|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
pfooti |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 09:47 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: 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).
Your argument is faulty here. A "square" has no size. I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that says a Blood Bowl pitch is the same size as an American Football Field. Consider that your calculation means that the endzone is only 4 yards deep. That's not standard Football. So, the 4 yard square isn't necessarily true. This could be the size of an arena league field. As a matter of fact, my elf throwers frequently throw from behind the "50 yard line" to the endzone. That is quite the throw, in NFL terms.
In a related sense, you can't really say a half is "30 minutes" long, in game terms either, why should it take 4 minutes to move my one remaining elf, or for you to get called on an IP? Blood Bowl exists in a strange universe with unreal time and unreal dimensions. You can't make any arguments that are based on space like that. The Blood Bowl pitch isn't even euclidian (b/c diagonals are 1 instead of 1.4).
Why are passes instantaneous? If you think of how long it takes a player to run from midfield to the endzone (usually two turns with a full head of GFI steam), why can I throw the ball that far in nearly zero time?
Again consider. If you are going to put an arbitrary size (like 4 yards) on a square, you have to deal with the outcomes. That means that people standing on the left and right of you are at least twelve feet apart. How on earth can you tackle both of them? Should the -1 dodge penalty only apply to the first person to leave a players' TZ?
And finally, I've seen passes go way off, if the are thrown while an opposing pass rusher is in the middle of hitting the passer. Opponents in Blood Bowl can increase the likelihood of a fumble, but should also increase the scatter range of an inaccurate pass (consider the "tipped ball" rules discussed above)
Zombie wrote:
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.
So if I'm two squares shy of the ball's landing square it is impossible to catch, but a player six or seven squares shy (in the middle of the ball's path) can attempt to grab it only if they are on the opposing team? I'd like to see the trajectory of that pass.
The game is an abstract one with fluff. It is not a realistic game with some simplifications. |
_________________ Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 09:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
pfooti wrote: Your argument is faulty here. A "square" has no size. I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that says a Blood Bowl pitch is the same size as an American Football Field.
Remember the 3rd ed fluff. Blood Bowl was invented when a dwarf found the rules to an ancient game inside a stadium for the said game. The field had strange lines drawn on it. It's the size of an american football field all right. Besides, i seem to recall hearing a BBRC member (don't remember which) saying about the same thing about field size about a year or two ago.
pfooti wrote: Consider that your calculation means that the endzone is only 4 yards deep.
In 2nd ed, the end zone used to be 2 squares deep. It was only changed for balance reason (being able to push anyone into the crowd who stands in the wide zone).
pfooti wrote: can attempt to grab it only if they are on the opposing team?
Like i said before in this thread, if a real life football player tries to intercept the pass thrown by his own quarterback, his coach probably won't let him play for the remaining of the season after that. |
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 10:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: pfooti wrote: Your argument is faulty here. A "square" has no size. I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that says a Blood Bowl pitch is the same size as an American Football Field.
Remember the 3rd ed fluff. Blood Bowl was invented when a dwarf found the rules to an ancient game inside a stadium for the said game. The field had strange lines drawn on it. It's the size of an american football field all right. Besides, i seem to recall hearing a BBRC member (don't remember which) saying about the same thing about field size about a year or two ago.
Again, the dwarf could have found rules to Arena football (which has a field that is considerably smaller. Or, he could have found the rules to a game that exists in a universe parallel to ours, one in which space/time is bent in just the right way to deal with the diagonals.
Zombie wrote:
pfooti wrote: Consider that your calculation means that the endzone is only 4 yards deep.
In 2nd ed, the end zone used to be 2 squares deep. It was only changed for balance reason (being able to push anyone into the crowd who stands in the wide zone).
Ah, so it is possible to change the rules for balance reasons. To keep things fair and simple, as opposed to keeping things realistic? Besides which, an NFL field has 10 yard deep endzones, not 8. And at 15 squares wide, 180 feet, it is 20 feet too wide.
