Was: Claw Poll - Now: Dice vs RNG

[MKL]

( Long, but NOT ranting )

Hi Garion

I'm a TT player: in my (obviously limited) experience, the MB-Claw-PO combo isn't a problem. You persuaded me that it is a problem online.

PorkSol asked a good question and suggested a possible answer:

“...so what is it that is keeping clawbomb balanced there that isn't working online?
Is it the increased emphasis on winning rather than on team development?”

Yes, I think the main difference is the emphasis on winning (you too Garion, acknowledged this, speaking about your elves: you usually win, the problem is surviving many such match). Let me explain my point of view (it's a bit long, sorry).

A good deal of the discussion hinge on two arguments (yes, I'm oversimplifying a bit. Please, bear with me):
1: a good “slayer” team not only trash the opponent, but win consistently.
2: the problem for agility team against such opponents is not winning, but surviving match after match.

Again, you persuaded me: I believe both points are true. At least, in the online context.

My TT league is structured this way: 6 pre-season games, then 12 league games. The top two teams play a final. A veteran team can play another 12-games season before retirement: 30 games+2 finals, at most.

In such context there is no space for deep development before the regular season. And once the regular season starts rolling, every game count (for example: last season, to reach the final I had to win 8 games out of 12. One more draw in the last game, and I would be out).

In such a context the pressure to win here-and-now is very strong.

Some of my league opponents play online too (Cyanide), and this experience reflect on the way they play TT: some of them are asking for longer pre-season, or for a league format where winning or losing don't hold such crucial importance. They say that “there is too much pressure to win”. But most coaches think that this pressure to win is what keep agile teams a viable choice.

In our league format someone can just build up a team for the first season to be competitive in the second one (18 games buildup): still, a slayer build is hardly a guarantee against some young, daring Skaven. This Skaven don't need to survive 30 games, the team need to last only 19 games to win the cup.
I speak out of experience: some coach built their team this way. We call it “Any Given Sunday” syndrome

On the long term (your context), star players, wizards etc, don't hold against 2m+ tv teams... but on the short term (my league), these big slayer teams get hamstrung by the inducements into losing or drawing one game too much... and they lose their chance for the final.

In the long term M-access slayers teams will select -in Darwinian terms- their opponents. Other such teams are the better equipped to survive in this long, grinding, kill-or-be-killed context. Slayers build gain dominance, and MP-PO-Claw became the best way to win.

Simply put, in a league like mine, agile teams don't need to survive many matches.
The emphasis shift on winning, not long term survival, because there is no real “long term”. Here, bash teams cannot afford to lose “some” games against agility teams, because they will sink into the lower echelon of the league. Bash team in such context are able to win a lot, but they need to invest heavily on control and positioning skills, and cannot focus on building slayers.

Garion, I'm not saying that “my league is better than yours”. I'm only saying that different context mean very different problems. In my league, the coaches don't complain about MB-PO. They complain about journeymen being too effective! (another source of rants and grief for Galak&Co )

[garion]

Yeah im fully aware of all that. As I said numerous times it doesnt cause as much of a problem in TT leagues. But it still does if the leagues are long enough. for instance if you ran your league for another 2 seasons then I think the problem would be more apparent. But I cant be bothered with this discussion anymore it has gone on too long. All I am saying is the combination causes more damage than it should. Once we have League running on fumbbl Im sure we will see the killer combo teams completely dominating them along with Dark Elves (because they are always up there). But lets just leave it there and wait and see.

This comment below still dumbfounds me though.

Because in these lengthy leagues you are strangely better of firing your big guy for the nasty games and getting a Wizard or what ever other Inducement you want.

Team management and/or player turnover - maybe this will surprise you, but that was a design goal for LRB5 as well.

So let me get this right, your telling me that the BBRC intentionally made Claw, MB + PO combo so good that people strategically have to fire their big guys when they are playing a team with a lot of this combo so they can get more inducements?

