Why ClawPOMB is broken

[dode74]

That's a valid tactical approach with any team whether they have the kill stack or not, some teams are just better placed to use it than others. Some teams have a greater "need" to cause casualties than others in order to win, as I said to plasmoid above giving Orcs and Elves as examples. Causing more casualties than the opposing team always leads to greater win odds, but if the win percentages aren't out then they're not causing too many casualties. That tactic certainly isn't guaranteed to win anything.

"Less interesting" is an entirely subjective statement.

My suspicion is that people don't like the extremes. The mean is fine.

[Joemanji]

I think what they are trying to say is that nobody is allowed an opinion because numbers exist. Yeah yeah, you can just reduce every argument to "that is subjective, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". That is technically correct even if it misses the spirit of the discussion (and just being a person) by a planet or two. But that is not how games are designed. Jervis (in particular even for a games designer) threw Blood Bowl together from ideas, opinions and hunches. Someone's subjective thoughts on BB matter, it just isn't mine. Or yours.

But yes I know that is just my opinion.

[Sandwich]

...But yes I know that is just my opinion.

Doesn't count without numbers

...
* Chaos Dwarfs improve from 9th to 1st, whilst Dwarfs fall from 8th to 14th.
* Necromantic improve from 10th to 4th.
* High Elves improve from 12th to 3rd.
* Nurgle improves from 18th to 11th.
* Vampires improve from 19th to 8th.
* Chaos improves from 21st to 10th.

So what is going on here? Well it won't slip you by that 4 of those teams have pretty easy access to ClawPOMB. Of the two that do not we have a common theme in Blood Bowl advancement which is that teams with great base stats and poor starter skills tend to be weak, but will overtake others once they get those core skills. That can also be said of Chaos, but not of the other 3 teams.

What is the explanation for why teams like Chaos Dwarfs are now the top team? Dode are you able to provide TV splits for this?

I'll give an answer here with no stats to back it up: these 6 teams all suffer - to an extent - because they start with few or no "useful" skills like Block, Dodge. Ok, so Chaos Dwarves have block+tackle but only on 6 players, and they need more on the bulls+hobgobs. In a perpetual league like OCC these teams can gain a lot of skills across the board and that's when these 6 will shine. If there was a high-TV resurrection tournament (say 1.5m or 2m, with multiple skills allowed) I'd expect to see most of these races placing much higher than you'd see them in the usual 1.1m low-skill environment normally seen at NAF tournaments.
Again: that's mostly just gut feeling, no numbers to back it up, so feel free to disregard

[straume]

"Less interesting" is an entirely subjective statement.

Obviously, yes. It is still an argument (again to Wulfyn and his "shooty army of death"-analogy). You are free til agree, disagree or nuance. After all this is a forum to talk Blood Bowl.

[dode74]

I think what they are trying to say is that nobody is allowed an opinion because numbers exist.

Nonsense. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but don't present it as a fact.

Yeah yeah, you can just reduce every argument to "that is subjective, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". That is technically correct even if it misses the spirit of the discussion (and just being a person) by a planet or two. But that is not how games are designed. Jervis (in particular even for a games designer) threw Blood Bowl together from ideas, opinions and hunches. Someone's subjective thoughts on BB matter, it just isn't mine. Or yours.

Nobody is reducing it to "that is subjective" in order to dismiss it out of hand. It's being dismissed as a reason to change the core rules. If you want to house rule anything you like to improve your enjoyment of the game then nobody is stopping you, but to expect those rules to be adopted by others as core rules because you enjoy them more is the height of audacity.

straume - sure, it's an opinion. Others hold different opinions, which was my point.

[Regash]

That is technically correct even if it misses the spirit of the discussion (and just being a person) by a planet or two.

Here we have to agree that we disagree.
If someone comes in and yells that his car is broken and you finally find out that he just doesn't like it but technically it's just fine, the one who missed the spirit of the discussion then is who?

