Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Share your ideas and Suggestions about Blood Bowl 2.
User avatar
dode74
Posts: 7041
Joined: 11 December 2008, 11:18
Location: Nr. Reading, UK
Contact:

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby dode74 » 21 January 2014, 13:12

That's why I specifically said "billions of balanced team customizable combinations"

Billions of combinations doesn't necessarily mean billions of balanced combinations. But billions of balanced combinations does by definition HAVE TO be balanced.
You have no idea whether or not your billons of combinations are balanced. That's my point. All you've done is said "these are the combinations". I've no issues with that your youtube link says, but you've not done that.
You can't just fall back on it's just my opinion vs your opinion. I want something that you don't want and You want something I don't want. No ones right no ones wrong its all just opinions. Because well that is wrong.
A laughable statement. We're talking about games here - not all games are to everyone's taste.
I want a gamemode that's better suited for online matchmaking
Then come up with a viable ruleset. Nobody has said you can't, just that you haven't, and if you do that it is not Blood Bowl but something else: 40k vs DoW again.
all to backup my opinion
All of which is just opinion. Yours, theirs, mine, it's all opinion. I don't care how popular LoL or DOTA or Starcraft or Magic the Gathering are: they are not to my taste and you are unlikely to get me to want to play them by telling me how competitive they are. I'm more interested in how fun they are, and I don't find those games fun.

Riot moving to pseudorandom (by which I assume they mean the RNG is modified to get rid of crits after a crit has procced) have done so because players don't like double crits. That's a design choice by them, much like similar design choices are made in the Civ series. Quad skulls are a design choice for Blood Bowl. Neither is objectively better than the other.
And you need to stop equating deterministic with competitive: they're not the same thing. Deterministic is chess-like, competitive (in this context) is the spirit of competition, and BB certainly has that.
You say:High RNG is competitive
*Ignores any points about increasing player choice increases skill, By making the winner determined by player choice*
More RNG means more Risk management and risk management is a skill so More RNG=More Skill=More competitive
My equation at the end was a mickeytake of your thinking. Shame you missed that. Risk management is a skill which you don't appear to value, which is fine. You basically don't like environmental randomness, which is also fine. I, and others who play this game, like it and value that skill and find BB a good way to compete in that skill which is fundamental to the game.
You say: RNG has more risk management or Volatility/HIE/Player controlled randomness doesn't involve the same amount of risk management
No, I said it was a different type of risk management, one where you have to take into account the possibility that your players will fail the action you are asking them to take when planning your turn. It's not better or worse, it's just different and preferred by those who play this game.
So here we are. I want to make the game be more player choice driven aka competitive by unnecessary removing RNG and provided fairly reliable sources to back my points up(the best I can find) and you don't want that because you want to keep the RNG because you think removing RNG would remove/lessen the risk management even though I've done my best to explain prove and show you links to decent sources to show you Volatility/HIE/Player controlled randomness requires just as much risk management.
So here we are. You want a completely different game to BB but based on the BB IP and simply can't understand that people actually like to play with randomness in the game because they find it fun. Apparently you think that because you can quote other people who share your opinion that you are right and we are wrong, as opposed to understanding that people like different things. You also seem unable to comprehend that in BB you are playing against the other coach as well as mitigating for your players' failings and limitations, a factor which limits what you can reasonably expect to get away with as a coach, although there's nothing to stop you trying it should circumstances permit: you might just get away with that crazy play, just like in real life!

I'm going to say it one more time: the game you want is not based on the same principles as Blood Bowl. The game you want is Frozen Endzone with fantasy football skins. It might be fun, it might not, but it's not utilising the same skillset as this game and is fundamentally different. If you want it then come up with a decent ruleset and either pitch it to a games company or make it yourself.
Image

Bossgod21
Posts: 16
Joined: 21 January 2014, 13:47

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby Bossgod21 » 21 January 2014, 14:47

wow do people really want to get rid of rng from a dice based game?

don't people understand that without the rng this game wouldn't be bloodbowl? it would be a game similiar to but not bloodbowl. (anyone play blitz mode?)

if you want more people to play bloodbowl then advertise it better and find a way to make the learning curve less steep. (oh yeah and cyanide could help, anyone else not even look at the game of thrones game after hearing they were involved?)

