Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 12:47 |
 
|
Thats true, the way it works now works for me, it was much too often prior to the new release. I love it all. We just need wizards and I'm happy. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 12:55 |
|
| Lakrillo wrote: | | 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 %. |
Didn't you know? We'll soon be overrun with block/tackle/MB/Claw/PO players to get pushed back into.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 13:42 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Lakrillo wrote: | | 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 %. |
Didn't you know? We'll soon be overrun with block/tackle/MB/Claw/PO players to get pushed back into. |
So. Pushbacked against a player who have tackle and either MB or has claw and you are 8+ in AV and the current player does not have claw or MB.
Doable to code, but a bit fiddly. Is it really worth it? |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 13:50 |
|
The thing is: there are million of other possibilities when a pushback sgould be avoided. The way you guys implemented it at the moment is completely reasonable and should cover 80% or more of the possibilities, but one could always find another one.
e.g. chainpush for TD when it is not a oneturner
e.g. surf from more than 2 squares away of sideline (chainpush-surf)
e.g. fall down to block a certain square
This means imo exist the following options:
a) forget dodge optionality. dodge is auto-used. It´s FFB and not another match and dodge is good enough.
b) leave the implementation as it is. it is reasonable.
c) make dodge always optional. this would be annoying.
d) find a smart-smart system where people can switch their skill-optionality settings on and off during opponents turn or sth. similar
((e)) try to mfind all situation where it should be optional and ask then. this is, as i argued, probably impossible
i could live with everything except c. d would be my favourite but probably damn difficult to do. b) is completely fine for me.
By the way i love the new client!
Reis. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 13:54 |
|
I agree, if people want it optional for majors etc then fair enough, but it doesnt really matter enough to slow the game down as much as it was. |
_________________
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 13:58 |
|
| Reisender wrote: |
e.g. chainpush for TD when it is not a oneturner
e.g. surf from more than 2 squares away of sideline (chainpush-surf)
e.g. fall down to block a certain square
|
We are already allowing optional dodge on all chainpushed, so case 1 and 2 is already covered.
Last one is very limited i would say. You don't know WHERE you are going to get blocked before deciding and standing in that square would block it as much, unless your opponent can use you standing there to blitz himself through a line of players...
But then on the other hand we are out to look for really extreme cases. I believe our current solution solves at least 90% of the cases where you would not want to use dodge.
Which is also the reason i ask, please find a gap in my logics.  |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 14:43 |
|
hmmm true i see my examples were not that good. Let me repeat, in my eyes its fine as it is now, but IF you want to look for extreme cases let me change my examples a bit and describe them more accurately
e.g. chainpush for TD when it is not a oneturner
-> chainpush TD sequence may include "normal" pushes (means: pushes that are not chainpushes). e.g. you push an opponent one square to prepare your chainpush.
e.g. surf from more than 2 squares away of sideline
-> also may include "normal" pushes - you push a guy one square, then your frenzied guy blitzes him two push him 2 more squares.
e.g. fall down to block a certain square
-> happens sometimes especially with sidestep.
However, i think you are right that aprox. 90% are covered already (i said 80%, but whatever, it is covered in most cases). As i said, not really important to implement more. Dodge is good enough. Important was to implement optionality with e.g. stand firm, would have been crap without optionality (foul danger!) and is now nicely implemented. |
|
|
t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 15:10 |
|
Without acctually reading all the posts in this thread i have to agree with OP. Playability must be the priority and besides the idea of optional dodge is stupid within the fiction and ultimately removes some of the fantastic feeling of the game setting.
Why is it stupid? For optional dodge (thats what im focusing on) to make sense the player would have to choose to turn it of before dice are rolled i.e. moving slow and sluggish below his capacity as to be easier to block.
Besides if a switch to dodge that prevents a player from being blocked by the MB,Claw,PO monster in the second stage is the target here, i demand to see the new player action "lay down" that immediately makes a player prone without causing a turnover. After all, if dodgy players can choose to go down when blocked theres no logical reason they cant when not being blocked. |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 15:22 |
|
| t0tem wrote: | | After all, if dodgy players can choose to go down when blocked theres no logical reason they cant when not being blocked. |
Ever watched italians play football?  |
|
|
t0tem
Joined: Mar 29, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 15:27 |
|
| Lakrillo wrote: | | t0tem wrote: | | After all, if dodgy players can choose to go down when blocked theres no logical reason they cant when not being blocked. |
Ever watched italians play football? |
|
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 15:41 |
|
I am SUPER happy that the Dodge optionality was changed. In the games I played with it, i hated playing with or against players with dodge. It was a right pain in the ass.
We have to remember that this is FFB online, not TT BB. We should strive for accuracy, but in this case it is better to concede a very small point that will rarely come up. Learn to play with it as is.
| Reisender wrote: | This means imo exist the following options:
a) forget dodge optionality. dodge is auto-used. It´s FFB and not another match and dodge is good enough.
b) leave the implementation as it is. it is reasonable.
c) make dodge always optional. this would be annoying.
d) find a smart-smart system where people can switch their skill-optionality settings on and off during opponents turn or sth. similar
((e)) try to mfind all situation where it should be optional and ask then. this is, as i argued, probably impossible |
B is the only choice for me here. A requires recoding, waste of time. C is a HUGE pain, and slows the game and flow considerably. D & E would be a pain and require more programming.
It works well now, anymore time spent on 'fixing' dodge is wasted time that could have been spent on new Skills and bug fixes. The five skills and wizard are far more important to typical game play than choosing to fall down at some random point not involving a OTT chain push or a surf. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 15:43 |
|
I agree with Whatball, lets look to the future, im desperate for wizards and bombs to be implemented and ball and chain. |
_________________
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 15:55 |
|
I would hope that this houseruling of Dodge skill would be written up to some document. Is there a list for FUMBBL House Rules? |
|
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 16:05 |
|
@ there was a list "differences to the board game" in the old client. does not help for the new one though. i do not think there is a list now (developers can say) but i think it only makes sense to compile one after all skills are there and all decisions made.
however, the lsit can not be named "differences to the board game", as this is now FFB and not connected to any board game... |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2011 - 16:13 |
|
The other day me and Kalimar talked about putting this text somewhere under the help-menu in the client.
So it is on our todo list.
Reason for this post is that i wanted to know if i missed something really important.
Adding new cases to the code is not that hard, as long as they can be clearly stated what we are looking for. But this demands that we have some scenarios that would be worth to code.
Current code stops getting your players surfed and One turn scores from pushes. Which was the main request for having dodge optional. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
