Another day with Claw, sad...

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

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

Actually it is not very rare to lose close to or even half your team when you run in to 4-7 CPOMB players on the other side. If you are lucky you only get KO and BH but it is not that uncommon to have players miss the next game in various damages thanks to a CPOMB team. So far i have never had that vs POMB. Only when you factor in Claw it happens. Claw and MB should be mutualy excluded if they are not gona remove claw all togheter.

You don't see 4-7 CPOMB players that often at all, though. 2 is far more common, and actually generally less bloaty than 4.
Plenty of teams do see similar levels of damage vs POMB, particularly AV7 teams vs TPOMB.

PO's variance combines with perception bias exaggerating the effect of claw (vs the expected effect of AV9) to make it seem like claw is the issue when it is actually PO causing those relatively few particularly high-damage games. Take a look at the data and the maths.

Yes, yes you do see them that often. Bloat means nothing on 2k+
AV 7 teams tend to have the agility to not be meatbags for slaughter. Huge difference, what AV9 player have Agility 4 to get away from the CPOMB?

I think you just lack the experience on higher TV to know how destructive CPOMB actually is.

Yes, yes you do see them that often. Bloat means nothing on 2k+

You realise the intent is to keep teams below 2100TV or so, right? It's supposed to be a soft cap which claw helps create. Seems your complaint is with the design intent if that's where your complaint is.

AV 7 teams tend to have the agility to not be meatbags for slaughter. Huge difference, what AV9 player have Agility 4 to get away from the CPOMB?

In a proper (non-MM) league you play a range of races. Not all your games are against CPOMB. The problem is self-exacerbating in MM and that's why you think the problem is claw: it's not, it's just that you see claw more often in MM.

I think you just lack the experience on higher TV to know how destructive CPOMB actually is.

I think you should stop making assumptions about my experience. I know exactly how destructive CPOMB is and I know you are overstating the case, which is simply not helping you make your case. Sort the composition and you reduce long-term attrition for AV9; level long-term attrition (through rez or a less absolute attrition mitigation effect) and you get a better composition.

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

You realise the intent is to keep teams below 2100TV or so, right? It's supposed to be a soft cap which claw helps create.

It's interesting that you say 2100 is a soft cap . What and who defined that cap? It seems arbitrary . Why not 2000 or 2500 or even 3000? The more i read the thread and the more I feel the issue with the open lader is that we have access to game mechanics such as upgrades and team building and there is a deliberate limitation on team developmenent . It's clearly a frustrating aspect of the game for a lot of player who like the rople play part of the game. And the AI does not offer a challenge good enough to test race development at high tv . Resurection format would clearly not be solving the problem by itself of bringing diversity pass the 2100tv (?)mark. So what would it take , in your expert opinion , to get more races at higher tv and make it fun for everyone ?

last edited by dragonloup

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

Yes, yes you do see them that often. Bloat means nothing on 2k+

You realise the intent is to keep teams below 2100TV or so, right? It's supposed to be a soft cap which claw helps create. Seems your complaint is with the design intent if that's where your complaint is.

AV 7 teams tend to have the agility to not be meatbags for slaughter. Huge difference, what AV9 player have Agility 4 to get away from the CPOMB?

In a proper (non-MM) league you play a range of races. Not all your games are against CPOMB. The problem is self-exacerbating in MM and that's why you think the problem is claw: it's not, it's just that you see claw more often in MM.

I think you just lack the experience on higher TV to know how destructive CPOMB actually is.

I think you should stop making assumptions about my experience. I know exactly how destructive CPOMB is and I know you are overstating the case, which is simply not helping you make your case. Sort the composition and you reduce long-term attrition for AV9; level long-term attrition (through rez or a less absolute attrition mitigation effect) and you get a better composition.

Where does it say that 2100 is where ppl should be? And why is it so? The spiraling expenses and ageing is already a limitation, why give some teams a hardcounter to every other team in the game?

When you hit 2k+ All you face is CPOMB and maybe the odd stubborn Dwarf with a rekt team that will retire in a game or two. The problem is Claw becuse it makes AV9 totaly useless and the AV9 teams are sacrificing mobility and agility for that AV9. Todays matchmaking is basicly play untill you hit TV1700 and then remake the team. And on TV1700 you wont have a team you like yet. And yes some people DO like to develop their teams.

I think you should stop spewing BS that prove you dont have experience on the higher TV ranges. Becuse all your argument basicly screams "I dont play high TV and i dont understand what you are saying but i am going to argue against you anyway becuse i can". You really need to play in the 2k+ bracket for a month or so and then see how much fun and how much you wanna keep playing BB2 outside of your precious private leagues. As long as CLAW exist AV9 teams will get super rekt and no rez wont fix this becuse it is not fun playing 4 vs 11 when you have Agility2-3 and MV 4-5.