also the community does little to help noobs. how frustrating must it be for the few new players who weather the storm of losing game after game, player after player, then when they start owning for the 1st time their opponent DCs.
as for competitiveness the same applies. one player i've met does well in most leagues i've seen him in but the 3 times we've met he's DC'd when i've gotten into a winning position. i no longer compete in any of those leagues because i can't. nothing to do with dice.
also when looking at the competitiveness of BB you can't look at single games. it's definitely true you can be completely shut out of a game thanks to dice. over ten games though you can see who is more consistent. without rng the best players with the strongest teams win EVERY TIME. part of the fun of BB is taking gobs or flings knowing that with the right dice at the right times you can actually compete. you still need to position well, manage blocks, open/close pass/run routes.

is the problem not more that we can see the rng and as human people we tend to see our own 'bad luck' before our opponents and sometimes even before our own mistakes? (i was once told how lucky i was to score 28 av breaks in a game however from my pov i was unlucky not to get a single injury from said av breaks)
lots of games use some form of randomness to determine outcomes. eg,
in fifa i shoot but don't always score. in fact i could take the same shot from the same position with the same player 10 times and get 10 different shots
or any total war. get 2 identical units click them to attack each other at the same time and 1 unit will win. but they are identical, no? shouldn't they both die together equally matched?
or a million other games that use some form of randomness to stop the game being a stale 'this is better so it wins'

bloodbowl is not supposed to be balanced or fair. it was never designed to play infinite matches with 1 team. if you can't handle these things then you're playing the wrong game imo. if these things don't bother you then sign up for a good player run league and enjoy :D

a lot of people compare to chess but how many of the same people play chess competitively? i know i will always lose to a chess grandmaster because he/she is so good at his/her game that i can't even come close to planning ahead the same way he/she would.
however, in bb i have a chance. a small one but still a chance. he/she can be the best coach there is with a well leveled team but if i play uber safe and get a bit of luck it is possible for me to overcome the odds.

anyways, i've gone on a bit of a ramble here. hope some of it makes sense to someone lol ><

i guess my opening couple of lines sum up my feelings best.

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby Koadah » 21 January 2014, 14:58

...
Good stuff!

But it's all been said multiple times. It's just that some folks don't want to listen. ;)
CaRBB

WWWilliam
Posts: 52
Joined: 09 January 2014, 05:35

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby WWWilliam » 21 January 2014, 23:32

You have no idea whether or not your billons of combinations are balanced.
They will be. If there not then it's not my concept.
I don't know if you understand the concept of a concept.
We're talking about games here - not all games are to everyone's taste.
True, And my concept is my game is aimed at the majority of gamers.
Then come up with a viable ruleset. Nobody has said you can't, just that you haven't, and if you do that it is not Blood Bowl but something else: 40k vs DoW again.
Again failing to understand what concept is.
Say I invent the concept of "Currency" Pieces of paper you can trade for goods and services and vise versa.(Ta-da just invented a concept)

I don't have to figure out every single interest rate and every detail of bank loans over 50k or anything or Put a price on every single thing purchasable with currency to have a 100% complete concept and understand how it works and know it's a good idea, That currency is a good concept.
All of which is just opinion. Yours, theirs, mine, it's all opinion. I don't care how popular LoL or DOTA or Starcraft or Magic the Gathering are: they are not to my taste and you are unlikely to get me to want to play them by telling me how competitive they are. I'm more interested in how fun they are, and I don't find those games fun.
Good, Play what you want. I'm suggesting to make the game appeal to the masses and obviously you don't like what the masses like since you admit those games are popular and you admit those games aren't fun for you and since they all follow the same philosophy on competitive games.
For me to suggest implementing those philosophies on to this game you obvious wont like it.

But to be frank who cares? Your one person its anecdotal evidence. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bad for the masses.
And you need to stop equating deterministic with competitive: they're not the same thing. Deterministic is chess-like
Well I want my game to be perfectly imbalanced. Chess is perfectly balanced.(Shown in video) So my game cannot be like chess.
Risk management is a skill which you don't appear to value, which is fine.
I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times in this thread I value risk management super highly.(Just not RNG management)
You say: RNG has more risk management or Volatility/HIE/Player controlled randomness doesn't involve the same amount of risk management
No, I said it was a different type of risk management, one where you have to take into account the possibility that your players will fail the action you are asking them to take when planning your turn. It's not better or worse, it's just different and preferred by those who play this game.
This is the biggest Issue I see. Glad you admit Volatility/HIE/PCR is a form of risk management.

