pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
 Posted:
May 13, 2012 - 09:04 |
 
|
/7 african children have died in the making of this thread |
_________________
 |
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 01:42 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
Don't you apologise (although, the sarcasm-o-meter did take a reading there)! If people read undercurrents into posts that weren't there, that's their lookout. Apparently he's giving us so much credit that we have time to weave meanings in between the lines of forum posts about nerd board games. Who knew my life was so empty?
We've explained our perfectly reasonable point of view Chainsaw. If you're 'objecting', you're either doing it to artificially elongate the thread, or you just can't read.  |
Your sacasm-o-meter is indeed functional, as it concurs with mine.
People can object. It is a right to have an opinion, including opinions about opinions!
/last word dysfunction |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 02:31 |
|
I see it the same way as Chainsaw... Seems the aggressor (the blocker) should have to declare their desire to follow up before the defender should decide if he wishes to stop the follow up. (again if there's no follow up, what are you "fending" against). I don't think it's a huge issue, but I am rather stunned by the apparent belief of some that this is so "cut and dried". |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 03:41 |
|
Or maybe it is just not worth it to change the client for something that would be needed 1 out of 100 the times, and just be an annoyance 99 out of 100 times...
And do that for all the skills out there that can have the same situation... just not worth it... |
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 04:16 |
|
Theoretically, even accounting for differences of opinion on the correct play (and on the relative intelligence of their opponent), the order of the two decisions should still be both symmetric and irrelevant.
First, the symmetry: The blocker will follow up if and only if both coaches allow it. Both coaches are evaluating the same question "is a follow up good for the blocker?", and both coaches need to think they know better than the other. So at least up to that level of detail, the situation is symmetric - structurally there's no difference between the two orderings. Below then, I'm going to describe both the fending coach and the blocking coach as choosing whether to "allow the follow up", and talk about it from a perspective that could equally be either player.
Second, the irrelevance: When choosing whether to allow the follow up, both coaches should make that choice based on the assumption that their opponent will allow the follow up (even though in practice they usually won't). The reason is, if the opponent doesn't allow the follow up, then it doesn't matter what choice you make, so you might as well make the choice based on the case where your choice matters. An analogy would be a game show contestant choosing which prize to play for either at the start or the end of the show - either way they should make that choice on the assumption that they're going to win, because if they lose it doesn't matter. To put it another way, imagine both players made their choice in secret at the same time - in no circumstance should seeing the other coach's choice change a coach's decision.
Of course, the fact that people don't see the symmetry nor the irrelevance actually breaks that symmetry and adds relevance. In particular, while most people know to click "yes" to "use fend?", many people would choose "follow up" most of the time against fend, despite the fact that you should almost never do it. But now I can at least say anyone crazy enough to still be reading this thread knows why they should almost never follow up against fend, and that if they did they should make the decision as if their opponent has already chosen not to use fend. To me, gaining an advantage over people who haven't thought it through is adding extra learning curve not depth. It's adding opportunities for stupidity rather than clever plays. So I wouldn't personally see it as any sort of improvement.
I really don't understand the reasoning behind the client asking about fend and not asking about (for instance) tackle in the first place. The two situations seem almost identical to me. |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 04:30 |
|
| Irgy wrote: | | I really don't understand the reasoning behind the client asking about fend and not asking about (for instance) tackle in the first place. The two situations seem almost identical to me. |
Hardly. Tackle has absolutely NO downside, therefore the situations are completely unlike.
Using Fend is NOT as one-sided a decision. Fending/Following Up changes the game state. Yes, both coaches likely will evaluate the situation the same, however there is an additional variable that is unknown to the "Fend"er.. that variable is the remaining moves to be made by the Blocker/Blitzer's other players. It may seem like a great idea to allow a player to follow up (i.e. NOT use fend) in order to draw him into an assisted block next turn, however what the "Fend"er may not know is that the blocker plans to subsequently move 2 other players into adjacent positions. The Blocker knows this, the "Fend"er does not, which leads to a break in your "symmetry". |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 04:39 |
|
Tackle could have a downside... chain pushes any one... |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 04:54 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | Tackle could have a downside... chain pushes any one... |
I stand corrected (I was thinking of Tackle used when dodging away, not regarding the block dice). However the second portion of my previous post remains. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 05:09 |
|
Why would you think of dodging away when we are talking about a block/blitz situation...
