| Poll |
| Should we change the rules to encourage more passing? |
| Yes |
|
19% |
[ 15 ] |
| No |
|
80% |
[ 62 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 77 |
|
markor
Joined: May 07, 2015
|
 Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 15:01 |
 
|
Sorry, didn't you mean, 'buhhh?' |
|
|
markor
Joined: May 07, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 15:09 |
|
I'll try to make this easy to understand: you accused me of ignoring the points other people were making and going off-topic. Now let's think really hard about this, what do people mean when they say this? Do they mean that the person is not sticking to the topic of the thread? Yes, well done! Who introduces the topic of a thread? Come on, you can get it! Yes, yes, it's the person who started the thread! Wow, you're doing really well today! Now for the hard one, if that person wants to talk about the topic of the thread, in this case whether the rules should be changed to encourage more passing, and the other people want to talk about how to be successful without passing, who is off-topic? Come on, you're almost there...it's, it's...that's right, it's buhhh! Well done! |
|
|
Winni
Joined: Jan 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 15:19 |
|
This topic was never really on. |
_________________
Spreading the truth about Wood Elves since shortly. |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 15:20 |
|
| markor wrote: | | I'll try to make this easy to understand: you accused me of ignoring the points other people were making and going off-topic. Now let's think really hard about this, what do people mean when they say this? Do they mean that the person is not sticking to the topic of the thread? Yes, well done! Who introduces the topic of a thread? Come on, you can get it! Yes, yes, it's the person who started the thread! Wow, you're doing really well today! Now for the hard one, if that person wants to talk about the topic of the thread, in this case whether the rules should be changed to encourage more passing, and the other people want to talk about how to be successful without passing, who is off-topic? Come on, you're almost there...it's, it's...that's right, it's buhhh! Well done! |
Wow, you really are a leader of men, aren't you? Good luck getting anyone on your side. |
_________________
  |
|
Fabulander
Joined: Oct 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 16:09 |
|
There is a subforum called House Rules and Other Ideas. Maybe you could go there and ask for creative ideas on how to encourage passing in a house ruled league. This thread is broken and ugly, just let it die and be happier for it. |
|
|
xerode
Joined: Feb 23, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 16:14 |
|
And I thought I was bad at forums |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 16:53 |
|
Markor, in your original post you raised several points of contention.
1. How can recieving the ball in the end-zone be made more appealing?
2. How can passing to score be made more appealing?
3. What can be done to make stalling a less attractive strategy?
4. Would less stalling result in more passing?
5. Is Guard and Piling on one of the causes for stalling?
6. Is making passing more attractive a reasonable goal to begin with?
7. What would happen in regard to stalling if passing was more attractive?
8. What would happen in regard to passing if stalling was less attractive?
9. Is it reason enough that a minority within the community desires to play the game in a certain way to change the rules?
10. How much information can be drawn out of the poll in regard to what a minority wants on the site in conjunction with your suggestion?
11. Are there alternatives to your suggestions?
Every single of these matters has been addressed in great length. I don't think many people will be able to find that amount of consideration for posting a random idea on a forum.
Your responses in the late pages seem to be based on a desire to hijack your own thread and to spam it with random accusations that I think would not really be conceivable for an objective observer.
Your line of argumentation is very agressive and mostly based on disregarding what other people convey to you (which is somewhat understandable because you are all on your own), very recognisable tho is your complete lack of willingness to fill any of your claims with any greater content and instead revert to attacking people who are (rightly) pretty fed up with this.
I for my part am highly amused and very sad someone deleted the other thread you made instead of just Phytrss non-chalant messages.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to see more of your self-implosion and hope you'll find lots more people to attack.  |
|
|
Stikki
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 16:55 |
|
Since the start of this thread...
Markor: Games played 6
Passes 1
Yards -1
Posts on thread 54
Walk the walk, Dude. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 17:07 |
|
Btw...
@markor: welcome to fumbbl!
This is a great community for Blood Bowl! |
|
|
markor
Joined: May 07, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 17:16 |
|
I played 4 games with Lizardmen, and one with humans (where I tried to throw a long bomb to a player waiting in the end zone, but failed a going for it). So well done for putting things in context again, Stikki. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 17:17 |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 17:23 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | One of my first teams in the Blackbox was a passing High Elf Team. I used double 6 to get strong Arm on my thrower an had a good run with them for a while. Here is one of their first games with their thrower where they use the passing game to turn around a 1-0 half time deficit. http://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3119392
I am not saying the passing game I optimum but if you really want to it is playable. |
The passing game is always possible if you want a challenge.
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=718522 |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 17:27 |
|
Thanks Wreckage for the summary.
1. How can recieving the ball in the end-zone be made more appealing? Not without changing quite a few of the fundamental mechanics of the game as we know it. Basically because it will always be bad to rely on dice to score, and passing/catching will always need more dice than the alternative of running the ball.
2. How can passing to score be made more appealing? Maybe by awarding more spps for it? I doubt it, but it could be.
3. What can be done to make stalling a less attractive strategy? This is a highly undesirable result for Blood Bowl. There could be quite a few ways to make it desirable, but none that I can think of would improve the game in any way.
4. Would less stalling result in more passing? I highly doubt it. People will always strive for the most effective way to score, and unless you turn the entire game upside down, passing will never be plan A. I will always run the ball if possible, no matter if I plan to stall or not.
