| Author |
Message |
mikeyc222 |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 07:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
i'm sure there are many more who think it's fine the way it is. on these boards i generally find far more people saying it's ok the way it is then those who say it needs to change "to make more sense."
sorry, your reasons just don't hold up for me.
and yes, zombie, interceptions would be more rare if you rolled the pass first. let's just say that you have an AG3 thrower in 3 tackle zones trying to make a short pass to get rid of the ball. currently, the opposing coach would have a 1/6 chance of making an interception. if you change the rules to make the pass roll first, the thrower has a 1/3 chance to acually not fumble the ball. this translates to something like a 1/9 chance of an interception...in what way would that not make them even more rare? |
_________________
Because everything in life is just another Dumb Distraction!
http://www.dumbdistraction.com
Free the West Memphis 3!
http://www.wm3.org
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 07:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: How about this for a reason? So that the hundreds of leagues (i'm sure there are just that many worldwide) who currently have to house rule it just to have a rule that makes sense, don't have to house rule it anymore!
and you can say this all you want, just like i can say that i believe those leagues/people are in the minority, but the simple fact is that there is no way to actually verify this, therefore in my opinion no reason to change the rule because a few people feel that the rest of the world doesn't like the way the rule is written. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tojurub |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 10:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 18, 2003
Germany
Posts: 1520
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
Last comment from me on that topic:
What does the word INTERCEPTION mean:
it comes from the Latin root: Inter (in between) and capere (catch)
meaning capturing something which is in between something. How can you capture something, which is not even on it's way (due to a fumble)? |
_________________
Dwarves rule!!! Especially when they pass!
3rd place Underworld Cup 2003
Swiss Champion 2004
2nd place Royal RumBBL 2015 and White Star Cup 2016
.....and now Ex-Vize-Prez
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 10:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: Chet, you're not listening.
1. Interceptions would not be made significantly rarer, if at all.
2. It doesn't make any sense for a pass to have less chance of being fumbled when there's a guy trying to intercept. If anything, there should be more chance of fumble, not less. This has nothing to do with timing, the pass not having been throw yet, or any such exotic argument. It's just a question of probability. You don't fumble less often when there are people trying to intercept!
Maybe I'm not understanding. But I'm certain INTs would drop off by at least 17% - more if you count all the occasions on which the thrower fumbles on a roll higher than 1. That's a sizable chunk of deep throws, so I'll conservatively call it a 20% drop. That's significant to me.
I don't understand your second point. "Less chance" than what? Is this player standing in the thrower's tackle zone, or isn't he? I can't tell from your statement.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 10:54 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Tojurub wrote: Last comment from me on that topic:
What does the word INTERCEPTION mean:
it comes from the Latin root: Inter (in between) and capere (catch)
meaning capturing something which is in between something. How can you capture something, which is not even on it's way (due to a fumble)?
your just taking things too literally. once again, it's a game mechanic that is fine the way it is. if you don't like it, house rule it.
BTW, i constantly find it amusing when people compare real life to a game with elves, dwarves, vampires...
come on guys, it's a game, there are lots of more important things in life to worry about then passing/intercept sequence. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 02:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: Zombie wrote: 1. Interceptions would not be made significantly rarer, if at all.
Maybe I'm not understanding. But I'm certain INTs would drop off by at least 17% - more if you count all the occasions on which the thrower fumbles on a roll higher than 1. That's a sizable chunk of deep throws, so I'll conservatively call it a 20% drop. That's significant to me.
-Chet
When the issue of increasing the number of interceptions was discussed a year or two ago it was generally concluded that all efforts to increase the chance of interceptions just decreases the number of times that coaches will risk a pass over an opponent. The rule that you roll for interceptions before rolling for the pass will have this effect (i.e reduce high risk passes).
So I agree with Zombie that the current rule will decrease risky passing rather than increase the total number of interceptions. Conversely if we put the pass roll before the interception roll (where it should be) I would expect that the number of risky passes would increase and the interceptions would stay about the same. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
BloodBowlCommish |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 02:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 07, 2004
Posts: 20
Status: Offline
|
|
| I agree...you will either take teh chance and throw no matter what the odds are or you will not. Basically I think the issue is that fumbles occur takign away interceptions, but on the contracry, I do not want to take that into consideration becasue that is teh game mechanic that is broken, dont you think? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 03:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mikeyc222 wrote: i'm sure there are many more who think it's fine the way it is. on these boards i generally find far more people saying it's ok the way it is then those who say it needs to change "to make more sense."
sorry, your reasons just don't hold up for me.
and yes, zombie, interceptions would be more rare if you rolled the pass first. let's just say that you have an AG3 thrower in 3 tackle zones trying to make a short pass to get rid of the ball. currently, the opposing coach would have a 1/6 chance of making an interception. if you change the rules to make the pass roll first, the thrower has a 1/3 chance to acually not fumble the ball. this translates to something like a 1/9 chance of an interception...in what way would that not make them even more rare?
