35 coaches online • Server time: 10:28
* * * Did you know? The brightest star is debog with 2031 SPPs.
Recent Forum Topics  Smurf/Goblin/Halflin... | The Big Boys' Badlan... | No seasons! Open Pla... |
2011-07-26 15:26:10
35 votes, rating 4.3
35 votes, rating 4.3
What a pixel hugger thinks of CLAWPOMB nerf.
Started off on Christers blog.
Copied here to help me keep track of what people think
I am a notorious pixel hugger.
I play fumbbl for the team development side of things.
This leads me to two things.
While on the surface this may suggest I think nerfing clawpomb would be a good thing actually it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.
Altering the ruleset because someone feels that a particular combination of skills is overpowered, (even if that may be true and even if that person is Christer) seems like the first step to destroying fumbbl.
What happens when PO is nerfed and then people start huge forum discussions on how something else is "overpowered" will these things be changed too. Once a precedent is set then whenever there is uproar about a particular skill or tactic then obviously calls will be made for more houserules.
As a community we already have 3 main divisions, of which ranked has few clawpombs (cos of the scarcity of getting games with the combo) and in league a commissioner already has the power to introduce house rules by banning the picking of such skills.
Besides although CLAWPOMB is effective it is not an immediate game winner just like khemri dp teams in lrb4 didn't always win.
If people do not like facing clawpomb teams they have several options ranked, league, making their own clawpombs. outlawing the combo just seems like people want all the benefits of quick games without any of the drawbacks of playing in "pure competitive division of box". In essence these people want to "cherrypick" in box.
As for not playing "competitively" or not playing in the "spirit" of fumbbl this to me seems that its too much a grey area for comfort. what one coach believes is competitive another may feel is conservative and yet a third may feel is suicidal. I have played a lot of games and I have always attempted to protect my players as much as possible.
I have occasionally risked 5+ dodges to blitz ballcarriers and succeeded. I have thrown -2 die blocks needing double pows. I have refused 2+ dodges or 1 die blocks because doing so would have unnecessarily risked injury to my players, even though had they succeeded they could have potentially helped me win games. Like the majority of fumbbl I don't know the ins and outs of the current situation. But unless it was a Pre-game agreement of how one coach was going to play I'm not sure I disagree with the tactics. I myself have started a drive sacrificing the los and setting up deep to protect the team as much as possible and possibly make the opponent score fast, leave himself open by getting over confident or to risk having players sent off for stupid fouls. Giving someone an easyish quick touchdown to get the ball and give you the chance to lay down some hurt seems far more sensible than throwing bodies in front of a clawpomb stall and not having enough men to compete second half.
the particular match replay does indeed look extreme but since the grey area is so large who's to say the coach in question wasn't making legitimate tactical choices to deal with clawpomb. he may have very easily given up 3spps for the td but he was not making cas spps very easy to come by.
If I'm down to fewer than half the number of players than my opponent I'll often keep my men prone for a drive unless I can see I realistic way to get to the ball. does that mean I'm not playing "competitively" or within the "spirit of fumbbl".
Unless its cheating and by that i mean pre-game agreements, anything that goes on on the pitch should be legal if its not a bug exploit.
should I dodge my star av5 gutter runner through 4 5+ dodges for a -2die ballcarrier blitz to try to stop the turn 8 score or run the same star gutter runner away from the action so i can make a 1 ttd attempt. Those decisions are judgement calls.
Just like setting up all mens safe in corner and minimising potential blocks if it potentially leads to more players next drive or for the opponent to get overconfident/bored and score early...If the offending coach had won the match 2-1 because his opponent had scored early or because having all his players second half he was able to clear the pitch and score twice would we all be now congratulating him on winning tactics.
I doubt that this rules infraction was a one off or that it was a first time punishment, but the possibility that it was leaves me feeling very uncomfortable. to think that somebody could report a drive of mine as not being "competitive" or against the "spirit" of fumbbl and then that admins could decide that it was and retire my team without discussing it leaves me very uneasy.
However I think we've all been around long enough to understand that this was probably not how it went down.
so to recap
notorious pixel hugger thinks nerfing clawpomb is bad idea and that with the exception of cheating anything done on the pitch should be allowed.
