Why ClawPOMB is broken

[Regash]

"If you think 2 + 2 = 5, and your calculator says its 4, then that proves your calculator is flawed... believe in yourself, kids... Jesus loves you!"

Made my day!

[Tripleskull]

As a mathematics teacher with a masters degree in mathematics and philosophy I can appreciate both the desire to look for quantifiable evidence and the epistemological and logical discussion about how to know anything about the matter. Given that the data does not give us an answer however I think it is very reasonable to assume that the intuition and anecdotal evidence that I have that CLAWPOMB is broken (a bad design for some formats) is correct.

That one is absolute gold! According to you the fact that the data does not show evidence that your belief is correct is proof that your belief should be considered more objectively solid than the data! Who do you teach math to... grade school special ed? I'd swear you were a low-budget theologian..

"If you think 2 + 2 = 5, and your calculator says its 4, then that proves your calculator is flawed... believe in yourself, kids... Jesus loves you!"

If the data is representative it shows that the game is not broken in respect to Dodes definition of broken. This was my tentative definition: "(a bad design for some (I might have added relevant) formats)" and I am pretty sure you did notice that but you sure do like being the *moderated to remove swearing* Good luck with that.

[VoodooMike]

If the data is representative it shows that the game is not broken in respect to Dodes definition of broken.

The BBRC's definition, actually - the people who created the rules being critiqued. In fact, it is the only definition of "broken" that doesn't boil down to "I just don't like it".

Understand this: even if you want to choose a different metric to use to measure "broken-ness" that isn't your personal feelies or our hundreds-of-thousands-of-matches data, there does not exist data for that metric (or we'd have discussed it!)... which means you're not basing your opinion about the broken-ness of CPOMB on any metric other than your feelings so any discussion of other metrics is total crap - it's theological apologetics. You believe what you believe for no reason other than you FEEL its wrong, with no numbers or evidence beyond that.

Starting with an opinion and then selectively shopping around for evidence that supports it is not scientific inquiry... if anything it is the aggravated rape of it.

This was my tentative definition: "(a bad design for some (I might have added relevant) formats)" and I am pretty sure you did notice that...

No I pretty clearly saw you declare your intuition to be all that is needed to declare CPOMB objectively broken, even if the data didn't support that intuition. All you're doing is trying to put lipstick on your solipsistic pig here - trying to make your definition so completely without substance that the meaning cannot be disputed because it ultimately HAS no meaning in the first place.

[Tripleskull]

hundreds-of-thousands-of-matches data

You know fully well that a large sample size does not eliminate systematic flaws in data. I might be wrong about the data being flawed and we could have talked about what would constitute flawed data but that was newer the discussion we had. I think there are other interesting conversations we could have had but I guess not in this tread.

You and the gang seem to have no interest in discussing the matter of validity of data and I frankly have no interest in discussing any matter with you.

[hutchinsfairy]

What? How? Do you intend to back that up at all? Is this some divine right? If the authority is delegated, who granted the original authority? You are making an erroneous link between creating something and somehow having a divine edict. No-one can be right or wrong about subjective matters, that's what it means!

By creating it they have that authority. As far as the world of BB goes, their edict is divine as the creator of that world

So you're really going to go down with the GW are divine and they have the right to tell people what to think ship? Wow.

You've also missed the initiation of this thread, which was started from a discussion of what to do about CPOMB. Nothing imaginary there, and my answer is "house rule it as you like".

That is not what the OP says, it's right there for anyone to read. Your answer is to another question.

And insofar as the OP goes it is not in any way an objective statement. If he had said "I think it is broken because..." then that would be one thing (and something which could be rejected out-of-hand), but he did not. Read the last sentence of the OP: he presented it not as opinion but as fact.

I have added your quote back into the chain so you can, hopefully, see how you are saying entirely different things each time.

No, I've said that ownership gives their subjective opinion the authority required to choose objective metrics. Your ownership of your car means only your opinion as to whether it is ugly or not matters.

This is the crux of your argument. That owning something means that only your opinion matters. Essentially because GW have the most power to change something only they have the right to. My opinion matters to me and my neighbours matters to her. Neither is more important than the other just because one of us has the ability to enact change. The idea that either of our opinions is somehow more objective is just laughable.

No one can! The definition of broken is always going to be subjective.

The choice of metrics can be subjective, but the metrics themselves can be objective. The choice of metric is down to the person who owns the game and IP.

Subjectively applying metrics is still subjective. Saying no children at a wedding is exactly as subjective as saying no-one above 0.8m tall. Saying that ClawPOMB is broken because I don't like it is exactly as subjective as saying ClawPOMB is broken because number. There may well be good qualitative arguments for choosing that number or pointing out why people don't like the skill but neither are objective.