Yeah nice one

Chairman: Hey coach got some bad news we are playing this horrible team tomorrow full of killer players.
Coach: Thats okay we have some hard hitters too. Like our Ogre and two star players.
Chairman: Thats not the bad news.
Coach: Oh whats happened
Chairman: We are 100k points better than them
Coach: err points what are you talking about, thats a good thing isnt it?
Chairman: it means they can bribe the ref and foul as as much as they like.
Coach: really thats in the rules. Hmm sounds a bit odd. So what can we do.
Chairman: Well I fired our ogre
Coach: WHAT I dont understand - what what the hell did you do that for he is our cas leader this season
Chairman: But if we fire him we can get a wizard for the game.
Coach: But what about the rest of the season.
Chairman: we can buy another rookie one after this game. They would kill him with ease anyway.
Coach: errr... well i guess thats not too bad then, at least we have our star blitzer.
Chairman: well actually....
Coach: You havent fired him too have you?
Chairman: affriad so.
Coach: what for?
Chairman: Well the NAF believed our team was still a little too strong to get a wizard so we got rid of him too and it gives us a little spare change.
Coach: so let me get this straight you got rid of 2 of our best players to get a wizard and a bit of money.
Chairman: Well... i actually got rid of our other star player too, because i figured he would die anyway, may as well cash in while we can
Coach:WHAT that leaves us with 10 players
Chairman: thats okay we will get a journeyman
Coach: whats a journeyman?
Chairman: just a really useless player that cant do anything right.
Coach: But... but.
Chairman: dont whinge these are the rules
Coach: but.... but...but they dont make sense

Sometime passes:

Chairman: got some more bad news
Coach : oh what now
Chairman: the killer team has just got rid of all its Re-rols except 1
Coach: re-rolls what the hell are you talking about?
Chairman: thats not important, what is important is we now have to fire a few more good players with skills otherwise they will still be able to bribe the ref.
Coach: my god what happened to this game.

[Carnis]

Simply put, in a league like mine, agile teams don't need to survive many matches.
The emphasis shift on winning, not long term survival, because there is no real “long term”. Here, bash teams cannot afford to lose “some” games against agility teams, because they will sink into the lower echelon of the league. Bash team in such context are able to win a lot, but they need to invest heavily on control and positioning skills, and cannot focus on building slayers.

Simply put, your league favours frontloaded teams, such as amazons, dark elves, dwarves etc. The killerstack would be viable for a CD side or a lucky necro in such a league, but its harder to come by, granted. Still 18 games is enough, just have to roll the double!

That's another metagame on its own. On the whole though, koadah's stats prove that in fumbbl's matchmaker system when looking at dataset accross all tv ranges all but vamps, underworld, and the stuntyteams fit within 56-46% margin, only chaos becomes dominant at the highest TV (most teams). Elves pop in there every now and then, win a game & die in the process .

[MKL]

Simply put, your league favours frontloaded teams (...)

That's another metagame on its own.

I agree. Like I wrote, it's all about context (metagame).
The frontloaded teams are in their own element here: this pushed the bashy teams into “control build”.
I'm much into “killer stack” (MB werewolf, PO Mummy, etc): despite the maiming, this don't bother my opponents too much. They focus their hatred on the agility types (skinks, gutter runners, etc). Go figure

[Heff]

Good God is this thread still going?

[plasmoid]

Hi all,
Mirascael - for calling me arrogant: A resounding 'well Duck you'.
Garion - you got very upset over me ignoring your huge post and "taking one sentence out of context".
I did actually write in that very post that I'd reply to the rest of it later.

I know you think people are being terribly arrogant and stubborn. But how does anyone decide whether a rule should be changed/house-ruled? This poll has a 75% majority against a change. In all likelyhood even higher, because people are allowed to pick multiple options, but only 1 of them is "nothing is wrong". Would that minority not complain if a change was pushed through?
Wouldn't it be arrogant to push it through despite majority opinion?

