happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
 Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 00:58 |
 
|
There are number of items that "break" CRP rules but were done on purpose for various reasons. They were debated by the testing team and most are in the release notes (check the section called "Limitations and Rules Interpretations"). That is a handy thing to check before posting to this thread.
It's not a complete list, lacking for instance my own personal wish: that diving tackle could be used on any dodge as per CRP. It can only be used in the client on dodges that it would cause failure on. This elminiates many popups and is "probably a good thing", but in CRP you could have a diving tackle player who get away from base-contact (tents, even!) or move one space in a desired direction by diving after a dodge for "no reason" - which you can't do in the client. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 01:24 |
|
| happygrue wrote: | | This elminiates many popups and is "probably a good thing", but in CRP you could have a diving tackle player who get away from base-contact (tents, even!) or move one space in a desired direction by diving after a dodge for "no reason" - which you can't do in the client. |
Uh nice one. New possibilities of Jump Up&Diving Tackle combo appear before my eyes  |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 01:29 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: |
Uh nice one. New possibilities of Jump Up&Diving Tackle combo appear before my eyes |
As a Slann player from table top, I was quite sad to see this lacking from FUMBBL, as I used it once every few games, sometimes to very good effect. 
But I think I'm probably one of a very few people who wish it was an option! Mostly it's probably for the best that we don't have another popup asking a silly question. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 02:48 |
|
It's tough...from a computer game design perspective it's bad to have skill use checks at all.
From a tabletop perspective it's not possible to use a skill without declaring it. BB uses the least intrusive way for how the declaration is to be made, which is whenever it gets relevant. Basically the very design is build to not interfere with the flow of the game.
So because that design has the opposite effect on a computer it makes a lot of sense to deviate from the board game. At least whenever the skill change is not too intrusive for the game.
If we were to ever build an entirely computer based version of the game we should probably discard default skill optionality alltogether.
I can't think of a skill right now that absolutely needs optionality. Diving Tackle doesn't. Shadowing doesn't. In fact it would probably add debth to the game if you could use those skills against their owners.
With skills like Stand Firm and Fend I think they would need to be improved a bit to compensate for lack of optionality. |
|
|
NerdBird
Joined: Apr 08, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 03:42 |
|
I hate to bring this up but a simple solution to this is to add options for your team if something should be automatic or not. COnsidering the team build options I could see changing this setting....something similar to what cyanide does. 
If you wanted the game to be uber-quick with minimal impact you could check all skills as automatic. Otherwise a dialog box would pop up. I am also of the mindset all skills should have a 10 second window to make your choice or not, otherwise it goes to a default choice. It would force a person to pay more attention to the game to see if they want to Stand Firm, Side Step, Fend, etc, etc..... |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 04:07 |
|
| NerdBird wrote: | I hate to bring this up but a simple solution to this is to add options for your team if something should be automatic or not. COnsidering the team build options I could see changing this setting....something similar to what cyanide does.
|
Cyanide has all skills optional now? Very progressive.
The idea was discussed upon implementation. The reason why Kalimar went for the current way was because choice optionality would inevitably lead to everyone turning everything automated off in a competetive environment. Which then would end up interfering with the gameing experience.
Also he said that it would be a lot of extra work.
There is also the matter of the sequencing of optional skills which isn't always clear.
Since you can use skills at any given time that also means you should be able to use skills in response to other skill uses. If done right it would be very messy. |
|
|
Silent_Hastati
Joined: Nov 04, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 04:52 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | NerdBird wrote: | I hate to bring this up but a simple solution to this is to add options for your team if something should be automatic or not. COnsidering the team build options I could see changing this setting....something similar to what cyanide does.
|
Cyanide has all skills optional now? Very progressive. |
BB1 had every optional skill actually optional.. if you dug into nested menus in the splash screens and changed them to "ask". BB2 has it similar to fumbbl, where it only asks where "appropriate", such as block dice dodges in the wide zones.
