Why ClawPOMB is broken

[Greshvakk]

Turns out his argument is just a more wordy version of "I don't like it".

No, it isn't. This is just how you like to characterise the argument to try and belittle and humiliate the poster. It seems to be a running theme of yours. I respect counter views on whether claw pomb really is a problem - it's a debate and I enjoy those. I can even respect - although not agree with - trying to characterise it as a conversation about win rates only (although it's a bit embarrassing that you and others keep claiming the data supports your arguments when it doesn't) but this characterisation of Wulfyn's arguments is just plain horseshit. Constantly claiming it undermines your actual points.

[plasmoid]

Lifetime win percentage is not the only balance in BB.
If it were, any insane combo would be balanced if it was hard enough to acquire. It's power would simply drown in the lifetime stats.

Yes, the BBRC made this tier balance definition. But over the years they've also made many changes to individual skills, even though nothing could be proven to be match level broken. It's about getting way more bang for your back than the 2(0) points of TV. And about these smaller advantages adding up.

The original +2/+2 DP was broken - even though everyone could take it.

Cheers
Martin

[VoodooMike]

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).

You demonstrated that things are "broken" based on a definition of broken that you invented! It is quite literally the same thing as "I don't like it" - you decided that things should be a certain way, they're not that way, and thus you want them to be different.

The reason for this is because you don't pay any attention to reasoned arguments...

Worthless arguments that don't need attention because instead of sticking to established definitions that are agreed upon by both sides of the debate, you invented your own and demanded they be accepted as objective. It's pure goalpost shifting - you just set the bar wherever you want and say "look, it breaks my personal rules so it must be broken!".

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.

If you modify the game of chess such that white always wins then that game is not "fair" - one side wins before a single move is made... so, no, that's not an example of fair but broken, it's an example of an unfair non-game.

If a game is decided based on the first dice roll, and the roll could favour either side equally then the game is fair so long as the game is understood to be a coin toss. It is not objectively broken, however.. it's just not going to fun for anyone who expects something other than a coin toss.

Your assertion is that CPOMB vs CPOMB is decided by the first dice roll. I don't think anyone but you thinks that's true. I certainly don't, and I've watched matches that were CPOMB vs. CPOMB. They're actually quite intricate due to both coaches knowing what to expect if they allow their players to soak hits, so with decent coaches you see interesting gambits and positioning.

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

Oh? Doesn't look that way to me. How many people do you have on your ignore list?

Lifetime win percentage is not the only balance in BB.

Do tell.. what other balance is there in BB that isn't based on your intuition and inferences, plasmoid? As far as I know win% is the only metric the BBRC laid out in conjunction with the word "balance". Certainly you can opine about how things should be balanced, but nobody is required to agree with you.

The original +2/+2 DP was broken - even though everyone could take it.

By which definition of broken? Again, if you want to make firm statements that are meant to be seen as objective in nature, you need an established definition and a reason that we'd all use it. The BBRC got to invent their own definitions because they were the people who set the rules that would be sanctioned by GW... nobody else really gets to make shit up and call it anything but shit.

Muppets, one and all.

[dode74]

Lifetime win percentage is not the only balance in BB.

Unless the game designers have stated otherwise, yes it is. Changes they made as game designers do not have to be for balance purposes: it's within their remit to make changes for whatever reason they choose, including that they don't like something. That does not make that something broken, nor does it mean you get to claim something is broken simply because you don't like it.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,
has any of the BBRC ever said - as you seem to claim - that win percentage is the only balance relevant in BB?

Edit - sorry: As far as I know the win percentages were the definitions of a balanced team. It does not neccessarily follow, that win percentages define balance for individual skills or game mechanics. I think it is fairly mundane to come up with a broken general skill. Here goes:
"Rules Lawyer (G): The player is skilled at complaining to the referees. If this player is on the pitch when a TD is scored by the opposing team, then the TD is voided due to some techicality. The teams must set up again, and the ball is once again kicked to the offense (unless the half ended). If it was the offense that scored the TD, then move the defenses turn marker 1 turn forward on the turn track"

As for past changes to very powerful skills, I think you're hiding behind the semantics of what constitutes 'broken'. We could call it overpowered or unbalanced for all I care. But if you think that the changes to old Diving Tackle or several incarnations of DP was not for balance reasons, then you obviously wasn't around for the discussion.