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

Less than we have now, clearly, but as much as is generally acceptable.

Which isn't an actual answer, you realize. You're trying to excuse a total lack of solid metrics - something you yourself will scathingly denounce whenever anyone else tries it. How will you measure success or failure - or would you declare it a success on merit of having a vague pseudo-metric like "less"? By that pseudo-metric Naissun's "one injury reroll" idea is just as inevitably successful.

How do we measure "generally acceptable" - by how much we feel complaints have lessened? We don't know how much, if any, complaints would lessen... we do know that it will maintain the attrition imbalance at the same relative levels.

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

Not everyone wants rez, but some people seem to want more longevity to their teams.

Not everyone wants more longevity to their teams, but some people seem to want rez. Its fun how non-metrics work that way... x vs y when neither is given a value but clearly we're trying to imply that one is larger than the other even though we have no actual information on either. So, regardless of these rather silly appeals to unmeasured popularity it stands to reason that we should probably aim for solutions that are actually solutions to something.

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

Not as much effect as the removal of it, ofc, but it's still better.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "better". If we can't define how much is too much, or how much imbalance is too much imbalance, we also can't define what is or is not better. Do people, in general, think Blood Bowl has too much attrition? Do they feel ALL teams suffer too much attrition? Do you know how big an effect your proposed change would have? If its too little then its just an arbitrary change with no serious benefit... if it's too much then it creates the same issues people think rez would without the benefit of actually equalizing attrition rates.

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

While it would probably be beneficial for you to either link to it or explain it again, another problem with your niggle system is that it's a completely new mechanism. It comes across as a very large sticking plaster. A benefit of "more apo's" is it's a known method of mitigating attrition - same with rez. The difference between the two is that rez is absolute: it's no attrition (outside of adding an out-of-match method, something to which I would not be averse).

I'll re-explain the niggle system at the bottom of the post. Yes, its a new system... but the benefit of it, and of rez, is that they actually solve the problem of attrition inequality: one does it by eliminating it, one does it by retaining it but making it equal across all rosters in terms of long-term development. "More apos" doesn't solve anything... it potentially increases the amount of time it takes for problems related to inequality to become obvious, but it retains the inequality at exactly the same levels. It's like borrowing money to pay a debt.

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

Challenge answers that problem by making it less easy to use a killer team because people won't play against them (as much).

Challenge is better than the MM we have, but I don't think it's better than the MM we could have. We know that there's a problem, but we'd be shifting the onus onto the players themselves while saying "look, we fixed it by giving you choice! now you can choose to solve the problems we refuse to by applying personal prejudices at will!".

I also worry that the default open play environment being challenge based would result in an even worse experience for new players who don't know the game well enough to know what is or is not a good match and who would be receiving challenges from coaches who knew ahead of time it would be skewed heavily in their own favour.

There really is no simple and sensible solution... which is why the powers that be tend to opt to do nothing but let things fester.


Niggle System

The name is misleading in this case since the niggle aspect is secondary to the balance system. The original version converted any result that resulted in MNG into a niggle with no MNG, and if any player had more than 3 niggles it was removed from the roster. The system would work fine if injuries and deaths were left as is, with death being treated as a permanent MNG until the player is fired/removed or healed.

One of the foundations of the system is that we decide (through whatever method) how developed a team is before we consider it "overdeveloped".. in essence, deciding what we think is the maximum level of development we want to see be common in the environment. Most people think a team of legends is excessive... what about all level 6 players? 5? 4? pick a number... say "4"... and we'll be saying "a team of all level 4 players is the most we feel is not going to break the game" and we'll call it "maxLevel" for the formulas.

The key aspect of the system is calculating a different cost for each roster to heal an injury. The cost to heal one injury (treating death as an injury) is:

cost = (mean injuries per match for roster) * (mean winnings per match for roster) * (playerLevel / maxLevel)

The cost, per roster, will be different depending on how much attrition that roster typically suffers, and is based on the idea that up to our "maxLevel" of total team development, the average gold earned per match will be enough to heal the entire team back to full at the end of each match. After that point it becomes unsustainable in the long term to do so. Likewise, any player above maxLevel that needs to be healed will put undue strain on the treasury in the long term unless it never suffers any injuries or deaths.

Again, I'm not advocating this instead of rez, I'm simply pointing out that it is possible to balance long-term attrition rates without rez. This particular idea involves "push back" against attrition relative to attrition rates, so fragile teams have more push back than bash teams. The cost of healing injuries would be proportionally higher for bash teams than agility teams based on their proportionally lower rates of attrition.