But you seem to think flat out failing something (Like failing to move a chess piece) is somehow valuable I do not understand this at all?

To me that is stupid and super uncompetitive and pointless. Makes 0 sense to me.

Explaining how this is useful at all and what it accomplishes if anything would probably go a long way imo
So here we are. You want a completely different game to BB but based on the BB IP and simply can't understand that people actually like to play with randomness in the game because they find it fun.
I do understand it's fun i don't deny that any game can be fun. But my primary goal is to make it competitive (and fun but since fun can be included in both versions, Competitive is the defining factor)
The game you want is Frozen Endzone with fantasy football skins.
Nope. Frozen Endzone you don't take it in turns I want BB to take it in turns.
It might be fun, it might not, but it's not utilising the same skillset as this game and is fundamentally different.
In your opinion. I see it as utilizing the same skillset even more so because the skill is more important then RNG.

Does my concept have:
Team building and progression? Check
Risk management? Check
Taking it in turns? Check
Still have all functions blocking/catching/passing/etc/etc/etc? Check
More competitive and suited for online matchmaking? Check

don't people understand that without the rng this game wouldn't be bloodbowl? it would be a game similiar to but not bloodbowl. (anyone play blitz mode?)
Hence why I want a new online matchmaking adoption of BloodBowl (based off but not confined by the board game) Which would be similar but not the board game. So I guess I agree with that point? lol
bloodbowl is not supposed to be balanced or fair. it was never designed to play infinite matches with 1 team. if you can't handle these things then you're playing the wrong game imo.
For the board game Yea I agree. But these arn't changes I'm suggesting for the board game There are changes i'm suggesting for BB 2 (gamemode or BB 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) for a video game adoption of BB that uses a lot of the same mechanics but to suit the online matchmaking gamer market of today
when looking at the competitiveness of BB you can't look at single games. it's definitely true you can be completely shut out of a game thanks to dice. over ten games though you can see who is more consistent.
I 100% understand that concept but Consistency doesn't get worse when you remove dice..... It gets more consistent
however, in bb i have a chance. a small one but still a chance. he/she can be the best coach there is with a well leveled team but if i play uber safe and get a bit of luck it is possible for me to overcome the odds.
Hence a uncompetitive game. A chess grandmaster or the best BB player should ALWAYS beat a average player in a competitive game

But in competitive online matchmaking games they have ranking systems, Use chess as an example
If your playing chess online matchmaking getting matched with players of the same ranking(meaning same skill level as you) you should be winning 50% of the time. (This in chess the same game you lose 100% of time vs grandmasters)
If your better then your ranking you should win like 75% of your games and increase your ranking until you get around 50% (then this is your skill level)
If your crap at chess you should win 10% of your games until your ranking goes down the drain (So you only vs other bad players)
Grand masters should win 100% of there games untill they get into the "Grandmaster" rank area then they will be vsing other grandmasters and wins are all skilled based.

See how a game where grandmaster will ALWAYS beat a normal player can foster a 50% win/lose ratio for most players in a online competitive matchmaking system.

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby VoodooMike » 22 January 2014, 00:56

...without rng the best players with the strongest teams win EVERY TIME. part of the fun of BB is taking gobs or flings knowing that with the right dice at the right times you can actually compete. you still need to position well, manage blocks, open/close pass/run routes.
This isn't really true - if you use the example of chess, the stronger player doesn't win EVERY TIME, just most of the time, based on how well each player can keep track of potential moves and avoid making mistakes, which is the skill involved in the game. If you're an inferior player and you win a game simply because the dice roll a certain way... did YOU really win? I suppose in the way you might "win" the lottery, through no real fault of your own.