Don't get me wrong, I've never been part of said ClawPOMB discussion, even if seemingly all threads turn into one of those.

I've never seen anyone playing the combo or even exploiting it.
I've never before heard people discussing it, aside from TFF.

This has naver ever occured to me as a "problem" at all and that is why I strongly believe that people tend to dislike rules they have been on the suffering side of.
It's not nice to get your butt kicked hard. But that is no reason to shout out to the world that this needs to be fixed.
You know what the say: "Scissors is very nicely balanced but Paper is completely overpowered!" said the Stone.

I have to admit, when I read the skill desription, I really thought that that sounded like a nasty combo.
But only 5 teams from 24 can have it and some need at least one, some more doubles to get it.
So does this three skill combo makes me worried? Not even a bit!

People should play more halflings and learn that a lost match is not the end of the world.
Try to get your fun from playing the instead of just winning matches.

[Afroman]

People should play more halflings and learn that a lost match is not the end of the world.

Wisdom words if I ever say any.

[VoodooMike]

Darkson, Mike, dode, argument that clawmbpo is not broken,as it is not visible from win statistics.
And I agree to that, and wulfyn probably might as well.
That is not his topic, as I understand him.

Actually, the topic was made to demonstrate that the arguments for CPOMB don't all boil down to "I don't like it", pursuant to an exchange on another thread. Turns out his argument is just a more wordy version of "I don't like it".

I read from his comments, that his focus is the variance related due to clawmbpo, which He calls the "fun".
Something that straume picked up in an earlier post, but that did not get much attention.

No attention is needed. Fun is subjective - what you find fun and what I find fun may differ from what wulfyn finds fun or dode finds fun. To declare variance to be a measure of fun is.. pretty damned random.. but even if we decide variance is an issue how do we decide what "too much" variance is? It's going to come down to just pulling some number out of our asses and say "woops.. that exceeds our ass-number, so.. must be broken".

So if I am a great player and play against a not so great clawmbpo player, I still probably win more games than I loose, but those that I loose I probably feel helpless, as those are the games on which I loose 3 players by turn 2 and from there on get bashed upon.

Well, I'd probably say "work on your positioning" and "build your team around minimizing your feeling of helplessness if this is what bothers you".

To proof this theory we would need numbers on inflicted and caused CAS and change of TV in teams and coaching skill data.

We have all of that except coaching skill data which is impossible to get. If your theory is based on data that cannot be obtained then it's not a useful theory. It's like basing your theory on the length of God's penis. You'll never get that measurement, so we can bin that theory.

So I agree to wulfyn theory, and "feel" the same, but don't think any data right now presented proofs it or against it.

The onus is always on someone to prove their theory, not on others to disprove it. Until he, or you, provide evidence to support the theory it is nothing but fluff.

I think what they are trying to say is that nobody is allowed an opinion because numbers exist. Yeah yeah, you can just reduce every argument to "that is subjective, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". That is technically correct even if it misses the spirit of the discussion (and just being a person) by a planet or two.

Your position is symptomatic of the new age shift, primarily in the unwashed masses, toward the idea that feelings mean more than facts. First of all, this isn't really about "opinions", this is about theories and beliefs which are being wrapped in the description of "opinions" because that new age feelsies movement has declared opinions to be sacrosanct. If your theory doesn't line up with the facts... if your beliefs don't line up with the facts... they are either incomplete because they don't account for the actual facts, or they're outright wrong. This doesn't change by you shouting "but its my opinion and you must respect my opinions or you're raping my rights!".

So yeah, we're "technically right" and they're "technically wrong" but despite your claims to the contrary that is exactly what matters. Two sides of an argument... one is right, one is wrong. The end.

Now, you can start a NEW discussion where you talk about your feelings, give each other backrubs, compare brands of tampons, and all that jazz... but CPOMB discussions never start that way - they degenerate to that because the anti-CPOMB side finds it can't stand up to real scrutiny. They end up as a weepy support group for people who want to talk about how education has oppressed their emotional truth and is the reasons the unicorns don't visit anymore.