Edit: to wit, original DP was BB's very own Shooty Army of Death. Massive power and game effect (as well as long term effect) for a single G skill. But everyone could take - in multiples - so it made no particular team broken. How could it?

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Might be a good time to characterize my own opinion on CPOMB:
I don't think that it is broken, if that means 'renders the game unplayable'.
I think it is overpowered, giving a lot more of an on-pitch effect than 6(0) points of TV should.

I also think that discussing it id fairly irrelevant. Interesting, but irrelevant. Nobody is in any real position to change the official rules based on this discussion. So broken or not, the rules are the rules. Those that can rewrite the rules are currently doing so. And whatever they publish, will be the new BB.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

Hi Dode,
has any of the BBRC ever said - as you seem to claim - that win percentage is the only balance relevant in BB?

Oh please. Have any of thems said it was balanced around anything else, or are you merely going for your usual god-of-the-gaps approach.
Here is where Tom has said "What the BBRC officially used to balance the tiers was..." and then went on to define them. Got anything even vaguely similar about anything else?

Edit - sorry: As far as I know the win percentages were the definitions of a balanced team. It does not neccessarily follow, that win percentages define balance for individual skills or game mechanics. I think it is fairly mundane to come up with a broken general skill. Here goes:
"Rules Lawyer (G): The player is skilled at complaining to the referees. If this player is on the pitch when a TD is scored by the opposing team, then the TD is voided due to some techicality. The teams must set up again, and the ball is once again kicked to the offense (unless the half ended). If it was the offense that scored the TD, then move the defenses turn marker 1 turn forward on the turn track"

Again, you're assuming that everything the BBRC did was based around balance. They had the remit to put in stuff they thought was fun (or take it out if it was not). Nobody currently has that remit. Either way, what we're talking about is "broken", not "not fun for me". Or at least that's what I think we're trying to talk about...

I think you're hiding behind the semantics

In a discussion an accusation of using "semantics" as some sort of negative point is intensely stupid. Semantics is to do with "the meaning of words". So yes, we're talking about what broken means. Because if it's not broken then it's all a matter of opinion. Which is fine, but not an objective reason to change anything.

Edit: to wit, original DP was BB's very own Shooty Army of Death. Massive power and game effect (as well as long term effect) for a single G skill. But everyone could take - in multiples - so it made no particular team broken. How could it?

Indeed, not broken. But, working from the assumption that it didn't make, say, Khemri overly powerful (based on performance, not theorybowl), the reasons BBRC decided to remove it certainly weren't for balance (whether that was the language used or not). They may have simply decided they didn't like it, rather like JJ did with the bank when he implemented Petty Cash, and that was within their purview.

[voyagers_uk]

Martin

Back in 3rd you are right almost every team had several DP menaces but again it didn't break anything and was removed IIRC because of the complaints of Online Coaches not tabletop coaches

Lots of things back then had what an emotional person might infer were negative impacts on the game Fouling, Special Play Cards, Diving Tackle all could be construed to be damaging to the game in some way

Everyone in my league loved them

The game was bloodier and yet purists from 2ed still missed "Buzz, Chop, Thunk"

The game is brilliant now and doesn't evidence any requirement for changes.

I think you and others want a different game based on the constant complaints

take the emotion out of your arguments and just look at it from the other side

Mike, Dode, and Darkson are right that the OP is flawed and as such just emotional ranting disguised.

[plasmoid]

Hi Voyagers,

I think you and others want a different game based on the constant complaints

Just te re-state:
I don't want the rules to get changed.
And I doubt (but who knows?) that anyone thinks that this thread could cause that to happen.
I'm perfectly happy playing house rules.

