FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 15:38

SillySod wrote:

None of the above.... I vote for fun and since that wasnt an option I've now blacklisted Plorg.

Heh, nice one. Laughing

bobafettsmum

Joined: May 20, 2008

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 15:43

I play to win, although looking at my win percentage you wouldnt think it.
Maybe I'm a scrub and i just dont know it! Wink

_________________
Beating me at Bloodbowl is not an achievement.
Losing to me at Bloodbowl means you really suck!
Wink

Laviak

Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 15:43

While winning is fun, I think it is learning the game that makes it the most interesting. For me, it's the process of learning new tactics and finding counters for tactics that makes the game fun. Win or lose, playing a skilled coach is fun because you almost always learn something, and have something new to either add to your arsenal, or find a counter for. Blood Bowl is a sufficiently complex game that despite playing for several years, there is still more to learn, and that's what makes it fun to me. Maybe it's the same thing in the end, it is working out how to win rather winning itself that I enjoy.

_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!.

Falesh

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 15:51

I voted for winning = fun but that isn't quite right for me, I think what I enjoy most is trying to win. It's not the result itself that is important, it is the clash of strategy vs counter strategy that gets me going.

_________________

Borgen

Joined: Sep 06, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 15:54

Falesh wrote:

I voted for winning = fun but that isn't quite right for me, I think what I enjoy most is trying to win. It's not the result itself that is important, it is the clash of strategy vs counter strategy that gets me going.

I think thats right, which is why I find Ranked a bit empty. The ranked tournaments and [L]eague are both great, because first and foremost both players are trying to win. In Ranked, I think winning often takes a backseat to team-building, which I simply don't enjoy as much.

_________________
British or British-based? Join the White Isle League!

Landwalker

Joined: Jul 07, 2008

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:24

Out of curiosity, are there any games are truly, perfectly balanced, where no "side" (which might mean a playable character in a fighting game like Mortal Kombat, a race or faction in a game like Starcraft or Age of Empires, etc.) has any net superiority or inferiority to any other "side" and the "sides" are unique, and not simply repainted mirrors of each other (which means tossing out games like Risk, Monopoly, and Rock-Paper-Scissors)?

Take some of the classic RTS games: Warcraft III, Starcraft, Command & Conquer, Age of Empires II: Age of Kings. What about the classic "Fighter" games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur. Are any of these perfectly balanced, with no examples of one course of action being inherently superior to any other course of action?

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:24

pac wrote:

hotspurstu wrote:

While I get the point the guy is trying to make. I do think he has some issues that he needs to contend with.

It could be argued that it's possible to walk around in the real world being an overbearing, aggressive, bully and finding that many people cave in to it. This means that you get what you want a lot of the time and that the people that let you get your own way do so because they're soft. While getting your own way might be nice for you, it doesn't mean you're not a crass, retarded, tw@. The people that allow them to get away with it probably just don't want the hassle of constantly having to stand up to and fight against these morons. Personally I think mankind has evolved from that typical caveman style attitude, to become something better.

Again, you need to bear in mind that in the top post you are just reading one extract. Elsewhere, he draws a clear distinction between in-game and out-of-game behaviour, and indeed recommends being friendly to opponents (outside the game) as being more beneficial than trying to intimidate them.

These people you hate do exist - but I don't think, if you read more, you would necessarily conclude that this guy was one of them.

(BTW, I do think that Plorg has deliberately selected and posted the most provocative, jolt-you-out-of-your-comfort-zone extract from the text. Wink

)

Do we have to read the whole book to make this worth while?

If you really badly want/need to win then psyching out, intimidating, trash talking etc is all part of the game. Wink

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - Coming soon! ---- All Star Bowl XII - Teams of Stars - Sign up NOW!

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:30

koadah wrote:

Do we have to read the whole book to make this worth while?

No, just don't jump to conclusions if you don't. Wink

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:33

Landwalker wrote:

Take some of the classic RTS games: Warcraft III, Starcraft, Command & Conquer, Age of Empires II: Age of Kings. What about the classic "Fighter" games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur. Are any of these perfectly balanced, with no examples of one course of action being inherently superior to any other course of action?

I would argue, for example, that the classic Street Fighter II variants (Special Champ. Ed. and Turbo Alpha (or was that Alpha Turbo?)) had perhaps 5-6 characters that were playable from a win at all costs standpoint, and were balanced with respect to one another's styles and weaknesses. Of course, some matchups within those 5-6 were less favourable than others, but I'm talking across that group. I think you could say the same about SC II, but not after that ideal point. As for RTS and turn-based, starting positions are always vital, but if you get a fair to all concerned map in something like Civ, it's about as fair as fair can be, without it being Chess. But we play games like that becuase they aren't Chess, right? Something so pure has the downside of being less flashy and shiney! Wink

koadah wrote:

Do we have to read the whole book to make this worth while?