And you didn't address my point about Tacklezones. If you use an argument based on the phyisical size of the squares (rather than just treating each sqare as a node in an adjacency graph), you can't reasonably expect a dwarf to be holding on to players that are that far away from them. Consider the guy who is (by your earlier argument) standing in the middle of his square. Call him (for the sake of even numbers) two yards wide with his arms extended. That means his hands are each a yard away from the "line" that divides him from the next squares to his left and right. Those squares are occupied by dumb elves, who are standing right at the edge of the square closest to the dwarf (rather than the farthest edge. They reach out their three foot long arms, and are barely able to touch fingertips with the opponent. now they want to run away, one in each direction. In what way can this dwarf stop both of them? He's gotta be on one side of his square, ignoring his other TZs.
Zombie wrote:
pfooti wrote: can attempt to grab it only if they are on the opposing team?
Like i said before in this thread, if a real life football player tries to intercept the pass thrown by his own quarterback, his coach probably won't let him play for the remaining of the season after that.
But what about a Blood Bowl player? If you drop a pass in Football, you get a Do-Over (minus a down). If you drop a pass in BB, you probably have given the ball to the opposing team. That's more like in Ultimate Frisbee, where we have the maxim: "any catchable disc", meaning if you can get it, do so. Blood Bowl is also a lot more ad-hoc. You don't have a play and receiving patterns the way you do in football. Really, every Blood Bowl pass is a hail mary.
Or what about a receiver who sees the ball coming to him and knows it is going over his head? If the intended receiver can't get it even though it is due to land one square past him, nobody in the middle of the pass should be able to make a grab for it either.
This is what I mean by the slippery slope. You have to draw a line somewhere between abstraction and realism. JJ drew that line, and has chartered the BBRC to maintain that line. Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly as an interception preventing a fumble, and not nearly as silly as a halfling with eight arms holding on to each of eight adjacent dwarfs with the same strength (forcing a dodge roll from each one). But that's the way the line was drawn.
So again, you can argue for a point, like switching the order of accurate and intercept. But your argument is strengthened not by crying "realism", but by crying "playability". Does your rule change significantly improve the playability of the game? Or is it a minor tweak which isn't worth making because the cost of changing it is not worth the benefits? |
_________________ Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 10:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
[Round of appluase] |
_________________ _____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyc222 |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 10:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2003
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 10:59 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
It's not arena football, it's american football. Jervis himself said so, as well as Andy Hall, many times in the past.
The dwarf doesn't have to stop them both simultaneously. He can stop one elf, slightly stepping into his "square", then turn his attention to the other elf. Besides, if the first elf got away, the dwarf didn't really succeed in stopping him, right? Maybe this is because his attention was too centered on the other elf.
pfooti wrote: But what about a Blood Bowl player? If you drop a pass in Football, you get a Do-Over (minus a down). If you drop a pass in BB, you probably have given the ball to the opposing team. That's more like in Ultimate Frisbee, where we have the maxim: "any catchable disc", meaning if you can get it, do so. Blood Bowl is also a lot more ad-hoc. You don't have a play and receiving patterns the way you do in football. Really, every Blood Bowl pass is a hail mary.
That's a very good argument. I've played Ultimate Frisbee, so i know what you mean. Maybe then the rule should be changed to allow people from the passing team to try and intercept it (but without SPPs). But the thing is, if you try to intercept it and fail, it will probably hit the ground. That would be a turnover. So i guess that if you were to add this rule, you'd have to add a chance of fumble by the interceptor as well. This would make the rules a little complicated for what little would be gained.
We should aim to be as realistic as possible as long as it doesn't make the rules anymore complicated. If it does, then the cost of the complication should be weighted against the benefit of added realism. That's how a game is designed in the first place, and i'm sure that these were the kinds of choices that Jervis had to make when he invented this game.
pfooti wrote: Or what about a receiver who sees the ball coming to him and knows it is going over his head? If the intended receiver can't get it even though it is due to land one square past him, nobody in the middle of the pass should be able to make a grab for it either.