The risk management aspect certainly makes sense in terms of keeping a game interesting for people who can't handle the "every loss is entirely on you" aspect of things like chess. It comes down to how much random you prefer... the more random, the less skill is involved even when you factor in "risk management". So really, it comes down to just how random you like things to be... some people like no randomness, some people enjoy playing the lottery, and there's someone in every position between those two.
bloodbowl is not supposed to be balanced or fair. it was never designed to play infinite matches with 1 team. if you can't handle these things then you're playing the wrong game imo. if these things don't bother you then sign up for a good player run league and enjoy :D
The internet wasn't designed to be used for playing games, or for watching cat videos, but over time it has adapted to suit the needs of the people who use it. Who cares what blood bowl was originally designed to be... the question is, what does (or should) the future hold for the game? It has changed several times over the years, so change is not a totally foreign concept to the game.
a lot of people compare to chess but how many of the same people play chess competitively? i know i will always lose to a chess grandmaster because he/she is so good at his/her game that i can't even come close to planning ahead the same way he/she would.
however, in bb i have a chance. a small one but still a chance. he/she can be the best coach there is with a well leveled team but if i play uber safe and get a bit of luck it is possible for me to overcome the odds.
It isn't you that is overcoming the odds, you're simply relying on luck to make up for your own inadequacies. In chess you may lose much more consistently against a stronger opponent but that's because they're better at the game than you are... you'll know when you've gotten better because you'll start winning. If we base the outcome of a game on a coin toss you'll be able to win against even the best players 50% of the time, though I don't think you'd bother putting that skill on your resume.

Does BB need to be less random? Meh, I don't personally think it does but I understand why some folks do. I'd like to see the game adapt to online play rather than cross my fingers and hope that people somehow decide they're just going to like it as is. Some people don't care if its a game that only a small number of people want to play, and that's fine too... they still wish they had more opponents, but aren't willing to meet people half way to get it <shrug>.
But in competitive online matchmaking games they have ranking systems, Use chess as an example
If your playing chess online matchmaking getting matched with players of the same ranking(meaning same skill level as you) you should be winning 50% of the time. (This in chess the same game you lose 100% of time vs grandmasters)
If your better then your ranking you should win like 75% of your games and increase your ranking until you get around 50% (then this is your skill level)
If your crap at chess you should win 10% of your games until your ranking goes down the drain (So you only vs other bad players)
Grand masters should win 100% of there games untill they get into the "Grandmaster" rank area then they will be vsing other grandmasters and wins are all skilled based.
And yet, removing randomness is not necessary to create such a system... in fact, systems like TVPlus can create that type of balance without requiring people actually have comparable skill levels.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

WWWilliam
Posts: 52
Joined: 09 January 2014, 05:35

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby WWWilliam » 22 January 2014, 10:52

This isn't really true - if you use the example of chess, the stronger player doesn't win EVERY TIME, just most of the time, based on how well each player can keep track of potential moves and avoid making mistakes, which is the skill involved in the game. If you're an inferior player and you win a game simply because the dice roll a certain way... did YOU really win? I suppose in the way you might "win" the lottery, through no real fault of your own.
Exactly my point behind "Competitive" games.

I want the winner of the game to be decided by 99.99% of both players choices. (Because that's how I and many other of the top 50 Esports developers and communities define "Competitive" because the bottom line is "Who has the most skill to make the best choices" )

When the winner can be decided or heavily effected by RNG then the game isn't competitive IMO. (Because the bottom line can be "Luck" which =/=Skill Which =/= competitive game)
The risk management aspect certainly makes sense in terms of keeping a game interesting for people who can't handle the "every loss is entirely on you" aspect of things like chess.
I gotta make this obvious, Reducing RNG doesn't reduce risk management. (It reduces RNG management) IF all the RNG was gone and everything was decided by players you still don't know what the enemy will choose to do so you still have to manage that RISK.(You go though tackle zone the enemy is given choice of 3 actions to do, You don't know which one)
(But honestly that sounds like a pushover's reason to like RNG lol) The point of a competitive game is when you lose it's your fault, No one else not RNG fault not nothing. They where better then you at this time. And if you lose can figure out what you did wrong and improve.

When you lose to RNG your just like FUUU. Next game.
It comes down to how much random you prefer... the more random, the less skill is involved even when you factor in "risk management". So really, it comes down to just how random you like things to be... some people like no randomness, some people enjoy playing the lottery, and there's someone in every position between those two.
But my suggestion has nothing to do with personal anecdotal preferences and how much people prefer

I'm saying I want BB to be objectively more skill based(competitive) customizable and redesigned to suit a online market. You can hate it or you can love it, It doesn't matter because that's beside the point.

People are saying "Removing all the unnecessary RNG doesn't make the game any more skillful because it removes Risk management and actually makes the game less competitive and less possible outcomes and more boring"

And that's what I'm trying to prove wrong.

