Another day with Claw, sad...

@voodoomike said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@naissun said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Of course, rez is still the better solution IMO.

Rez with progression.

Rez with progression indeed. It seemed obvious to me but I should've been precise.

@naissun said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Rez with progression indeed. It seemed obvious to me but I should've been precise.

Seemed obvious to me, too, but rez is in the game already but automatically tied to disabled progression so its important to point out (to them, if nobody else) that we mean something other than what they've got.

@VoodooMike - not sure what you're railing at here. We agree that there is a problem is subjective; we agree that if the desire is to make diversity more equal then progression rez is the solution. I've not stated that the medical facility would make diversity even, nor have I suggested it is intended to; I've even stated quite clearly that progression rez seasons is my preferred solution to that. For some reason you seem to think I'm arguing with you. I accepted your niggle system would work, so clearly rez isn't the "only" solution (and I've not defended that statement since you brought up a viable alternative) but we both agree it's the best one.

What makes you think even racial composition at high TV is a goal of the game? Why is the current racial composition an objective problem? Because you seem to be claiming it is while similarly claiming that I am saying my subjective opinion should be accepted. I'm fairly certain I've not insisted my own subjectivity is valid: you're tilting at windmills there.

I've also not said that subjective problems validate all subjective solutions. What I said is that we should give people the tools to sort out their own subjective issues with diversity in-game, which is what Challenge does. As for why Cyanide should solve what is objectively a non-problem, this is a game and people are supposed to enjoy it. If people aren't enjoying it then that's for Cyanide to resolve.

I disagree that we're already allowing people to solve their problem as they see fit. What they have is an MM system which doesn't allow them to do that. Challenge is tool which does. Low population is an objective problem leading to objectively poorer matching, as you know. But you're trying to argue now, I think.

last edited by dode74

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@VoodooMike - not sure what you're railing at here.

I'm railing at the fact that you're pushing an idea (not something whimsical - you mention it repeatedly on many different threads across a fairly long period of time) that is founded in nothing. For most people this would be irrelevant... it'd be like koadah's suggested claw nerfs... but you're someone who insists that other people justify their ideas and criticisms with evidence and data who is, himself, repeatedly pushing something that is not justified with evidence or data, and which is based on the idea that a phenomenon you can't even show exists is a problem.

We can't have it both ways... at the moment you're effectively taking the "intellectual" position of do as I say, not as I do with everyone else. If subjectivity is a defense of your ideas then its a defense of every other idea anyone ever puts forward, and we both know you don't accept that based on your criticisms of people's thoughts and ideas over the past few years.

You are, quite literally, holding yourself to a much lower standard than you hold other people... it's hypocritical, and you're smart enough to both know that and see that. If the only thing you sitting there and constantly trying to justify the obvious double-standard with lame subjectivity arguments would do is paint a poor picture of your honesty and integrity then I wouldn't care, but it's likely to erode the strength of all evidence-based argument for quite some time... and for what? So you don't have to back down from an argument you privately know you're wrong about, but publicly refuse to lose face over.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

What makes you think even racial composition at high TV is a goal of the game? Why is the current racial composition an objective problem? Because you seem to be claiming it is while similarly claiming that I am saying my subjective opinion should be accepted.

The only "goal" of games is that people have fun so they want to play the game. Maybe to sell some copies.

Again, you're playing the straw man game - that anything ever is "a problem" is subjective, but the existence of phenomenon that may or may not be a problem is not. Your idea is a solution for something you can't even demonstrate exists... which makes it pragmatically similar to any ideas people have for fixing the broken RNG. Ideas related to rectifying the compositional imbalance in MM are based on an objective phenomenon.

So let me repeat this for a third time in the hopes you'll stop trying to put words in my mouth that you think you can manage to argue against: compositional imbalance objectively exists. "too much" attrition does not. That anything is a problem, up to and including things like global warming, nuclear war, and genocide, is technically subjective... but there's a clear difference between suggesting ways to deal with objectively extant things, and suggesting ways to things that you can't even show exist in the first place. It's the difference between advocating solutions for teen pregnancy rates and advocating ways to stop cats from reading people's minds.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I've also not said that subjective problems validate all subjective solutions. What I said is that we should give people the tools to sort out their own subjective issues with diversity in-game, which is what Challenge does.

Oh yes, I do notice that you've been trying to shift things away from the topic being your "Medical Facility" idea that you regularly push and toward this being about challenge leagues, which is something you think you can better defend and transitively make that a defense of your other hypocritical idea.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

As for why Cyanide should solve what is objectively a non-problem, this is a game and people are supposed to enjoy it. If people aren't enjoying it then that's for Cyanide to resolve.

