you "think" the opponent will play. "Equilibrium in the metagame" is just a nothing statement. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 22:25 |
|
Well, you can disagree, no problem at all. What are the archetypes according your view? |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 22:28 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Once you cut out the pedantic quibbling over definitions, who owns the IP etc you might actually be able to discuss something worthwhile. |
Hope you're not addressing me with that. If you did I'd be very confused as somebody whose lifes motive is to be basically extremisticly anti form and structure.  |
|
|
bigGuy
Joined: Sep 21, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 22:43 |
|
My .02
Chaos/Nurgle teams reaches the peak somewhere at 2k TV.
Games vs 2k TV Chaos/Nurgle require a long bench. 14-15 players should be normal at 2k. However, extra players are not very usefull vs other teams, so coaches are "encouraged" to downsize. On top of that
1) Spiraling expenses starts to hurt
2) Some inducements are insanely effective (100k for 2x babe, or 150k for wizard, cmon) |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 22:48 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Aren't there three archtypes (at least)? |
Possibly. We would certainly have three archetypes if AG3 teams had a better competing chances. Ideally, these teams would be able to adapt to they opponent. It just so happens that they have yet to raise to this ideal in majors. The difficulty might be caused by a series of factors: coaching these teams takes way more skills, the errors may be more costly, we have yet to learn how to play BB properly, etc. Flexibility comes at a price you pay each game.
The R & B pools could be compared to the eternal formats in MTG: vintage and extended. These are less affected by the card pool. The tech involved in deck-building is way more important than in BB: imagine if we'd have thousands of skills instead of a few dozens. We should not get carried away by the rock-paper-scissor model. After all, it's just a model to create some kind of drama. Ultimately, the functions required to win games are the same for everyone.
Martin (Plasmoid) tries real hard to improve the human predicament. Would his changes make Humans competitive? This would need to be tested. I'd be willing to test this. Such team would fill the gap that rogue decks do MTG. These decks can become competitive by going under the radar of the hate tech.
| licker wrote: | | The other issue generally with applying a R/P/S system to BB is that then the bad matchups are even worse, but the games aren't done in 10 minutes as they are for CCGs. Unless you enjoy concessions. |
Very good argument, which connects well with my overall take on this.
Since BB is the best game I've ever played (it's better than Chess!), I'm not trying to say that BB sucks and should be reformed through and through. The core works quite well, and even POMB has a place - Dorfs can't keep Elf crap in check all by themselves. I accept that one type of team can win more than others. Fairness doesn't require equality. Even a kid can accept to get less cookies than another if that means he still gets his share. Heck, even monkeys can show an understanding of the concept of fairness.
All I'm asking is that other builds have a fighting chance over the dominant one. Otherwise, we risk ending up with not only the same race, but the very same team winning over and over again. This can't be good for competition. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %04, %2016 - %23:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 22:56 |
|
I guess if you wanted to, you could roughly categorize teams into Cas oriented, Survival oriented and Agility oriented. The problem of the rock-paper-scissor approach has just always been that the Cas oriented teams are the answer to the agility oriented teams and to the survival oriented teams.
I think the expectation should be a bit that Elves get outbashed but can outplay sturdy races. Sturdy races on the other hand should be able to outlive cas oriented races.
But really as I said earlier, I think if the game breaks down on a very high TV that's fine. One could argue to even make it harder to reach that TV.
What I'm sceptical about tho is if CPOMB is the cause of these issues, if it's really tied to high TV. We have seen enough examples that show the combo works on lower levels... only requirement is that the team has attained a certain age. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 23:13 |
|
| DarthPhysicist wrote: | | Equilibrium in game theory is just that the players will not adjust their strategies because doing so would put them at a disadvantage. |
I think you're referring to pure strategies. Since there exists equilibria for games with mixed strategies, the claim above might be inexact.
I think bghandras' point is that a game with no Nash equilibrium is richer, if only because saying which player you'll POMB and foul the next turn is less enjoyable than letting the opponent guess. (If there's an equilibrium, I could tell you what I'd do that it would make no difference.) The same applies to the bar pairing problem, if I remember the movie correctly. |
Last edited by thoralf on %b %05, %2016 - %01:%May; edited 2 times in total |
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 23:18 |
|
Well I would be shocked to see any equilibrium reached in Blood Bowl. I find the turn the conversation curious as it assumes there are only a few "right ways" to play the game and tries to distill it down a bit more than is really relevant. If it were that simple, there would just be two types of team at high TV and that simply isn't the case. There is so much random BS that happens in BB that this kind of analysis is kind of overdone.
But back the the whole "CPOMB is bad!" "CPOMB is fine!" argument, even though I don't think its really a problem, I'd be fine if they just switched Claw to making the player AV 8 equivalent instead of AV 7. Done. Fine. Whatever. |
_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
 |
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 23:23 |
|
Something just occurred to me. Did it ever cross anyone's mind that Chaos being a dominant force at high TV is just the game being designed to "return everything to Chaos" at high TV? Perhaps its a good thing that once you get past 2k TV, there's a very good reason to start a new team at 1k TV... |
_________________
Using derivative humor since 2005.