Copied here to help me keep track of what people think
I am a notorious pixel hugger.
I play fumbbl for the team development side of things.
This leads me to two things.
While on the surface this may suggest I think nerfing clawpomb would be a good thing actually it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.
Altering the ruleset because someone feels that a particular combination of skills is overpowered, (even if that may be true and even if that person is Christer) seems like the first step to destroying fumbbl.
What happens when PO is nerfed and then people start huge forum discussions on how something else is "overpowered" will these things be changed too. Once a precedent is set then whenever there is uproar about a particular skill or tactic then obviously calls will be made for more houserules.
As a community we already have 3 main divisions, of which ranked has few clawpombs (cos of the scarcity of getting games with the combo) and in league a commissioner already has the power to introduce house rules by banning the picking of such skills.
Besides although CLAWPOMB is effective it is not an immediate game winner just like khemri dp teams in lrb4 didn't always win.
If people do not like facing clawpomb teams they have several options ranked, league, making their own clawpombs. outlawing the combo just seems like people want all the benefits of quick games without any of the drawbacks of playing in "pure competitive division of box". In essence these people want to "cherrypick" in box.
As for not playing "competitively" or not playing in the "spirit" of fumbbl this to me seems that its too much a grey area for comfort. what one coach believes is competitive another may feel is conservative and yet a third may feel is suicidal. I have played a lot of games and I have always attempted to protect my players as much as possible.
I have occasionally risked 5+ dodges to blitz ballcarriers and succeeded. I have thrown -2 die blocks needing double pows. I have refused 2+ dodges or 1 die blocks because doing so would have unnecessarily risked injury to my players, even though had they succeeded they could have potentially helped me win games. Like the majority of fumbbl I don't know the ins and outs of the current situation. But unless it was a Pre-game agreement of how one coach was going to play I'm not sure I disagree with the tactics. I myself have started a drive sacrificing the los and setting up deep to protect the team as much as possible and possibly make the opponent score fast, leave himself open by getting over confident or to risk having players sent off for stupid fouls. Giving someone an easyish quick touchdown to get the ball and give you the chance to lay down some hurt seems far more sensible than throwing bodies in front of a clawpomb stall and not having enough men to compete second half.
the particular match replay does indeed look extreme but since the grey area is so large who's to say the coach in question wasn't making legitimate tactical choices to deal with clawpomb. he may have very easily given up 3spps for the td but he was not making cas spps very easy to come by.
If I'm down to fewer than half the number of players than my opponent I'll often keep my men prone for a drive unless I can see I realistic way to get to the ball. does that mean I'm not playing "competitively" or within the "spirit of fumbbl".
Unless its cheating and by that i mean pre-game agreements, anything that goes on on the pitch should be legal if its not a bug exploit.
should I dodge my star av5 gutter runner through 4 5+ dodges for a -2die ballcarrier blitz to try to stop the turn 8 score or run the same star gutter runner away from the action so i can make a 1 ttd attempt. Those decisions are judgement calls.
Just like setting up all mens safe in corner and minimising potential blocks if it potentially leads to more players next drive or for the opponent to get overconfident/bored and score early...If the offending coach had won the match 2-1 because his opponent had scored early or because having all his players second half he was able to clear the pitch and score twice would we all be now congratulating him on winning tactics.
I doubt that this rules infraction was a one off or that it was a first time punishment, but the possibility that it was leaves me feeling very uncomfortable. to think that somebody could report a drive of mine as not being "competitive" or against the "spirit" of fumbbl and then that admins could decide that it was and retire my team without discussing it leaves me very uneasy.
However I think we've all been around long enough to understand that this was probably not how it went down.
so to recap
notorious pixel hugger thinks nerfing clawpomb is bad idea and that with the exception of cheating anything done on the pitch should be allowed.
Comments
Posted by Garion on 2011-07-26 15:34:13
thats probably all true, but the LRB7 fumbbl thing will never happen, but it can still be fun to discuss. As you say if the site did have its own rules seperate from anywhere else, the site would die very quickly and worse still a lot of the oldest members like Cribbleobblepie, Purplegoo etc... would probably be the first to leave.