@dragonloup - there's a restriction on team development anyway in terms of the number of possible skills you can gain. Where should the limit be? BBRC decided they wanted to keep people in the 1400-1900TV range and soft-capped at ~2100TV to make that happen. You want beyond 2100TV, you house rule. To that end I have no interest in increasing diversity past 2100TV, but if we are to say that the range we're looking at is 1800+ then we may have a discussion.
Part of the problem is attrition, as has been said: people take damage and restart the team. It's so easy to do in open leagues that literally any damage is a reason, and that's something you don't see in leagues and one reason we see so much difference in composition between them, particularly in terms of TV itself. Rez with deveopment and a Seasons system would work, imo.

@SuperGnu

Where does it say that 2100 is where ppl should be? And why is it so? The spiraling expenses and ageing is already a limitation, why give some teams a hardcounter to every other team in the game?

BBRC made the decision. They actually wanted to keep people in the 1400-1900TV range because that's what people found to be the "most fun" based on their testing. The people who made the game made the call. The discussion can be found on TFF, if you care to look. I disagree that it's a "hardcounter to every other team in the game". Claw has no effect on AV7, for example, and is therefore wasted TV; it has some effect on AV8 and some more on AV9, but you still have to pass an armour roll to break it. The effect of claw on AV8 is less than MB, and on AV9 is only slightly greater than MB.

When you hit 2k+ All you face is CPOMB and maybe the odd stubborn Dwarf with a rekt team that will retire in a game or two. The problem is Claw becuse it makes AV9 totaly useless and the AV9 teams are sacrificing mobility and agility for that AV9. Todays matchmaking is basicly play untill you hit TV1700 and then remake the team. And on TV1700 you wont have a team you like yet. And yes some people DO like to develop their teams.

No, it is absolutely NOT all you face. Yet again you overstate your case and don't help yourself. You can indeed develop your team, but you seem to want to do so beyond the levels to which the BBRC decided they wanted to allow. Fine, but you can't expect an official league to bend to your whims. I certainly don't.

I think you should stop spewing BS that prove you dont have experience on the higher TV ranges. Becuse all your argument basicly screams "I dont play high TV and i dont understand what you are saying but i am going to argue against you anyway becuse i can". You really need to play in the 2k+ bracket for a month or so and then see how much fun and how much you wanna keep playing BB2 outside of your precious private leagues. As long as CLAW exist AV9 teams will get super rekt and no rez wont fix this becuse it is not fun playing 4 vs 11 when you have Agility2-3 and MV 4-5.

Sigh. If you're going to go down the road of personal attacks we're done. I play high TV, I know exactly what you are talking about and I am arguing against you because your assumptions are wrong. I suspect this is going to be responded to with a "it's claw, dumbass!" style response, and if it is then we really are done.

@VoodooMike
Yes, I realise it's not a specific answer. That doesn't make it a non-answer though. And yes, there is an element of "feel". After all, this thread only exists because of the way people are feeling. You and I both know there is no objective problem and that the problem is entirely subjective: some people think racial composition is a problem, some people think attrition is a problem, some people think elves are a problem...
If we (subjectively) decide that racial composition at certain TV levels is a problem then we can address it, but to do that we need to decide what level of racial composition is desirable. I don't know what that level is, but if people feel the situation is currently undesirable then it can be addressed and improved (i.e. made more equitable) until the point at which people feel the situation is desirable.

Rez already exists to cater for those who want it (although I agree a "development rez" is desirable). We're talking about non-rez systems now, hence my statement that some people want longevity without rez. The two are not mutually exclusive even within the same league (as you know).

Yes, I know the effect my proposed system would have since it is effectively a rerolled injury roll for every player who is BH or worse. Since that's 50% of injuries (on average) then the MNGs or worse would reduce by 50%, leaving 75% of casualties from any one game being BH. MNGs themselves would reduce from 1 in 6 to 5 in 36 (small effect), permanent injuries (stat/niggle) would reduce from 1 in 6 to 1 in 12, and deaths would reduce considerably from 1 in 6 to 1 in 36.
Whether that is the desired amount or not is subjective, of course 🙂
The system retains inequality rates, but those rates are applied to absolutes in terms of players. If I am losing 25% fewer players per game, on average, that's an absolute gain over the other team if I was taking more losses than them in the first place.

I don't see the problem with shifting the onus onto the player since the problem is entirely subjective. If the problem is subjective and the player can make the choice then the problem is gone entirely - that's what Seasons does: makes the coaches choose where the attrition happens. I do see the concern regarding new players, but it's entirely possible to protect them in the way FUMBBL does by restricting new teams' options in terms of who they can possibly play. FUMBBL uses TV only, iirc, but there's no reason not to put "games played" in there to protect from low-TV developed teams like Zons or (perhaps eventually) Pact. Make "new TV protection" a default-on optional tick-box and experienced coaches can dive in as they see fit.