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2016 - 23:26 |
|
| DarthPhysicist wrote: | | Something just occurred to me. Did it ever cross anyone's mind that Chaos being a dominant force at high TV is just the game being designed to "return everything to Chaos" at high TV? Perhaps its a good thing that once you get past 2k TV, there's a very good reason to start a new team at 1k TV... |
I don't think that makes sense in a league environment because you basically have to work your way up first to compete.
Fortunatly in CRP crushed teams are a little more competitive. |
|
|
DarthPhysicist
Joined: Jun 14, 2015
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2016 - 00:08 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: |
I don't think that makes sense in a league environment because you basically have to work your way up first to compete.
Fortunatly in CRP crushed teams are a little more competitive. |
Well it wouldn't make sense in a permanent league setting, but then again permanent leagues have never really interested me. Most of the time I play in leagues that are new teams or a second round at best. Call it ADD but with so many teams out there, playing around with them all in different configurations has a lot of appeal. I've never understood the CPOMB spammers precisely because of this. As the opponent I find it dull and boring, but I don't quite understand how they also don't find it dull and boring. The passing game gets a lot of flak as being too risky, but it makes for a more interesting match at any TV. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2016 - 00:26 |
|
| thoralf wrote: |
Since BB is the best game I've ever played (it's better than Chess!), I'm not trying to say that BB sucks and should be reformed through and through. The core works quite well, and even POMB has a place - Dorfs can't keep Elf crap in check all by themselves. I accept that one type of team can win more than others. Fairness doesn't require equality. Even a kid can accept to get less cookies than another if that means he still gets his share. Heck, even monkeys can show an understanding of the concept of fairness.
All I'm asking is that other builds have a fighting chance over the dominant one. Otherwise, we risk ending up with not only the same race, but the very same team winning over and over again. This can't be good for competition. |
Ahh...
But we don't wind up with that! Because 'winning' isn't what cpomb actually does (at least not to the degree some people make it sound).
The effect cpomb has (though I argue it's really only cpomb spam, not cpomb by itself) is to warp the metas it dominates. Dominates in terms of team creation, not in terms of actually winning. It turns high TV open divisions into areas where only a few teams (builds if you prefer) exist, and that just gets very tedious to play over and over. But that's my diversity argument for B, which doesn't really belong here.
CPOMB spammed teams do not dominate leagues, though there are exceptions I'm sure, and there are a myriad of reasons as to why this may be due to house rules and such. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2016 - 00:37 |
|
| licker wrote: |
But we don't wind up with that! Because 'winning' isn't what cpomb actually does (at least not to the degree some people make it sound). |
A good point perhaps that requires some emphasis since I'm also one of the people who claim CPOMB is too good. Cas dealing is a self-purpose in this game. People choose Cas-dealing teams not for the purpose of winning but simply to be able to deal cas. Any strategy that has a sort of added appeal needs to be weaker than a strategy that would be otherwise ordinary. That is at least IF the goal is really to create a diverse and rich environment where many races play in. Because IF that is the goal the objective would need to be to primarily look at what races people choose to use and not how successful they are with them. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2016 - 00:58 |
|
| licker wrote: | | The effect cpomb has (though I argue it's really only cpomb spam, not cpomb by itself) is to warp the metas it dominates. Dominates in terms of team creation, not in terms of actually winning. It turns high TV open divisions into areas where only a few teams (builds if you prefer) exist, and that just gets very tedious to play over and over. But that's my diversity argument for B, which doesn't really belong here. |
This domination has an impact on the tournament scene, where the wins matter most. Winning is of lesser relevance in casual B or L games. This lack of incentive to win at all cost (or disincentive, if you allow me to jest) is also implicated by the CPOMB problem.
| licker wrote: | | CPOMB spammed teams do not dominate leagues, though there are exceptions I'm sure, and there are a myriad of reasons as to why this may be due to house rules and such. |
I'd add three other important reasons: the presence of a championship, the limited and equal number of games in a season, and the sportsmanship. Let's take a completely fictitious example to illustrate the last reason: spamming CPOMB in a league dominated by bowling blodging statfreaks might be self-defeating... I'm sure all the Dorf and Orc coaches in that theorical league would agree! |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2016 - 01:12 |
|
Wins matter most in what now?
I'm not going to argue over what league/competition matters most, but let's just agree that wins matter differently to everyone.
I suppose in the sense that if it's a KO, you only get to play until you lose, then wins matter most, but the issue with (most) FUMBBL tournaments is that all the games required to build the team happen outside of the tournament, so the actual ability to get those games matters, and the time and effort of all the coaches who aren't building their teams for tournaments matters as well.
I don't want to get bogged down on that distinction though. The problem with using Majors results is that it's not a very large data set, and it covers different 'eras' of FUMBBL and even some teams which were built under completely different rules.
The league example is just that, an example. And yes, there are many reasons why a given league may or may not have a cpomb issue (including specific site adjustable house rules). The notion that you pick the best team based off of the composition of a league is also valid, if not always possible.
I can point to my personal experiences with various leagues and show that there is a bias in one towards cpomb capeable teams, even though those teams don't win championships (they still perform well in the league). I can point to other leagues where composition is controlled and note that cpomb teams have won championships, but so have elfs.
Still, I'm not sure what point we're circling at the moment. My contention is that cpomb as a skill stack is fine. What's not fine is the effect the ease with which it gets spammed has on open divisions. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
