koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
 Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 11:56 |
 
|
| moph wrote: | | Nelphine wrote: | | also, now you've got me thinking about 4 way bb games, with 4 different end zones.. |
there are rules on the NAF site for "deathbowl". That may be what you looking for. 
You even can buy pitches for that.
I sadly never played it myself. |
I've seen the pitches but 3/4 way seems like more of a Dungeon Bowl thing to me.
| Sp00keh wrote: |
Most games have had this happen over the last 10+ years I reckon
I used to play a lot of old FPS games like Quake1/2/3, Team Fortress, Counter Strike etc
I don't have the time to git gud now so can't compete online, I don't have the reflexes or coordination anymore. But, the average player standard has also got just so much better than they used to be |
I imagine that a lot of that is getting old and lack of practise.
Our 12 year old nephew kicked our asses at Doom 2. i don't think that he needed modern knowledge to do it.
| Sp00keh wrote: |
Regarding Stunty,
It obviously included a lot of wacky rules, fragile players, carnage all over the place and a lot of fun
But towards the end of its era, teams started to get genuinely scary and optimised towards very high damage output, pitch clears became more and more frequent |
I thought that lots of carnage was part of the attraction.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 16:31 |
|
| MerryZ wrote: | Shouldnt topic be "Mutual agreement" ?
And thats clearly against fumbbl rules outside leagues ? |
Oh, absolutely not.
There's no rule saying you can't offer people your prickly Orcs and juicy Underworld, or that you can't go for juicy Underworld if the alternative is prickly Orcs. Statistically, Underworld are stronger in W% and have more silly cheesy advantages, while Orcs are maybe "decent" in the new rules. But many coaches will trade that W% for a chance to get some random Cas and a slight reduction in the odds of suffering a team-breaker. Ta-da, negotiation in the offing. Totally within site rules.
When I say "negotiation" in BB, I don't mean the coaches are hashing stuff out verbally. I mean the negotiation on the level below that, an ongoing "vibe" where each coach tries to establish what they want from what they can get, and stake out their priorities. It's the way opposing generals negotiated on the early Modern battlefield, not the way WWE execs figure out who's gonna win next week. You're not always negotiating with your opponent over who wins the game, even: maybe early on you're just staking out turf, or trying to decide whether it's a feeler, a feint, or a focus based on your opponent's reaction to your lateral play.
But in all of it, there's the potential for both in-game and metagame rewards. I'm specifically talking about a philosophy of building a team around offering metagame advantage during the match in exchange for in-game win rate. It's not like this isn't a thing that happens all across the world of Blood Bowl. Just in my little American community, Bazakastine and Garcangel are grand-masters of this kind of thinking, but there are a lot more. You can see it in their stats. They win a lot, often with big margins, they give up an average or greater number of scores given coaches with similar win rates, and their ∆Cas stats are usually kinda horrid. (Yes, I picked two very good coaches, but there are others with similar philosophies at many skill levels, and like I said, this lady is kinda impressive as a gamer, so I think she'd have a high ceiling.) |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 18:03 |
|
so the reason why i was against this idea, is that i think fundamentally, the choice by coaches who do this, isn't about actively choosing a playstyle that gives spp to the other coach - its about choosing a playstyle in general that works for you. in particular, that playstyle often has a higher ceiling (and lower floor), and so coaches who like that, often gravitate toward it.
so while the playstyle they choose happens to be something that gives something to the other coach, i think very few times that is why it is chosen. (Now, i say that, but I have a pro elf team I created just for that reason - i wanted my opponents to get something out of the game even if I won by a landslide. Similarly, I stopped playing my nurgle because i didn't enjoy the games where i destroyed my opponent. But both of those teams were built in open play, not in leagues - in leagues, my first priority is on winning. Iff I can do that and choose something to give my opponents joy, I do so - but I'm playing orcs in C for tournaments, which is the team that is most notorious for not giving anything to your opponent when you win.)
so i would be very concerned about suggesting it to someone as a possible 'answer' to the question they posed, because i think making sure they get a playstyle that they like and can win with, is far more important. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 18:11 |
|
Okay, well, then, let me rephrase. Say you were a plus-sum gamer at heart, and you just loved strategies that encouraged others in multiplayer games like Magic or Catan or whatever. How would you carry that philosophy into Blood Bowl? Certainly there's plus-sum gaming all throughout the game, mostly focused on metagame, and it would be great for the local community if we had somebody who could help build community between seasons without being hyper-destructive on the pitch, certainly that's not me. So I'm kinda motivated to find a way of thinking that might encourage this person to join my TT league. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 18:20 |
|
"How would you carry that philosophy into Blood Bowl?"
Just everyone play elves all the time and don't kill each other then  |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 18:28 |
|
No, not everybody. Just the one person. Everyone else is playing their own philosophy for their own reasons.
How do you win and still play whale? |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 18:59 |
|
| Mnemon wrote: | Interesting. I think you should tell her that you started this discussion, because she's done something good here. Maybe.
We learn by playing - as most mammals - and the games we play here do have an impact. Not in - it turns you into a massmurderer type hyperbole - but it does affect the way you interact.
I took long breaks from FUMBBL and coming back time and again I notice how much more "cold" and efficient things have gotten from here to there. There's a lot less lightness now. Near everyone plays for the efficient 2-1 draw (edit: draw slipped in when writing that: but that's how most games feel. An unexiting nothing.) and clearing the pitch as much as possble now.