I don't think that the record of 2 coaches is 'proof'.
(Nor do I think the 400 page monster thread is. A head-count in it will be quite revealing I think).
For every such team you could find a lot more with a weak record.
I also think you could find other species with great records.
On the other hand, admittedly, it is impossible, in BB, to gather actual proof of anything. There are too many factors to ever have proof.
Remember the old crazy-broken +2 and +2 DP?
That took forever to get changed, and there were certainly people who thought it was a mistake to change it.

I guess BB isn't a democracy, but in the absence of even the possibility of bullet-proof proof, getting a majority on your side certainly would help. (Again, maybe that is impossible, because not everybody plays high-TV BB ever.) I don't think any change in BB, ever, was made based on solid proof. More like circumstantial evidence and a loud majority.

Garion - you said you're still beating those basher teams. Doesn't that mean that they're not broken? Wouldn't broken bashing mean they bash so hard that you couldn't win?
Sure, you have to run away a lot, but that's just trademark elfbowl

Finally - I have previously posted several suggestions for fixing the stack.
And I'm open to the thought that the stack is a tad too good.
But I remember the 'good' old days - and we played a lot of BB under some very brutal combos, and the cups were evenly distributed between bash and finesse.

As a personal opnion, I don't really understand why people get so attached to their players (pencil or pixel). Players are assets used to win. Especially under CRP with the inducement system, you can bounce back from player death. Some coaches seem opposed to the very idea of death in BB. Then I think they need some pretty sweeping house rules. But admittedly - alll that is completely irrelevant to the main question: Is the stack too good.
[Edit2]: Ooh, now I remember why I wrote that:
In the MBBL, I (too) often face high TV elf teams with just 11 players. My khemri team handles those pretty well. Why is it that elf coaches always save the apoth for their super 5-skilled monsters, when it's the lack of bench that end up undoing those teams. I'd rather have 3 awesome players and a bench, than 5 awesome players and a journeyman. Super-guys inflate TV. Bashy teams enjoy that.

More to come,
but it's late and I'm running a fever.
Cheers
Martin

[Edit]: Just read some of your other posts Mirascael. I'm surprised you expect to be taken seriously.

[PorkSol]

1) Claw stacking with Mighty Blow. If this was true Skaven, Pro and Wood Elves would be too difficult to play. So the fact that your AV 9 player can now die ... get over it and move one ... all the AV 7 races got over this a long time ago.

Of course, very few races have the tools to win games while down men that Skaven, Pro and Wood Elves do.

And the ability to dodge away to limit further losses after turn one (less so for Skaven).

I don't really mind players getting hurt/killed, since I find the game more fun at low TV anyway, but I do hate the kind of games where you lose the kick off and so many players are removed in the first couple turns that you may as well just lay down for the rest of the first half.

[Maverick]

This comment below still dumbfounds me though.

Team management and/or player turnover - maybe this will surprise you, but that was a design goal for LRB5 as well.

Snip long unsubtle dig.

[/quote]


Darksons comment dumbfounds you - and you make some supposedly comedic reference to a silly situation

but take that in context

if those teams were in a league with multiple games yet to play would the coach be likely to remove all his starplayers - i highly doubt it,
would it be a viable tactic to win that single game - again i highly doubt it

but it is an option in the management of the team - maybe/maybe not a good one but an option none the less, oh wait surely that means the BBRC succeeded
In so far as the Coach has the ability to manage his teams development and adjust for the opposition he faces in the best way he sees fit.

[Mirascael]

Mirascael - for calling me arrogant: A resounding 'well Duck you'.

I have been mistaken and wronged you, my bad. I genuinely apologize, sorry, Plasmoid.

[Mirascael]

Just read some of your other posts Mirascael. I'm surprised you expect to be taken seriously.

Erm, I don't, actually.

If former BBRC-members and their disciples mock, ridiculize and bully coaches such as Flix and RandomOracle for presenting perfectly reasonable arguments, why would I expect them to take anyone seriously at all who does not belong to their inner circle?

In fact, what I am trying to do is to address their vanity, pride and self-righteousness in order to instigate their desire to prove me wrong. Well thought out arguments won't help, that I am certain of, at least from what I have seen during the last 7 years.