Posted by JoeKano on 2011-07-26 15:43:38
Claw / PO / MB - 3 skills.
Fend - 1 Skill. Besides Claw MB is always gonna hurt anyway.
Fend - 1 Skill. Besides Claw MB is always gonna hurt anyway.
Posted by maysrill on 2011-07-26 15:45:38
Well, Chrirster started the ball rolling mentioning the possibility of rules modifications. Personally, I can think of solutions but I'm not sure how bad the problem is.
Clawbomb IS brutal. But I'm not sure how big a problem it is.
Are any of the following true?:
1. Killstack teams dominating BWR
2. Killstack teams winning majors / winning qualifiers out of proportion
3. People leaving FUMBBL because of clawbomb teams
Killer teams are killer teams. The lucky few Claw/RSC-heavy chaos teams in LRB4 were better killers with less risk to their own players. The omni-DP khemri killed more stuff for less gain. They kill, they outnumber, and some of them try to win.
They still lose to elves. Rock / Paper / Scissors. Scissors are just getting really whiny about Rock lately.
Clawbomb IS brutal. But I'm not sure how big a problem it is.
Are any of the following true?:
1. Killstack teams dominating BWR
2. Killstack teams winning majors / winning qualifiers out of proportion
3. People leaving FUMBBL because of clawbomb teams
Killer teams are killer teams. The lucky few Claw/RSC-heavy chaos teams in LRB4 were better killers with less risk to their own players. The omni-DP khemri killed more stuff for less gain. They kill, they outnumber, and some of them try to win.
They still lose to elves. Rock / Paper / Scissors. Scissors are just getting really whiny about Rock lately.
Posted by Calcium on 2011-07-26 15:52:41
Time to leave the whole Frankenstein thing behind imo....The admins made their descision, live with it.
Other than that this is one more personal opinion out there. Maybe there will be so many differing personal opinions any such thought of a LRB7/Fumbbl edition will be almost impossible to implement?
OR...FUMBBL appoints a number of respected knowledgable coaches and hammers out a new LRB, just like the BBRC.
Other than that this is one more personal opinion out there. Maybe there will be so many differing personal opinions any such thought of a LRB7/Fumbbl edition will be almost impossible to implement?
OR...FUMBBL appoints a number of respected knowledgable coaches and hammers out a new LRB, just like the BBRC.
Posted by Cloggy on 2011-07-26 15:58:33
I think Christers longtime policy to stay as close to the most current ruleset as possible is correct. Large deviations from widely used standard rules creates a higher thershold for new coaches to enter the site. That I think is always a bad thing.
So I think Ken is correct (and I'm also a pixelhugger).
So I think Ken is correct (and I'm also a pixelhugger).
Posted by Lofwyr on 2011-07-26 16:45:27
Great Blog, I think you're absolutely right.
Posted by Wreckage on 2011-07-26 16:48:48
Well I gotta admit. I'd have expected Christers announcement calms people a little down. But instead everwhere spawn new threats and everyone is getting noisy oO.
Posted by freak_in_a_frock on 2011-07-26 17:00:25
I just worry that if we nerf claw pombs we will end up with loads of bloated 3000+TV teams again. At the moment teams get knocked down very easily, be they dwarf, elf or fling. If Claw pomb were to get a nerfing (and i will never deny it is a nasty combo) then we would need another way to stop teams getting to high. It used to be aging, now it is claw pombs.
Posted by Calcium on 2011-07-26 17:13:25
TV3000 teams is an impossibility now though isn't it Freak, thx to spirraling expenses?
Posted by Nelphine on 2011-07-26 17:52:22
Spiraling expenses does not prevent super high TV teams; rather, it makes super high TV teams have no money to buy replacements when their players do finally die. If their players aren't dying often enough, this means that the team won't actually be particularly bothered.