Removing unnecessary rng=More skill based (Things are decided by both players choices=Competitive)
Because enemy player choices are uncontrollable there still "random" to you=Risk management still a valuable skill
My suggested rules there are things that are impossible to happen in BB1(Such as tackling a player holds them still instead of a turnover)=More outcomes/possibilities

And I cannot understand how people flat out claim removing RNG makes the game worse in anyway (Besides it's changing from the board game but that's the entire freaking point......)
The internet wasn't designed to be used for playing games, or for watching cat videos, but over time it has adapted to suit the needs of the people who use it. Who cares what blood bowl was originally designed to be... the question is, what does (or should) the future hold for the game? It has changed several times over the years, so change is not a totally foreign concept to the game.
Maybe changing the game to take some "online matchmaking competitive game" that is suited and designed for online matchmaking gamers?

Considering most popular and competitive games are all online matchmaking games? I wonder why I see that as a good direction to take the game hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maybe the board game rules created 1987 aren't the best way to play a online matchmaking game?
It isn't you that is overcoming the odds, you're simply relying on luck to make up for your own inadequacies. In chess you may lose much more consistently against a stronger opponent but that's because they're better at the game than you are... you'll know when you've gotten better because you'll start winning. If we base the outcome of a game on a coin toss you'll be able to win against even the best players 50% of the time, though I don't think you'd bother putting that skill on your resume.
This is what I'm trying to deal with. I honestly think these people think "Removing RNG is bad makes the game less competitive because a slightly better player will beat you 100% of the time" because "There is no RNG if someone is better they just WIN"

and "Managing the RNG makes me better then someone who can't manage the RNG" but removing the RNG means "Managing the unknown player choices is stupid it's not even a skill its stupid"
Does BB need to be less random? Meh, I don't personally think it does but I understand why some folks do. I'd like to see the game adapt to online play rather than cross my fingers and hope that people somehow decide they're just going to like it as is. Some people don't care if its a game that only a small number of people want to play, and that's fine too... they still wish they had more opponents, but aren't willing to meet people half way to get it <shrug>.
This is what I'm trying to offer. (less RNG=More player choice driven=More Skill=More competitive, I don't know how people argue against that)
And yet, removing randomness is not necessary to create such a system... in fact, systems like TVPlus can create that type of balance without requiring people actually have comparable skill levels.
Randomness doesn't effect a ranking system but people seem to think "If RNG is removed players who are slightly better then me will win 100% of the time and I will have no chance to beat them" and I was trying to show even if you remove RNG you can still have fair games that can go either way and you get matched with players close to your skill so your never gonna vs a "grandmaster" unless you yourself are good enough to get to a "grandmaster level"

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby Koadah » 22 January 2014, 13:45

This is what I'm trying to offer. (less RNG=More player choice driven=More Skill=More competitive, I don't know how people argue against that)
Why should we care?

Why should you care what we think?

You have come to a forum for people who love blood bowl and are trying to sell us game designed for people who figured that they wouldn't like blood bowl. (They don't actually know as they didn't play it. ;) )

I understand that a lot of people buy many games. But a lot of people don't. Those people are not just going to buy something because it has 'Blood Bowl' on the cover. Some people would buy it then give it up after three or four tries because actually it wasn't blood bowl.

Mike is right. A lot of people don't want to meet you half way. We don't need to. As long as there is a server running it will probably be another 20 years before we run out of opponents.

Stuntyleeg showed that you only need a small number of coaches to keep going. It died because of other versions of the same game with better software. Not because of better games.
CaRBB

User avatar
VoodooMike
Posts: 1614
Joined: 14 July 2009, 07:44
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby VoodooMike » 22 January 2014, 16:48

I want the winner of the game to be decided by 99.99% of both players choices. (Because that's how I and many other of the top 50 Esports developers and communities define "Competitive" because the bottom line is "Who has the most skill to make the best choices" )

When the winner can be decided or heavily effected by RNG then the game isn't competitive IMO. (Because the bottom line can be "Luck" which =/=Skill Which =/= competitive game)
The first two words are key here... it's peachy to want that, but you wanting it isn't the same as it being the obvious benefit you imagine it to be. There are a great many games considered to be highly competitive that are quite heavily based on randomness, such as Poker and Backgammon - the randomness gives each player something to adapt to and makes them face difficult decisions that they wouldn't have to make if the moves of the next turn were already a given. As I've said, it comes down to balancing the skill with the random such that the random does not eclipse the skill.