[GalakStarscraper]

If former BBRC-members and their disciples mock, ridiculize and bully coaches such as Flix and RandomOracle for presenting perfectly reasonable arguments, why would I expect them to take anyone seriously at all who does not belong to their inner circle?

Huh? Mirascael ... do you even know who was actually on the BBRC? (Serious question). I've never seen Doubleskulls do the above and I've always found RandomOracle to present solid well written posts that I wouldn't treat that way.

So who do you think was on the BBRC that did the above accused actions?

Tom

[Deathwing]

I don't think it dignifies a direct response. I'm genuinely quite amused.

[garion]

This comment below still dumbfounds me though.

Team management and/or player turnover - maybe this will surprise you, but that was a design goal for LRB5 as well.

Snip long unsubtle dig.

Darksons comment dumbfounds you - and you make some supposedly comedic reference to a silly situation

but take that in context

if those teams were in a league with multiple games yet to play would the coach be likely to remove all his starplayers - i highly doubt it,
would it be a viable tactic to win that single game - again i highly doubt it

but it is an option in the management of the team - maybe/maybe not a good one but an option none the less, oh wait surely that means the BBRC succeeded
In so far as the Coach has the ability to manage his teams development and adjust for the opposition he faces in the best way he sees fit.[/quote]


I think you missed the point because this stems from the previous post where I said that the combo is so powerful - it now makes Big guys redundant in such games and you are better off firing them because they are even more likely to get killed than a lineman. Because linemen can get block and fend if they want a big guy needs doubles for this. So generally the big guy will have no protection against the killer teams. So you are better off firing them when you play them so you can get a wizard or a star player etc.... which is ridiculous. Darkson said well thats an intentional part of the game design. Which is absurd. Make a skill so powerful you need to fire your big guys? Yeah great design

Also I still havent seen any solid arguement against this -

What is kiling me is the comments suggesting that Mighty Blow affecting AV 7 is "too powerful". Which I'm seeing over and over and over. Its just not ... I say that with all confidence.

So what gets me is I listened ... I digested ... I've suggested that for the specific house ruled environment that matched up with a suggestion that another former BBRC member made with the same information.

What gets me is we tried to listen ... but the comments that are still coming suggest that it won't be good enough until no one with AV 9 ever dies.

Tom

I think you have taken what people have said too far. No one is saying Av9 shoudlnt be allowed to die etc....

Now I have said the MB claw stack doesnt bother me and that it is just the stack with PO that does and you have suggested a fix for that which is great

However to argue the case for the people that do believe that MB Claw stack alone is too great because they have a very strong arguement-

1) Claw stacking with Mighty Blow. If this was true Skaven, Pro and Wood Elves would be too difficult to play. So the fact that your AV 9 player can now die ... get over it and move one ... all the AV 7 races got over this a long time ago.

You say that if MB on AV7 was too powerful Skaven, Pro and Wood Elves would be too difficult to play. First of I find that very worrying that you would use them as examples to back up why av7 on Orcs or Dwarves isnt making them too weak. The three races you mentioned all have Ag4 players the elf teams throughout the team and the Skaven on 4 players, all those players have access to blodge (which is in its self a great defence, Orcs and Dwarves do not except on doubles). So the Ag4 and blodge makes those players incredibly hard to pin down and if they want to they can limit the bashy teams to only having one blitz a turn all game which significantly reduces the chances of causing serious damage. This is something Orcs and Dwarves simply cannot do. Dwarves especially have a completely one dimensional game plan and have little in the way of options for changing tactics mid game. They do still have some coverage with thick skull though which is quite useful against the killer teams.

Also the 3 teams above also have very very fast players so they can run away and out manouver bashy teams. The Pro Elves are the best passing team in the game along with High Elves, the wood elves have this option too and have the best player in the game in their roster (WD). Skaven have GR also one of the best players in the game who can do anything and everything while the rest of your team get beat up. So to say that av7 isnt a problem for those races so why should it be for the normally Av9 teams is a bit too simple a view to take because those av9 teams are very limited in their approach to the game.