A really good receiver (one with diving catch) will be able to have a go at it, though obviously it won't be as easy to catch as an accurate pass (and it shouldn't be). A not so good receiver won't be able to make it.
pfooti wrote: Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly
I don't find it silly at all. I find it to be a good abstraction of a real learning process.
pfooti wrote: So again, you can argue for a point, like switching the order of accurate and intercept. But your argument is strengthened not by crying "realism", but by crying "playability". Does your rule change significantly improve the playability of the game? Or is it a minor tweak which isn't worth making because the cost of changing it is not worth the benefits?
The benefits are certainly higher than the cost, since there is no cost at all! The only argument ever made against changing it are that it has always been this way, which in itself is not a good reason, and that it would decrease the frequency of interceptions by somewhere around or below 20%, which i don't think would have any influence on the game at all!
The benefits are rules that are easier to teach and remember, and that make more sense! Added realism should always be favored when two basic rules are met : (1) there is no added complexity and (2) the delicate balance of the game isn't affected. I believe both to be the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: The benefits are rules that are easier to teach and remember
You keep saying this, but my experience with beginners is that it's not true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
My experience is that it's true in some cases. |
_________________ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: We should aim to be as realistic as possible as long as it doesn't make the rules anymore complicated. If it does, then the cost of the complication should be weighted against the benefit of added realism. That's how a game is designed in the first place, and i'm sure that these were the kinds of choices that Jervis had to make when he invented this game.
Perhaps this belongs in another thread:
"Jervis, what were you thinking when you put the INT roll ahead of the pass roll?"
pfooti wrote: Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly
Zombie wrote: I don't find it silly at all. I find it to be a good abstraction of a real learning process.
I believe pfooti meant in-game rolls, as in "adding +1 to the AV roll for MB after rolling AV, rather than declaring it ahead of time." Zombie, I think you're talking about post-game rolls, as in "you make a skill roll and the player takes some time to learn the skill." (Or something close to that.)
The game wouldn't fall apart if the pass roll came first. But it's not unplayable because the pass roll comes second, either.
-Chet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:18 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Thanks for clarifying that Chet. In that case, let me point out that i've always been a strong advocate of making piling on and diving tackle (i.e. skills that change your position on the board) declared before the roll which they modify. The new piling on rule, for instance, is the single thing i hate the most about the lastest rules review. |
_________________ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:18 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Zombie wrote: The dwarf doesn't have to stop them both simultaneously. He can stop one elf, slightly stepping into his "square", then turn his attention to the other elf.
But if a dwarf can dance around in his square, why does he have to stay there? Why can't he just go and knock down one of the elves? And how does he know which one is going to dodge away first?
Zombie wrote: pfooti wrote: Deciding to add a skill after the roll is usually just as silly
I don't find it silly at all. I find it to be a good abstraction of a real learning process.
What I meant was deciding to add the Mighty Blow (or Piling on, or Dodge) skill to a roll after you know whether or not you need it. Or the idea that you can only use a skill once per turn. Oops, I dodged there, but I seem to have forgotton how to do it over here.
Zombie wrote:
pfooti wrote: So again, you can argue for a point, like switching the order of accurate and intercept. But your argument is strengthened not by crying "realism", but by crying "playability". Does your rule change significantly improve the playability of the game? Or is it a minor tweak which isn't worth making because the cost of changing it is not worth the benefits?
The benefits are certainly higher than the cost, since there is no cost at all! The only argument ever made against changing it are that it has always been this way, which in itself is not a good reason, and that it would decrease the frequency of interceptions by somewhere around or below 20%, which i don't think would have any influence on the game at all!