No, but it helps set the scene. Razz

A five minute skim should suffice.

ibambe

Joined: Jun 27, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:36

I voted: I play to win.
Perhaps it's because I lost or tied my last 5 or so games, through a combination of trying too hard to get spps on certain players to the point of losing track of the game and trying to hard to kill a stupid werewolf (I thoughtlessly blocked his side-stepping feline heiney into the end zone on the last turn of the first half and wound up tying).
After, having read the article- if it can be called that -I'm not sure I want to be associated with this childish division of scrubs and "winners". The video game version of Vince Lombardi is a bit too nauseating. For one thing, by this definition, I imagine that the obsessive winners will only tend to stick to things that they're good at. If you lack the skill at baseball, boxing, blood bowl, whatever, you will always be a scrub and stick to the things you're good at- say star craft, poker and darts. It's a pretty limiting attitude and it takes a real loser to avoid situations where he'll always be a scrub.
Also the aggressive, preachy tone reminds me of self-help evangelists. Here's a fine comedic example of one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA Subscribing to such demagogic rantings is the height of scrubbiness IMHO. Who's ranting now?! I think I just dropped my two cents. Smile

Landwalker

Joined: Jul 07, 2008

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:54

Purplegoo wrote:

I would argue, for example, that the classic Street Fighter II variants (Special Champ. Ed. and Turbo Alpha (or was that Alpha Turbo?)) had perhaps 5-6 characters that were playable from a win at all costs standpoint, and were balanced with respect to one another's styles and weaknesses. Of course, some matchups within those 5-6 were less favourable than others, but I'm talking across that group. I think you could say the same about SC II, but not after that ideal point.

But even then, all the options outside that group are immediately less "winnable" than those inside the group. Assuming you stick within that group, if A is more favorable than B, B is more favorable than C, and C is more favorable than A, then if you took two of this guy's "Winners" and put them in that situation, what would happen? Would they just not play, or would the game be limited to only being balanced when both players made the same choice? That's basically my point: Are there any games out there in which every initial choice is just as winnable as every other initial choice, and aren't Risk, Monopoly, Checkers, Chess, etc.? If I play Starcraft, then it should make no difference, in terms of chance-of-winning-at-the-time-of-faction-selection, whether I choose to play Terran, Zerg, or Protoss, regardless of what my opponent chooses. Tactics taken and choices made after that should be the only things that affect my chance of winning, and I can't think of any asymmetrical game in which that is the case.

Quote:

As for RTS and turn-based, starting positions are always vital, but if you get a fair to all concerned map in something like Civ, it's about as fair as fair can be, without it being Chess. But we play games like that becuase they aren't Chess, right? Something so pure has the downside of being less flashy and shiney!

That's a fair point -- Civilization, on a perfectly "fair" map, might come as close to this ideal as any asymmetrical game is going to get, but how is that ideal map possible? If the map is small, it will favor the civilizations with early bonuses (particularly military ones), and since Civilization doesn't really have a "rock-paper-scissors" unit structure, that would ruin the equality of the initial choices. If the map is large, it would favor the civilizations with late or constant bonuses (probably favoring science bonuses in particular).

Last edited by Landwalker on %b %11, %2008 - %17:%Jul; edited 1 time in total

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 16:57

ibambe wrote:

The video game version of Vince Lombardi is a bit too nauseating. For one thing, by this definition, I imagine that the obsessive winners will only tend to stick to things that they're good at. If you lack the skill at baseball, boxing, blood bowl, whatever, you will always be a scrub and stick to the things you're good at- say star craft, poker and darts. It's a pretty limiting attitude and it takes a real loser to avoid situations where he'll always be a scrub.

Again, just taking a moment to read around reveals a more nuanced picture:

Quote:

I have read many books on chess and played chess occasionally over the years. On the whole though, I am a terrible player. During a game of chess, I do everything I can (within the scope of the game) to win, but I do very little to improve myself over the long haul. I am not a member of the chess community, I do not seek out superior chess players as mentors, and I do not even seek out the readily available wealth of opponents free to play on the internet. In a very limited way (during a particular game only), I “play to win,” but the whole endeavor of chess playing is an occasional “fun” activity for me, not a serious attempt to dominate the chess world. I’m comfortable with that, because I realize I can only dominate so many worlds.

As before, I'm sure there are some people like the ones you describe, but is this one?

It's not that there is nothing to criticise about his writing (I too find some of the self-help style passages wearing), but I don't think anyone posting yet has really addressed the substance of the point: if you want to win, then you would be a fool to tie yourself up in the same way as those he terms 'scrubs'. If winning is not actually your main objective in the first place, then it isn't possible for you to be one and the whole thing cannot be about you.

ibambe

Joined: Jun 27, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 17:05

JanMattys wrote:

Just to make myself clearer: if a game is designed with a paper-scissors-rock system where there's *no* winning tactic, then I think that the more a player tries to get closer to the limit the better.