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

@dragonloup - there's a restriction on team development anyway in terms of the number of possible skills you can gain. Where should the limit be? BBRC decided they wanted to keep people in the 1400-1900TV range and soft-capped at ~2100TV to make that happen. You want beyond 2100TV, you house rule. To that end I have no interest in increasing diversity past 2100TV, but if we are to say that the range we're looking at is 1800+ then we may have a discussion.

Sorry , you lost me a bit . I only said 2100tv because you set it as a limit in the first place (or whoever conceive the game). Now you are implying 1800+ seems to be the breaking points ( presumably because your datas say so ) , but "+" till what ? 1850? 2000? Obviously not over 2100 as you just stated you have no interest ( reason why? What is wrong having different races on a never ending league that goes beyond 2100? ) .

I m not trying to be difficult , i clearly do not see the same fun in the game than you and vodoomike.

Dode, find me a link to where they state that 2100 is the limit (or was it 1800, Maybe they changed it in the last few hours?). Or we are "done" as you so nicley put it when your arguments are starting to get a bit thin and desperate.

But i will say this (and you are more than welcome to see it as a personal attack) you are totaly cluless about "high" TV games.

@dragonloup - 2100TV is about the break-even point for winnings vs Spiralling Expenses (you can calculate it), so it's the point beyond which losses become unsustainable with an average winnings roll (average winnings is ~30-40k, SE at 30k is 2050 and at 40k at 2200). The bank was in part intended to prevent padding to allow sustained losses above that TV for any length of time.
When I said 1800TV+ I was trying to establish a range above which the question of where the "problem" applies. Clearly that's up to about the soft cap.
And sure, you may see the game as more fun above 2100TV. That doesn't mean it was intended to be played there. That, in turn, means if you do want to play there then house rule it, as per the rulebook.
Given we're talking about individual intent, and in the interests of moving the conversation forward, what is it you want to see which isn't currently happening? I don't mean solutions, I mean what is wrong about the shape of the meta.

@SuperGnu - I'll try and find you a link, but I've had multiple conversations with BBRC members over the years regarding the intent of many game mechanisms. 1400-1800 was the intended range, with 2100TV a soft cap (which is not the same thing as a hard limit).
Your personal attacks consist of claims of "spewing BS" etc. You're also lying about what you claim to know about me: you have no idea what I have and have not played yet you claim I am clueless. That's another baseless attack. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them clueless, and claiming so merely makes you look immature. Of course, in your current argumentative state you will claim that is a personal attack, but I was very careful not to say that you are immature, but that the words you are using can make you look immature. I don't think you are immature, I think you're frustrated that people won't simply agree with what you see to be obvious. Well, plenty of things which people have seen as obvious have turned out to be wrong.
I'll ask this, though, as I asked of dragonloup: what is it you want? What is wrong with the current shape of the meta? Don't give what you see as solutions, but what you see as the problem.

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

@dragonloup - 2100TV is about the break-even point for winnings vs Spiralling Expenses (you can calculate it), so it's the point beyond which losses become unsustainable with an average winnings roll (average winnings is ~30-40k, SE at 30k is 2050 and at 40k at 2200). The bank was in part intended to prevent padding to allow sustained losses above that TV for any length of time.
When I said 1800TV+ I was trying to establish a range above which the question of where the "problem" applies. Clearly that's up to about the soft cap.
And sure, you may see the game as more fun above 2100TV. That doesn't mean it was intended to be played there. That, in turn, means if you do want to play there then house rule it, as per the rulebook.
Given we're talking about individual intent, and in the interests of moving the conversation forward, what is it you want to see which isn't currently happening? I don't mean solutions, I mean what is wrong about the shape of the meta.

It was always my beleif that this game was design for limited amount of games due to season of the very nature of tabletop ( once a twice a week if you are lucky) . So in that context your soft caps ( 1800/2100) make sense. That being said the online environment need an adjustement and , yes house rules for col. As you pointed out it is all about perception and not datas/facts at high tv . But one things is sure it lacks of diversity. What i would like is to find an environement or house rules implemented to push for that diversity in the 2000+ brackets where you don t always face cpomb. The resurection mode seems to be "one " of the element of that possible solution , but i am sure Cyanide with your help , you mike and all the tenor of that forum to" balance " the experience for the casual gamers ( the one who play COL) . Look they implemented controversial house rules for the halflings to try to balance things out , we have stadium enhacements which are not part of the teable top either , the bank rule was different for 2 years ( i loved it ) why is it so unrealistic to try to adjust the game mechanics to adapt to the perptual/digital environment ( make claw mutation only available on a double , that would reduce claw) , add more house rules skills that may not be in the rule book but can help make more race competitive at higher level . Personnaly that what i would aim for if i could. Once you change the diversity at high tv the perception of the game should change too. Make all the house rules optional for leagues management but implement some to make more team viable on your 1800+/2000 tv . "the perception" i have is there is a glass ceiling for most race beside chaos races ( chaos/nurgle/cd...)

