Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
 Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 04:00 |
 
|
| Kalimar wrote: | | right now I can't promise which way it will be in the end. but I kind of like the "popup, but limited to when it really makes sense" option. |
I can see the merit, but it's eventually going to annoy someone. People chain push or "chain block" (not sure the right term but where you make multiple blocks against the same player) at times the client is never going to be able to detect. I'm not saying this "matters" in some philosophical, rules lawyer sense, I'm saying it's going to annoy people, the same way OFAB annoys people. Not as often maybe, but some day someone will, for instance, set up a mid drive chain push in an different way, specifically to avoid the sideline so that their opponent can't decline a dodge. They'll get told they're exploiting, and there'll be another thread full of anger worse than this one.
Is avoiding that argument worth annoying hundreds of amazon playing smokers, maybe not.
But the solution of something like a "don't ask me again this game" tickbox, which some coaches can leave on by default if they want to, still seems a lot better to me. |
Last edited by Irgy on %b %21, %2010 - %05:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 05:33 |
|
oh god shoot me now |
_________________
 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 09:31 |
|
| Irgy wrote: |
But the solution of something like a "don't ask me again this game" tickbox, which some coaches can leave on by default if they want to, still seems a lot better to me. |
It's precisely on T16 when amazons don't want to use dodge to avoid OTS-chainpush. The "don't ask me again this game" tickbox seems stupid to me. |
|
|
Gotte
Joined: Dec 16, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 09:32 |
|
hmm, for me the most important thing will be optionality. I can be okay with a sligh (slight) limitation of some abilitys that are done in such a way to have as little effect on normal gameplay as possible (the ss thingy someone brought up earlier for example where it only asks when not taking it can be good, however! I would very much like a hardcore mode for us who like all the tactical options and dont wander off that we can choose to use in leagues and important fumbbl tournaments. (even block  ) |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 10:49 |
|
| Irgy wrote: |
I can see the merit, but it's eventually going to annoy someone. People chain push or "chain block" (not sure the right term but where you make multiple blocks against the same player) at times the client is never going to be able to detect. |
Why not?
If player would be pushed into other player, then popup?
If player would be next to sideline, then popup.
There's a few others, but we can cover the vast majority of complaints.
There's no need for features to cover every single possible usecase at the expense of usability...but there's no reason not to get the main ones! (aside from Kalimar's precious time..) |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:30 |
|
| Irgy wrote: | | ]Not as often maybe, but some day someone will, for instance, set up a mid drive chain push in an different way, specifically to avoid the sideline so that their opponent can't decline a dodge. They'll get told they're exploiting, and there'll be another thread full of anger worse than this one. |
That way of thinking makes a few wrong assumptions. If you implement the rules differently people don't have to play as if the rule would be implmented. They can ignore the rule because the way the client is programmed is what will be the rule. The site rules even say so. The same considerations led to make skills not optional in eartlier clients and it didn't use to be a problem.
In the end it comes all down to the quesiton if we want to use the client to play a fun game or if we want a simulator to reinvent the actions of a tabletop ruleset as accurate as possible. |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 12:38 |
|
I think everyone is only looking on the negative side. At least now amazons will actually want to play against tackle, if only to avoid all the annoying pop-ups \o/ |
|
|
Over-dose
Joined: Feb 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 13:06 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: |
In the end it comes all down to the quesiton if we want to use the client to play a fun game or if we want a simulator to reinvent the actions of a tabletop ruleset as accurate as possible. |
!sup answer: We (pluralis majestatis that is) want to play a fun game! |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 14:22 |
|
I work with simulators in my everyday job, so i rather aim for the fun part when of FFB, otherwise i suspect i wouldn't do it in my free time.
I have tossed around the single popup with selecting all the skills that would apply for the block and realised that it would actually not decrease the amount of popups from today, but increase it.
the attacker popups is not that big problem, the pro of this would be to make block and tackle optional (which i don't see huge benefits from if dodge is optional).
For the defender, it would decrease the amount of popups if the player had both dodge and stand firm. Sidestep would still have to be a notification after the block block. If the player had just stand firm, it would be the same amount of popups and a player with only block would increase the amount of popups.
If you look at how common different skill-combinations is, the total amount of popups during a game would increase due to this solution where almost all blocks would result in at least one popup for the defender.
I am leaning more towards just having dodge optional on certain occasions. Those that i have is:
- When one of the pushback-squares is next to a sideline.