I feel the BB1 system was actually, Cyanide abortion of a UI aside, superior to what FUMBBL has, as it allows a coach to chose exactly how micro he wanted to get. But that would require both a site AND client overhaul to get functioning, so it's perhaps a pipe dream. |
_________________
 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 05:24 |
|
Anyone knows where the final list of skill optionality is? I'll add it to the first post.
| Wreckage wrote: | I can't think of a skill right now that absolutely needs optionality. Diving Tackle doesn't. Shadowing doesn't. In fact it would probably add debth to the game if you could use those skills against their owners.
With skills like Stand Firm and Fend I think they would need to be improved a bit to compensate for lack of optionality. |
Aren't these 4 skills optional? Except for the DT thing mentioned earlier, it always asks for the other 3. |
_________________
 |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 05:48 |
|
| zakatan wrote: |
Aren't these 4 skills optional? Except for the DT thing mentioned earlier, it always asks for the other 3. |
Yes. Those skills are all optional in the client. I was talking about a special version of the LRB for the needs of a computer game and whether it was necessary for a skill to be optional. And I concluded that it wasn't. |
Last edited by Wreckage on %b %26, %2015 - %05:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 05:49 |
|
| SzieberthAdam wrote: |
* NO: Using Inducements in One-off/Non-league Tournament Play |
I don't quite understand what you mean by that |
_________________
|
|
sheepycollins
Joined: Sep 21, 2015
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 09:01 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | It's tough...from a computer game design perspective it's bad to have skill use checks at all.
From a tabletop perspective it's not possible to use a skill without declaring it. BB uses the least intrusive way for how the declaration is to be made, which is whenever it gets relevant. Basically the very design is build to not interfere with the flow of the game.
So because that design has the opposite effect on a computer it makes a lot of sense to deviate from the board game. At least whenever the skill change is not too intrusive for the game.
If we were to ever build an entirely computer based version of the game we should probably discard default skill optionality alltogether.
I can't think of a skill right now that absolutely needs optionality. Diving Tackle doesn't. Shadowing doesn't. In fact it would probably add debth to the game if you could use those skills against their owners.
With skills like Stand Firm and Fend I think they would need to be improved a bit to compensate for lack of optionality. |
Not giving options on skills would lead to massive abuse, like an ag6 player able to put every diving tackle player on the floor by dodging past them still on a 2+ |
_________________
Things I like and things I hate? I don't feel like telling you that. My dreams for the future? Never really thought about that. As for my hobbies... I have lots of hobbies. |
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 09:55 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | SzieberthAdam wrote: |
* NO: Using Inducements in One-off/Non-league Tournament Play |
I don't quite understand what you mean by that |
CRP, Page 32:
---
Using Inducements in One-off/Non-league Tournament Play
Commissioners of one-off games can choose to allow inducements to be purchased as a permanent part of each team's roster.
The commissioner should be clear which inducements are allowed and which are not.
For example, a commissioner could specify for an upcoming event that the Inducements options for Star Players, Bloodweiser Babes, Wandering Apothecaries, Igor, the Wizard and the Master Chef will be allowed as purchasable permanent components of the team for all matches played during the event, but that no other inducements can be purchased as a permanent part of the team.
---
We do this on NAF tourneys, but as a workaround you have to keep your cash in treasury and write the inducement in the BIO.
To the optional (off-)topic: This has been debated deeply before and this topic should not get sidetracked with it. This topic is about what are the differences, not wheter they are good or bad. |
_________________
  
Last edited by SzieberthAdam on %b %26, %2015 - %20:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
Vesikannu
Joined: Mar 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 10:32 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | - Re-throwing bombs doesn't trigger Pass block
|
Should it? |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 15:41 |
|
You can't foul on a Blitz! kickoff result in the client. |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
arry
Joined: Feb 26, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 26, 2015 - 17:06 |
|
Another difference in client:
| Quote: | | If a player is stunned and then gets hit on their own turn e.g. by a Fanatic or Bomb and the player’s armour is not broken, they do not revert to being prone. They stay stunned. If the armour is broken and a stunned result is rolled, the player will not roll over at the end of their turn, but will miss the next turn. |
From here, search for Stunned Players. |
|
|
|
|
War Drums?
Search
