18 coaches online • Server time: 06:42
* * * Did you know? The oldest player is debog with 649 games played.
Recent Forum Topics  Fumbbl and Android | Blood Bowl 2024 Edit... | Secret Stunty Cup - ... |
2009-04-25 16:27:41
35 votes, rating 3.3
35 votes, rating 3.3
What I want from Cyanide
I wonder if I'm in a minority - I have nearly no interest in playing the Cyanide BloodBowl game in turn based mode. Graphics for me are not that big a deal - Fumbbl is functional, but the game experience is as much about the coaches your playing and reacting to what they do. I don't need what'll in effect be cut scenes to change how and why I enjoy this game.
What I am interested in is how the game plays in a non-turn based form. There are more than a few rules in the game that I don't like how they feel, whilst understanding them as a game mechanic, for example:
-Blocks and dodges should occur simultaneously but that isn't practical
-GFIs shouldn't be fatal but they'd be abused if they weren't
-Halflings and Goblins probably shouldn't be able to intercept, but they'd be utterly useless if that were the case
-Too many long bombs fall from the passer's square, but if you have one dice to throw and one to catch, you're limited as to what can be done
I'm not complaining about the rules as I can't see a different way to do the rolls without making the game slower and more complex (pretty much a game design no-no). However, if Cyanide code the game correctly, it could be cool to see a Skaven team looking like the Minnesota Vikings 98 offence, whilst dwarves look like a mauling Rugby Union side, Khemri and Orcs feeling like the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Jerome Bettis days. Hell, I'd love to see an Elf team taking a running catch whilst driving a knee in to an opponents face a la Australian Rules! See about 4:45 here for an example (OK, he kills his team mate, but you can see what I'm driving at...)
I suspect the skills and stats would be radically different (a Wild Animal for instance would have high 'Aggression' but low 'awareness' and so would generally attack anyone within range without too much consideration of the tactical situation) so it would maybe alienate the hardcore fans, but I think it'd make for a much more interesting final product. It might also be a more friendly entry point to people new to the game.
The turn based version will almost certainly be a graphically beautiful version of LRB 5 - I'd just love it if they tried to do something adventurous with the live version and make it like buying two games based around the same idea. After all, there are things that a computer game can do that a board game can't
What I am interested in is how the game plays in a non-turn based form. There are more than a few rules in the game that I don't like how they feel, whilst understanding them as a game mechanic, for example:
-Blocks and dodges should occur simultaneously but that isn't practical
-GFIs shouldn't be fatal but they'd be abused if they weren't
-Halflings and Goblins probably shouldn't be able to intercept, but they'd be utterly useless if that were the case
-Too many long bombs fall from the passer's square, but if you have one dice to throw and one to catch, you're limited as to what can be done
I'm not complaining about the rules as I can't see a different way to do the rolls without making the game slower and more complex (pretty much a game design no-no). However, if Cyanide code the game correctly, it could be cool to see a Skaven team looking like the Minnesota Vikings 98 offence, whilst dwarves look like a mauling Rugby Union side, Khemri and Orcs feeling like the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Jerome Bettis days. Hell, I'd love to see an Elf team taking a running catch whilst driving a knee in to an opponents face a la Australian Rules! See about 4:45 here for an example (OK, he kills his team mate, but you can see what I'm driving at...)
I suspect the skills and stats would be radically different (a Wild Animal for instance would have high 'Aggression' but low 'awareness' and so would generally attack anyone within range without too much consideration of the tactical situation) so it would maybe alienate the hardcore fans, but I think it'd make for a much more interesting final product. It might also be a more friendly entry point to people new to the game.
The turn based version will almost certainly be a graphically beautiful version of LRB 5 - I'd just love it if they tried to do something adventurous with the live version and make it like buying two games based around the same idea. After all, there are things that a computer game can do that a board game can't
Comments
Posted by Purplegoo on 2009-04-25 16:48:55
Totally agree!
It would be lovely if they tried something new and fun with the non turn-based mode.
It would be lovely if they tried something new and fun with the non turn-based mode.
Posted by BroadAsImLong on 2009-04-25 17:05:58
non turn-based mode is new....
Posted by Purplegoo on 2009-04-25 18:54:43
From my understanding of the conversation I had with Cyanide staff this time last year at the GT, the non-turn based mode is more of a playing 'freeze, choose options, play on' thing than a Madden or live thing. They very painstakingly pointed out it was a second tactical option rather than a sports sim. Sounded exactly like the Chaos League system, which wouldn't be new.
I agree with ViolentSilence, a Madden-esq second mode would rock. I'm not a beta tester, and those that are aren't allowed to talk about it, so we'll see. ;)
I agree with ViolentSilence, a Madden-esq second mode would rock. I'm not a beta tester, and those that are aren't allowed to talk about it, so we'll see. ;)
Posted by Frankenstein on 2009-04-25 22:01:10
"-Halflings and Goblins probably shouldn't be able to intercept, but they'd be utterly useless if that were the case"
Whether they're able to intercept or not is hardly relevant at all, actually.
Whether they're able to intercept or not is hardly relevant at all, actually.
Posted by ViolentSilence on 2009-04-26 01:45:38
I've fluked two picks with halflings in 6 games - if you model the game realistically, they shouldn't even get that option. But the fact that the game lets me try for a pick means that every time I can, I'm going to try and place them in the throwing lane. Doesn't make any kind of sense, but hey if it works...
That's what was on my mind with that comment, that they ought to be utterly useless against the pass.
That's what was on my mind with that comment, that they ought to be utterly useless against the pass.
Posted by BroadAsImLong on 2009-04-26 20:16:42
who said it was a high pass or a low pass