When (and that's where the article totally fails and shows its inherent biasedness) there's no paper-scssors-rock system, then the broken tactic should be identified and reckognized.

Pulling my point to the extreme: imagine a version of BB with the new roster Space Marines... would a community that labels Space Marines as "cheap" be made of scrubs? I don't think so.

I think that Peter Lovering might take issue with this statement.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1477870

Purplegoo

Joined: Mar 23, 2006

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 17:06

Landwalker wrote:

But even then, all the options outside that group immediately less "winnable" than those inside the group. Assuming you stick within that group, if A is more favorable than B, B is more favorable than C, and C is more favorable than A, then if you took two of this guy's "Winners" and put them in that situation, what would happen? Would they just not play, or would the game be limited to only being balanced when both players made the same choice? That's basically my point: Are there any games out there in which every initial choice is just as winnable as every other initial choice, and aren't Risk, Monopoly, Checkers, Chess, etc.?

I guess over (for instance) a KO tournament, luck of the draw would be handy with the situation you've described. Plus, whilst some matchups you get are favourable in the two games I mentioned there - I don't think they tip the scales to a massive, lets-not-bother-playing-it's-over point, even with two similarly skilled guys playing. Tactics on the day and skill still have a role to play. If you are asking for a fighting game with 16 out of the box different in style but totally equal on balance characters - or indeed any console game as we've discussed - I can't think of one off hand. I feel semi-confident it will come though. Once graphics are as good as they possibly can be, developers are going to have to change tack - for the good of us all. Smile

Quote:

That's a fair point -- Civilization, on a perfectly "fair" map, might come as close to this ideal as any asymmetrical game is going to get, but how is that ideal map possible? If the map is small, it will favor the civilizations with early bonuses (particularly military ones), and since Civilization doesn't really have a "rock-paper-scissors" unit structure, that would ruin the equality of the initial choices. If the map is large, it would favor the civilizations with late or constant bonuses (probably favoring science bonuses in particular).

Yep - valid concerns. I think perhaps on a medium map where resources are handily evenly placed, you might just get away with it. But does that exist? I'm not deep enough into the Civ community to know. I would imagine someone has put this to the test and come up with attempts at the 'ideal' multiplayer experience map. I know the website I follow has 'Game of the Month' competitions, where participants play the exact same scenario and starting point - and the winner is the one who gets the most points on his attempt, but clearly this isn't exactly the same thing.

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Jul 11, 2008 - 17:11

Landwalker wrote:

Purplegoo wrote:

I would argue, for example, that the classic Street Fighter II variants (Special Champ. Ed. and Turbo Alpha (or was that Alpha Turbo?)) had perhaps 5-6 characters that were playable from a win at all costs standpoint, and were balanced with respect to one another's styles and weaknesses. Of course, some matchups within those 5-6 were less favourable than others, but I'm talking across that group. I think you could say the same about SC II, but not after that ideal point.

But even then, all the options outside that group are immediately less "winnable" than those inside the group. Assuming you stick within that group, if A is more favorable than B, B is more favorable than C, and C is more favorable than A, then if you took two of this guy's "Winners" and put them in that situation, what would happen? Would they just not play, or would the game be limited to only being balanced when both players made the same choice?

I think the key question in fighting games is not how good each character is but how good you are with the character. It would be very difficult to completely master them all, so you would need to pick the most suitable one for a situation from the handful you were good with.

I think the same applies in Starcraft and other RTS games - it certainly applies in Blood Bowl. CR (as we know) is a very blunt tool. Some coaches are much better or worse with certain teams or in certain match-ups than their CR would suggest.

Quote:

That's basically my point: Are there any games out there in which every initial choice is just as winnable as every other initial choice, and aren't Risk, Monopoly, Checkers, Chess, etc.? If I play Starcraft, then it should make no difference, in terms of chance-of-winning-at-the-time-of-faction-selection, whether I choose to play Terran, Zerg, or Protoss, regardless of what my opponent chooses. Tactics taken and choices made after that should be the only things that affect my chance of winning, and I can't think of any asymmetrical game in which that is the case.

Well, I don't know why you've included chess, as white is clearly overpowered. Wink

But more seriously, I think your very definition excludes the possibility of the kind of game you're talking about existing. If you can choose a different character/race/team and that choice is actually functionally different (ie, has a gameplay effect rather than just picking the boot over the top hat as your playing piece) then that choice must by definition have strengths and weaknesses. Other selections will also have strengths and weaknesses and these will interact with one another. Thus the choice always makes a difference.

It doesn't decide the game though: Dwarves don't always beat Amazons, or even Halflings. Wink