Why ClawPOMB is broken

[GalakStarscraper]

Change to DP was pre-me on the BBRC but I know the major driver of that Jervis saw the mechanic as one that was overused for how he intended it. It was supposed to be a specialists skill for making sure to remove a key player ... not one that was felt needed on multiple fronts just to stay level with an arms war of fouling. So this was a design change to match the game design intention by its creator.

That discussion does not relate to Claw/MB/POn as that was designed with full knowledge of what it was supposed to do and what % were desired for player removal options since so many off the pitch player attrition factors were removed from the game at the same time.

[ddancer]

Thanks Tom, for clearing that up!

[Wulfyn]

Actually you created your own definition of it. Nobody has to agree to that definition.

Ok. So I have defined a broken mechanic as one that removes player skill and/or player fun. Do you accept this definition? If not then why not? What would your definition be?

Note that an important part of the definition I use is that win %age is a sufficient but not necessary aspect of a broken mechanic. A game that results in a very high win %age for one side outside of the skill of either player is sufficient to meet the definition of a broken mechanic. But a game that results in an equal win %age for both sides regardless of the skill of either player also meets the definition, showing that win %age is not necessary.

So I am very interested in what your definition is, and why you feel my definition is not an accurate one.

Source? And what does "tournament" mean. If it's resurrection tournaments you looked at then you might find the number of blocks are increased due to no possibility of long-term damage. Certainly

TFF tournament postings for all regions for the last few years, sampled n=100 (took ages). Feel free to conduct your own review. I agree that resurrection tournaments have the potential to increase the number of blocks due to no long term damage being inflicted. But I think that they also have the potential to reduce the number of blocks as people are focused more on winning than scrapping / skilling up. I think that to pick one side as definitely being true in the absence of any evidence is weaker than the assumptions I have made which are evidence based as best as I have available, and it is a lot stronger than anything you have submitted.

On that note you are incorrectly using the burden of proof. If I make a claim then I have to justify that claim. I believe that I have done so and have shown the evidence that I believe supports those claims. It is not perfect, but then nothing is. As such I have undertaken my responsibility. If you are specifically attacking my evidence as being wrong then the burden of proof still lies with me. But this is not what you are doing. You are making your own claims that the conclusion to my evidence is wrong. That is a positive claim made by you that x-is-true, and as such you are just as obligated to provide evidence that you are correct. So far your position has been that you just don't believe it. The burden of proof does not exist to allow people to just deny evidence they don't like.

Even if it were relevant (which I maintain it is not), you'd need to state the probability that they have actually changed position if you wish to infer anything about that data with respect to the team's relative strengths (which would start with having a probability on their position relative to other teams in each case), whereas you have simply used observational statistics and extrapolated them to suit your case.

Why do you maintain that it is not relevant? Do you think that CDs have maintained their position as the 11th best ranked team and what we are seeing is pure fluke? As you are a professional statistician you should be a lot more honest than this. It is rank deception (get it?). Let me ask you a specific question - do you believe that Chaos Dwarfs do not perform any better in the long term OC league relative to other races than they do in TT?

I'm really interested if you are just trying to have a stats pissing contest with me, or if you genuinely believe that they perform no better.

[dode74]

So I have defined a broken mechanic as one that removes player skill and/or player fun. Do you accept this definition?

How are you measuring increases and decreases in "player skill" and "player fun"? Or are we talking about complete removal?

TFF tournament postings for all regions for the last few years, sampled n=100 (took ages).

So low TV stuff, then?

If I make a claim then I have to justify that claim. I believe that I have done so

I am questioning the assumptions you are making.

Why do you maintain that it is not relevant?

Because the game is not balanced around "position of a team within Tier 1", it is balanced around "is the team in the parameters for tier 1".

do you believe that Chaos Dwarfs do not perform any better in the long term OC league relative to other races than they do in TT?

I think they probably do. My main point is that it is not relevant whether their performance increases as long as it is within tolerances for the tier.

[Regash]

Seems like Pandoras box has been opened...

[dode74]

Seems like Tom closed it pretty firmly at the top of this page, tbh.

