Why ClawPOMB is broken

[GalakStarscraper]

Plas ... your post was well structured.

To comment on that time.

The Tiers were by far (and I really mean by far) the major drivers the BBRC used for game balance determination. We wanted to make sure the teams played fair with each other.

Now that said ... we also adjusted for fun. For example ... when we had the Master Chef working on a 2+ and on roster on the Halflings and they could by more re-roll stealing rolls for 20k each. Did Halflings shoot over 35% for league play ... no they did not. But we had a LOT of coaches scream that it was not fun at all to know you had to play without re-rolls pretty much guaranteed if you played Halflings. It was felt to be not a fun way to play (and in resurrection events there was some indication that it was significantly powering up the team). That is one example I can think of where something was adjusted even though the Tier % was not showing an issue.

So I guess I am agreeing with you and dode. The Tier % were the law of the land ... those were what we used to guide all the changes. But within the bands ... some rules were tweaked to make the game more fun and in many cases tweaked to make the rule simpler and easier to apply.

[dode74]

Martin, a good post and certainly not a rant, but your examples could be easily picked apart again.

- if you said to me "I bought an apple a few minutes ago" I would ask "anything else?" because the qualifier "a few minutes ago" leaves a space for there to be something else before that. If you'd simply said "I bought an apple" then I would reasonably assume it was exclusive due to the lack of qualifier. Similarly, the phrase "what the BBRC used to balance the tiers was..." does not include a qualifier such as "among other things". It implies exclusivity.
- Tom did indeed use the word "balance". No other metric has been used with that term, so to assume that one exists is unsupported.

Now, Tom did say just this: " The Tier % were the law of the land ... those were what we used to guide all the changes. But within the bands ... some rules were tweaked to make the game more fun and in many cases tweaked to make the rule simpler and easier to apply."

And that is precisely what I have been saying all along, and you agreed with me back here. Tiers were there for balance and were the metric used, while other things were done for fun. My interpretation of that (and feel free to correct me please, Tom) is: so long as the tier boundaries weren't considered breached then the "more fun" things the BBRC desired (be it their own wants or from the community) were included. Tiers were the design goal metric, everything else was preference.

[GalakStarscraper]

My interpretation of that (and feel free to correct me please, Tom) is: so long as the tier boundaries weren't considered breached then the "more fun" things the BBRC desired (be it their own wants or from the community) were included. Tiers were the design goal metric, everything else was preference.

This is correct

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,
and I still agree. Just so we're clear. My point wasn't that I disagree.
When I originally commented on 'other balancing criteria' I did so with reference to stuff like making shadowing better. Or creating wrestle to weaken block. So we know that a lot of design decisions were based on something other than the tier numbers. And in casual language, I think people would Refer to deliberately increasing or decreasing efficiency as "balancing".
But as I have come to understand since making that comment, that kind of balancing is just "preference" because it can not be measured.
Only the tiers have any stats associated with them, so by definition only tier adjustments can be called "balancing".
That's what threw me.
But I get it now.
Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Oh - I also agree that since nobody in the community has the remit that the BBRC had, then nobody can make any changes on preference.
And add that even if an actual balancing issue was uncovered, then nobody would be able to fix that either.
We have what we have.
Cheers
Martin

[hutchinsfairy]

The whole notion of "proving" that a skill is broken is, well... broken. The purpose of Blood Bowl is to amuse in some form and so unless you can quantify this amusement you cannot demonstrate that a skill breaks it.

The tier win% is a red herring because, ultimately, they are completely arbitrary themselves. You could not actually demonstrate that a skill is broken or unbroken because it affects win%. All you can say is that the BBRC decided (or were told) that the win% should be maintained, presumably because it was someone's opinion that this would make a better game. Even if ClawPOMB took Chaos up to 65% wins all you could prove is that it breaks some arbitrary measure of game balance, the game itself might still be perfectly enjoyable.

When I read the OP I saw a well considered qualitative argument for why ClawPOMB might be considered broken (albeit with some opinions presented as assertions, not least the thread title).

[Regash]

The whole notion of "proving" that a skill is broken is, well... broken. The purpose of Blood Bowl is to amuse in some form and so unless you can quantify this amusement you cannot demonstrate that a skill breaks it.

The problem with this statement ist again the definition, this time the definition of amusement (or fun).