Oh? Are people not enjoying it? Do we have enjoyment data now? That's rhetorical, of course... but it's the same question you ask anyone who tries to use an appeal to popularity to justify their suggestions or demands. Since we have no evidence that people aren't enjoying it the way it is, why put any time or effort into even a generalized "fix" for a subjective set of we-can't-say-they're-objective problems?

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I disagree that we're already allowing people to solve their problem as they see fit. What they have is an MM system which doesn't allow them to do that. Challenge is tool which does. Low population is an objective problem leading to objectively poorer matching, as you know. But you're trying to argue now, I think.

Oh no no, Dode... every one of those things is straight-up dode-subjective. People can currently solve their own problems by blowing off BB2. The current MM system absolutely allows them to solve their own issues: they can concede and just look for another match if they don't like the one they get. Low population is not leading to objectively poor matchmaking, it is leading to subjectively poor matchmaking... that teams are up to 500 TV different on a regular basis is not an indisputable problem, its just something some people feel is a problem.

As for arguing.. well, I'm just throwing your own arguments back in your face. It is quite literally the same things you've been trying to use to justify your own half-assery, and it's why I say you can't have it both ways: if you seriously believe these arguments work for you, then you have to accept that they work against you too. It's quite clear you don't accept them as denials of your position, so stop trying to use them to excuse your own screw-ups.

I'm railing at the fact that you're pushing an idea

I've suggested it as a way for people to take less attrition per game - some people seem to desire that - as a halfway house between what we have now and full rez; specifically, it was offered as a team-neutral alternative to the "use the apo post match if it unused" in order to "reduce CLAWPOMB's attrition" which was suggested back in post 14 and the "a reroll for only one player of your choice at the end of the game" suggested in post 58. I also provided the math regarding the actual effect earlier this thread. Do you suggest that would not be the effect? That's what I've suggested and why, and I am not "pushing it" as a solution to high TV racial composition issues.
So no, I am not holding myself to a lower standard. I am offering a mathed-out solution to a thing some people see as a problem. It's not necessary, but some may find it desirable. I've nowhere suggested it be mandated or is necessary. I did the same thing for Plasmoid when he asked for a way to reduce the effect of CPOMB for his poorly-named CRP+ rules. Would I want it? Not in my league - I'm quite happy with things as they are, thanks. But as an option which league managers can turn on or off (like they currently can with stadium enhancements) - sure.

So I'm going to say this VERY clearly so there is no misunderstanding: the medical facility does not equalise attrition rates, nor is it intended to. It is not a fix for racial composition issues. What it does do is reduce attrition rates for all teams in a team-neutral manner and that is all it is intended to do.

So let me repeat this...

Compositonal imbalance exists. Attrition exists. That the level of either is undesirable is subjective. Do some people have an issue with how many chaos teams there are at high TV? Yes! Do some people have an issue with how much damage their teams take? Yes! So just as it is a valid question to ask "what level of attrition is acceptable?" it is also valid to ask "what level of imbalance is acceptable?" - both answers are, of necessity, subjective.

The current MM system absolutely allows them to solve their own issues: they can concede and just look for another match if they don't like the one they get

Sure, they can do that in COL. Do you think we can provide them with a way of finding a desirable game without needing to do that? If a tool requires you to start again when it's not working for you then it can probably be improved upon.

Low population is not leading to objectively poor matchmaking, it is leading to subjectively poor matchmaking...

If you're going to throw my arguments back in my face at least get them right. I said it is objectively poorer with low populations. Matchmaking is objectively worse with lower populations than it is with high populations. Whether people consider it to be poor or not is another matter and one which is, as you say, subjective.

I can't believe we're already on page four and no-one has mentioned that the thread title sounds like a Donald Trump tweet.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I've suggested it as a way for people to take less attrition per game - some people seem to desire that - as a halfway house between what we have now and full rez; specifically, it was offered as a team-neutral alternative to the "use the apo post match if it unused" in order to "reduce CLAWPOMB's attrition" which was suggested back in post 14 and the "a reroll for only one player of your choice at the end of the game" suggested in post 58. I also provided the math regarding the actual effect earlier this thread.

Ah, the "some people" demographic. I see those guys cited a lot by people pushing their arbitrary ideas. Some people think Claw should be removed, which totally meshes with SuperGlue's idea to remove claw... like... perfectly. In fact, I'd say I've seen more people complain about claw in, say, any 12 month period than I've ever seen anyone say the game simply needs arbitrarily decreased attrition.

