LoxleyAndy
Joined: Sep 11, 2006
|
 Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 00:15 |
 
|
Barre wrote:
| Quote: |
Royston wrote:
| Quote: |
Wow the client looks really good. I love how it shows the dice rolls needed for success, this'll improve my game no end as I'll be able to see how stupid my action attempts are beforehand.
|
I certainly hope this does not stay in the client, know what you have to roll is half the skill of moving a player.. "whoops forget about prehensile tail did you... bad luck!"
|
IMHO, all coaches should be quite capable of calculating the probability of a single dice roll being successful, and this is just a handy time saver. The only way a knowledge of statistics really helps is when you know how these probabilities accumulate. The client won't tell you whether it's better to dodge past a player at 3+ or go round at the expense of two GFIs (2x 2+). It won't tell you what the probability of making two dodges in a row is given that you can re-roll at most one of them using dodge.
I welcome anything which will help us make fewer 'silly mistakes' and give advantage to the better tacticians/ staticians/ luckers. |
|
|
McVily
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 01:09 |
|
Damn.. How am I suppose to concentrate on my job after this 
Anyway, I personally don't care about those numbers, as I'll fail them anyway.  |
_________________
In Nuffle we trust |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 01:48 |
|
since someone mentions replays...
....may i make a suggestion of having chat logged within the replay as well? 
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 03:33 |
|
| Quote: | Q: <Rijssiej> Will the communication protocol be revealed so people could make their own client to work with the server?
A: Nope. I don't think so. I've been thinking about open sourcing the whole thing but not right now. I'm also worried about the intellectual properties of Games Workshop contained in the project. |
Will the fact that the game is in effect being played out on the Fumbbl server affect the legallity of the site? Does Christer have to own a copy of the game for each current match being played?
Oh, and if the game state is server side, will the clients still recieve the random seed to confirm the rolls? To avoid the 'admin client' comments.  |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 04:49 |
|
| Count_Von_Halseburg wrote: | | Q. I'm so totally up for being a tester. Can we make teams now ready for the big day? For example will the LRB5 division teams be the ones that are used or will it be a new division created for testers? |
Totally ignoring your question.... you're from Bristol! That must make 10-20 known Bath/Bristol BBers, we ought to form a league sometime |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Barre
Joined: Aug 09, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 04:56 |
|
| OzzyOrc wrote: | | If you get satisfaction out of beating an opponent because they forgot to check the skills on the guy next to them or they didn't notice the tackle zone on their guy then thats rather petty in my opinion. The pleasure in victory should come from beating an opponent who gave you his best game, not from beating them on a silly mistake. |
Petty?! If you are not aware of the skills on every opposing player and were they are on the field then you simply deserve to lose.
It's this type of error that often decides games and that's half of the strategy side of the game that's necessary, otherwise it then becomes just a dice off, yahtzee anyone?
IMO, "an opponent who gave you his best game", does not forget that my gobbo has diving tackle before he dodges off for the TD.
Note: That's probably a bad example because DT is an optional penalty to dodge, but it also reinforces the point of, you must know what skills each player has, when you start taking this need away from the game you are making lazy players better, and that should not be. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 05:07 |
|
| Barre wrote: | Petty?! If you are not aware of the skills on every opposing player and were they are on the field then you simply deserve to lose.
It's this type of error that often decides games and that's half of the strategy side of the game that's necessary, otherwise it then becomes just a dice off, yahtzee anyone? |
Yep, I'd equate a game decided by something as trivial as miscalculating a dodge roll to be about the same as playing yahtzee. Yahtzee does have tactics.... just really really easy ones equivalent to calculating a dodge roll.