GW have the right to edit the rulebook. Nobody else does. Do you deny that?

This is a derailment. GW having the right to edit the rulebook does not make their opinions more objective or more valid and doesn't preclude anyone else from having or voicing an opinion.

For the record I think that anyone, GW included, has both the moral and legal right to change rules.

[Bakunin]

The BBRC's definition, actually - the people who created the rules being critiqued. In fact, it is the only definition of "broken" that doesn't boil down to "I just don't like it".

So? You my not like my/our definition of broken - fine. You my claim your definition is more data heavy, and therefore better - okay. But your definition of broken is just as Subjectively choosen as ours. There is no viewpoint from nowhere. And just because you created something, does not give you a better position to make universel claims about it. (If this is hard to understand, I would recommend that if you live close to a University, then look up a course for something along the lines of "Introduction to science studies/Sociology of science" )

Anyways, if you use BBGs definition, then cpomb is broken - no doubt.

[dode74]

So you're really going to go down with the GW are divine and they have the right to tell people what to think ship? Wow.

As far as the game goes, yes. It's their IP. You want to make FairyBowl then crack on, but it's Blood Bowl if GW say it's Blood Bowl.

I have added your quote back into the chain so you can, hopefully, see how you are saying entirely different things each time.

Because you keep shifting your position. I respond to what you are saying.

This is the crux of your argument. That owning something means that only your opinion matters. Essentially because GW have the most power to change something only they have the right to. My opinion matters to me and my neighbours matters to her. Neither is more important than the other just because one of us has the ability to enact change. The idea that either of our opinions is somehow more objective is just laughable.

I've not said GW's opinion is objective. You're AGAIN confusing yourself. Take a reread of my post here: viewtopic.php?p=756586#p756586
And GW don't have the most power to change BB, they have the only power. It's theirs.

Subjectively applying metrics is still subjective. Saying no children at a wedding is exactly as subjective as saying no-one above 0.8m tall. Saying that ClawPOMB is broken because I don't like it is exactly as subjective as saying ClawPOMB is broken because number. There may well be good qualitative arguments for choosing that number or pointing out why people don't like the skill but neither are objective.

Again, I've not said that the selection is objective but that the metric is. You're desperately trying to conflate the things. The selection is subjective, but ONLY GW have the right to make that selection. Just like with your wedding example, only the people throwing the wedding have the right to implement either one of the restrictions you mention.

This is a derailment. GW having the right to edit the rulebook does not make their opinions more objective or more valid and doesn't preclude anyone else from having or voicing an opinion.

It's not a derailment at all. It's the whole point.

For the record I think that anyone, GW included, has both the moral and legal right to change rules.

For the record, you are wrong. You have the legal right to make and apply house rules; you have the legal right to make FairyBowl; you DO NOT have the legal right to change the rules of Blood Bowl.

[hutchinsfairy]

So we're left where we started. No-one is to be allowed to have a meaningful discussion about how rules affect gameplay without being willfully derailed. At least you seem to have climbed down from demanding that people either prove the unprovable or stop talking. And, after a brief stint trying to cobble together a pseudo-rational framework for your feelings (I particularly liked "objective opinions"), we arrived at the depressingly inexorable "you don't have the right".

[voyagers_uk]

So to bring this back to some semblance of normalcy

The discussion has gone downhill to the point from discussion about the rules to a discussion over who gets the point of the conversation the best.

I agree wholeheartedly that the the only entity with the right and therefore the power to physically alter the rule set Deemed official for the game Blood Bowl is Games Workshop

All players who have local power over their team/league environment can issue House rules to their hearts content

I have been running a thread in General chat asking tabletop leagues for their findings

Issues of over powered ness, or broken ness seem to be non existent

[dode74]

So we're left where we started. No-one is to be allowed to have a meaningful discussion about how rules affect gameplay without being willfully derailed.

Nonsense. I have no issue with a discussion about house rules. Do what you want with them. I do have an issue when people claim something is objectively broken.

At least you seem to have climbed down from demanding that people either prove the unprovable or stop talking.

Given I've not once done that - I have never said anyone needs to "prove the unprovable or stop talking" - this simply demonstrates your inability to comprehend the conversation.

And, after a brief stint trying to cobble together a pseudo-rational framework for your feelings (I particularly liked "objective opinions"), we arrived at the depressingly inexorable "you don't have the right".

I've never said anything about my feelings. No idea why you think I have. Maybe it's something to do with your inability to comprehend the conversation. The only think I have said about feelings is that none of us can use them to make any objective statements about BB.

House rule all you want.