[hutchinsfairy]

If someone comes in and yells that his car is broken and you finally find out that he just doesn't like it but technically it's just fine

But what if he comes in and says that his car is less enjoyable to drive than it could be? What if X customers come back to say that, in their opinion, the car could be much more enjoyable to drive if you just tweaked Y?

If there is no cost to make the change then how would the car manufacturer decide whether to change their design affecting all current drivers of the car? It would be impractical to do this solely based on data. You could collect data about the perceivable impact of the change but you can't realistically gather the unbiased opinions of statistically significant proportion of the drivers allotted to otherwise comparable sample groups.

In the end car (and game) designers have to make some decisions based on focus groups or informed individuals and run with it. Anecdotal data is not an absence of data (although it's just very poor data).

I am not trying to make the point that ClawPOMB should be changed or that X number of people complaining about it should be some sort of tipping point. I just don't think you can say absolutely that a lack of good quality data precludes making a change. If that tenet had been held to in all cases I do not think we would have many good games (or cars) to occupy our time.

PS: Regash's comment triggered this thought which is why it is quoted. I'm not arguing against what he said.

[Regash]

But what if he comes in and says that his car is less enjoyable to drive than it could be? What if X customers come back to say that, in their opinion, the car could be much more enjoyable to drive if you just tweaked Y?

Then he wouldn't have said it's broken, like people do on the CPOMB discussions.
Anyway, it would still be a matter of taste, something very subjective.

Just because some people prefer to mount a rear spoiler on their car doesn't mean the aerodynamics of this car is broken.

I've got no problem if people do house rule CPOMB when they play Blood Bowl.
But that's no reason to call it broken or demand rule changes.
You guys wanna play by house rules? Allright! But let us others play by official rules, please. And don't call them broken.

Do you really think Apple is gonna change the whole iPhone because a coule of people like Android phones better?
Have you ever seen any car redesigned just because some people prefer another brand?

If enough people like a product, they'll buy it and it will keep on being produced.
If only a few people buy it, they'll end production and go do something else.
CRP is here for about 6 years, Blood Bowl for about 30.
People still seem to be playing it, so GW and the BBRC must have done something right.

[Bakunin]

...

If one was to hold a Rez-tourney at Tv1000 where every player gained clawpomb, which team would be best?

[dode74]

I just don't think you can say absolutely that a lack of good quality data precludes making a change.

But there is data, and plenty of it. None of it suggests a change is necessary, as opposed to some people thinking a change is desirable (while others think it is not).

[Wulfyn]

[Actually, the topic was made to demonstrate that the arguments for CPOMB don't all boil down to "I don't like it", pursuant to an exchange on another thread. Turns out his argument is just a more wordy version of "I don't like it".

I clearly demonstrated what was meant by a broken mechanic (section 1 with examples in section 2) and why ClawPOMB fell within that definition (section 3). None of your points addressed that. Instead you invented the narrative that I think it is broken because I don't like it and stated it over and over. The reason for this is because you don't pay any attention to reasoned arguments because (as you stated in your conclusion) you don't want to be told what to do. At no point have I ever expressed a reason as to why it is broken as being dependent upon my emotional state.

An example of how you lack the understanding required to form a cohesive reply is best demonstrated in your reply to a mirror match. You think that if a mechanic is fair then it is not broken. But I had already given two examples (first blood chess and shooty army of death) how a mechanic could be both broken and fair.

Everyone can see at this point that you are just denying reality and have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than anger.

[Wulfyn]

I just don't think you can say absolutely that a lack of good quality data precludes making a change.

But there is data, and plenty of it. None of it suggests a change is necessary, as opposed to some people thinking a change is desirable (while others think it is not).

You are misinterpreting the data. You think that fair means not broken. This is incorrect, as I stated to Darkson. I have given examples of games that are fair but broken. You have given nothing of the sort other than a statement to the contrary.

