BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 12:27 |
 
|
I agree that somebody might be a newbie or just get hit by the stupid stick, but these times should be so few and not benefit anybody really. You shouldn't take advantage of these poor people. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 12:37 |
|
When would you take advantage? Most games is about putting pressure on the opposing coach until he or the dice break. A build up of pressure can lead to great defence until a silly little mistake is made. There are scenarios where this could happen.
Bottom line is, I'm not going to agree. I didn't agree with having the auto-move and the block dice you'll get hint tool. However the automove saves a lot of time, and I've also become too lazy to workout how many dice I get myself.
To me though, mistakes are made in these situations. It's stupid and 99/100 the coach wouldn't make that mistake, but they happen and a lot of times this is due to the pressure put on by the opposing coach. |
|
|
C3I2
Joined: Feb 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 13:08 |
|
Well, sometimes I want to unfend, or unside step.
It would be really, really nice if I could click something to cancel sidestep if I have not moved my player yet, the reason this happens is of course that 90+% of the time you do want to SS, so you autoclick without thinking.
The funny side of this is of course, when you do select NO on sidestep, its not uncommon for your opponent to keep waiting for you to sidestep, despite it being his "time to move". Sometimes it takes a minute or two for them to figure it out. |
|
|
Araznaroth
Joined: Oct 08, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 13:32 |
|
A default 'on' option or all skills could be nice in L. No more dodgers going down instead of surfing, offcourse no more SF synergy with SS. And then if it were an option to fill teams with skills play all marauders and fill with wrestle, SSorSF, Fend and Piling on players. Frustrating games for sure!  |
|
|
Overhamsteren
Joined: May 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 13:58 |
|
Fend should be used automatically except against frenzy.
Saves a lot of time, and what you lose 'tactically' is so marginal that it doesn't really matter. |
_________________
Like a Tiger Defying the Laws of Gravity
Thanks to the BBRC for all the great work you did. |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 15:41 |
|
I see no issue with how it works currently. If you don't want to click yes, don't take Fend.
Play a game in Stunty with a pile of Side Steppers, Diving Tackle and throw in a Pygmy team with mass Shadow and get back to me. There is no problem here. How much time does it save, a few seconds? |
_________________
 |
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 16:14 |
|
| BooAhl wrote: | | and pop-up windows which cost alot of energy... |
Seriously? |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 16:21 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | BooAhl wrote: | | and pop-up windows which cost alot of energy... |
Seriously? |
Seriously!
Every extra pop-up costs you ~0.0036 euros in electricity. I'd shudder at the cost when when that is converted to old money (£). |
_________________
|
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
Fend should be automatic except against Frenzy. There isn't any useful gain out of prompting. |
|
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 19:44 |
|
Seems like a 50%-er.
That usually means that the boring conservatives win  |
|
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 19:55 |
|
BooAhl, I respect you and respect your suggestions - however, I have to disagree here. I like having the option for both skills.
For Fend: Mostly it is the SS + Fend situations where it can get tricky as to what is the best option. Honestly, I want MORE decisions to be made by the coaches -- make them win or lose the game through decisions they make.
For PO: This would suck if your MBPO player gets the ball...you blitz free to score, but alas you must PO and poof! Or another situation where your blitzer hits someone then runs into the endzone for a pass but can not because he was forced to PO. Frankly the only people this rule would hurt are the ones who are playing the game to win and trying to be tactical about it. So the rule change would hurt the overall level of play imo. |
|
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 20:33 |
|
I agree with you. But the fend would affect maximum 1/1000 and the PO is a nerf-thing. The Fend implementation would affect so very little. But yes it would affect. I dont see the SS + Fend situation being less or more critical. Care to develop? |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 21:42 |
|
someone else wrote this in another thread:
If opponent clicks "no", do you follow up? |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 22:21 |
|
There would be many a situation where it would be marginal to follow up. If coaches disagree on what is better, the outcome shouldn't be force on them. I know it's a pain, but how many fend players are there per team? I haven't seen more than 4 on any team. |
|
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 04, 2013 - 22:22 |
|
Fend + SS is all about positioning, sometimes you want to keep the opposing player back - sometimes you do not. It depends on what your plan is and what your opponent's plan is.
For example, if you follow up, you can make a 1d block with another player, but expose yourself to a counter-block and give up a 4+ dodge to hit the ball instead of 5+ dodge. The coaches may differ on which situation benefits which coach more. I would rather the coaches make the choices instead of having a set rule just to very slightly speed up the game. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