@dragonloup - the game as written in LRB6/CRP was for perpetual leagues: it says as much in the designers' notes. Your belief is unfounded, if not specifically contradicted by the game designers.
It's not all about perception at high TV, but what people want from high TV is subjective. There is data at high TV. The "lack of diversity" is a subjective matter: we can measure diversity in terms of games played by each race at certain TVs (data), but what we want that diversity to be is a different matter (opinion).
Means to balance COL have been proposed time and time again, with resistance to almost every proposal which would actually balance things. Cyanide have tried things and been bitten for them (e.g. bank, Orc blitzer changes; although I'm not sure what Fling buff you mean though), and have had plenty of them also rejected or at least requested to be optional (stadium enhancements). I also know Cyanide don't want to have major differences between rulesets: no change in-game for MM, no optional skills, no changes between how teams are built.
"Claw on doubles" is something which has been proposed many times, and simply won't work in MM (particularly in MM) because of how easy it is to restart a team if it doesn't start your way.

"the perception" i have is there is a glass ceiling for most race beside chaos races ( chaos/nurgle/cd...)

That seems to be the answer to the question I asked. Seasons would appear to answer much of that, with soft-ish TV bounds definable by the variables available within the rule (matches for a season, gold per match/TD/cas, restart gold etc). The WTR rules will increase the costs of your killers, forcing eventual retirement upon them. I'd also change the concession rules to make them far less rewarding: 1 MVP, 1 winnings roll only, no extra TDs. People will still concede unless it is moderated.

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

@SuperGnu - I'll try and find you a link, but I've had multiple conversations with BBRC members over the years regarding the intent of many game mechanisms. 1400-1800 was the intended range, with 2100TV a soft cap (which is not the same thing as a hard limit).
Your personal attacks consist of claims of "spewing BS" etc. You're also lying about what you claim to know about me: you have no idea what I have and have not played yet you claim I am clueless. That's another baseless attack. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them clueless, and claiming so merely makes you look immature. Of course, in your current argumentative state you will claim that is a personal attack, but I was very careful not to say that you are immature, but that the words you are using can make you look immature. I don't think you are immature, I think you're frustrated that people won't simply agree with what you see to be obvious. Well, plenty of things which people have seen as obvious have turned out to be wrong.
I'll ask this, though, as I asked of dragonloup: what is it you want? What is wrong with the current shape of the meta? Don't give what you see as solutions, but what you see as the problem.

"Lying" is not the word you are looking for, i see what you write and see it has nothing toi do with the rerality in COL to do. Basicly you are sitting there denying that CLAW is a problem in high TV matches. Becuse some dumb attrition rule that you made upĂĄ on the spot and changed in the next post. (Unless you can find a post about it you are the one lying).

All you do is saying "No you are wrong herp derp" and then you come with some random claims about stuff. You and i have had this discussion before, 2 years ago. You are still sitting there like some super autistic kid and say "Numbers say" "numbers say" guess what, numbers dont show you everything unless you take the numbers and put them in the correct enviroment and situation.

I dont care if i look immature or not. I dont need to prove my "maturity" to you or anyone else. But you are starting to piss me off with your random claims that you change every now and then to fit your agenda.
"People dont agree with me" is a bit strong as you and mike are basicly the people that do not agree with me. (There is one more that i forgot the name off but he thinks CPOMB on everything is good for the game) If you actually talk to the players and listen to them you will see that i am not alone in thinking this. But you see what you want and thats that. Nothing to do about it.

What i want? I want to be able to not have my team killed off after 2 games as soon as i past 1700tv unless it is with some dumb luck from my opponent. CPOMB is a guarantee that you lose your team in a few matches. It is a snowball effect, First match you lose some, then you lose more and then your team is such a mess there is no point in continuing. This does not happen against any other teams than CPOMB teams. I wonder why...
Knowing that you can not continue after 1700-1800 is something that is actually very boring and sad. What is the point really to actually play the game when the game tells you "sorry but this is as far as you can go becuse we dont like players having fun" ?