5. Is Guard and Piling on one of the causes for stalling? No. Bad positioning usually is. Alternative answer: yes, but so are mighty blow, stand firm and even block. As it is, your assumption that bashing skills lead to stalling makes no sense. Stalling is perfectly doable even without a killer team, if done properly.
6. Is making passing more attractive a reasonable goal to begin with? Everything is reasonable. The greatest selling point of Blood Bowl is that behind the silly orcs and elves and rats, there's an amazingly deep strategic game. Passing is done with dice. Relying on dice is based on luck. Making a play based on luck more attractive is not reasonable in my opinion because it detracts from the true fun of the game: the strategy. But that's just me. Hey, stalling was invented precisely to avoid unnecessary dice rolling, and it stuck because it is effective, not (just) because people love the blood.
7. What would happen in regard to stalling if passing was more attractive? I don't know. Probably people would still stall because stalling wins you more games, and people love winning more than they love spps.
8. What would happen in regard to passing if stalling was less attractive? Probably nothing at all.
9. Is it reason enough that a minority within the community desires to play the game in a certain way to change the rules? No. As someone already pointed out, the pollers still represent a tiny fraction of active players. So we are talking about a little minority of a tiny fraction of players.
10. How much information can be drawn out of the poll in regard to what a minority wants on the site in conjunction with your suggestion? See point 9.
11. Are there alternatives to your suggestions? Learn to play the game. You will find out that the cheesy way of playing you hate is difficult to pull off and has a lot of nuances and strategy behind it. It's not a mindless grinding: more often than not (read: in balanced games) it's a tactical marvel. And it's fun as hell to try and ruin it. Work harder, and stop trying to change the game to suit your needs.
There you are merkor. I might even add that I addressed some of these points 8 pages ago, and you ignored me. |
_________________
Last edited by JanMattys on %b %03, %2015 - %17:%Jun; edited 2 times in total |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 17:34 |
|
Oh yeah regarding point 2, something we did in my local league was give someone who threw a TD pass the spps for a TD, the same way NFL QBs have passing TDs.
This wasn't a house rule, we were just dumb but looking back it seems like it could be a decent rule. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
markor
Joined: May 07, 2015
|
| Posted:
Jun 03, 2015 - 18:05 |
|
Sorry Wreckage, I should have been clearer, I wasn't suggesting everyone who disagreed with me was completely off topic with everything they said. I already admitted that perhaps my changes wouldn't work (though I angered some people that they would work to an extent, but some people (not you!) don't seem to understand that I would be happy if the changes did ANYTHING to redress the balance. I also admitted that some other people's ideas might work even better. I only started attacking other posters after they attacked me without offering any useful input (unless you count personal attacks as useful input). Calcium was one of these, as was xerode. Their contribution to this debate (and I imagine others) has been limited to rubbishing suggestions without suggesting what was wrong with them or suggesting better alternatives, and talking about the personal motivations of the person who suggested them. They will probably reply to this post using this exact formula. If you can find one post from either of these two that does not fit this format, please post it. I did not attack any of the people who engaged in a debate with me, but I may not have made this clear enough at the time.
If you feel like continuing the debate, I will respond to your points.
1, 2, and 3. As I said above and also earlier in the thread, some other people made good suggestions about how this could be done. This was one of my aims in starting the debate.
4. I don't know if we debated this seperately in the thread, but it seems to me that if you couldn't stall (because there was too much chance of losing possession) then you would have to score quicker by definition, or lose. This could be done in the usual ways teams score quickly, i.e. either a running game or a passing game.
5. One person pointed out that guard also helps the attacking team to break the cage. This was a good point, although from the 80 games I've played I don't think I've seen it used this way as often as I have seen it used to defend the ball carrier. The reason for this is simple: in order to do the former, you already need two of your players to be next to the cage and no more than one square away from each other at the beginning of the turn. In my experience this does not happen all that often, as usually your opponent will have blocked these players so they are no longer next to the cage. In addition, a smart attacker will block the players with guard first, so the defender can only get a 1d block, if any. With the latter, it is much easier to get 4 of your players around the ballcarrier than it is for the defender to get two players next to the cage and keep them there until the beginning of his turn. If some of these players (or all of them) have guard, it will be very difficult for the blitzer to get more even a 1d block. As for piling on, if you remove more of your opponent's players with this skill, they will have fewer to negate tackle zones so that your blitzer can get a 1d block, assuming that is, that the bodyguard don't all have block.
6. What do you mean by reasonable? Are you saying that people shouldn't want to to play a game that has more passing in it? Why not? This was why I talked about it being my opinion - I could just as easily say that it is unreasonable for you not to want to play a game with more passing in it. If by reasonable you meant achievable, then we go back to the previous points, and whether they would work or not.
7. I think it would become more common, and some people agreed, saying it would become to easy to score and games would be very high-scoring. I replied by saying that I would rather they were higher-scoring than full of stalling. Again, this is my personal preference, I don't see who it can be wrong.
8. See 4.
9. I never argued that it was - if I did, please show me the post. It would be a bit weird of me to set up a poll and then ignore the results. What I did say was that a not insignificant proportion voted yes. This was in response to people dismissing me by saying that I was on my own in this (as you did in your last post).
10. I don't think anyone mentioned this, if they did then please show me the post. This is a good point, but it doesn't support either argument, you're basically just suggesting that this poll/thread was a waste of time, which some people would agree with, but since you are still debating me on page 13, you don't seem to be one of them.
11. See 1,2, and 3.
For those who are about to complain about me not letting the thread die: don't click on it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