There is a very real cost associated with any rule change. It needs to be debated by the BBRC, making the review take longer, or bumping something else off of the hotlist. The new rules need to be disseminated. Every player has to understand the new passing sequence. And no matter what, any rule change in a game as complicated as Blood Bowl will raise new corner cases and create strange new FAQs that need to be addressed and hashed out (like the timing of Passblock). Piling On only became really abusive recently? Why? The change in order (before/after the roll for all skills). Little changes here and there can affect other things far away.
Zombie wrote:
Added realism should always be favored when two basic rules are met : (1) there is no added complexity and (2) the delicate balance of the game isn't affected. I believe both to be the case.
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think added realism in itself is enough to justify a rule change. And I don't think anyone can truly know if the balance of the game will be affected until a year after the review that changes the rule. That's why I don't think realism is enough to justify a change. |
_________________ Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
When it all boils down to it, we are playing a game on a cardboard picth with little pieces of lead/plastic in humaniod shapes. When we start sitting in a real dug-out, shouting at real players to make real plays, then I'll agree all the rules should make real-life sense. Until than, I can live with stuff which can't happen in the real universe. |
_________________ _____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
|
|
|
|
pfooti |
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
Posts: 81
Status: Offline
|
|
Yah, maybe we should all agree to disagree. And hug. I like hugging. |
_________________ Pfooti, Bishop of the OCN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
pfooti wrote: But if a dwarf can dance around in his square, why does he have to stay there? Why can't he just go and knock down one of the elves? And how does he know which one is going to dodge away first?
This has to do with the game being turn based. There are some things that you just can't represent accurately, no matter how hard you try. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't represent accurately the things that you can.
As for knowing which elf would dodge away first, maybe he didn't. Maybe that's why the first elf successfully dodged away in the first place!
pfooti wrote: What I meant was deciding to add the Mighty Blow (or Piling on, or Dodge) skill to a roll after you know whether or not you need it. Or the idea that you can only use a skill once per turn. Oops, I dodged there, but I seem to have forgotton how to do it over here.
The first part was answered above after Chet clarified. As for the second part, you may be better than normal at dodging, but there's a limit to how good you can be. The first dodge that almost failed (needed a dodge reroll) may have left you wobbling (is that even a word?), which would make the second one extremely difficult. You wouldn't be in a position where you could use your skill again.
pfooti wrote: There is a very real cost associated with any rule change. It needs to be debated by the BBRC, making the review take longer, or bumping something else off of the hotlist. The new rules need to be disseminated. Every player has to understand the new passing sequence. And no matter what, any rule change in a game as complicated as Blood Bowl will raise new corner cases and create strange new FAQs that need to be addressed and hashed out (like the timing of Passblock). Piling On only became really abusive recently? Why? The change in order (before/after the roll for all skills). Little changes here and there can affect other things far away.
I'm sorry but i don't agree that all rule changes have in inherent cost. The BBRC's time shouldn't be taken in consideration. If i were in the BBRC, i know i wouldn't mind spending all the time that is needed to make sure that the game is as good as it can be. As for publishing the rule, that's not a problem as the structure is already in place. Just add it to the rule changes in the next rules review.
Most changes have impacts at all kinds of levels, that's true. But those impacts can be foreseen. Funny that you should mention piling on, because when the rules review came out, i told them right away that this would make piling on way too good. It was so very plain and obvious. They didn't listen. They wanted to see it in action.
If you're like them and you believe in playtesting everything instead of examining the game theoretically the way i like to do, then let me tell you that there are countless leagues around the world who have been playing my way for as long as 10 years now. The data is there. The change is minimal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 11:43 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Zombie wrote: If you're like them and you believe in playtesting everything instead of examining the game theoretically the way i like to do, then let me tell you that there are countless leagues around the world who have been playing my way for as long as 10 years now. The data is there. The change is minimal.
Firstly, do you have proof for the statement about countless leagues playing your way?
Secondly, all the leagues/players I've met play it the written way, I've met none who play your way, so perhaps the "countless" playing your way are outnumbered by the "countless" playing the official way? |
_________________ _____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|