Extreme example just to show what might happen: if you have an AV 9 player who is good at scoring TDs, and who you use as your primary ball carrier, you can assume he probably won't be hit more than say.. 5 times per game. If (at the most extreme) he can only be hit by something with MB, and if we grant his opponent the supreme skill to always make 2d blocks against him, then he will be knocked down about 2 times per game (we'll assume he has dodge since we're talking about ball carriers, but that sometimes he'll be hit with tackle); of those 2 knock downs, he'll break armour 0.6 times per game. Of those breaks, he'll be cased 1/6 of the time; and then he'll die 1/6 of them, or 0.016 times per game. Of those, the apo will save him 2/3 of the time, or he'll die 0.01 times per game; or in other words, any TD gainer with dodge and 9 AV will now live an average of 100 games. Now as soon as he stops being your ball carrier, and becomes someone who isn't the main target of your opponent, his life expectancy will triple, since he'll be blocked less times (and probably not always with 2 die blocks, or with tackle). And if he gets 2 touchdowns per game (that's crazy high, but we'll assume the extra SPP's actually come from a combination of cas, completions, MVPs, and 2nd touchdowns) he'll reach legend in 30 games. So that tripled life expectancy is actually reasonable. After he becomes a legend, we assume his SPP gain drops to 0 TD per game (since you start work on your next legend). This results in you reasonably gaining as many as 10 legends before your first one dies. Obviously there will be spikes and bad luck on your way there; but if you play 1000 games with this awesome AV 9 dodge team that averages 10 or so SPP per game, you will end up with 11 legends. 11 legends = 66 skills; assume 1 +Str, 3 +Agi, 9 doubles, 3 +AV/MV, and 50 normals. From skills alone, you have 1530 TV, plus oh.. 400 TV from RR's/apo/misc stuff, + the actual TV of your 11 players (probably around 1 million if they're all AV 9); and bam, you have 3k TV without any particular difficulty. Note, with this super team, if you actually went averages, in 1000 games you'd have 15 legends on the team, so you'd have more like 4k TV. (Of course, you'd have some injuries too; so your team wouldn't be as strong as it sounds.) Spiraling expenses means the team would have nothing to replace any players it lost.. but you wouldn't need to replace any because you (at any given point) probably have only lost 1 player, and 15 legends is pretty darn good. (Note: I've left retiring players out of the above; since any given player can usually survive without at least 1 stat, this would increase 'death' rate by about 70%, especially with the assumed 2 die blocks meaning that -S wouldn't be a problem in most cases; this means in 1000 games, you'd probably have to retire non noobie players about 4 times, so you might actually end up with as low as 13 legends at your peak.)
Conclusion: We still need a mechanic that removes legends from the game, no matter how much I might not want to.
Extreme example just to show what might happen: if you have an AV 9 player who is good at scoring TDs, and who you use as your primary ball carrier, you can assume he probably won't be hit more than say.. 5 times per game. If (at the most extreme) he can only be hit by something with MB, and if we grant his opponent the supreme skill to always make 2d blocks against him, then he will be knocked down about 2 times per game (we'll assume he has dodge since we're talking about ball carriers, but that sometimes he'll be hit with tackle); of those 2 knock downs, he'll break armour 0.6 times per game. Of those breaks, he'll be cased 1/6 of the time; and then he'll die 1/6 of them, or 0.016 times per game. Of those, the apo will save him 2/3 of the time, or he'll die 0.01 times per game; or in other words, any TD gainer with dodge and 9 AV will now live an average of 100 games. Now as soon as he stops being your ball carrier, and becomes someone who isn't the main target of your opponent, his life expectancy will triple, since he'll be blocked less times (and probably not always with 2 die blocks, or with tackle). And if he gets 2 touchdowns per game (that's crazy high, but we'll assume the extra SPP's actually come from a combination of cas, completions, MVPs, and 2nd touchdowns) he'll reach legend in 30 games. So that tripled life expectancy is actually reasonable. After he becomes a legend, we assume his SPP gain drops to 0 TD per game (since you start work on your next legend). This results in you reasonably gaining as many as 10 legends before your first one dies. Obviously there will be spikes and bad luck on your way there; but if you play 1000 games with this awesome AV 9 dodge team that averages 10 or so SPP per game, you will end up with 11 legends. 11 legends = 66 skills; assume 1 +Str, 3 +Agi, 9 doubles, 3 +AV/MV, and 50 normals. From skills alone, you have 1530 TV, plus oh.. 400 TV from RR's/apo/misc stuff, + the actual TV of your 11 players (probably around 1 million if they're all AV 9); and bam, you have 3k TV without any particular difficulty. Note, with this super team, if you actually went averages, in 1000 games you'd have 15 legends on the team, so you'd have more like 4k TV. (Of course, you'd have some injuries too; so your team wouldn't be as strong as it sounds.) Spiraling expenses means the team would have nothing to replace any players it lost.. but you wouldn't need to replace any because you (at any given point) probably have only lost 1 player, and 15 legends is pretty darn good. (Note: I've left retiring players out of the above; since any given player can usually survive without at least 1 stat, this would increase 'death' rate by about 70%, especially with the assumed 2 die blocks meaning that -S wouldn't be a problem in most cases; this means in 1000 games, you'd probably have to retire non noobie players about 4 times, so you might actually end up with as low as 13 legends at your peak.)