Also regarding spiraling expenses, you do not lose money/players if you have a higher cost than what you gain from the match or have in bank. (But with your amazing high TV experience you already knew this ofc) So you can have a 3k TV team np. As long as you dont lose players ofc but that almost never happens unless you play a CPOMB team and win every game you "play" becuse the opponent will concede if they lose the cointoss or after they do their first T1 to try and dmg you.

last edited by SuperGnu

Claw isn't a problem in high TV matches. Data has been provided to show that. The BBRC intended the rates to be as they are.

Claw/MB/POn... was designed with full knowledge of what it was supposed to do and what % were desired for player removal options since so many off the pitch player attrition factors were removed from the game at the same time. Unless you're talking about the 1400-1800 thing, which I have PM'd Galak to see if he knows where the quote is.

You do know nothing about me, therefore you are making stuff up and that is lying. Where did I change anything I've said? Multiple ideas have been proposed by various people and any one of them would need testing and tweaking.

I've not simply claimed you are wrong, I've provided data to support it. Referring to me as being "like some super autistic kid" is exactly the kind of personal attack I was talking about. As for numbers, this is a game which is all about numbers. Dice, probabilities etc. Take a look at them instead of stating your opinion as fact. We had that discussion 2 years ago as well.

I didn't say you were alone in thinking claw is a problem: you demonstrably are not. Similarly there are also plenty of people who don't think Claw is a, or the, problem. You and some others believing it to be so doesn't make claw the problem. But you have decided it is and you see what you want and that's that. Nothing to do about it.

Your team does not get "killed off after 2 games as soon as i past 1700tv". Again you overstate your claims and that damages your case. CPOMB does not guarantee you will lose your team in a few matches. Yes, there is a spiralling effect which is exacerbated by the diversity issues, but that's not what you are claiming.

Of course you don't lose players to SE, but what you lose is the ability to replace them because you run out of cash. That's why the attrition works with SE as a soft cap: it bumps you down to a point where you can save cash again and replace lost players. You seem to want to be able to stay at silly-high TV, but that's not the intent.

last edited by dode74

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

Where does it say that 2100 is where ppl should be? And why is it so? The spiraling expenses and ageing is already a limitation, why give some teams a hardcounter to every other team in the game?

2200 is the point where spiraling expenses outpaces the average amount of winnings per match, meaning that maintaining a treasury in order to replace lost players becomes unsustainable in the long term. Claw is just a (admittedly ham-fisted) method for creating roughly equalized attrition rates at higher levels of development. It doesn't win the claw teams games against teams that were beating them prior to them fielding a lot of claw, it just makes all teams at that level take a bunch of casualties.

Without claw we'd see the same demographic imbalances, it'd just make bash teams open-ended in terms of development. Agility teams would still be crushed and maimed as they tried to break into the higher development levels, by an endless sea of bash teams that have much less time getting there and staying there, but the bash teams would never hit a point where they start suffering higher rates of attrition to counterbalance the much lower rates of attrition they suffered on the way there.

I prefer having attrition be disconnected from on-pitch death and injury, personally, but as long as we keep the two linked, we'll need Claw or something that has a similar equalizing effect.

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

Yes, I realise it's not a specific answer. That doesn't make it a non-answer though. And yes, there is an element of "feel". After all, this thread only exists because of the way people are feeling. You and I both know there is no objective problem and that the problem is entirely subjective: some people think racial composition is a problem, some people think attrition is a problem, some people think elves are a problem...

No, it is not completely subjective - you very quickly forgive yourself for doing things you consider unacceptable when other people do them, dode. You demand data of them to support the suggestion that there is an issue, and that their proposed solutions would address those issues, but drop to this "but its all subjective" crap when you aren't doing it yourself. Your response to anyone else trying that same argument would be to point out that one person's disagreement negates their subjective desire, and that they have no data on how many people feel the same way and thus cannot argue in favour of people's "feelings".

As people who work with, and base our arguments on data, numbers, and facts, we should at minimum hold ourselves to the same standards we hold other people, and probably higher still than that. That you so casually do not is pretty candy assed.

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

Whether that is the desired amount or not is subjective, of course 🙂

It maintains exactly the same imbalance in attrition rates as we already have. That's not subjective, that's a fact. What problem, then, does it address? That there's "too much attrition" in Blood Bowl? Honestly, it's an identical sort of solution to SuperGnu here saying claw needs to be removed: it's a hand-waved solution to a hand-waved problem.

There's data to support the idea that there is a compositional imbalance in open MM as TV increases - that's not not subjective, only the opinion of whether or not that is a problem that requires addressing is. There's no data to support the idea that theres "too much attrition" in Blood Bowl since "too much" or "too little" are themselves concepts in search of a metric. We can pair both concepts with complaints we've seen... but hey, supergnu can pair his "claw is bullshit" feeling with complaints we've seen too.

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

I don't see the problem with shifting the onus onto the player since the problem is entirely subjective.

