FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:25

So, I got two Fenders in my Necromantic team, and it has started to annoy me to push yes all the time when fending. So I was gonna propose here that all FENDing except when being FRENZYied is an auto yes.

The only time when the "follow uper" would follow up when being allowed is when he got the chance to PO and the FEND would like him prone there to FOUL.

This is the time the auto fend could be bad. When a cronic POer plays vs a cronic Fouler.

Can anybody see any other times the auto fend might be bad.

But to help this case I came up with a small Nerf for PO (it might have been discussed before).

"When a player has the PO skill, he has to use it whenever he has the chance."

That will be a small nerf of the skill. It wont reduce the killingness of it, but inhance it and reduce placement even more. Then the client could ask for fend if opponent has Frenzy or PO.

All good?

the_Sage

Joined: Jan 13, 2011

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:27

lol so you want to change PO so that your autofend suggestion is no longer an issue.

I actually kind of like the PO suggestion (though does that mean you PO when you used Mb to break armor and roll a KO on injury?), but don't like your logic at all.

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:28

New Fend rule and PO rule is good! is should be are... Sorry for that!

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:29

the_Sage wrote:

lol so you want to change PO so that your autofend suggestion is no longer an issue.

I actually kind of like the PO suggestion (though does that mean you PO when you used Mb to break armor and roll a KO on injury?), but don't like your logic at all.

Exactly, It makes the skill worse, and less precices.

Whats wrong with my logic? =)

Dan-Da-Man

Joined: May 14, 2012

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:29

One thing i like from cyanide game is that in the option screen you can set your skills to always ask yes or no on most skills.

_________________

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:31

That would be cool to set a script in your own teams.

if Frenzy
Fend ASK

and so on

the_Sage

Joined: Jan 13, 2011

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:32

BooAhl wrote:

the_Sage wrote:

lol so you want to change PO so that your autofend suggestion is no longer an issue.

I actually kind of like the PO suggestion (though does that mean you PO when you used Mb to break armor and roll a KO on injury?), but don't like your logic at all.

Exactly, It makes the skill worse, and less precices.

Whats wrong with my logic? =)

Your logic is that to change something insignificant (rules wise) about how the client handles decisions for you about your skill, you want to drastically change the opponent's skill. The importance of your goal does not warrant the extent of your proposed rule change at all.

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:37

the_Sage wrote:

BooAhl wrote:

the_Sage wrote:

lol so you want to change PO so that your autofend suggestion is no longer an issue.

I actually kind of like the PO suggestion (though does that mean you PO when you used Mb to break armor and roll a KO on injury?), but don't like your logic at all.

Exactly, It makes the skill worse, and less precices.

Whats wrong with my logic? =)

Your logic is that to change something insignificant (rules wise) about how the client handles decisions for you about your skill, you want to drastically change the opponent's skill. The importance of your goal does not warrant the extent of your proposed rule change at all.

I agree that I sold it badly,
I started out by being annoyed, and then I fund a solution which included a nerf for the PO skill. Small problems solving bigger ones and making the game faster.

Win+win+win

finsterface

Joined: Apr 29, 2012

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:37

i think vs. a frenzy-player you might want to force him (by not using fend) to follow-up, if that makes his +2db a +1db or even -2db due to your positioning, if he rolled a pushback on his 1st frenzy-block...

...same might apply to cases on the sidelines where you want the frenzy-player to follow-up to be able to surf him on your turn.

...these occasions don't happen to often, but it would take away from the game imo to loose them completely.

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:38

finsterface wrote:

i think vs. a frenzy-player you might want to force him (by not using fend) to follow-up, if that makes his +2db a +1db or even -2db due to your positioning, if he rolled a pushback on his 1st frenzy-block...

...same might apply cases on the sidelines where you want the frenzy-player to follow-up to be able to surf him on your turn.

...these occasions don't happen to often, but it would take away from the game imo to loose them completely.

So you think a pop-up window should be used when a frenzy player blocks/blitzes a fend player? Interesting...

Garion

Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:41

I think its fine as is. it serves people right for taking fend Razz

_________________

finsterface

Joined: Apr 29, 2012

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 11:44

BooAhl wrote:

So you think a pop-up window should be used when a frenzy player blocks/blitzes a fend player?

sorry for not directly answering your question: no, i think a window should *always* ask whether you want to use fend because there are instances where i don't want to use it and i don't want to nerf fend by taking away this choice.
my examples were just some (rather obvious) examples, there might exist others not involving a frenzy-player, which i'm just to dull to see atm.

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 12:03

I don't think you could set an auto (for everyone) with this skill.

Let's say for instance that it's T15-16 and your guy that got hit is 2 spp away from getting a skill. You can move an assist up, you'll want to say no right? So you can have the chance to get the skill.

Or You get hit and your guy goes down. The player following up has blitzed and if he follows up, he is moving away from your ball carrier, which incidentally takes him out of range of your ball carrier.

Or in a similar situation, if the hitter follows up, this blocks off a route to your ball carrier, where it wouldn't if he didn't.

There's just 3 examples a script wouldn't be able to accommodate for or predict.

BooAhl

Joined: Sep 02, 2004

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 12:10

harvestmouse wrote:

Let's say for instance that it's T15-16 and your guy that got hit is 2 spp away from getting a skill. You can move an assist up, you'll want to say no right? So you can have the chance to get the skill.

Why would you follow up? To get hurt?

harvestmouse wrote:

Or You get hit and your guy goes down. The player following up has blitzed and if he follows up, he is moving away from your ball carrier, which incidentally takes him out of range of your ball carrier.

Again why follow up in this case?

harvestmouse wrote:

Or in a similar situation, if the hitter follows up, this blocks off a route to your ball carrier, where it wouldn't if he didn't.

And again? Why? Answer why you would follow up in any of these cases, dont ask why you would choose to fend or not.

If you get the opportuity to follow up, people usually thinks an extra time, why he/she is allowed to follow up and then 99.99999% he/she dosn´t follow up. My idea just saves time, and pop-up windows which cost alot of energy...

harvestmouse

Joined: May 13, 2007

Posted: Jul 04, 2013 - 12:16

Simple, people make mistakes.

In example 1 there maybe a tactical reason for doing this also.

There will be more complex scenarios where coaches won't agree on whether or not following up is the best idea.

Another example would be following up a player onto the sideline. There are many scenarios there, where it isn't clear whether it would be beneficial or not.