Conclusion: We still need a mechanic that removes legends from the game, no matter how much I might not want to.
Posted by Nelphine on 2011-07-26 17:52:53
Sorry for the wall of text; it's mostly rather garish math.
Posted by King_Ghidra on 2011-07-26 17:59:31
It can't only be clawpomb that prevents mega tv teams, because for those playing in Ranked you can avoid them completely, and ranked is not full of mega tv teams. Something else is at work.
Spiralling expenses only stops you buying new players, not turning the ones you have into legends.
I think the new, terrible Apoth is a big factor.
Spiralling expenses only stops you buying new players, not turning the ones you have into legends.
I think the new, terrible Apoth is a big factor.
Posted by Keith-Lemon on 2011-07-26 18:06:08
Think you need some more Dwarfs teams, Just saying :)
Posted by freak_in_a_frock on 2011-07-26 18:21:42
At the moment my Khemri have over 1 million banked. This is not due to me hoarding cash. I never sack uninjured players. I really don't think spiralling expenses will ever become a factor for the team. I could quite easily fill up my two Blitzra slots, buy 3 more rerolls. This would put me at over TV2500 with 400k still in the bank for cover. this is with having a rookie guardian and two rookie blitzra, one thro-ra with only 2 skills. I could probably get to TV2750+ Without even breaking into a sweat. This is on a team with AV around 7. Imagine what a orc team could do if it just saved its money first.
The reason that ranked is full of high TV teams is partly due to the bigger teams within the division already being at a high TV when the switch over occurred, and therefore were already hitting spiralling expenses.
The reason that ranked is full of high TV teams is partly due to the bigger teams within the division already being at a high TV when the switch over occurred, and therefore were already hitting spiralling expenses.
Posted by GAZZATROT on 2011-07-26 19:46:58
Can anyone give me the link so I can see the game?
Posted by SillySod on 2011-07-26 20:12:48
Not 100% sure why people feel that POMB/aging is required to keep large teams in check.
Spiralling expenses should achieve that much more effectively. Unfortunately the expenses rules are currently broken as hell but they are incredibly easy to fix (see: bank rules).
Spiralling expenses should achieve that much more effectively. Unfortunately the expenses rules are currently broken as hell but they are incredibly easy to fix (see: bank rules).
Posted by ahalfling on 2011-07-26 20:38:30
The problem isn't that clawpomb teams are winning all the games. They're not -- a few are really good, a few are well-coached and have winning records, a lot of them are around .500, and some bash but rarely win. In terms of game wins/losses, it's a viable strategy but not a dominant one.
The problem is that it's difficult to impossible for other teams to stay at high TV very long, because the balanced game clawpombers give them will frequently result in multiple players dying/taking permanent injuries.
So... why not revise the injury table to make fewer injuries permanent? Or bring back the old apothecary? This allows the clawpomb teams to keep their strategy, which is balanced in terms of winning, but keeps the opposing teams from getting too shredded for future games.
I don't think anyone's going to complain if they take eight-nine injuries in a game, but those injuries include (for example) five BHs, one MNG, a niggling injury and a death they reverse via apo. Or six BHs, two MNGs and a dead rookie. That's something to overcome, but then next game you're right back in it.