It's pushing around piles rather than solving problems - if we don't think it's a real problem we don't need to implement challenge as a "solution". If we do think it's a problem then challenge is really nothing more than passing the buck on to someone else and patting ourselves on the back for no longer having it in our "to do" pile.

I'd liken it to all the governments and companies who decided they'd ended sexism and racism by removing all the formal rules and laws that specifically targeted and limited women and minorities. We know full well it'll lead to problems caused by informal prejudices and selfish choices by individuals, but we're ready to point out that we can't control people and with a hurt look ask "am I my brother's keeper?".

NB: since nobody else pointed it out, the cost calculation has an error. The first part should have been (1 / mean injuries per match).

@VoodooMike - yes, it's subjective. The very existence of a problem is subjective. The reason I'm responding with subjective answers is that I don't want to answer yet again with "show me the problem" because we know there isn't one.
Yes, there's data to support the idea that "there is a compositional imbalance in open MM as TV increases" but that it is a problem is subjective. A desire to make them even is subjective. That's the point I'm making. You and I both know that identification of this particular imbalance does not make the imbalance a problem unless people dislike it, and even then it is a subjective matter. Why not? Because even racial composition at high TV was never a goal of the game.

So yes, I am proposing Challenge be the response because the problem is subjective, and the solutions should also be. Unless someone with the authority to do so (GW or Cyanide, really) states that composition should be even as TV increases then it's the single best response as it allows people to do as they see fit, solving what they see as problems for themselves. Were that authority to make such a statement then I still think use of established, or at least recognised, mechanisms (e.g. rez + progression + Seasons) will be far more likely to gain traction with this crowd (who we know to be highly conservative and reactionary) than anything new such as your own system. It's not that your system won't work, but it'll be hated simply because it's new.

last edited by dode74

@dode and @VoodooMike
Why don t you check with cyanide if you can run a trial with your two system in place (2 parrallal open leagues) . Let the community get use to it and see what has the best response.

What is the actual problem we want to solve?


Attrition rates being allegedly too high/uneven?

Isn't it already the point of AV to make attrition uneven? The balance lies in many elements such as cost, team roster, starting skills, role, etc.
And, as Mike said, Claw is also a method to equalize attrition rates at higher levels of development.

@dode74 You have better information about this than I can find, are all teams designed to be almost equally efficient at high TV?
Because, if they are not designed to be, why should balance of efficiency (which would be a consequence of lower attrition rates) exist at high TV and not at low TV?

Considering this, lowering the rates could unbalance the game even more on a different level. It might balance attritions at high TV but to the detriment of teams which are meant to shine there as they struggle at low TV.

Ultimately, lowering attrition rates could change the equilibrium we have as far as general Race's winning % are concerned.


Lack of race's diversity at high TV?

Are all races supposed to be equally represented at high TV?
That's related to teams' efficiency at high TV. If all teams are meant to be played in a sort of balanced environment at high TV, then there is an issue or representation, otherwise there is none.

Some races being forced to trim down their team and keep their TV low may be a core element of BB. If so, seeing mainly bash/claw at high TV is fine.


People having strong feelings about a non-existent issue (according to data)?

I believe this is the real consideration and I understand why you recommend Challenge, dode.
If people believe there is a balancing issue, even if there is none, why not alleviate their concerns by letting them avoid what they don't want to face?

But I'm afraid Challenge could split the community and increase the time one would have to wait to find a game, depending on the race used (allegedly, poor dwarves' players). I believe you had some data proving it wasn't problematic on fumbbl or something akin but do you believe it would apply for BB2? I see it as a risk.

Would it be possible within the game engine to implement a variety setting for MM?

I imagine it as such:

  • If you select "variety" you wouldn't be able to play against the same race twice in a row but you'd have to wait a longer time to be paired with an adequate team as it would take one based on the race, not the closest TV (but still within the 500k difference).
  • If you select "classic" you use the usual MM.

Of course, rez is still the better solution IMO.

last edited by Naissun

@Naissun - agree with all of your points regarding "uneven attrition" and diversity. No, teams are not designed to be equally efficient at high TV. The only metric the BBRC used was "lifetime win percentage" which includes all TVs.

I think a successful challenge/MM hybrid can work, though, not requiring a split to the playerbase. There are a number of ways of achieving this, but it could ultimately result in fewer viable matches. If those matches are more desirable, though, we'd be achieving quality over quantity. I think that's a good thing in an environment like the Open Ladder (non-competitive, perpetual etc) or in a rez version of it. We'd still want "play whoever you get" MM for competitive ladders like CCL, I think, but there's no reason those two environments couldn't coexist.

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

The only metric the BBRC used was "lifetime win percentage" which includes all TVs.

