t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
 Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 03:14 |
 
|
i dont think the current design is particulary irritating but i certainly dont think it adds anything valuable.
my view is that strategic depth does not necessarely correspond to an increase in optionality. the emergent systems springing from the rules are valuable only if the rules themselves are basically simple in comparison.
there is no end to the ways the rules could be complicated and twisted for consistency, for instance are there plans on making block optional? and sure feet and tackle etc etc. there might conceivably arise situations where a failed block with a blocker would be preferable. |
_________________
Who's there? |
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 07:08 |
|
I think it's a good point about strategic depth actually. At the moment, the client tells you when you should decline a dodge. Where's the strategic depth in that? Realising for yourself that declining dodge is a good idea is doing something clever to gain an advantage. Having the client tell you that you might want to turn it down kind of takes the clever right out, at which point what is the use of implementing it at all?
Asking all the time would have that problem to an extent too mind you. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 08:57 |
|
I think it works nicely now. I've had both times where I have declined and used Dodge when prompted; it's not a gimmie of an answer when the popup arrives. It's not added any time to games, really I think it's going excellently. There will come a time within a thousand games where I feel stiffed by not being able to use optionality somewhere for something that this implimentation doesn't cover, but it will be worth it for the ease of use we have now.
TBH t0tem, there is a case here for pushing an argument to the limit to make a point; but deliberately not using Block? Come on.  |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 09:18 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
TBH t0tem, there is a case here for pushing an argument to the limit to make a point; but deliberately not using Block? Come on. |
A player on the side line trying to block an opposing player would rather go down than stay up thanks to block and get surfed next turn. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 09:21 |
|
Perhaps. But perhaps it's just the circles I've played in on TT, but I've never had a situation where anyone has used Block optionally. Can one even do so (I assume one can, or you'd not have brought it up, and I'm too lazy to be pedantic and go look).
Even so - I think that there is a line. One side of the line are the skills that really need to be optional in some situations, and on the other those that don't in order to keep the game flowing at an acceptable level to some (frankly, I'm fine with selecting loads, but I know some don't, I'm trying to comprimise). Obviously, we are all going to disagree upon where that line is, but I see Dodge, as implemented now, on the optional side, and Block not.
Infact, I'm happy with where the line is now on all skills, but that's just me. |
Last edited by Purplegoo on %b %22, %2011 - %09:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 09:28 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: |
TBH t0tem, there is a case here for pushing an argument to the limit to make a point; but deliberately not using Block? Come on. |
A player on the side line trying to block an opposing player would rather go down than stay up thanks to block and get surfed next turn. |
A player with both block and wrestle mnay choose not to use the block skill and take both players prone. |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 10:05 |
|
This is all very interesting but it is moot. Optional Block will never happen and it should never be considered. Dodge is fine the way it is at the moment and the times it becomes optional will cover roughly 90% of the occasions when you would prefer to go down and I'm sure that's good enough for all of us, especially after using skii junkies client for so long where nothing was optional. I think fend side step and stand firm all work perfectly too. |
_________________
 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 10:42 |
|
| Cloggy wrote: | | RandomOracle wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: |
TBH t0tem, there is a case here for pushing an argument to the limit to make a point; but deliberately not using Block? Come on. |
A player on the side line trying to block an opposing player would rather go down than stay up thanks to block and get surfed next turn. |
A player with both block and wrestle mnay choose not to use the block skill and take both players prone. |
this is actually covered |
|
|
t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2011 - 17:31 |
|
it does work fine now... it would work slightly better, be alot more consistent and just as strategic if dodge was automatic though. |
_________________
Who's there? |
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
