 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: mtn_bike wrote: I play other RPGs so I use my imagination.
Blood Bowl is not an RPG.
Nor is it a real life simulation. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
mtn_bike |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: In real football, you don't yell "pass" and "cover", and you WILL rush the passer regardless of whether or not one of the 5 potential targets is covered! That's the most ridiculous fluff based argument i've ever heard.
mtn_bike wrote: I play other RPGs so I use my imagination.
Blood Bowl is not an RPG.
You say I don't yell pass or cover. Yes I do. When I play two touch with my buds. It's a 7 mississippi count which is out loud and then you yell blitz to let the players covering the recievers the passer is being rushed. Once the passer passes the ball I yell pass. I will admit cover is never yelled.
The "most ridiculous" WHOO HOO! I'm glad I'm the one for that.
BB not being an RPG? I have to disagee. Sorry, this is way off topic but you roll dice with target numbers for "players" to accomplish tasks. Players and team ratings can go up or down levels. Players go down in stats by getting an injury, niggle or aging roll. Players that increase levels gain skill or traits. Fact is, you are a coach of a team. Your Role to Play the Game. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mikeyc222 wrote: WRONG. you are adding steps to what is currently in the LRB. don't say that you are "rearranging" them because those steps don't exist in the case of an interception. therefore, you are talking about ADDING them. that's what adding means. putting something where it wasn't before.
Just because a step is avoided in certain cases doesn't mean it's not there. Currently, the steps are call the pass, move the player, call the pass blockers, move them, roll for interception, roll for pass, roll for catch. All i'm asking is for interverting the pass and the interception roll. That's not an "added" step in the process.
mikeyc222 wrote: and the ONLY arguement i have EVER heard for changing the sequence is because "it makes more sense. it doesn't happen like that in real life."
if i hear ONE more person compare a game with elves, dwarves, and orcs to real life i think i will die of laughter.
Then you've never heard my arguments. There's the fact that in the current rules, the chance of a fumble is actually smaller when there's an opposing playing in position to intercept. If anything, fumbles should be more common in those cases, or at the very least equally common. There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Darkson, a 20% increase or decrease in the number of interceptions (something that's a very small part of the game anyway as it's so uncommon as to be almost unheard of) is of no big consequence in the big scheme of things. 20% up or down isn't really a change worth noting if you ask me. Anything below 50% will hardly ever be noticed at all.
Besides, if you allowed for multiple interceptors, i bet the change would be below 5% either way (impossible to predict which way). |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Darkson wrote: Zombie wrote: mtn_bike wrote: I play other RPGs so I use my imagination.
Blood Bowl is not an RPG.
Nor is it a real life simulation.
Blood Bowl. The game of fantasy football.
It may not be a real life simulation, but it's still a simulation, at least at its base. It's a strategy game based roughly on american football. The inventor himself said so many times. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
mtn_bike wrote: You say I don't yell pass or cover. Yes I do. When I play two touch with my buds. It's a 7 mississippi count which is out loud and then you yell blitz to let the players covering the recievers the passer is being rushed. Once the passer passes the ball I yell pass. I will admit cover is never yelled.
If the defensive squad is calling out blitz everytime it does it, the team won't win too many games. The effectiveness of a blitz relies on the other team not expecting it, as do most plays in football. There's a world of difference between the touch football that you play and real football, where plays are carefully crafted and memorized before the game starts, and secrecy is everything.
mtn_bike wrote: BB not being an RPG? I have to disagee. Sorry, this is way off topic but you roll dice with target numbers for "players" to accomplish tasks. Players and team ratings can go up or down levels. Players go down in stats by getting an injury, niggle or aging roll. Players that increase levels gain skill or traits. Fact is, you are a coach of a team. Your Role to Play the Game.
Blood Bowl is as much of an RPG as Diablo is. Still, no matter what Blizzard would have you believe, there isn't much RPG involved in playing the game. Any real RPG fan will laugh at the reference, assuming he doesn't cry first.
Blood Bowl is a strategy game first and foremost. If you being the coach of a team makes the game an RPG, then chess is an RPG because you're the general of an army. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one.
in your opinion but once again, till i got on this site and TBB i never heard ONE complaint about it. ever.
bottom line, personally i don't have a problem if you want to roll for the pass before the interception. roll to your hearts content. what i do have a big problem with is ANY change to the game that is not NEEDED and sorry but this issue doesn't even begin to qualify as needed. the only changes that are needed are ones that fix things that UNBALANCE the game...nothing more...not one. so until someone can convince why this change is NEEDED(and it won't happen so don't bother) i will be completely against it.
OK, i'm done with this discussion because it has been well tread and frankly is starting to bore me. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 03:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
What if there was a player in the game who could play for humans with the following stats: 6 3 3 8, no skills, general access. The player would be a giant flower that attacked people by throwing pollen at them.
Such a player would be prefectly balanced. Therefore removing this player from the game would be a change that isn't needed?
Game balance is important. I'll be the first to milit in its favor. But as much as we sometimes come to believe it, game balance still isn't everything. |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 04:03 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one.
Again, I'll disagree with this point. Maybe my experiance with other wargames had coloured my judgement, but when we started playing 3rd ed we had no problem with the order of things. We played 40k, Necro, MOrdeheim, WFB, and all those systems had rules that made no sense in real life. Did we decide to change them? No, because we're not pllaying "real life", we're playing a game, and from a real life point of view, games don't all make sense all the time.