If GW is even aware of the issue/discussion, and consider it as part of the coming new rules, then I hope that they manage to do whatever the majority would prefer. Not that we know what that is,

Back in 3rd you are right almost every team had several DP menaces but again it didn't break anything and was removed IIRC because of the complaints of Online Coaches not tabletop coaches

To the best of my knowledge that isn't true.
The first change to DP happened, when an outsider joined the GW studio League, took DP and started destroying teams.
IGMEOY was a direct result of that.
Were there even online coaches back then?

Everyone in my league loved them

Everyone in mine didn't.

Thanks for your comment,
Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

Everyone in mine didn't.

Which doesn't make it broken.

[voyagers_uk]

Wow. Dismissive much?

And just because I took a contrary position to you

Bit harsh mate, truly

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,

Oh please. Have any of thems said it was balanced around anything else, or are you merely going for your usual god-of-the-gaps approach.

You're the one saying that the quote means something more than what is explicitly stated. Being rude about it doesn't make your interpretation any truer.
In the context of what the correct tiers are, Tom replied how they balanced the tiers. Not the game. You may well believe that that is what he means, (even though he is talking about something else and doesn't explicitly say so) but it certainly isn't an unavoidable conclusion.
In the PBBL/CRP design process, the win-percentage tiers were only ever explicitly applied to the rosters, and resulted in 3 roster changes.

Again, you're assuming that everything the BBRC did was based around balance. They had the remit to put in stuff they thought was fun (or take it out if it was not). Nobody currently has that remit.

Through the LRB process and the PBBL process, the eyes of the BB World watched the BBRC, ready to rain Down fury and anger on them, whenever a new edition was released. They were not just throwing around arbitrary stuff for kicks. But even if they were, there were specific cases, like certain skills, where changes were made to reduce the power of those skills. The entire debate around those skills was about whether they were to good or not. And their power was not reduced for random kicks.

In a discussion an accusation of using "semantics" as some sort of negative point is intensely stupid. Semantics is to do with "the meaning of words". So yes, we're talking about what broken means.

My issue is not with clear language. How could it be. It was about sticking to the word "broken" as an easily defendable position.
Do we have an authoritative definition of broken that is generally agreed on? The Galak quote is surely not an explicit definition of "broken".
We might just as well discuss if CPOMB is overpowered - as in adding considerably more value than the alternatives.

the reasons BBRC decided to remove it certainly weren't for balance (whether that was the language used or not). They may have simply decided they didn't like it, rather like JJ did with the bank when he implemented Petty Cash, and that was within their purview.

Yes. It is possible that the BBRC in spite of how changes were discussed, how they were reasoned and how much anger they would cause really just decided to yank out random stuff for laughs.
Giving an example one or more changes that were not for balance reasons does not prove that none were.

Case in point. Dauntless.
Prior to PBBL, Dauntless was 2d6 to beat the opponents strength. It was also a trait.
When traits were removed, and Dauntless thus became generally available on a singles roll, Ian/Doubleskulls argued quite persistently that dauntless would be too good, so it was changed to D6+ST based on the assumption that the players who would employ the now widely available skill would be ST2 and ST3 players, and that these players would get a slightly lower chance of success than with a 2d6 roll.
There is no way that a marginally better dauntless would have pushed any teams above 55%

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Voyagers,
I'm truly not looking for a fight.
And I honestly wonder what made you go "Wow. Dismissive much."

I read your original post and found it quite terse and a bit pointed. But I consciously decided to not reply in that tone, because I had absolutely no reason to think that you were intentionally harsh. So it was either unintentional tone or your part, or bad reading on my part.

So you're very welcome to tell me what you find dismissive.
Was it me stating that I'm quite happy playing house rules and leaving the official rules well alone?
Was it me pointing out that the original change to DP had a specific cause?
Or was it that DP was very unpopular where I played - unlike where you did?

