pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
 Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 08:27 |
 
|
| Were_M_Eye wrote: | | 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.
|
?? No. I am suggesting that children in africa will die. What has this to do with popups? |
_________________
 |
|
Were_M_Eye
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 08:35 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | Were_M_Eye wrote: | | 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.
|
?? No. I am suggesting that children in africa will die. What has this to do with popups? |
If we don't get this right, there will be no people left in Africa. |
_________________
Zlurpcast, the third best blood bowl podcast in the world. |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 10:10 |
|
It's only the thread killing kiddies. The right decision was made ages ago.  |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 10:13 |
|
| Were_M_Eye wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | | Were_M_Eye wrote: | | 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.
|
?? No. I am suggesting that children in africa will die. What has this to do with popups? |
If we don't get this right, there will be no people left in Africa. |
Indeed. Only rules lawyers and antelopes. |
_________________
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 10:40 |
|
| Craftnburn wrote: | | I also think that the additional tactical possibilities would enhance the value of Fend and therefore be worth the slight increase in popups. |
Maybe it would help if you elaborated a little on these claimed additional tactical possibilities? |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 10:45 |
|
| Craftnburn wrote: | | 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. |
100% agree, great points.
People here are arguing against this based on, "I can't be arsed with the pop ups." What next? Automatically select 'pow'? Get rid of that pop up as well. How many popups shall we get rid off because there is only a few cases where we want the choice?
I mean, the argument against seems to be, "I'd rather not bother with fend." Or, "I don't want the skill to be implemented this way because the pop ups will annoy me." Very negative.
What other skills shall we just gloss over because we can't be arsed with them and so few people use them? |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 10:56 |
|
Wow.
Bikeshedding at it's finest.
As it happens, I agree with the order change, but seriously, it's not worth this effort. There are *far* more important things to be done, and in any software project, there is *always* far more important things to be done.
Finished is a term only non-programmers use. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 12:02 |
|
| Hitonagashi wrote: | Wow.
Bikeshedding at it's finest.
As it happens, I agree with the order change, but seriously, it's not worth this effort. There are *far* more important things to be done, |
Indeed. Like saving the antelopes. |
_________________
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 12:05 |
|
Oh, and thanks Hito. I know have a term for what some of my colleagues do in committee meetings. Ha! |
_________________
|
|
Kalimar
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 12:11 |
|
From a logical point of view the original poster has it right, I think. Pushback first, then Fend. The reason FFB handles it like it does now is, that I had intended Fend originally to be auto-use, no choice involved (with the exception of a frenzied attack, perhaps). I've been convinced to do otherwise in a lengthy discussion back in the days.
However, I don't really like adding another "wait and see" cycle into the client. That is: attacker popup "Do you want to followup?" - defender waits - defender popup "Do you want to use fend?" - attacker waits - turn continues. One of the strengths of online play is that it is smooth and fast. So I had to (still have to) make some decisions sacrificing a 100% adaption of the rules (and full tactical possibilities) to playability. ALL these decisions are certainly up for debate. Can't make everyone happy all the times, I'm afraid.
That said, I could imagine changing it to a SIMULTANEOUS question to both attacker and defender with play continuing once both sides have answered. That is: attacker popup "Do you want to follow up?" and defender popup "Do you want to use Fend?" happening at the same time without one coach seeing the decision of the other until both have decided and the server continues the turn with the outcome of those decisions. This way there is a bit more dialog popup, but hopefully without slowing down the game.
If you think this is a good idea I will investigate how to go about this and see how much effort it is. Changing this for Fend however means changing it for Stand Firm as well. There might be even more of these combinations (needs looking into).
So what do you say? (we'll make this thread longer yet) |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 12:22 |
|
I'd say it's not another "wait and see" cycle.
The attacker is playing. He is the one making the choices. Currently it passes the choice over to the other player for every single fend. If the follow up were first, the attacker could opt to simply not follow up if he wants really smooth play or thinks the fend is obvious. It could easily lead to smoother games for experienced players.
If anything it is less "wait and see" for the playing experience that way around. Currently the active player must always "wait and see". |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
johnnih
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 14:03 |
|
I think chainsaw has a point. I don't believe that solution would slow down play significantly, and if you do agree it is the right one, it is probably preferable.
I also like the simultaneous choice option though. It is rather elegant. Something that could work here that wouldn't really do in TT.
Whatever the case, this should be given low priority, imo. Soo many more important stuff to take care off (the remaining skills for instance). |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 14:46 |
|
No one is denying he has a point.
People (including Kalimar) have just pointed out that is his point is a very minor one, and was considered (and rejected) in the client design. |
_________________
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 15:16 |
|
If I didn't know better I'd swear this whole thread was some sort of conspiracy to troll me.
From a game theory perspective, there is flat out no situation* where saying no to fend nor yes to follow-up against fend is correct. Let me spell out what's required in order for it to be correct anyway in practice:
1. It needs to be a close call (note that this also means it's not likely to make a big difference either way anyway).
2. The players need to have a different opinion on whether following up is correct. In particular, each player needs to believe the follow up is better for them.
3. Each player needs to believe the other player is so stupid that they will do worse on average when given a choice of two things rather than being forced to make a particular decision.
4. In fact, the opponent not just has to be belived to be stupid, but also to be arrogant, in that despite knowing that their opponent thinks they're stupid and will make the wrong choice, they persist in taking advantage of the choice their opponent has gone out of their way to give them.
5. Not one but both players need to believe this about each other at the same time.
Honestly if you think your opponent is that stupid and arrogant you shouldn't need this one extra incremental advantage over them anyway. Even after all that, the actual order still shouldn't make a difference, fend first, follow-up first or even simultaneous.
And why do so many people seem to think trying to follow up against fend is what they would do most of the time? It's like I'm in some strange crazy land. I thought people here knew what they were doing.
* When I say "no situation", there is two definite exceptions - co-operation and frenzy. However, in both these cases the order of asking the question is clearly irrelevant, so they're basically beside the point. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2012 - 15:40 |
|
I think there is indeed point missing occurring.
Viva la internet! |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