- First turn after a kickoff and it is either a blitz which would could push you over the LOS, or a block on the LOS where the blocker had grab and you didn't have sidestep to counter it.
- First turn after a kickoff and it would result in a chainpush
These cases should narrow down the amount of times you get a popup from dodge to a minimum, while still having the opportunity to not use dodge in 90% of the times you wouldn't want to use it. |
|
|
Lokky
Joined: Sep 19, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 16:06 |
|
Would you then make fend optional when blocked by a frenzy player in the same way?
Fend is a great defensive skill but you might want to lure the frenzy player into a -2D block or otherwise disadvantageous position. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2010 - 16:11 |
|
| Lokky wrote: | Would you then make fend optional when blocked by a frenzy player in the same way?
Fend is a great defensive skill but you might want to lure the frenzy player into a -2D block or otherwise disadvantageous position. |
umh actually I see the need for fend to be optional all the time. Simply for the fact because the general case is that it is better to have someone follow up and to be able to block him in response then to have him stay away.
The cases were one should use fend are the exception. |
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 22, 2010 - 00:00 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | It's precisely on T16 when amazons don't want to use dodge to avoid OTS-chainpush. The "don't ask me again this game" tickbox seems stupid to me. |
The tickbox isn't for people who actually want to decline dodges sometimes. It's for people who want to do other things in their opponent's turn. For the most part so far people seem to be either happy to put up with clicking a box for the extra flexibility, or don't want to do it at all. I saw asking sometimes as more like a compromise. But maybe you're right and there is plenty of people who like it better than either extreme.
There's no reason we can't have three selectable states though - "ask always", "ask never" and "ask sometimes". It's not just about having the flexibility to suit everyone, it's that by choosing your particular option you only have yourself to blame if you're not happy with what happens as a result, thereby reducing the amount of whining compared to forcing any single option. Some people may switch depending on the importance of the game too.
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | Why not? |
Um, for the reasons I gave in the part of the paragraph you didn't bother to quote.
To rephrase it; optimal play will mean taking advantage of knowing specifically when the client will and won't ask. That optimal play will be considered cheesy and exploitive by others. Angst ensues.
| Wreckage wrote: | That way of thinking makes a few wrong assumptions. If you implement the rules differently people don't have to play as if the rule would be implmented. They can ignore the rule because the way the client is programmed is what will be the rule. The site rules even say so. The same considerations led to make skills not optional in eartlier clients and it didn't use to be a problem.
In the end it comes all down to the quesiton if we want to use the client to play a fun game or if we want a simulator to reinvent the actions of a tabletop ruleset as accurate as possible. |
No, your thinking is making the wrong assumption that everyone will be completely comfortable with the fact that it's different. If your argument was correct, there would never have been fights about the OFAB difference, and there demonstrably were.
The client guessing when you might want to decline a dodge is worse for this sort of thing because it's so close to the tabletop rules without quite being there. People will see the it as a convenience rather than a rules change. Taking advantage of the small difference will then look even more dirty, cheesy and exploitive. People haven't had fights about the existing non-optional dodge because it's a cleaner break from the rules.
Again, I'm not saying whether or not this angst is worth inconveniencing everyone to avoid. I'm also absolutely not one of the people who I'm talking about kicking up a fuss, and I don't agree with them doing it. I just think it's naieve to believe it's not going to happen. If we can't avoid it that's fine, but if there's a better way that avoids it maybe it's worth taking. |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 12:07 |
|
We implemented case-based dodge optionality in the last release, from the releasenotes:
* Dodge skill use is optional under certain conditions (to reduce annoying popups):
1) The push is a potential chainpush, the three "opposite" squares are occupied.
2) It is the first turn after kickoff and a defending player has the potential to be pushed over the middle-line into the attackers half
3) There is a possibility that you would be pushed next to the sideline. Which is you are standing one square away from sideline and the opponent is pushing from the same row or from the row more infield.
I hope everyone is happy with this solution. And if you have any case where you would not use dodge that is not covered by these, please present it so we can valuate if we should add that to the optionality. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 12:08 |
|
Does it ask you when you are pushed back to a square where another opponent player can block you? |
_________________
 |
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 12:33 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | Does it ask you when you are pushed back to a square where another opponent player can block you? |
No it doesn't. Reason for that is that i think the times that case would appear would be much higher than the others and the amount of times you would like to go down in that case is low in %. |
|
|
|
|
| |
ramchop takes on the...
Search