So the assumption is that all the cas come from blocks? Do you have the source for this data? I'm not suggesting 2 cas per game is an unreasonable average, btw. I'm saying that "add a CPOMBer" does not automagically increase that number to 4.

Yes. I checked a large number of tournament rules and the majority looked to only record stats that were caused by blocks. There are some that record it from surfs, fouls, secret weapons etc. but these are in the vast minority and I doubt will affect the average rate by much (I estimate less than 0.05 cas per game). Also recorded will be cas from players making the block but this again is a rare situation compared to the number of knockdowns caused and I estimate will be less than 0.1 cas per game. Removing these I would go from 1.93 to 1.78; hardly a paradigm shift.

What evidence do you have other than speculation that my assumptions are not sound that it does not go to 4?

As for the "comparison" of positions on your win rate chart, are those positions on the NAF table based on inferences of the various races' performances on TT, or are they observational statistics on their actual performances? Because if the latter then you making inferences about them seems methodologically off. We can't actually say CDs are "first" in terms of league data because the sample size means there's no statistically significant difference between their performance and that of, say, Lizards.

This is incorrect, and a poor use of statistics, sorry. When you are comparing data of this nature you define yourself what significance means. There is no correct version of this, and to say it is not statistically significant without giving your threshold is poor form. In reality it is impossible to draw any conclusions with 100% certainty. Halflings could be the very best blood bowl team if you set your threshold at a 200 sigma level. But I think we can both agree that anyone making the claim that they cannot be proven as not being the best team with 100% certainty either does not understand statistics or is using weasel words.

So you can say that ranked by win%age Chaos Dwarfs are the best team, and it looks like we can have around an 80% certainty that this is true eyeballing the graph (you have the numbers so it should be trivial for you to calculate this). But of course this is not important because what we are measuring is the change in position, and the confidence that you can say that they are the best team in TT is far lower. So the question is what accounts for the increase in confidence and not whether they are definitely #1.

But you also bring up a good point regarding frame dragging. A race that performs much better at high TV than low TV will have their overall position average if the older matches at lower TV are also taken into account. And if the league is newer then this is likely to be disproportionately weighted towards the lower TV games. So it could be that at high TV only Chaos do even better than 11th, just they are dragged back by poor performance at low TV. Incidentally this can be another reason why ClawPOB teams don't see to have good %age results because pre-ClawPOMB stats were taken into account - but that is another story. This is why I asked if you had TV tiering in your data so that we can remove this effect (if such an effect does indeed exist as it may not).

[dode74]

I clearly demonstrated what was meant by a broken mechanic

Actually you created your own definition of it. Nobody has to agree to that definition. I would agree the chess example is broken (and nobody plays that way) but I am unsure regarding the "shooty army of death" as that one simply comes across as not being something I might enjoy but being something others might.

You think that fair means not broken. This is incorrect, as I stated to Darkson.

Only if you redefine "broken" as you have done.

Yes. I checked a large number of tournament rules and the majority looked to only record stats that were caused by blocks.

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

What evidence do you have other than speculation that my assumptions are not sound that it does not go to 4?

Let me get this clear: you're asking me to prove your self-confessed ASSUMPTION as incorrect? I suspect you know the meaning of the term "burden of proof". Even if it is 4, so what? If it's not causing them to win the match then it doesn't matter.

This is incorrect, and a poor use of statistics, sorry. When you are comparing data of this nature you define yourself what significance means.

Pot, this is kettle calling! Or did you actually define your level of significance somewhere? It's fairly common to use 0.05 for such tests, and the OCC CDs result is not significantly different to any of the teams down to Lizards at that level of significance. In fact, you can increase to 0.10 and it's still not significantly different to any of those teams.

this is not important because what we are measuring is the change in position

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.

But you also bring up a good point regarding frame dragging.

Given the tiers as defined are lifetime statistics frame dragging is not pertinent.