pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
 Posted:
May 10, 2012 - 21:19 |
 
|
This might sound stupid, so I hope I word it correctly...
Pressing 'no' on fend seems like a matter of confidence in one's coaching abilities.
In most cases, I assume both players see the board the same way, because the game state is obvious. So I can also assume that if I want the blocker to follow up, the blocking coach sees it the same way, and would refuse to follow up anyway.
If the blocker would follow up when I *want* him to follow up, then he's seeing the game differently, correct? He sees advantage where I see disadvantage. So, I have to ask myself: do I think I've outsmarted this coach? Am I seeing something he isn't?
Because I'm a rather rubbish coach, I tend to assume my opponent sees things better than I do. So even when I would like a follow up, I hit 'yes' on fend. If the follow up would be disadvantageous, nothing has changed, because he wouldn't have followed anyway. If the follow would give him an advantage that I simply don't see, then I've taken it away.
Doesn't really address the point of client timing of popups, and I don't have any interest in rules lawyering, other people are better at that than I am. I've thought about the yes/no on fend quite a bit though, and thought I'd share  |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2012 - 21:28 |
|
| WhatBall wrote: |
Was waiting for Goo to respond to stej.  |
I live to give! 
Although, I need to be less obvious.... Fend is great?! |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2012 - 21:55 |
|
| Hitonagashi wrote: | Chaos warrior with clawbomb pows my zombie with Fend. If he follows up, he's in the TZ of a Golem who can MB faceplant him....
I choose not to use Fend, because I want that CW in my TZ, even if I don't get the chance to faceplant him due to a PO. |
Cool, so he can blitz stand-up and clawbomb your, now AV7, important positional blocker next turn. Sounds smart to me. Maybe I would click "no" if he followed up into a scrum of DP zombies, but your example doesn't seam too smart to me. |
Last edited by RedDevilCG on %b %10, %2012 - %22:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2012 - 21:59 |
|
Now I've read the thread properly, I think it's right as is for four reasons;
a) Pubstar above is right. Even if you switched the order around, the board is the same for both players and the action of having to make a decision every time prompts the players to assess what the consequences are
b) There are many more times where you'd use the skill than not. Multiplying the number of pop-ups by ten isn't helpful. I was in the 'Ask me if I want to use Dodge every time' camp, but I can see why people hated the idea. I like how that's turned out
c) Think how it would work on a board. You'd ask the guy (for instance with Fend, or using push-POW to push a guy into surf range who has the Dodge skill) if he's using the skill in that circumstance, not every circumstance, or you'd be hyper annoying. Yes, this leads to heightened awareness of why they shouldn't use the skill, but it's just the natural order of things. The guy would likely move the player in position, then back, see what he liked best, then make the right call
d) I hate rules lawyering. There must be 101 things in the rules one could argue over in this way; it works fine as is, is probably implemented as intended, so it's not worth going over it in huge depth |
|
|
johnnih
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2012 - 22:05 |
|
Hito: Yeah, I see your point that the coaches can have different motives giving way to situations where you may prefer not to use fend - even if he wants to follow up. I missed that.
What Chainsaw is getting at is relying on your opponent to make a mistake, which I didn't want to account for as I assumed a competent opponent. In regards to this, I maintain that taking away the choice is the right thing to do. The only times it wouldn't be is A. what Hito touched on, B: when following up is a mistake and your opponent choses to anyway.
I guess you could "mix up" your strategy if you want to play the mind game, but really, I don't think you gain that much from "hunting mistakes".
pythrr: I agree, which is why I excluded frenzy players from the equation. |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 03:34 |
|
Wow, what "nose in the air" community members we have here!
People often do *not* see the board in the same way. There's many permutations on how a turn may unfold, and a follow up may or may not change how both players handle their subsequent moves. Talk about oversimplifying a matter...
Look, this is not for the *general* case of fend, which is "yes I want to fend". If that were true, then why bother with the dialog at all? Just auto-fend in all cases except frenzy. You'll save everybody time.
This is for the exceptional cases, those where the next moves may not be so obvious, where there's just enough space or just enough guard that a follow up is critical to different ways of playing the same turn. I've played enough coaches to know that there's plenty of different approaches and few/none that would play identically in every situation.
So do yourselves a favour, throw out the 95% fend cases and think about it a bit.
Also, if speed is your issue, consider that this may end up being quicker. If you know that it is a very obvious fend, maybe you'll just decline the follow up and be able to play without waiting for the opposing player to choose fend. So you can speed play your turns for the most part and let the client do the work when there's a bit of thinking involved.
Or is Blood Bowl so simple that those situations don't exist and no moves ever need thinking about, just executing? I was under the impression that there are near limitless scenarios given that you may have 1-11 players on the pitch with all manner of skills and movement and strength. I thought that, together with the random pain, was part of the beauty of the game, that no two games were identical.