[sedobrengocce]

I think ClawPOMB is clearly strong, but isn't broken.
Each of you talk about %age of breaking an armor an make injs, but noone consider that you have to win the block. If you have a CPoMB, do you have block and/or tackle too? Probably not! (CDs take Claw as double so they potentially have just 1 CPoMB).
So your canches to win a block (2 dices) against someone is ~55% and againsta a blocker "both down" is not a "draw". If You are blocking a blodger you just have ~30% to win the block.
So you have
{~23%,~41.25} vs a vanilla player
{~16.75%, ~31.5%} vs blocker (wrestler)
{~9%,~16.75%} vs blodger
Using first post notation

You have to consider ~10% of turnover and player down.
Also you have to consider your player down ~50% due to PO.
Consider this %age, the risk os fouling or autoKO due to skull or bothdown. You are risking part of your TV using a CPoMB (or just a PoMB) more than usual blocks. Also you are not sure about winning the game playing this tactics because your opponent will try to score when you are trying to fight.

[VoodooMike]

That discussion does not relate to Claw/MB/POn as that was designed with full knowledge of what it was supposed to do and what % were desired for player removal options since so many off the pitch player attrition factors were removed from the game at the same time.

You can expect this one sentence to be quoted in other threads dozens, if not hundreds of times, and this page of this thread to be linked to just as many. It eliminates a large swath of the anti-cpomb arguments.

Ok. So I have defined a broken mechanic as one that removes player skill and/or player fun. Do you accept this definition? If not then why not? What would your definition be?

If there were objective measures of those things then you could use that as a definition. Without those objective measures, however, it's just a reworded "what I think" definition, because you'll be inventing the measures of skill and fun as you see fit, and comparing them to a second set of invented measures of skill and fun and declaring they're "too different".

Your entire focus on the wording of the definition is a red herring. The problem is not that it's impossible to come up with a definition of broken, its that aspects in your definition have no objective measures meaning that they boil down to pure, subjective eyeballing on your part...which means they're just opinion. Opinion is neither necessary nor sufficient to make something a problem.

Since you already declared that CPOMB meets your definition, you've already decided your opinion is sufficient criteria for what would need to be an objective measure for your present definition of broken to be acceptable. So, you're basically trying to argue wording in an attempt to legitimize your entirely subjective opinion.

On that note you are incorrectly using the burden of proof. If I make a claim then I have to justify that claim. I believe that I have done so and have shown the evidence that I believe supports those claims.

Cool. You believe wrong. You've presented anecdote and subjective feelings on the topic... while no doubt you believe that's enough, that's because you already believe what you're advocating so anything or nothing is going to be enough to you.

The burden of proof does not exist to allow people to just deny evidence they don't like.

You haven't proved your case. The only objective data that exists that falls into any aspect of your definition is win%. "Skill" and "Fun" are not things that we have objective measures for, so there's no evidence for you to provide on those... what you really did was opine that skill and fun are being negatively impacted, and then decided to call your opinion "evidence".

If the removal of players from the pitch reduces the skill involved in the game then that means all bashing in Blood Bowl reduces "skill" and "fun", which means your argument is going to boil down to "how much is too much?" at which point we're squarely back in subjective opinion territory.

In order for your argument to leave the realm of useless subjectivity you either need to ensure that no aspect of it is subjective, or that all subjective values used have been agreed upon by everyone. This is why we can say that the expected win%s are important: they're subjective, but they were laid out by the BBRC, so we can agree to use the game-developers' own numbers as a foundation. The win% data is objective - it won't change depending on who is working with it.

Why do you maintain that it is not relevant? Do you think that CDs have maintained their position as the 11th best ranked team and what we are seeing is pure fluke? As you are a professional statistician you should be a lot more honest than this. It is rank deception (get it?). Let me ask you a specific question - do you believe that Chaos Dwarfs do not perform any better in the long term OC league relative to other races than they do in TT?

Classic! At the end of all your statistical recriminations you still ask him to search his heart and tell you what he believes! The point of using proper statistics (inferential, not descriptive, which is what he was telling you) is that you don't have to FEEL your way to these answers. The numbers will give you your answer, and they'll tell you the level of uncertainty in that answer. No guessing or soul-searching involved.

[Geggster]

That discussion does not relate to Claw/MB/POn as that was designed with full knowledge of what it was supposed to do and what % were desired for player removal options since so many off the pitch player attrition factors were removed from the game at the same time.

