Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 03:38 |
 
|
Hi, I am sure everything is implemented correctly but since this has been bothering me a bit I thought I ask to make sure.
It is my understanding that a skill can be used at any given time in any order when it is relevant.
Right now, the client asks whether to use Fend after a player has been pushed back but before the follow up.
If I picture that in a tabletop situation I don't see it going down like that.
The push back would be likely executed. The opponent then either does nothing or decides he'll follow up. Upon trying to follow up the fenders coach would say: "Hold on, I have fend." So the follow up doesn't happen.
If the current implementation is correct it would mean that at the moment where the opponent coach executes the follow up it would be already too late to intervene and the fending coach would have to accept that because he didn't speak up earlier.
The way it is operating in the client may not create the precisely same situation but it still slows the game down unneccessarily. If the other coach opts to not follow up, Fend won't matter anyways.
That being said I do think it's good that it is optional. |
|
|
Ziggyny
Joined: Mar 20, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 04:33 |
|
How does the current implementation slow the game down? It doesn't matter who you prompt first, there's always at least one prompt for every push result. I think prompting for fend first is going to be the faster option since 'use fend but enemy wouldn't have followed up' feels a lot less likely to come up than 'enemy followed up and I wouldn't have used fend'. |
|
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
I would prefer an option for "Fend always unless opponent has frenzy." That would significantly cut the prompts. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 04:45 |
|
| Ziggyny wrote: | | I think prompting for fend first is going to be the faster option since 'use fend but enemy wouldn't have followed up' feels a lot less likely to come up than 'enemy followed up and I wouldn't have used fend'. |
Mmm..
It's the turn of the coach who is executing the block.
Popup windows don't hinder the progress of the game. Waiting for the opponent action does.
Whether to use fend or not is a question asked to the coach who is not operating the turn.
If there is no follow up, the opponent coach doesn't even get involved and you can continue your turn without bother.
It can make a difference of several minutes, especially since the time is unlimited to respond. (Longer than taking an actual turn.) |
|
|
Ziggyny
Joined: Mar 20, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 06:05 |
|
Unless you're saying you'd just choose not to follow up because they have fend it's not going to save any time. You want to follow up. He doesn't want you to. He still has to click yes, only you'd have it so he has to wait for you to click follow up before he can click fend. |
|
|
Jeffro
Joined: Jan 22, 2009
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 06:24 |
|
Yea, but even this will not speed up some of the notoriously and mind-decayingly slow coaches. I think this would also be in the triple digits in terms of priority fixes for the client. Maybe even into the four digit numbers... |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 08:36 |
|
dat a weelee bwig nwumber |
_________________
 |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 09:55 |
|
It would make the game quicker if u have less popups in non-current coaches turn, yes
But its at a cost of information transfer
Currently pushing coach knows if fend is used before he decides to follow or not
Your proposed change means pushing coach is deprived of that information
Which in some situations could be a slight buff to fend. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 10:09 |
|
Overall I think it's a good idea but also low priority |
|
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 10:34 |
|
this has actually been discussed before |
_________________
 |
|
C3I2
Joined: Feb 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 10:45 |
|
Logical structure vs. game efficiency structure, and it would for sure be a faster play if you only get asked about using fend after the follow up.
Now, imagine if you always got asked if you wanted to use dodge, or block? And yes there is also for sure situations where I would prefer to not use dodge/block when its auto use atm. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 12:08 |
|
| C3I2 wrote: | | And yes there is also for sure situations where I would prefer to not use dodge/block when its auto use atm. |
when? |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 12:23 |
|
Not using dodge or block could be if u want ur guy on the floor because u want to save him from being killed by blitz next turn, say if u are about to be pitch cleared at the end of a half
Or to prevent secondary blocks from a more dangerous player. Or could help prevent surf
Fairly irrelevant to main topic though |
|
|
Overhamsteren
Joined: May 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 12:45 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | I would prefer an option for "Fend always unless opponent has frenzy." That would significantly cut the prompts. |
For the 100th time: +1  |
_________________
Like a Tiger Defying the Laws of Gravity
Thanks to the BBRC for all the great work you did. |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 22, 2014 - 13:25 |
|
Both Wreckage and Spookeh are right in my opinion.
If you don't want timers for such decisions (as on Cyanide), the best solution would be adding a timer for overall playing time for each player.
An example of how this could be implemented:
- Overall playing time for an ordinary game (i. e. a one-off game in Ranked or Blackbox) would be 45 minutes (including inducements, set-ups, kick-offs and pop-up decisions etc).
- Once a coach exceeds his overall playing time, their opponent would be allowed to time-out him after a minute.
- The 4 minute time limit for individual turns would still apply. |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