It wasn't like that when FUMBBL started.
"And the whole Tao of blood bowl, where results of each little thing don't matter, there's just the best thing to do, and you do it, and it working or not is just blood bowl, which you are playing. One cannot achieve the Tao, but you may get closer by trying."
But you miss something here, that she still points out. Becuase the game changes you - in that you stop considering the emotions of the opponent, and you dull your own. What you call the tao isn't the tao - it's what you decided it is. You _make_ a decision to play like this. It's not a set in stone must.
It is ok to NOT try to clear the pitch in the name of compassion. It is entirely ok to keep a game competitive and leave the opponent with a chance.
It's entirely ok to try to go for the wacky I want to score 5 touchdowns per half plays.
None of these things are "uncompetitive". They are just more risky. [And I'd argue you keep things more competitive - for both - but alas . ]
I think it'd lead to more fun games, too, for both. Because - in the end, being efficient is dull as shit. And all you do is repeat the same game, the same situations, where one side is eventually beat into submission.
Some of the people that played my haflings commented on that - that they had the most fun in ages - mainly because I play them like shit. Trying to hit other players via ttm, doing the unreasonable stuff. But it is what the game actually is meant to be: fun for both.
Not an exercise in efficient game management for one and frustrated boredom for the other.
FUMBBL as a society / community has moved toward safety and boredom, searching reliabilty in chaos because "everyone does it like that".
I think when Khorne where released, for a short while, things kinda went different. Because they just are chaos, and re-introduced some of that chaos that lead to unpredictablity, and I think, more fun. Now - we are back to old dishwater water.
What is the point of a game - I'd say it's fun. More than just winning. And if your fun comes at the expense of the opponents: How much fun do you really have? I know there are folks out there, here on FUMBBL now, that get annoyed when an opponent takes to long for a turn, or when a game doesn't quite go as expected. If you are at that point you are no longer playing a game, you are sitting in a cubicle and doing a 9-5 job.
It's why the stunty leeg was and secret league is so important. Screw competitiveness and efficency for a while now and again.
Bloodbowl doesn't have to be what the "tao" of competitive FUMBBL tries to teach. Kindness is a cool thing. |
This post reeks sadness. It is also incredibly true. |
_________________
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 19:02 |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 19:11 |
|
Me, I play this game out of a desire to share my masochism with others. "Life got you down? Here's a boot to the head. Feel better yet?" |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 22:27 |
|
| tussock wrote: | | Stopping teams from doing that, is hard. You think you need to give teams a chance, but you really don't, you just need to play against better coaches. They'll see chances where you didn't think you were leaving any. They do it to me, eh. |
But by saying that you impose your view as right. And eventually that is group think. If you think the "point" of bloodbowl is to win and dominate then ye. But that's not the only reason to play the game.
Because again NOTHING in the rules of bloodbowl force you to go for efficiency. If that's not what is fun for you - everyone out there stop. This is a game.
And this game isn't chess. It's inherently chaotic. There are better games for pure tactics out there, so again - the tao you proclaim as an absolute truth just isn't that. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 22:41 |
|
Winning must be an objective. Okay, fine, "winning in spite of ___" is an accepted convention, and it's okay if you have some reasonable metagaming going on, like winning in your own way, staying down to avoid getting hurt, picking hard matches, or risking your result to run up the score, but with the rarest of exceptions (NBFL builders back in the day), winning must be part of it. Like Stoppard's blood, the trying to win is compulsory. You can be bad at it, you can throw hurdles in your own way, but no matter what, you must try. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 23:09 |
|
Yes.
I didn't say that. I am just saying - you don't have to focus on the most efficient way to win.
Going for the 5 score touchdown is risky. But it's not an attempt not to win.
Just as NOT aiming to clear the pitch does not mean you are not aiming to win.
As I said earlier - you probably make the game MORE challenging by not going for the utmost efficiency. And by that - I'd argue - more fun.
Sometimes less is more for everyone.
[This would be way different in chess - but here: chance plays a role. And it's part of the game design from the very beginning.] |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 23:14 |
|
That's why there's like 30 team rosters and several viable strategies for most of them, sure. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 23:18 |
|
In theory. In practise nearly all of them are played as if they are dwarfs now.
The stall for a 2-1 win has become the standard across near all rosters.
One of the reasons I'd love the "if you stall a rock might come your way" prayer to be always the case. You know - because this ought to be a game where risk is ever present. |
Last edited by Mnemon on %b %22, %2022 - %23:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 22, 2022 - 23:19 |
|
| JackassRampant wrote: | | Winning must be an objective. Okay, fine, "winning in spite of ___" is an accepted convention, and it's okay if you have some reasonable metagaming going on, like winning in your own way, staying down to avoid getting hurt, picking hard matches, or risking your result to run up the score, but with the rarest of exceptions (NBFL builders back in the day), winning must be part of it. Like Stoppard's blood, the trying to win is compulsory. You can be bad at it, you can throw hurdles in your own way, but no matter what, you must try. |
Ha ha ha.
No, no. Winning does not need to be an objective. Fun can be the main objective. Teaching can be another.
To get the most fun out of the game it may help to pretend that you are trying to win. 
Depending on who your opponent is, you may get the most fun out of trying to lose while appearing to be trying to win.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