[Glowworm]

is it Broken...? never noticed as my wrestle / fend team seems not to care

[VoodooMike]

You know fully well that a large sample size does not eliminate systematic flaws in data. I might be wrong about the data being flawed and we could have talked about what would constitute flawed data but that was newer the discussion we had.

This is ridiculously disingenuous. The only "systemic flaw" you can identify in the data is that it does not support what you've chosen to believe. You haven't actually performed any analyses - you haven't even looked at the raw data; you're just so sure you're right on "feel" that you've convinced yourself that the evidence is what is wrong, not you.

The idea that either of our opinions is somehow more objective is just laughable.

Not at all, but your position is the sort that people with unfounded beliefs often take. If your opinion is that the sky is yellow, and dode's opinion is that the sky is blue then they are not of equal objectivity - we can look up and see what colour the sky is. If your opinion is that 2 + 2 = 5 and dode's opinion is that 2 + 2 = 4 then you're not equally right... one "opinion" has significantly more external support than the other, and an objective truth is one that is consistent with all independent external facts.

No-one is to be allowed to have a meaningful discussion about how rules affect gameplay without being willfully derailed.

This is whiny goalpost moving. Nobody ever said you can't discuss the effects of anything - the discussion has been over whether or not CPOMB is "broken" and in some way is an objective problem with Blood Bowl that requires fixing. Look at the title of the thread and where it came from: it was some guy's attempt to prove that there was an objection to CPOMB that didn't boil down to "I don't like it". You're not even arguing that there is, just whining that your opinions should matter.

What you three (tripleskull, hutchinsfairy, bakunin) have reduced yourselves to is trying to argue that all opinions are equal. Not only is that not the case, but two of you are smart enough to know that (bakunin is clearly just a dunce) but are so wrapped up in fighting that you're adopting a stupid position and fighting white-knuckled to support it.

In fact, even Bakunin in his infinitesimal wisdom can understand that if our two camps were to take this debate and present our positions to an unbiased 3rd party - someone(s) who do not already have an established opinion about the matter and who would listen intently to the arguments being presented - we absolutely know which direction they'd end up going because one side has actual evidence, is based on metrics chosen by the creators of the game, and is supported with robust logic and argumentation... and the other involves people saying their trick-knee tells them its a problem, and their trick-knee is as good as all the science in the world.

At the end of the day that's what it's all about, too. There are presently three groups that can effect large-scale change to how Blood Bowl is played: the folks at GW reponsible for the new rulebook, the dev team at Cyanide, and Christer and Kalimar over at FUMBBL. They may not be completely unbiased, but given that none of them have yet expressed an interest in changing CPOMB or second-guessing the BBRC's design-to-date, we need to assume their bias is not in your favour. If all you've got is "well *I* think its broken so it should be changed" then we can confidently assume they will completely disregard your contribution... in much the same way they have thus far.

If you want to house rule things go for it... nobody cares what your house rules are in the grand scheme of things. You can create a jerk-off sock full of halfling minis if that's what floats your boat, and make it an integral part of how you play Blood Bowl.

I have been running a thread in General chat asking tabletop leagues for their findings

I noticed that tabletop leagues seem to be divisible into two mindsets:

1) We play with CPOMB and don't find it to be a problem.
2) We pre-emptively houseruled CPOMB because we worried it might be a problem, but never directly experienced a CPOMB problem.

Clearly that proves that there's a flaw in your collection of data because it does not agree with the "CPOMB is broken" crowd's feelings on the matter.

[voyagers_uk]

Aw shucks

[Oventa]

I noticed that tabletop leagues seem to be divisible into two mindsets:

1) We play with CPOMB and don't find it to be a problem.
2) We pre-emptively houseruled CPOMB because we worried it might be a problem, but never directly experienced a CPOMB problem.

Clearly that proves that there's a flaw in your collection of data because it does not agree with the "CPOMB is broken" crowd's feelings on the matter.

I don't want to get involved in his thread too much, but I don't want to let this stand here like it is a universal truth that there is just two options.

There is also
3) we played with cpomb in league and saw it as a problem.

I know for fact that there is at least one person belonging to that group, because it is me.
I don't want to discuss if this is a valid opinion, but just ensure you that there is a third group indeed, however small or active they may be.

[GalakStarscraper]

I don't want to get involved in his thread too much, but I don't want to let this stand here like it is a universal truth that there is just two options.

There is also
3) we played with cpomb in league and saw it as a problem.

I know for fact that there is at least one person belonging to that group, because it is me.
I don't want to discuss if this is a valid opinion, but just ensure you that there is a third group indeed, however small or active they may be.

Oventa .. was your league a tabletop league? Just curious