And to me, a 20% change in interceptions is a big thing, either way. Mabe not in a small league over say 10 games, but long-term, that would add up to a lot more/less interception. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 06:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: There's also the fact that the rule is easier to teach to newbies if the pass is rolled before the interception. That's not a real life argument, but a purely mechanistic one.
play with smarter people |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 09:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Darkson wrote: And to me, a 20% change in interceptions is a big thing, either way. Mabe not in a small league over say 10 games, but long-term, that would add up to a lot more/less interception.
Is a 5% change still big? If allowing for multiple interceptors and changing the passing sequence would result in a 5% or less change in frequency of interceptions, could you live with that? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2004 - 10:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Darkson wrote: In a game with Orcs and Elves, giant spiked pitch rollers flattening players, b&c weilding fanatics, and wizards firing off fireballs and turning players into frogs, arguing against a rule because "it doesn't work like that in real life" is laughable.
More to the point, a rule that wants to make passing "more like real life" by switching the order of intercept and accurate makes a little sense, but that will leave passing still very unlike "real life", for plenty of the reasons we've already touched on. So you've fixed 3% of the unrealism of the passing game, gained little in terms of overall playability, and introduced more corner cases into the rules. But now, should you tackle all the other stupid passing rules? Like how distance effects fumble probability, how balls end up OOB on the first scatter offpitch, how passers never seriously over/underthrow a pass?
Or how about this: I make an inaccurate pass, which ends up going two squares past my intended receiver. The intended receiver should still get an intercept attempt now, since it is going over his head.
The point i'm trying to make is that making a realism argument doesn't pass the face validity test for reasons that go beyond the whole elf and dwarf thing.
In the end, I agree with you, a fumble should counteract an interception. It doesn't make sense, but then again, lots of things don't. |
_________________
Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 02:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
pfooti wrote: But now, should you tackle all the other stupid passing rules? Like how distance effects fumble probability
Done in my league, and easily done too.
pfooti wrote: how balls end up OOB on the first scatter offpitch
Again, already done. Not much to it.
pfooti wrote: how passers never seriously over/underthrow a pass?
They can overthrow or underthrow by 3 squares. A square is a little over 4 yards (100 yards divided by 24 squares, not counting end zones). This means that the throw can be a little over 12 yards long or short. I don't know about you, but i've rarely, if ever, seen a quarterback be off by more than that, even when attempting a long bomb. So the rules seem to fit reality pretty closely here.
pfooti wrote: Or how about this: I make an inaccurate pass, which ends up going two squares past my intended receiver. The intended receiver should still get an intercept attempt now, since it is going over his head.
The player's square is not just the little spot he takes up on the field. It's a section of the field about 4 squares wide. If the throw was really 2 squares too long, then it's over his head, there's no way around it. If it's 2 squares short, it hit the floor before reaching him. This is all pretty spot on to me.
pfooti wrote: The point i'm trying to make is that making a realism argument doesn't pass the face validity test for reasons that go beyond the whole elf and dwarf thing.
In the end, I agree with you, a fumble should counteract an interception. It doesn't make sense, but then again, lots of things don't.
There are levels of realism. Personally, i'd be less amazed by seeing a dwarf leap over a treeman (even in real life, well a tree since we don't have treemen) then a player intercepting a pass that hasn't even been thrown yet. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Indigo |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 03:01 AM
|
|
Da Warboss
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
England
Posts: 2168
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
lol 6 pages watching Zombie ably defend his corner against all comers makes interesting reading 
IMO the current passing sequence, although a game mechanic that works, should be switched to something that makes more logical sense. At present we have to remember that we make the interception roll before the pass, whereas changing it to after the pass roll had been made would be easier for newbies and easier to remember because it at least makes some sense.
As for the original argument (last mentioned way back on page 2  ) I'm with the majority. Zombie - you say the 3 squares are a mechanic to determine the final resting place of the ball. However, the total absence of squares outside the pitch are another mechanic to indicate that the crowd rule comes into play, overriding the normal sequence of play, whenever the ball goes or appears to go out of bounds. Even if we ignore the FAQ co-written by JJ, leader/veto holder of the BBRC and game creator, why should we ignore the precedent set by every other situation in the book describing what happens when the ball appears to go into the crowd? There is no "Note: make sure you scatter three times, using imaginary squares" to indicate the accepted norm used in other situations should be ignored in this case - it's simply implicit that whenever the ball goes, or is indicated to go, out of bounds then the crowd rule takes over.
Saying "I'm using the LRB rule, bollocks to these FAQs" suggests you're in denial Either JJ likes the rule, so the FAQ is His Word, or he didn't like it but respects the opinions of the BBRC and let it stand. If he, like you, wanted it to be a special case then he'd have used his veto.
Either way, I'll get the response from him word for word when I see him in April |
_________________
NAF #60
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 04:13 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: Darkson wrote: And to me, a 20% change in interceptions is a big thing, either way. Mabe not in a small league over say 10 games, but long-term, that would add up to a lot more/less interception.
Is a 5% change still big? If allowing for multiple interceptors and changing the passing sequence would result in a 5% or less change in frequency of interceptions, could you live with that?
Probably, but I'd like to see numbers before I backed it. As someone said, if everyone under the template got a chance to intercept, I'd expect to see less throws over multiple people, which would lead to a bigger than 5% drop. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