No one is saying they dont want Av9 players to die but you seem to be suggesting that Claw on its own for the Av roll or Claw with MB wouldnt be enough to hurt av9. It would. The best comparison for this would probably be to compare Orc or Dwarves facing the killer teams at a high Tv in CRP/LRB6 to when LRB4 killer teams played against LRB4 Norse at a high TR. That is the sort of difference in qualiy of the teams at a high level. As you know Norse had little to no chance at that level even though PO was Av only then (hence the good upgrade to Norse). They just couldnt compete with the MB bashy teams had en masse back then and that is esentially what Orcs and Dwarves have been reduced too now which simply cannot be disputed.

The other big problem with the MB Claw stack is how redundant it makes all big guys at a high TV. Small leagues like the one I play in do not face this problem because at most we have 14 games a season then restart. But Leagues that continue from season to season with the same teams and rosters will find that Big Guys against the Claw Mb PO stack are worthless. They take a huge chunk of TV and they do not usually have block coverage. So a Norse lineman is better equiped to deal with killer players than a Big Guy. This is certainly something I feel does need to be addressed. Because in these lengthy leagues you are strangely better of firing your big guy for the nasty games and getting a Wizard or what ever other Inducement you want.

However the MB Claw stack is not something I have a problem with but as you can see I can certainly see why people do believe that is a problem. (Although I personally do think something needs to be done there to protect big guys a little because they are too weak against said teams now)

The problem I have said all along is the Stack with PO, and the fix you suggested is a really good start and Im sure I'm not the only one that really appreciates you actually taking to time to think about it and I would personally love to see that play tested to see how much of a difference that would make.

Your suggested house rule -

Piling On (Strength)
The player may use this skill after he has made a block as part of one of his Block or Blitz Actions, but only if the Piling On player is currently standing adjacent to the victim and the victim was Knocked Down. You may re-roll the Armour roll or Injury roll for the victim, but you may not use your player's armour or injury modifying skills (like Mighty Blow or Claw) on the re-rolled result. The Piling On player is Placed Prone in his own square -- it is assumed that he rolls back there after flattening his opponent (do not make an Armour roll for him as he has been cushioned by the other player!). Piling On does not cause a turnover unless the Piling On player is carrying the ball. Piling On cannot be used with the Stab or Chainsaw skills.

[Darkson]

Darkson said well thats an intentional part of the game design. Which is absurd. Make a skill so powerful you need to fire your big guys? Yeah great design

Get it right - I never said it was intentional you sacked players when you face MB/PO/Claw, I said player turnover was intentional.
If you feel that you need to sack your BG whenever you face a MB/PO/Claw then go ahead. I don't need, or see the need, to do that. You seem to be under the illusion that the way you play = the way everyone plays - that's arrogance imo.

[garion]

Thats simply not true, I understand why people might keep them around (to deflect attention from their other players etc..) but IMO you are better off without one if you are facing a team with 4 St4, MB, PO, Claw players. Because there is almost no chance that he will last the game and a wizard would be more useful than one of your players for winning that game a lot of the time and to me that balance seems a little off.

If big guys were protected from claw or they could get a skill that protects them from PO then the change to the dynamic of the game wouldn't be altered too much. It would have a very small impact but it would open up another interesting tactical approach to the game, it would also make Ogres a little bit more competative than they are - because apart from being the worst team in the game anyway, they are hit harest by the killer combo. I'm just saying if there was the possibility of the BBRC reforming and writing another rule set that is something else that needs to be considered.

Also there is still no arguement to the point i made about how Orcs, Dwarves, Lizardmen etc... are reduced to the standard of a high TR norse team in LRB4. Who got changed because their roster was so poor at that TR they had no chance of competing. And the arguement that elves etc have lived with Av7 for ages so Orcs and Dwarves should be able to; well I personally find that a little worrying that a BBRC memember would believe that to be true. Even people on this thread that have supported the killer combo have agreed with this point.