Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If you don't want to finish a game because of injuries, then Blood Bowl may not be for you. When you start the game, you accept the fact that it may not go your way. This game is all about learning to take the rough with the smooth and laughing about it either way.
Of course, you could always try something a little less fragile than Skaven.
One question: on average, how many players were you leaving in tackle zones at the end of your turn?
(CONCEDING THE MATCH You may choose to concede a match at the start of one of your own turns, before moving the Turn marker along the track) before setting up for a kick-off where he could only field 2 or less players suffers no additional penalties. If one coach concedes the match for any other reason then the winner gains all of the loser's winnings and MVP from this match.
In addition, the loser automatically loses one Fan Factor and may not roll for a new one, and any players in the loser's team that have 51 SPPs or more will leave the team on a D6 roll of 1-3. Roll separately for each player with 51 or more SPPs to see if they leave
Awww, so you are one of Those people. You know, condesending prick no one likes. So I make a suggestion that could improve some aspect of the game, and all you can say is basically 'that I suck' and the game is already perfect.
You could just have said something alone the line of 'I dont htink its a good idea'
Social skillz R hards...
Yeah. The whole point is just to avoid the tediousness of completing a totally one sided game just to scrounge up a few gold that will probably not even be nough to replace the players you lost
Your suggestion is something that would improve the game in your opinion. Many people do not agree that it would be an improvement as the game already suffers from a massive (more than 50%) concession rate as it is, meaning most games never get the chance to be finished.
When people play a game they want to play the game. Concessions already come with almost zero drawback, and they're overused by most people's standards.. maybe the trick is to look at WHY people concede, and address those issues.
Are you really championing those "skillz" with your response?
Well, there's a call by some people to make COL a "rez" environment in which injuries and death do not carry over between matches. If you didn't have to replace lost players, would you be less reluctant to finish the games? What about if concession resulted in not only no gold, but not keeping any of the earned SPPs?
Personally, I don't like the 51 SPP rule (for online BB at least) - I think long-term penalties for concession are an issue when losing connection (which happens... and not infrequently for some people) counts as a concession. If you lose your best players because you had a power outage it's going to be an outrage... and not one that many people will shrug off. It's also not reasonable to say "well, you should move to a new house with more reliable power" or something regarding a video game.
There needs to be a balance between benefits and costs for concession that takes into account both the desire to finish games and the reasonable needs of players who may lose connection or need to concede once in a while for acceptable reasons. I don't agree we need LESS penalties for concession than are currently in place, but I certainly don't agree with anything that leaves lasting damage to your team as a result.
There was no condescension there whatsoever. It was simply a plainly stated opinion, like your insults. Disagreement does not equal derogation.
Disagreeing with you clearly annoys you. I'll try to be more agreeable in future in order to offend you less and to make life a little more pleasant for you. It's much easier when everyone agrees with you!
How many players were you leaving in tackle zones at the end of your turn?
Sorry, but when you start your post saying it might not be for me because whatever, thats condesending. Then you followed like I was complaining about getting screwed by the dice, etc, which I was not.
I just think it is tedious to play the last 4-5 turn when you are completely outmatched, just sticking around for the few gold that a loss would give you. Would also eleminate the waste of time of when you coutmatch someone so hard he goes AFK and then spend the last 4-5 turn waiting 2 minutes for him to time out.
I know I am not really good at this game and still trying to get better, but it dont take a genius to recognize some aspect of the game could be improved.
People disagreeing with me is no problem. You disagreed in the first sentence. The rest is just condesending.
I was just saying that I tought it might be a good idea to have a way to conceed a completely one sided match with a bit of gold and SPP in order to avoid what i think is a really tedious, annoying long and boring part of the game.
Namely, when the other dude goes AFK, cuz he think the game is lost but still want that MVP, or they are in posession of the ball and plainly intend to just cage up with their 6-7 man adventage and do nothing till the game is over.
The rule darthphysicist wrote about (2 players on the pitch) should be enabled. But I think it is not a great rule though, because it somewhat set a definition of "playability" which doesnt consider the difference between the number of players (aka outnumbering) but just the absolute number of players and it also doesnt consider the differences between teams in their dependence to the number of players to be able to play actively. This surely can work well as a compromise if these events dont become too frequent and occur too early.
I must also say that, especially in COL, most players concede even when they are far from this situation. Also the optional rule to decide which players get the MVP SPPs could help reducing the paradox of playing till the end to have your team destoyed, no money to buy back lost players and chances to have the SPP given to a dead player, thus giving some incentive to avoid this kind of concession
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxfQTghK7RA
Also: no, there's enough conceeding as it is.
Frankly there should be more penalties for conceeding as it is.
And people keep missing the point.
What if he had been playing Orc or whatever and got that unlucky?
Orcs take less casualties thanks to their higher AV. Also, 'unlucky' is a matter of perspective. Leaving lots of players in tackle zones (and other dubious plays) often lead to what some players call 'bad luck' with casualties.
If that happened to me when playing as Orcs (or any other team) I'd accept it, finish the game, and move on to the next. Having your team wiped out is as much part of the game as winning 5-0 with no casualties.
I am not attempting to be condescending, for the record. The above are plainly-stated facts.