That's what I thought.

I think a successful challenge/MM hybrid can work, though, not requiring a split to the playerbase. There are a number of ways of achieving this, but it could ultimately result in fewer viable matches. If those matches are more desirable, though, we'd be achieving quality over quantity. I think that's a good thing in an environment like the Open Ladder (non-competitive, perpetual etc) or in a rez version of it. We'd still want "play whoever you get" MM for competitive ladders like CCL, I think, but there's no reason those two environments couldn't coexist.

Yeah, obviously Challenge would be for Open Ladder only.

Your idea is, for Open Ladder, to have both Challenge and MM.
I am curious. How would you implement Challenge in BB2?

For a quick match you'd run MM and for a specific game against a friend or as a way to avoid some teams you'd challenge someone, right?

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

@VoodooMike - yes, it's subjective. The very existence of a problem is subjective.

That something "is a problem" is subjective, but the existence of that thing is something we always demand be objective and based on data. Roster imbalance is objectively existent. "Too much" attrition is not. Why do we (and this we includes you for anyone but yourself, it seems) insist on objective, measurable fact? Because unless you can prove something exists you can't prove your solutions have rectified that thing, assuming we think its a problem, even if that solution is implemented.

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

Why not? Because even racial composition at high TV was never a goal of the game.

Awesome, then I guess we've just solved all problems with BB2 by classifying all problems as subjective in nature. Are the dice rolling all 1s? Well, the BBRC didn't write "use dice with an equal chance of rolling any of the values between 1 and 6" into the CRP, so it's really just our subjective belief that anything is wrong if such a scenario exists.

So hey, that's cool... if, in the pursuit of your "dode is never wrong" idiocy you want to act like a teenager who just got his hands on his first copy of Menschliches, Allzumenschliches then power to you, but from this point on I'll bring up your insistence on the validity of your own pure subjectivity any time you try to object to someone else's... and boy oh boy you can bet your ass that'll be often, given your track record.

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

So yes, I am proposing Challenge be the response because the problem is subjective, and the solutions should also be.

Cool, I suggest we reinstate apartheid then as a solution to that... I mean hey, if it being a subjective problem validates all subjective solutions then all solutions are equal! But really, we don't need to implement challenge because there's no objective problem we need to solve by doing so..... so why make Cyanide go through all that work to solve a non-problem?

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

Unless someone with the authority to do so (GW or Cyanide, really) states that composition should be even as TV increases then it's the single best response as it allows people to do as they see fit, solving what they see as problems for themselves.

We're already doing that, which means the single best response is to do absolutely nothing. Currently people's solution for the problems they see for themselves is to complain then abandon the game en masse. No big deal... low population is a subjective problem, after all.

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

Were that authority to make such a statement then I still think use of established, or at least recognised, mechanisms (e.g. rez + progression + Seasons) will be far more likely to gain traction with this crowd (who we know to be highly conservative and reactionary) than anything new such as your own system. It's not that your system won't work, but it'll be hated simply because it's new.

You're thrashing a straw man here, Dode. I quite clearly stated my preference was for rez... the niggle system was presented as a counterexample to your claim that the only possible method for equalizing attrition was rez. In fact, I've said it multiple times now in this thread alone, and repeatedly over the years.

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

Why don t you check with cyanide if you can run a trial with your two system in place (2 parrallal open leagues) . Let the community get use to it and see what has the best response.

Because they won't do it. It is not an exaggeration to say that if you want to try anything even remotely adventurous you'd need to make your own Blood Bowl where you could call the shots. This is year 3,000 of arguing about the same issues. The only novel thing here is dode being a hypocrite by pushing the sort of idea he'd tear anyone else a new asshole for posting.

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

Are all races supposed to be equally represented at high TV?

Are men and women supposed to be treated equally by society? What about white and black people? The idea of "supposed to" is a bit wishy-washy. Instead, we tend to think in terms of "is there a good reason they shouldn't be, if we find that they're not?" and "in which case would the most people be better off?"

Imagine a game called "clock-knockers" which is a bit like "rock-paper-scissors", but the three options are rock, gun, and parrot. Rock beats Parrot, Gun beats Rock and Parrot. Is that legitimately a game? Is it a game you think it'd be rational to hold cash-prize tournaments around? I mean, the three options are not supposed to be balanced, right?

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

Some races being forced to trim down their team and keep their TV low may be a core element of BB. If so, seeing mainly bash/claw at high TV is fine.

Given that the BBRC members have pointed out that BB was not designed around TV matchmaking, and that they deliberately made higher TVs give an advantage (by making inducements overpriced), I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that was never the intention.

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

Of course, rez is still the better solution IMO.

Rez with progression.

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