Mostly it will be relatively new players who would benefit from this, often they just arent used to the rules so its confusing for them to interpret the pitch positions and odds. Making individual dodge rolls visible makes BB that little bit more accessible to newer players. I think thats a good thing*
*and frankly if you're losing to people who are struggling with the rules of the game you probably deserve to lose even more badly than your opponent does  |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Barre
Joined: Aug 09, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 05:49 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Making individual dodge rolls visible makes BB that little bit more accessible to newer players. I think thats a good thing* |
Yep I agree, and something like this would be great in Academy (which has been mentioned many times already). Main stream play needs to remain unassisted for decision making though, make it easier to use the UI for sure, but decision making should remain as is.
As for yahtzee, sure it has tactics, at a very minute level, do we want this for a bloodbowl client? |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 05:59 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Mostly it will be relatively new players who would benefit from this, often they just arent used to the rules so its confusing for them to interpret the pitch positions and odds. Making individual dodge rolls visible makes BB that little bit more accessible to newer players. I think thats a good thing* |
which is exactly why they should be in [A] learning the game, and why showing rolls should be enabled in [A]...
but not everywhere else, where coaches should know how to play already...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 06:19 |
|
| Quote: | | As for yahtzee, sure it has tactics, at a very minute level, do we want this for a bloodbowl client? |
No, we dont. Which is exacly why this kind of feature is good. It does all the ridiculously trivial stuff for you leaving coaches to focus on the actual game.
I'd probably turn it off as an unnecessary distraction but I would still appreciate it because its going to speed up some peoples play. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 06:57 |
|
Its a question of where you draw the line.
Previously, a person had to evaluate dodge rolls and make the decision of where to dodge. Now a computer can do that for you. Do you take that work away from the player?
Previously , a person had to evaluate the player locations and decide which player next to move. Tomorrow a computer may be able to do that for you. Do you take that away from the player too?
Lets just reduce it to the toin coss. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 09:38 |
|
I could have been swayed to accept the dodging target, but passing including range, TZs, FA and sun? It reduces the awareness needed in the game. Not a good thing in my opinion.
And this one mistake of not checking for skills most of the time doesn`t cost you the game, but rather hands an advantage to your opponent - a fair punishment. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 09:46 |
|
Does it really matter either way? Really?
Certainly not at this early stage of development, I'd venture.
I missed a DT yesterday and fell over like a chump, on TT the other guy would have reminded me before I rolled the die and I'dve stolen the ball some other way. Didn't effect the result one jot, thankfully. People forget stuff online all the time, I just see it as a difference from the boardgame like scoring on OFAB or whatever. I neither agree that we're too elite and awesome to expect a client to tell us what we're doing, or that newcomers should be pampered as they might not know the rules. Either way it falls is fine with me.
In a scrum in the middle of the field, who here doesn't select a player some days, get ready to block, and think 'Crap, that's only one blue box, how's that only 1D? Ahhh, Guard there on that Troll with his skills off the bottom of the page... Sneaky! Glad I didn't just do that...'.
I'd venture not many. And if I'm the only one, I'm clearly less l33t than you guys.
(I'm also interested to see BigC would like us to delare actions like Pass before we do them, again, I'm easy either way, but it will certainly change dynamics a little! ) |
|
|
easilyamused
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 10:27 |
|
/me starts to twitch uncontrolably
thanks for all your hardwork and roll on alpha testing  |
_________________
 |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2009 - 11:34 |
|
| Quote: | Q: <Rijssiej> Will the communication protocol be revealed so people could make their own client to work with the server?
A: Nope. I don't think so. I've been thinking about open sourcing the whole thing but not right now. I'm also worried about the intellectual properties of Games Workshop contained in the project. |
I don't understand this. Surely, nothing in the "communication protocol" can be an IP belonging to Games Workshop?
Just releasing the protocol, without anything else, would allow alternative projects to develop their own client, maybe for each platform. We could have a Lynx-like client, or a HD one with fancy graphics, even 3D would be possible. And you wouldn't have to release your own source code if you don't want to (which is a shame, even if your decision is entirely yours and completely worthy of respect).
In any case, congratulations for your work, i'm looking forward to testing it. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
|
|
| |
TSC Draft
Search