Blame it on me being non-English perhaps, but I really don't know what was dismissive about it.
And I certainly have nothing against you or your opinion.
I'm in a happy place.
Peace mate.
Martin

[dode74]

You're the one saying that the quote means something more than what is explicitly stated.

You're the one saying "they may have used something else as well". Unless you have some evidence that they actually did then you're asking for evidence of absence, which is dumb. If you're claiming there was some other metric used for balancing then feel free to provide evidence of it: what metric, where was it used, what was it applied to etc. If you've not got any evidence of there being another metric then I suggest you stop claiming that there might have been another one as some sort of sound basis for balance.

The entire debate around those skills was about whether they were to good or not. And their power was not reduced for random kicks.

Any discussion like that is arbitrary, particularly in the absence of a specific metric. "Too good" simple means "more powerful than I would like", not "so powerful it breaks the game", which would itself require... metrics!

It was about sticking to the word "broken" as an easily defendable position.
Do we have an authoritative definition of broken that is generally agreed on?

Whatever it is it's not the one in the OP.
I've actually pointed you in the direction of several definitions of "balanced" (and, by contrast, broken) over the years. Specifically I suggested you read some of David Sirlin's concepts, including

• "A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable--especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players." - source (again)

(it's worth noting that BB does suffer from some of the flaws described such as lame duck situations)
I suggest anyone about to complain that CPOMB limits options (to which the obvious response is "so does any form of player removal") reads the context of the quote. BB absolutely does do what the quote says.
My point, though, was that you are claiming that talking semantically is somehow a negative: it's not.

We might just as well discuss if CPOMB is overpowered - as in adding considerably more value than the alternatives.

If we agree on that as a definition of "overpowered", or we agree that there is some method of measuring that "value" compared with the alternatives outside TV. Which I don't.

the BBRC ... really just decided to yank out random stuff for laughs

Don't misquote me. Did I say they did that? No. If you're going to make a point then at least try to make a valid one rather than building a strawman, Martin. "They didn't like it" is what I said, and that covers a multitude of motivations (including the "anger they would cause"), not one of which is "balance".

Giving an example one or more changes that were not for balance reasons does not prove that none were.

And giving examples of changes which were made does not mean they were done for balance reasons.

So, unless you're able to give us this other metric for balance which is outside the tier performances then anything you claim was done for "balance reasons" outside win% as a measure of balance is nothing more than "we didn't like it".

[VoodooMike]

has any of the BBRC ever said - as you seem to claim - that win percentage is the only balance relevant in BB?

The BBRC has never said that barometric pressure is not a key consideration during a game of Blood Bowl either.. that any move that adjusts the barometric pressure in the room by more than 0.02% is probably a move that should be disallowed in the ruleset.

As for past changes to very powerful skills, I think you're hiding behind the semantics of what constitutes 'broken'. We could call it overpowered or unbalanced for all I care. But if you think that the changes to old Diving Tackle or several incarnations of DP was not for balance reasons, then you obviously wasn't around for the discussion.

Oh, so you're basing your labeling of CPOMB as "unbalanced" or "broken" on the BBRC's skill balancing metric? Please enlighten me as to the specifics of that metric. I mean, you can bring the whole CPOMB argument to an end in one fell swoop with that!

No?

Didn't think so. Much like the numbers that your side brings to bear, they're post-hoc reasoning not the path you took to your belief. You decided on your belief and now are looking for better excuses for holding it than just "well I just believe it so shmeh!".

Being rude about it doesn't make your interpretation any truer.

..or falser. What's the point of this?

Do we have an authoritative definition of broken that is generally agreed on?

Not that I'm aware of, which is why my subjective-bullshit-o-meter starts to twitch whenever anyone declares anything to be "broken" in Blood Bowl.

We might just as well discuss if CPOMB is overpowered - as in adding considerably more value than the alternatives.

Got any metrics other than win% to base that discussion on? No? Well, it was a short but fun conversation..

Jesus.. I make one damned sandwich before hitting submit and half my points have been made by someone else already. Stop marginalizing my genius, bullies!