That's the toll you expect a bashy team to take on you... you lose a guy, maybe two if you're unlucky. But then you get two guys killed and two more perm'd in one game, and it alters your whole team, and you can't even trust the apo to do anything about it, and that's the problem.
The problem is that it's difficult to impossible for other teams to stay at high TV very long, because the balanced game clawpombers give them will frequently result in multiple players dying/taking permanent injuries.
So... why not revise the injury table to make fewer injuries permanent? Or bring back the old apothecary? This allows the clawpomb teams to keep their strategy, which is balanced in terms of winning, but keeps the opposing teams from getting too shredded for future games.
I don't think anyone's going to complain if they take eight-nine injuries in a game, but those injuries include (for example) five BHs, one MNG, a niggling injury and a death they reverse via apo. Or six BHs, two MNGs and a dead rookie. That's something to overcome, but then next game you're right back in it.
That's the toll you expect a bashy team to take on you... you lose a guy, maybe two if you're unlucky. But then you get two guys killed and two more perm'd in one game, and it alters your whole team, and you can't even trust the apo to do anything about it, and that's the problem.
Posted by koadah on 2011-07-26 20:41:29
I don't know who said it first.
Don't allow taking both claw & PO.
Don't nerf POMB just remove C-POMB. Add a little buff to DP to make up for it.
Don't allow taking both claw & PO.
Don't nerf POMB just remove C-POMB. Add a little buff to DP to make up for it.
Posted by lizvis on 2011-07-26 20:45:37
christer said, 'tone down' not 'banning the combo' as you put it. this likely means that PO will be changed to not include modifiers.
LARN 2 REEDS ILLITERATETHIS!!!!
LARN 2 REEDS ILLITERATETHIS!!!!
Posted by stej on 2011-07-26 20:56:20
As a player who doesnt have too much time to play games I dislike the kill stack because the likelihood of suffering a team destroying game is increased a lot from the old days.
As I play for fun and low TV games are generally a luck fest for me its all about reasonably developed teams with skills to make it a bit more of a battle of wits.
While CLPOMB might not win games it can destroy teams easily and make the next 10 or so games very unfun for an occasional player making the desire to play less so.
As I play for fun and low TV games are generally a luck fest for me its all about reasonably developed teams with skills to make it a bit more of a battle of wits.
While CLPOMB might not win games it can destroy teams easily and make the next 10 or so games very unfun for an occasional player making the desire to play less so.
Posted by KenThis on 2011-07-26 22:03:57
Actually Lizvis having reread my blog i see no mention of me saying Christer was going to ban the combo, however i did say that league is a place where people can "ban the combo".
Maybe you should learn to read.
:)
Maybe you should learn to read.
:)
Posted by Rooke on 2011-07-26 23:47:34
In group play I see they offered the option of allowing piling on without any modifiers. It is a bit of a nerf, yes, but one that still allows you to take the skill combo and doesn't take the fangs out of it entirely. This might seem a little radical... But maybe we might... Try it out... Before going all ape over it?
Posted by fabik on 2011-07-27 09:49:27
I think that Blood Bowl or Fantasy football has been NEVER balanced, this combo is just another example of how this statement is true.
The real problem is that this combo, for the first time in BB history let some teams to quite destroy and retire half of the teams they play against.
I'm not a pixel hugger, i like the violence of fumbbl but i also think that this problem has to be fixed.
I don't know how, just read around a lot of proposed solutions and there are some interesting.
I played FUMBBL on LBR4 even if i personally hated it, I play it now and i think that now it's a lot better but i think that there is something to be fixed and this combo is one of that.
The real problem is that this combo, for the first time in BB history let some teams to quite destroy and retire half of the teams they play against.
I'm not a pixel hugger, i like the violence of fumbbl but i also think that this problem has to be fixed.
I don't know how, just read around a lot of proposed solutions and there are some interesting.
I played FUMBBL on LBR4 even if i personally hated it, I play it now and i think that now it's a lot better but i think that there is something to be fixed and this combo is one of that.