Any way... I gave my thoughts on this subject, I hope Kalimar&Crew spend their time on some thing useful. |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 05:18 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | Why would you think of dodging away when we are talking about a block/blitz situation... |
Because it had escaped me that Tackle was ever optional in regards to blocks.
| Woodstock wrote: | | Any way... I gave my thoughts on this subject, I hope Kalimar&Crew spend their time on some thing useful. |
I agree it wouldn't/shouldn't be high priority, however if the game can be improved (opinions obviously vary) it should at least be considered. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 06:15 |
|
| Craftnburn wrote: | | Woodstock wrote: | | Why would you think of dodging away when we are talking about a block/blitz situation... |
Because it had escaped me that Tackle was ever optional in regards to blocks.
| Woodstock wrote: | | Any way... I gave my thoughts on this subject, I hope Kalimar&Crew spend their time on some thing useful. |
I agree it wouldn't/shouldn't be high priority, however if the game can be improved (opinions obviously vary) it should at least be considered. |
I don't think the majority sees this as an improvement... the spam of popups. Especially as it is only useful in those 1 out of 100 situations...
It is nice and all what you say and want... But think of what it actually means, and if the community benefits from it... So far I only read 'me me me me me me'. |
|
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 06:38 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | I don't think the majority sees this as an improvement... the spam of popups. Especially as it is only useful in those 1 out of 100 situations... |
Would there really be that many extra popups? Since it would replace the automatic Fend popups with Follow up popups, that's a wash. The only extra popups would be if you do choose to followup, then the Fend popup would activate. (according to some you don't want to followup against a Fend player anyway, so how often would the 2nd popup occur? As often as the Followups after a "non-fend" now?)
As it is now it's:
Push Arrow-Fend Popup-Followup Popup(if Not Fend-ed)
It would be:
Push Arrow-Followup Popup- Fend Popup(if followed up)
| Woodstock wrote: | | It is nice and all what you say and want... But think of what it actually means, and if the community benefits from it... So far I only read 'me me me me me me'. |
And this part is simply insulting for no reason. The whole discussion has been regarding the benefits (real or not) of the change in question. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 07:28 |
|
There would be extra pop ups: When making a choice, you always are going to choose what's best for you. So right now: Fend is first, because (usually) its going to be used. Thus, no need for a follow up pop up.
But if we change it: Follow up is first, and (usually) it's going to be used; so then Fend will also (usually) be used. Which is twice as many pop ups (in most cases).
I agree that technically it makes more sense to follow up and then fend. But for the vast majority of the time, I think it will simply cause one extra follow up pop up that will result in nothing since the fend will cancel it anyway. And I think (in the vast majority of cases) that even in the corner cases where it might matter, it probably isn't actually game changing (where game changing refers to who is going to win the match), and so saving the community time over the majority of cases seems more important to me, which means leaving it as is. |
|
|
Were_M_Eye
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 07:33 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | Yes, of course. because if we don't, children in africa will die. |
You are still not settling the issue of when you should chose fend. You are argueing about popups.
If it was TT would you allow your opponent to use fend after you declared that you will follow up? Would you say: "no, to late, have to declare it before i follow up". |
_________________
Zlurpcast, the third best blood bowl podcast in the world. |
|
Craftnburn
Joined: Jul 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 07:59 |
|
| Nelphine wrote: | | Which is twice as many pop ups (in most cases). |
Given the scarcity of Fend, I don't know that even "twice as many" is going to be a significant amount.
Furthermore I'm not sure that making assumptions such as "Follow up is...(usually)...going to be used" and "Fend will also (usually) be used" isn't diminishing the game in a small way. It seems to me that the client should make as few assumptions as possible. The Dodge popups are an obvious example of how it can be done well, but the two cases (Dodge and Fend) are hardly on the same level of frequency. I also think that the additional tactical possibilities would enhance the value of Fend and therefore be worth the slight increase in popups. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