While I do enjoy every match I play, as long as the atmosphere is nice (But sure, I do my part of moaning and groaning when the dice play against me! Drama is part of the fun!), others do not.
I've met players who obviously seem to enjoy winning. A skill combo that plucks your players like ripe fruit sure is lowering the amusements quantity.

The fun aspect of any game is in the eye of the beholder.
For me it's a dramatic match with a nice opponent, for others it is singing "We will rock you!" after turn 16.

Don't get me wrong, I also think CPOMB isn't broken. But fun is something different for everyone, so measuring fun wil forever be impossible!

[CyberedElf]

No evidence shows CPOMB capable teams winning too much. If the metric is win %, it is not broken or even unbalanced.
What about other metrics?
Fun? Intangible. Hard to measure. Different for each person. If it's not fun, people won't play. If it is fun, people will play. I will take the rules as a whole, say it's fun and play. Would the "net fun" be higher if CPOMB was nerfed, maybe. Maybe the next rules will be better, then again maybe not.
Race diversity? We can get hard numbers for this, but there are too many factors to prove a definite cause. I remember seeing that CPOMB teams dominate the population of high TV games. I think diversity is a good thing. I think diversity is a valid goal and metric. If a variety of different options are chosen equally, you are more likely to please more people. Pleasing more people will likely cause a larger player base.

For me the real question is: do uneven rates of long-term attrition adversely impact the general play environment? By "adversely impact" I mean create an environment where a small set of rosters are overwhelmingly represented and the rest are very significantly less represented. If CPOMB were totally removed (and nobody is actually saying it should be, we should note) or toned down a bit, would it significantly impact that long-term attrition imbalance?

I agree up to this point. I think CPOMB does adversely impact some environments.

You're talking about long-term attrition and its effect on open play environments. That's not a cpomb thing.. cpomb just happens to be at the upper end of attrition causing. Remove cpomb and we'd have the exact same discussion about the SECOND best method for causing attrition, which would now be the first best.

This is actually why I oppose any small rules change because of this issue. What is too much attrition? I think CPOMB is slightly too much, but I agree even the perfect (non-existent) fix to CPOMB won't stop the arguments, just change the target.

In reference to Dode several pages back. I think a change to CPOMB is desirable, not necessary. But, I will happily play by the current rules instead of supporting small changes.
If/when new rules are written I hope the designers consider diversity representation among all environments as a relevant factor. While it does include many other factors, it does include which teams people have fun playing.

until then it's all just talking shit, right?

Agree or disagree, I like that VoodooMike is so quotable.

[dode74]

The purpose of Blood Bowl is to amuse in some form and so unless you can quantify this amusement you cannot demonstrate that a skill breaks it.

You're conflating "I don't like" with "broken". If something meets the design goals then it is not broken. That you do not like those design goals does not make it broken.

I think a change to CPOMB is desirable, not necessary.

I have no problem with that opinion whatsoever. Should whoever has authority over the rules for the next iteration decide to change it then so be it, and if they do not then so be that, too: it's their call.

[Digger Goreman]

That the rules are for table top and cpomb is not a table top issue... let it ride....

[voyagers_uk]

I think Digger is right, the game was always a tabletop game and online play is where the issues are here, the developers who are working on the new guidelines may have to take this into account, but the overall message on my thread in general chat is that this is a non issue

[Bakunin]

That the rules are for table top and cpomb is not a table top issue... let it ride....

øhhh yes it very much is. I've played in multiple tabletop leagues with cpomb and its always broken. Completely takes all the fun out of Blood Bowl.
That is the main reason why I like CRP+/NTBB.

[dode74]

Continually confusing "it's broken" with "I don't like it" won't change the fact that it's not objectively broken.

[adhansa]

This is how BGG defines broiken

broken

adj. (usually applied to a game) Having problems that result in a disappointing play experience. A game might be considered broken if even poor play can lead to a victory, if it frequently ends in a stalemate, or if one strategy invariably wins. (See also solvable)

I think the OP:s argument are complies to the first sentance,

[Bakunin]

This is how BGG defines broiken

broken

adj. (usually applied to a game) Having problems that result in a disappointing play experience. A game might be considered broken if even poor play can lead to a victory, if it frequently ends in a stalemate, or if one strategy invariably wins. (See also solvable)

I think the OP:s argument are complies to the first sentance,

That seems to be a good why to define 'Broken'. And from there, this is why cpomb is broken.

- Its result in a disappointing play
- poor play can lead to a victory
- the strategy invariably wins
- the only counter is to have one of your own.