Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Aug 22, 2010 - 14:53 |
 
|
sounds good, thanks for the extra info |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2010 - 18:38 |
|
| gandresch wrote: |
Catch can mean forced catch on a scatter with a player, that already has moved. Here i want to be asked to use catch to perhaps fail the catch.
and so on. |
First, the catch itself needs to be made optional, then the catch skill will not be needed anyway.
But I agree with everything in your post. If the client was clever enough to find the situations when you would consider not using a skill that might save a lot of time and not prejudice the "auto" feature. ie a prompt to ask if you want to use passive dodge only when you are within 2 squares of the sideline. Or a prompt to ask if you want to use dirty player when when you roll 4,4 with a sneaky git against a av8 player. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2010 - 19:49 |
|
Well would you use dodge if it resulted in being pushed into a claw/mb/piling on monster?  Or if your player was part of a 1-turn TD chainpush combo?  I know it was only an example, but there are many possibilities.
But remember, currently both in the new and the old client you need to select sidestep, on 4/6 block-dice rolls. when it comes to dodge it's only 1/6. (i know dodge is a more popular skill, but sidestep will probably be very popular also, since fend counters piling on, but grab counters fends ability to counter piling on, and then finally sidestep will counter grab and thus render piling on useless again..) |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 00:11 |
|
Yeah, thats what I mean though. Rather than either have a prompt asking whether you want to use it every time or never, maybe there can be settings inbetween "never" and "always" specified by the player. I know its more complex, but int the long run it might lead to a better game experience. |
|
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 00:41 |
|
Hi,
but using "Never ask me" and "Always ask me" would be a very nice thing (for me), if you can choose during the game and change your opinion. You have to differentiate between skills, that can be used offensive and defensive as single skills, of course (such as Dodge or Tackle). But then i don't know, how you could make this options even better by using settings between those two options. Perhaps you can make an example.
Greets,
gan |
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 01:29 |
|
I think the option to set "always ask", with a default of "never ask" is perfect. The ability to "sometimes ask" under specific circumstances is an interesting feature, but I wouldn't call it a high priority. It depends a bit on the skill though whether it's exactly clear and easy to calculate which circumstances you might not use it. It can also have the undesirable effect of the client tutoring people on when to not use the skill. People are talking about adding strategic depth, but it doesn't add any depth at all if the client figures it out for you.
I think if there were more popups during your opponents' turns then people wouldn't go AFK quite so much as they do now anyway. I also like the idea of an AFK detector to stop people having to wait so long on opponents to use skills. I'd want to have a "thinking" button to press though for those odd times when I want to spend more then 30 seconds thinking about whether to use a skill. |
|
|
Evilo
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 02:13 |
|
I had the situation in a (board)-game where my opponent decided not to use dodge and take a knockdown to avoid a crowd-push from my next block. Since it was a pretty important player and I spend alot of effort on the crowd-push that turn, it pretty much cost me the game. So it is not a small thing and should be implemented.
Also what I could like to see is the option to not use Dirty Player on a Sneaky Git foul when rolling a double and applying DP would have that player send off by the ref. That happened to me in a (board)-game as well and I was quite happy for the option to keep my player on the field. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 10:39 |
|
Irgy you are right, you need to be a able to extend the timer somehow
Also i really don't think that making dodge optional in every situation will slow down the game that much.
on a sidenote, don't have the rulebook on this comp. When do you choose to use or not to use dodge? before or after opponent chooses the pushback square? |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 11:02 |
|
I would not want to play against a player who would have the option to select if he wanted to use dodge or not on every block. To notice that popup and selecting if you want to use it or not and then that the other coach will start to play again, is probably 2-5 seconds for every block.
If a turn has about 5 blocks that could mean adding half a minute to a each turn. Also, often enough people are doing other things, so having to wait 10 seconds is not that uncommon for a popup.
I think a turn could be lengthened with half a minute up to a minute from this. For a game where the average turntime often is down to 2 minutes i don't think that this would be that good.
When it comes to these optional things, my view is that the options should add more to the game-experience than it takes away.
For things that can be limited to a very small amount of times and a very specific case, like the Sneaky Git+ DP roll of 4+4, i think it is worth to add the option.
But for things where it is hard to generate cases that could be checked programmaticly, i think we have to live with differences from the boardgame if the benefit from the option doesn't outweight the trouble it causes in everyday play. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 12:52 |
|
Lakrillo, sidestep on every snotling is worse? that takes place on / pushback / pushback / pow /pow-! /
Dodge only takes place on /pow-! / it's not 1 block = 1 pop-up...
edit: i wouldn't mind the difference from boardgame though. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 12:59 |
|
Maybe you could implement a way for the other coach to "intercept" the action. For example, you're going to block my player, I see it and press a button that will tell the client "if there's an optional skill going to be used, ask the coach". It's clumsy and should be refined, but you get the idea. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 13:17 |
|
that would require uhm.. cat-like-reflexes far from turnbased yeah? |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 13:36 |
|
Yes On1, sidestep on every snotling is bad enough, but sidestep you want to use 99% of the time, not using dodge is 1 block in 1000. But think of the possibility of all those snotling pushes having to consider to use dodge to.
I am not fond of anything that would demand an interception. Imagine a major where one player have a lag and really wanted to intercept that action and not dodging and failed to do so due to the lag. I think that would be a really bad situation.
People have not complained about the way JBB have done it, because they have been used to it. Now botocs have a way to do it (which i would not like, although i haven't tried botocs), which starts peoples minds into asking for these things.
My view is that the client should be easy to play in and not turn into a popup hell for people. The reason i play online is that it is fast and easy. If i want the full experience i play tabletop where i have nice minis, a good chat with the opponent and a much more flexible environment.
When programming things you will always have to put limitations to things to make it doable.
When we come down to these special cases, it have to be thought about the gain of implementing it compared to the loss of most games and also the possibility to generate more bugs.
The cases that are valuable will most probably be developed. The ones that will take more time to develop and test than they will have playtime will probably not.
I even want to be able to turn off apo for KO:s, as i will almost always use my apo on permanent damages and i find the KO-apo popup disturbing. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 14:38 |
|
The usage of apo on KO's must stay!! Using it will leave the player stunned on the pitch. If you use it on a KO'd player, you are probably aiming at winning the game. Not just keeping your team intact. Let's reward those that aim at winning the game by offering them the option to apo a KO'd player
You see it in lrb4. people using apo on BH because they need the player on field. mainly in majors. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 24, 2010 - 14:45 |
|
On1:| Quote: | | When do you choose to use or not to use dodge? before or after opponent chooses the pushback square? |
I remember it would be like this:
1) roll the die
2) active player chooses possible rerolling
3) passive player chooses possible rerolling
4) active player chooses optional skill uses
5) passive player chooses optional skill uses
6) die roll is resolved
So block die gets rolled, then possibly rerolled, then the blocking players Wrestle is activated, then the blocked players Dodge, Stand Firm and Side Step are activated, then the die result is applied, ie player is pushed back.
I did not check this from the rulebook so I might remember it wrong. If so, please clarify.
I also remember that there was sometimes some discussion about optional and mandatory skills in TFF, and surprisingly many skills were technically mandatory, for example Tackle was seen as mandatory. I don't remember was this the BBRCs ruling, though.
IMO, Wrestle has at least as big a problem with mandatory skill use than Dodge. Most of the times I would want to produce a turnover for my opponent at the cost of an AV-check for my player when I have Wrestle and he does not have either Block or Wrestle. I do not want to make it safe for my opponent to try to block my Wrestlers. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Jump up on a tree?
Search