Your "medical facility" idea is one that you have pushed no less than a dozen times on different threads, so it's pretty clear that you're not just offering it as an alternative to one apo reroll per game - it's something you wholeheartedly think should be implemented... but its something that solves no problem that can be demonstrated to exist (replace "solves" and "problem" with "addresses" and "phenomenon" if your freshman philosophy class hangups get too inflamed by it).

Offering a bad idea as a counter to another bad idea doesn't make it a good idea. Pushing bad ideas - ones based on absolutely nothing - is especially egregious when done by someone who ordinarily insists that other people provide data and evidence to support their ideas lest they be dismissed as arbitrary and useless.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I am offering a mathed-out solution to a thing some people see as a problem.

<snort> Mathed out...

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

If you're going to throw my arguments back in my face at least get them right. I said it is objectively poorer with low populations.

They're not objectively poorer. Differing ratings being a negative thing is a purely subjective standpoint. Not everyone considers it to be an issue, and even those who do can point out that across a large enough number of matches the differences will roughly balance out for any given team.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Matchmaking is objectively worse with lower populations than it is with high populations.

No it's not. It is only objectively worse when it fails to make matches, and that's going to be a factor of limitations we place on matching, not the population size, unless the population size falls to 1 in a 2 player game.

Subjective, subjective, subjective, Dode... I hope you're going to enjoy this as much as I know I am.

Yes, some people. Like the ones who say attrition is too high but also say they don't want a rez solution (which includes many of the claw-complainers). Do you deny they exist? I'd actually have no problem with claw (or indeed any skill) removal being an option for league commissioners. What I wanted even before release was a situation where league commissioners could choose specific rulesets (e.g. CRP, Plasmoids etc) as default and modify them by allowed skills, races, and rules (such as SE, bank, levelling SPP, SPP awards, number of skills per player etc) but Cyanide weren't big on options at the time. They are getting there, and commissioners have more options than they had but not as many as I, for one, would like.

it's pretty clear that you're not just offering it as an alternative to one apo reroll per game

I was offering it as an alternative to the "use the apo post match if it unused" or the "a reroll for only one player of your choice at the end of the game" options suggested above. I even provided links. I've also previously offered it as a method of reducing attrition, which it undoubtedly does (because, <snort>, maths), and does so in a race-neutral manner. If you want to (incorrectly) infer some other intent then that's down to you, but you are tilting at windmills when you claim I "wholeheartedly think should be implemented". I've stated my position quite clearly and you don't get to change it for me.

Matches are objectively poorer by the metric of TVplus difference being greater on average as population reduces. Given TVplus difference is the matching metric in the first place then it is a valid metric by which we can measure how well a game is matched. Claiming it is "only worse when it fails to make matches" ignores the metric which has been put in place by the designers. Seeing as such metrics are chosen by the game designers (the only people with the authority to make subjective decisions about game metrics) they are sound metrics upon which to make objective assessments of matching. Similar to lifetime win% being the metric for balance because the designers said so.

We seem to have drifted off-topic 🙂

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Yes, some people. Like the ones who say attrition is too high but also say they don't want a rez solution (which includes many of the claw-complainers). Do you deny they exist? I'd actually have no problem with claw (or indeed any skill) removal being an option for league commissioners. What I wanted even before release was a situation where league commissioners could choose specific rulesets (e.g. CRP, Plasmoids etc) as default and modify them by allowed skills, races, and rules (such as SE, bank, levelling SPP, SPP awards, number of skills per player etc) but Cyanide weren't big on options at the time. They are getting there, and commissioners have more options than they had but not as many as I, for one, would like.

it's pretty clear that you're not just offering it as an alternative to one apo reroll per game

I was offering it as an alternative to the "use the apo post match if it unused" or the "a reroll for only one player of your choice at the end of the game" options suggested above. I even provided links. I've also previously offered it as a method of reducing attrition, which it undoubtedly does (because, <snort>, maths), and does so in a race-neutral manner. If you want to (incorrectly) infer some other intent then that's down to you, but you are tilting at windmills when you claim I "wholeheartedly think should be implemented". I've stated my position quite clearly and you don't get to change it for me.

Matches are objectively poorer by the metric of TVplus difference being greater on average as population reduces. Given TVplus difference is the matching metric in the first place then it is a valid metric by which we can measure how well a game is matched. Claiming it is "only worse when it fails to make matches" ignores the metric which has been put in place by the designers. Seeing as such metrics are chosen by the game designers (the only people with the authority to make subjective decisions about game metrics) they are sound metrics upon which to make objective assessments of matching. Similar to lifetime win% being the metric for balance because the designers said so.

We seem to have drifted off-topic 🙂

So... It's the right way because Cyanide says so (TV+) unless you disagree with it (few commish options).