Guess I'm playing a different board game to y'all. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 04:01 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: | | d) I hate rules lawyering. There must be 101 things in the rules one could argue over in this way; it works fine as is, is probably implemented as intended, so it's not worth going over it in huge depth |
I agree, I hate rules lawyering. However, I run into this situation with fend nearly every game I play in my teams with fend. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 08:37 |
|
I think you're over thinking it, to be honest. I just can't practically see your point of view, it seems so..... Forced?
Still, if you're so bothered about it, I suppose you can make a TFF thread and see if one of the active ex BBRC members agree with you. I do worry about doing that for every little thing, mind, after all, ex is ex, you'll just get one man's opinion and a bundle of noise. |
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 09:42 |
|
This discussion have been up previously with the big "optionality discussion" that was had early during the beta-testing of FFB.
Kalimar wanted fend to always be on except against frenzy, but there were people arguing that Optionality might be the better thing.
I agree with how it is implemented now, there might be cases where you don't want to fend and your opponent might want to follow up. It can be related to TD-distances, crowding spaces that you need to run through, or maximizing chances for a specific outcome.
Depending on your playstyle, some prefer to go in close to your opponent and tie them up, while others would play a more loose style with surgical strike blitzes in the same scenario.
Some might want to follow up for piling on, while others might want to stay safe with their player standing and save a spot for fouling the downed player instead.
If everyone saw the playingfield the same way, everyone would have a 50% win record.
And the skill is implemented in the right order, if you use fend, then the opponent cannot follow up, so then he don't get to choose if he can follow up or not.
It would be stupid to have someone make a choise of following up and then cancel that followup by using the skill. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 10:11 |
|
Just to comment on the ‘seeing the board the same way’ point which seems to have been lost in translation somewhere, so to speak. Of course, coaches make different decisions. It’s a series of such decisions that leads to winning or losing. That’s not in question. What I think Pubstar meant (and I agree with) is that it doesn’t matter where the pop-up comes in this sequence of events (do you want to use Fend? / Do you want to follow up?), it focusses the mind of both coaches and they assess the same decision together, looking at the same space on the screen, asking the same question; what’s best for me? ‘He is following up, do I use Fend?’ Is no different a situation to ‘Do I use Fend, perhaps he’ll follow up…’ when you’re looking at the field of play excluding any sort of order of decision.
Of course, there is an argument that the way that it is currently signals to the blocker that the blockee wants him to follow up. But turn it on it’s head, do we want a situation where a coach is lazy and mindlessly clicks ‘follow’ every block, only to get caught out in that one situation Fend isn't used? That would be rubbish (although, I suspect the pop-up always focusses the mind and the decision would be made the same way – just with more pop-ups).
Either way – I suppose what I’m saying (I haven’t time to write a short post…) is that I believe the effect of switching the order wouldn’t change a coach that’s thinking about the situation’s decision; and no-one wants to win because their opponent has gotten pop-up blind, or missclicks, or whatever. You want to win because you’ve made the decisions better. |
|
|
lordofchange
Joined: Apr 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 12:16 |
|
Another tiny winy note on the end. I like using fend on a blitzer that has only just managed to reach me because they use the movement to throw the block, now if they want to follow up they have to GFI, not a great advantage but once or twice has floored an opposing player |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2012 - 17:56 |
|
| Lakrillo wrote: | And the skill is implemented in the right order, if you use fend, then the opponent cannot follow up, so then he don't get to choose if he can follow up or not.
It would be stupid to have someone make a choise of following up and then cancel that followup by using the skill. |
No it wouldn't! Somebody attempts to follow up and you fend them off! If they're not attempting the follow up, then you have nothing to fend. That makes perfect sense. In fact, it makes more sense than the current order where the fend is done before a follow up is even attempted. How can you prevent somebody moving toward you, if they are not actually moving?
We can argue which order makes the most sense all day, it doesn't help or isn't really relevant.
The point is, the benefit of saying 'no' to fend is only really there if your opponent has telegraphed what he wants to do. Otherwise you're conceding the choice to them, and hoping they make the choice you want them to make. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 12, 2012 - 06:12 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | | If they're not attempting the follow up, then you have nothing to fend. |
This.
Also, allowing your opponents to make a "mistake" is a large portion of the tactics of the game. |
|
|
RedDevilCG
Joined: Jan 09, 2010
|
| Posted:
May 12, 2012 - 23:03 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: |
The point is, the benefit of saying 'no' to fend is only really there if your opponent has telegraphed what he wants to do. Otherwise you're conceding the choice to them, and hoping they make the choice you want them to make. |
Not really. You're ignoring the case where you want to fend no matter what he chooses. In that case you couldn't care less what your opponent actually wants. There's no hoping, your decision was made based on a strategy that involved fending no matter what.
You click fend, and be done with it. No waiting around tapping your foot while he decides if he wants to follow up or not. |
Last edited by RedDevilCG on %b %12, %2012 - %23:%May; edited 2 times in total |
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 12, 2012 - 23:06 |
|
How many people in this thread actually take fend? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Learning BB in YouTu...
Search