That is not my recollection. Perhaps clawpomb was properly addressed in the time before my involvement with the BBRC, but I don't recall we ran the numbers again when preparing for LRB 5 and CRP that a successful knock down would remove at least 58% of victims. That is a very high number, and does, in my opinion, remove much of the skill and fun from higher level TV games (and pretty much why I have no interest in playing in that sphere).

It has long been my view is that the main failing the BBRC had was not addressing this issue - and I very much hope it is addressed in the coming edition.

[dode74]

a successful knock down would remove at least 58% of victims

It doesn't, it removes on average 58%. It also has that minor prerequisite of a successful knockdown, which is far from a given.

That is a very high number, and does, in my opinion, remove much of the skill and fun from higher level TV games

I don't think anyone is saying that holding that opinion is wrong. All I (and others) have said is that stating that opinion as objective evidence that the combo is broken (not that you personally have, Geggster) is wrong. As an opinion I disagree with it, but that is my right just as much as it is anyone else's to hold it as an opinion.

[GalakStarscraper]

That is not my recollection. Perhaps clawpomb was properly addressed in the time before my involvement with the BBRC,.

You are correct Ian, Jervis and I agreed on this before you joined. The fact that you don't remember discussing it is because no one brought it up as a problem during our discussions. If it is a failing of the BBRC ... then it was because the data we had at the time did not make it a topic of discussion not that the BBRC failed. Sorry ... yes it ticks me off to hear you speak of the failing of the BBRC for not addressing a topic that was not even a topic. Guess my biggest regret is that the BBRC didn't solve the economic problems of Greece while we were meeting.

[Geggster]

It doesn't, it removes on average 58%. It also has that minor prerequisite of a successful knockdown, which is far from a given.

Fair point on average 58% - bad choice of words from me. I should have said, at the very least, on average 58% (stunty, niggle or AV 5 or 6 makes the average chance more than 58%).

As an opinion I disagree with it, but that is my right just as much as it is anyone else's to hold it as an opinion.

Of course.

I should also clarify that "failing" in my original post is a bit strong. I am very proud of the LRB/CRP and think it does an excellent job of balancing the rules and making for fun games at many tiers. I wasn't adept at high value games at the time of the CRP (some would say I am not very good now either), but had I the experience I have now, I would have pushed for some alteration to piling on back then to rein it in a little. Hindsight is a wonderful thing so perhaps "failing" is a bit strong.

[GalakStarscraper]

but had I the experience I have now, I would have pushed for some alteration to piling on back then to rein it in a little. Hindsight is a wonderful thing so perhaps "failing" is a bit strong.

Now this I agree with. With the information I have now ... I would have gladly had that discussion with you and Ian and Babs.

I to this day still like my suggestion from several years ago that Piling On have this line added:
"Re-rolls of armor or injury made with Piling On cannot be modified by Claw or Mighty Blow."

I know Plasmoid was not a fan of this ... but I liked its simplicity that if you are jumping on someone that you are not really using your arm strength anymore and nix'd the double chance to break AV 6 with the 3 skill combo.

[Geggster]

Dammit - you ninja'd me. Like I said, very proud of our work.

I would suggest that the value and subsequent proliferation of clawpomb was not fully considered by the BBRC. BB is a very complex system and perhaps we can't be blamed for not identifying this particular problem - some don't even consider it a problem. But I wish we had foreseen this as I think it would have made the game better.

If simplicity is on the cards, I would limit piling on to POW only (roughly halving the incident of piling on use, reducing the damage and slowing the speed of SPP accumulation).

[GalakStarscraper]

If simplicity is on the cards, I would limit piling on to POW only

Hmmm .. interesting ... so the first part of the first sentence changes to:

"The player may use this skill after he has made a block resulting in 'Defender Down' as part of one of his Block or Blitz Actions ..."

That is interesting .. and would definitely make the whole combo less good for Chaos Dwarves immediately. I'd be game to see this one ... not a bad suggestion.

What I think is funny about this suggestion is that it does nothing about the 58% number that everyone who is complaining is bringing up. It deals with the part of the equation that the folks arguing it does not need changed are referring to which is the knocking down the player in the first place.