Most passes are made in situations where you only fumble on a 1. This only decreases the chance of interception by 1/6. But as was argued many times before, the less probable an interception is, the more people will be prepared to throw over an opponent. Because of that, the number of interceptions might not change at all! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 03:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mikeyc222 wrote: Zombie wrote: How about this for a reason? So that the hundreds of leagues (i'm sure there are just that many worldwide) who currently have to house rule it just to have a rule that makes sense, don't have to house rule it anymore!
and you can say this all you want, just like i can say that i believe those leagues/people are in the minority, but the simple fact is that there is no way to actually verify this, therefore in my opinion no reason to change the rule because a few people feel that the rest of the world doesn't like the way the rule is written.
I agree that the majority plays by the official rule. That's true for any rule in the book, even the most absurd (e.g. foul appearance working when prone). But i believe that the vast majority of people who play by the official rule in this case wouldn't care either way, so that there are more people who would want it my way than there are who want it the way it is now. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 05, 2004 - 03:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: [Maybe I'm not understanding. But I'm certain INTs would drop off by at least 17% - more if you count all the occasions on which the thrower fumbles on a roll higher than 1. That's a sizable chunk of deep throws, so I'll conservatively call it a 20% drop. That's significant to me.
I disagree. It can easily be argued (and it was argued in the past) that the less likely interceptions are, the more likely a coach is to try and pass the ball over an opponent. Because of this, there might not be any decrease at all.
Tutenkharnage wrote: I don't understand your second point. "Less chance" than what? Is this player standing in the thrower's tackle zone, or isn't he? I can't tell from your statement.
Take any one situation you want - any range, any number of tackle zones. With the official rule, there is a higher chance of fumbling if there's nobody who can intercept, since interceptions cut down on possible fumbles. It doesn't make any sense at all for a thrower to have lower chances of fumbling the ball when someone is threatening to intercept. If anything, the chance should be higher, but at the very least it should be the same. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 01:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: But i believe that the vast majority of people who play by the official rule in this case wouldn't care either way, so that there are more people who would want it my way than there are who want it the way it is now.
Well, I can only speak for the people I've gamed with, and the people I've met at tournaments, but the majority of them are happy with it as it is now, and don't want it changed. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 01:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
| Exactly my point. They're happy with it as it is now. They don't want change for the sake of change. But if the official rule were currently the other way around, they wouldn't want that changed either. So those people are actually more neutral about the rule than anything. They may have a strong opinion about not changing things (as do i), but they don't have a strong opinion about this rule in particular, taken out of context. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 05:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
This argument is getting absurd.
The idea that an interception is less likely if you roll for fumbles first is wrong. You have not changed the chance, 1/6 for most, but the number of times the opportunity will arise. People will be just as reluctant to pass over opposition players as before, as they see it as an unnecessary risk. In any case a fumble is only marginally preferable to an interception in most cases.
This is not the only 'anomaly' in the rules regarding interceptions, and passes generally. Why is only 1 player allowed to try to intercept? If a player in the tackle zone of the passer, or receiver, tries to intercept surely they are concentrating on catching the ball too much to be any real distraction to the passer or receiver? Why is there no mechanic for allowing the thrower to put way too much, or far too little, power on the throw? I.e. throwing a hard quick pass that misses the receiver and ends up as closer to a long bomb. Should it really be possible for a throw to be either accurate or fumbled, but not inaccurate?
If you really want to accurately describe a pass then the whole thing is going to get very complicated.
Zombie, foul appearance working when prone is not absurd. I made the argument in the thread about FA earlier. I notice you had no come back then, so just drop it already. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 06:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
I was set to raise the "only one player may attempt an interception" clause, but I see I've been beaten to the punch.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 06, 2004 - 07:52 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: Most passes are made in situations where you only fumble on a 1. This only decreases the chance of interception by 1/6. But as was argued many times before, the less probable an interception is, the more people will be prepared to throw over an opponent. Because of that, the number of interceptions might not change at all!
this is just plain wrong(and dumb). coaches who don't make "risky" passes will not make more just because all of a sudden they have more of a chance to fumble. and while most passes may be made "in situations where you only fumble on a 1" that's not the only time they are made. as a matter of fact i REGULARLY make long passes. that's because i actually use my throwers as throwers and build their skills as PURE passers and make even AG3 passers deep threats. i have no worries about throwing over opponents because i believe in safe throw.
Zombie wrote: I agree that the majority plays by the official rule. That's true for any rule in the book, even the most absurd (e.g. foul appearance working when prone). But i believe that the vast majority of people who play by the official rule in this case wouldn't care either way, so that there are more people who would want it my way than there are who want it the way it is now.
once again, sorry but...no. from all of the people i have talked to most like the way it is because they believe interceptions will greatly decrease if you change the sequence and they don't want to see that happen because interceptions are rare and fun. if you would like to play test your proposed rule changes then by all means do so and i will look at any VERIFIABLE data you have the proves your point.
Zombie wrote: Take any one situation you want - any range, any number of tackle zones. With the official rule, there is a higher chance of fumbling if there's nobody who can intercept, since interceptions cut down on possible fumbles. It doesn't make any sense at all for a thrower to have lower chances of fumbling the ball when someone is threatening to intercept. If anything, the chance should be higher, but at the very least it should be the same.
granted when i'm doing the throwing, in many, but not all, cases i would probably prefer a fumble to an interception, i would rather have an interception if i'm on defense so i'll take things how they are now.
thank you for calling... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
