Conceed without penalty

[toaster4k]

There should be a way to conceed when too far behind. Like, I was getting really unlucky my last game as skaven VS dwarf and i was reduced to use gutter runner in the scimmage line, in the 2nd half, with the dwarfs in possession of the ball. Whats the point? If i leave, i will lose some SPP and whatver gold a loss would at least give me so i can pay SOME of the player I lost, but if I stay, will most likely lose even more gold then worth it.

Either way, its not fun. Maybe you should be able to conceed if 4 player down and still get some gold.

[Snorri Nosebiter]

Escrito originalmente por toaster4k:

And people keep missing the point.

The point seems to be that there should be a mechanism allowing players to concede and still earn gold. This is wide open to abuse. Players could concede many of their first games and buy positional players, rerolls, apothecaries and stadium enhancements with absolutely zero risk.

The rules state that you get an MVP and earn gold for finishing a game- as many people have said, there's enough of a problem with conceding right now. We don't need to encourage it by rewarding players for doing it.

[zippy75aml]

I dunno...I think that if you're only capable of fielding 3 players, there's very little you can do.

Maybe conceding when you're totally out of the match isn't as bad as conceding when just one thing goes wrong for you?

We've all had players concede at the first bad block; we've all had matches where our team has been destroyed.
Personally, I think there's a difference.

However, I kind of agree that, maybe a player who concedes at the drop of a hit should be punished - whereas the player that can barely field a LOS shouldn't be so heavily penalised.

This said, it is simply part of the game: you field AV7, prepare for some nasty matches!

[toaster4k]

Escrito originalmente por Dave Hedgehog:

Escrito originalmente por toaster4k:

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.

Eh, thats your opinion, and I respect that.

I dont think I would want to finish that game tough. I just dont like it to be in one sided game on either side, since the exitement is gone and now just have to go throu the motion of finishing the game. Its even worst when the other just goes AFK if im the one winning.

But apparently, mostly really hardcore player post on steam, not dirty casual like me.

[toaster4k]

Escrito originalmente por Dave Hedgehog:

Escrito originalmente por toaster4k:

And people keep missing the point.

The point seems to be that there should be a mechanism allowing players to concede and still earn gold. This is wide open to abuse. Players could concede many of their first games and buy positional players, rerolls, apothecaries and stadium enhancements with absolutely zero risk.

The rules state that you get an MVP and earn gold for finishing a game- as many people have said, there's enough of a problem with conceding right now. We don't need to encourage it by rewarding players for doing it.

No, I said conceeding when the game is really out of reach.

Like, cant conceed without being outnumbered by 4 and losing by 2 or something like that.

Not OMG My guy got KOed by cheering fans on the first kickoff, conceed.

[Snorri Nosebiter]

Escrito originalmente por toaster4k:

No, I said conceeding when the game is really out of reach.

Like, cant conceed without being outnumbered by 4 and losing by 2 or something like that.

Not OMG My guy got KOed by cheering fans on the first kickoff, conceed.

Four KOs, four Badly Hurts, or four permanent injuries / deaths?

[toaster4k]

Escrito originalmente por Dave Hedgehog:

Escrito originalmente por toaster4k:

No, I said conceeding when the game is really out of reach.

Like, cant conceed without being outnumbered by 4 and losing by 2 or something like that.

Not OMG My guy got KOed by cheering fans on the first kickoff, conceed.

Four KOs, four Badly Hurts, or four permanent injuries / deaths?

4 at least injured, like, not coming back this game, or maybe 2 dead? I dont have specefic numbers, im just pitching an idea here.

when I mean outnumbered, is like if you revive all the KOed, im still 4 players shorts.

[avaririot]

Blood Bowl is a game where you lose players regularly and sometimes you lose entire TEAMS. I would venture to say that a BIG part of Blood Bowl's revival is it's inherent sweet spot permadeath system. People like perma death but they don;t like it to hurt too much. In BB, a dead player is a like losing your magic sword in D&D. Losing a team you really like because they got wrecked is like closing a character.

But in BB, especially an open league like COL, you can always just make another team. It's just ~20 hours play to a top level team, a dedicated player does that in a week.

[Dode]

Short answer: tough tits. Yeah, go on about "hardcore!" or whatever all you like but the fact of the matter is that this is Blood Bowl.

And no, you shouldn't get to concede for free just because you feel you can't win. When you do so you are taking away from the other player a whole bunch of SPP they might be able to place wherever they want, and potentially taking away TDs which might matter in any TD difference which could be involved in ranking. Besides, in a game with as much variance as BB when exactly is the point at which you can't win? If you want to concede then you should do so in accordance with the rules as stated, and if you don't like the rules then the game may not be for you.

No, I don't care if you think that's condescending. I do think you should take your knocks like someone who plays Blood Bowl, though.

tl;dr: Man up, wet pants.

[Mars Rover]

I should probably let a conded thread lie since it''s hard to add anything to the issue. I don't feel bad about folks conceding when they only have a few players left standing as I think most of us agree. The more random concedes are more annoying (like the guy gets a blitz against me, gets the ball, cages up then in his first turn fails a handoff and concedes.) Perhaps a bigger penalty for conceding in the first few turns?

[two_larsens]

I hate to say this, but the point of losing a game big might not be a point for you, but for the opponent.

[OakenWall]

i kinda hate how "especially many chaos" players make their blocks and if it doesnt go their way they concede so you cant attack them back.
Concede should be at start of turn imo.

[VoodooMike]

Escrito originalmente por Khadoran:

i kinda hate how "especially many chaos" players make their blocks and if it doesnt go their way they concede so you cant attack them back.
Concede should be at start of turn imo.

If people are interested in hitting you and not being hit back then changing when you can concede won't really matter... they'll just ALT-F4 on the game or something similar once they know they want to concede.

[DarthPhysicist]

Escrito originalmente por Dode:

Short answer: tough tits. Yeah, go on about "hardcore!" or whatever all you like but the fact of the matter is that this is Blood Bowl.

And no, you shouldn't get to concede for free just because you feel you can't win. When you do so you are taking away from the other player a whole bunch of SPP they might be able to place wherever they want, and potentially taking away TDs which might matter in any TD difference which could be involved in ranking. Besides, in a game with as much variance as BB when exactly is the point at which you can't win? If you want to concede then you should do so in accordance with the rules as stated, and if you don't like the rules then the game may not be for you.

No, I don't care if you think that's condescending. I do think you should take your knocks like someone who plays Blood Bowl, though.

tl;dr: Man up, wet pants.

Awesomesauce. Welcome to my frustration :)

[FabWolf]

The videogame doesn't totally implement the ruleset. You can change any rule in the tabletop. So instead of thinking that "the game may not be for you" because you don't like one of thousands of aspects of this game, you can try playing the original game, if you can.

In the videogame they implemented this ruleset, and for some reason here whenever someone talks about some aspect or some rule he doesnt like, he gets all these kind of answers in order

1)You are wrong, it doesnt happen. You can't play
2)None cares about what you think. Play something else

In the videogame you have two other options, both possibly frustrating (but most of people here tend to not give a ♥♥♥♥ about other's fun, as you can see)

1) Manage your TV to stay at a range in which the casualties are less, so this event occurs significantly less (and this should happen also in short term league play).

2) In COL just play teams which suffer much less this situation, as the prevalence there suggests it is possibly the way to go

[koadah]

Escrito originalmente por Dode:

tl;dr: Man up, wet pants.

Hardcore to the max! ;)