@the-sage said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

So... It's the right way because Cyanide says so (TV+) unless you disagree with it (few commish options).

Not sure I said that. I said it's an objective measure because Cyanide have made it the metric.

People do like to think in terms of "right" and "wrong" when they aren't necessarily applicable. Anyone can like or dislike TV+ but that doesn't make it right or wrong. The only people with the authority to change it are Cyanide.
Same goes for win% as the balance metric: you can dislike it, but it is the metric because the designers say it is.

last edited by dode74

Still seems like switching around between arguing "is" vs "ought", depending on whether you agree with the current system.

Nit sure what you mean by that, but a metric (in this context) is what it is because the designers say it is and they have the authority (jurisdiction) to define it; if we don't like it we can say "ought" if we want, but that's an expression of preference by someone without that authority. If you're measuring a thing and the authority has set the definition then that's how it's measured. I can want a centimeter to be longer if I like, but I don't get to set the rules on what a centimeter is.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I can want a centimeter to be longer if I like, but I don't get to set the rules on what a centimeter is.

But you can offer a redefinition with proper explanation as why it would fit better to the needs and use of the centimeter 😉

I can, but that doesn't make it change. Only the people with the authority to change it can do that. Interesting case on this matter...

last edited by dode74

Soo.... 51 SPP rule? To force Chaos to kill themself?
Would be stupid without changes (the more concedes, the more punishing)

Reducing the overall attrition rate would also be stupid. Not having casualties kinda defeats the point of the game IMO.

I would rather like to see a boost to the "recovery rate" after attrition (,like Insurance Money if you had more than 1 niggled or death player the last match or short period of time).

On a personal note, I wield a Lizard team at TV1900 something. Never encountered a Kill Team. And these who had POTENTIAL to hurt me (Chorfs, Chaos with more Guard than Claw) did concede to me...

last edited by Spiked-Wall Man

51SPP rule would have minimal effect on most players (most teams don't develop to that point), but it is a permanent change to your team for something which is potentially the fault of someone else (thinking game client, power outage etc as disconnects).

I think Mike's "Niggle System" would boost recovery like you mention, allowing you to effectively buy treatment for injured players in order to remove the injury.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

51SPP rule would have minimal effect on most players (most teams don't develop to that point), but it is a permanent change to your team for something which is potentially the fault of someone else (thinking game client, power outage etc as disconnects).

I thought this thread was about claw in high team value environments? I mean... either a Chaos Coach loss some Killer Beastmen or they expose themself to the attrition they inflict.
Also, I said it would be stupid without changes. Most rules of Blood Bowl are kinda stupid IMO.

I think Mike's "Niggle System" would boost recovery like you mention, allowing you to effectively buy treatment for injured players in order to remove the injury.

Meh, I didn't bother too read all before I posted, I just was like "heh? this is still going on? best to post something."
Mikes Idea is slightly too convoluted for my personal taste.

last edited by Spiked-Wall Man

@spiked-wall-man said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

I thought this thread was about claw in high team value environments? I mean... either a Chaos Coach loss some Killer Beastmen or they expose themself to the attrition they inflict.

It is, and I mentioned it as a positive in this situation. The negative came after the "but".

Also, I said it would be stupid without changes. Most rules of Blood Bowl are kinda stupid IMO.

Fair enough, but how would you change it to account for unintentional disconnection/crash when you can't tell the difference between that and a concession?

Meh, I didn't bother too read all before I posted, I just was like "heh? this is still going on? best to post something."
Mikes Idea is slightly too convoluted for my personal taste.

I'm not surprised that people baulk at it, but I don't think it's that complex. You basically carry an injury until you can pay for it to be removed. The cost of it would depend on the level of the player (higher level = more expensive), how fragile the roster is (more fragile = cheaper) and how much winnings generally come in for that roster (fewer winnings = cheaper, so T3 teams would see more benefit from it). As a coach we'd just be presented with the price to fix the injury and if we wanted to keep the player we'd be forced to hold onto him until we could afford to fix him.

@dode74 said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

@spiked-wall-man said in Another day with Claw, sad...:

Also, I said it would be stupid without changes. Most rules of Blood Bowl are kinda stupid IMO.

Fair enough, but how would you change it to account for unintentional disconnection/crash when you can't tell the difference between that and a concession?

The numbers of concessions. If someone concedes nearly as much matches as he plays, then they could be a penalty.
I often look up the guys that concede to me and I see many 2:0 games.
More concedes, more penalties.

I can agree with your choice to say that these decisions (what should be measured and what should be developed) are the designers, just thought it was interesting to see that that applied to the metric, but not to the (commish option) feature list.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.