Declaring that "people" agree with you is just weasel words, btw. I don't know of many RNG-less online games: even FPS games use randomness for things like bullet spread, power-up placement, and so on.
I gotta make this obvious, Reducing RNG doesn't reduce risk management. (It reduces RNG management) IF all the RNG was gone and everything was decided by players you still don't know what the enemy will choose to do so you still have to manage that RISK.(You go though tackle zone the enemy is given choice of 3 actions to do, You don't know which one)
Yeah, that's simply not true. Without randomness there isn't variable risk to manage - you know exactly what moves the other guy has to make next turn, or what moves you'll have to make after those. If someone knew exactly what cards were going to be drawn in Poker then it wouldn't be a betting game - the unknown aspect is what creates the risk associated with each move.

This doesn't mean that randomness is inherently better than non-randomness in games, just that the two types of games are significantly different. If you move a game from being one into being the other, you've changed the game in a non-trivial fashion.
But my suggestion has nothing to do with personal anecdotal preferences and how much people prefer
It has everything to do with that. It's about what you prefer games to be versus what this game actually is, and about how big a difference there would be between what you're saying you want, and what the game currently is, and whether it'd be objectively better or not.
People are saying "Removing all the unnecessary RNG doesn't make the game any more skillful because it removes Risk management and actually makes the game less competitive and less possible outcomes and more boring"
It makes games themselves far more predictable, and while that's peachy in games like chess, it's very different from what Blood Bowl always has been. The idea that the randomness you're asking to remove is unnecessary is pretty subjective, as well.
Considering most popular and competitive games are all online matchmaking games? I wonder why I see that as a good direction to take the game hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Please list off all these popular, competitive games that have no element of randomness... I suspect you're simply not seeing the randomness they use.
Randomness doesn't effect a ranking system but people seem to think "If RNG is removed players who are slightly better then me will win 100% of the time and I will have no chance to beat them" and I was trying to show even if you remove RNG you can still have fair games that can go either way and you get matched with players close to your skill so your never gonna vs a "grandmaster" unless you yourself are good enough to get to a "grandmaster level"
Randomness absolutely does affect ranking systems - it introduces variation in outcome. The size of that variation is typically associated with the amount of randomness (and/or other unmeasured factors). In a game without randomness the size of the variation becomes nearly zero as you go up in player skill level, as the games come down to who makes a mistake first. There's room in the world for such games, but I don't see any reason to convert BB into such a game.

There is a fairly limited pool of opponents currently, and you're never guaranteed to get an opponent that is of exactly the same, or even necessarily similar skill level. In your scenario we also require a large and varied playerbase to provide appropriate matches. Variability and handicapping allow for a lot more leeway in matchmaking.
Friendly Reminder: Correlation does not equal Causation - tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids if it'll help.

WWWilliam
Posts: 52
Joined: 09 January 2014, 05:35

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby WWWilliam » 22 January 2014, 18:11

it's peachy to want that, but you wanting it isn't the same as it being the obvious benefit you imagine it to be.
It doesn't matter what I want it has no value to the topic. I'm suggesting removing unnecessary RNG (not all RNG just the excessive RNG and most of it) to make the game more dictated by skill.

Who ever likes it or doesn't is irrelevant to : Is moving BB into a skill based game to suit PC online matchmaking a good idea.

Which is my hole suggestion.

There are a great many games considered to be highly competitive that are quite heavily based on randomness, such as Poker and Backgammon - the randomness gives each player something to adapt to and makes them face difficult decisions that they wouldn't have to make if the moves of the next turn were already a given. As I've said, it comes down to balancing the skill with the random such that the random does not eclipse the skill.
Well I've only ever played backgammon as a kid I don't remember much about it but poker is competitive to me. As I've said I'm not trying to remove all RNG just most of it to make it a skill based game. (where advantages and disadvatages are lost and gained by player choices not RNG)
I don't know of many RNG-less online games: even FPS games use randomness for things like bullet spread, power-up placement, and so on.
Not trying to remove all RNG Just most of the RNG.

Because some RNG is good, You don't see RNG overload in FPS in COD there is 50% chance your gun will explode every shot, 50% chance bullet will not hit 50% chance you will shoot yourself 50% chance grenade will drop etc etc Most every competitive game (including top 50 esports) the developers and inside the communities hold the belief less RNG= More competitive.
Yeah, that's simply not true. Without randomness there isn't variable risk to manage - you know exactly what moves the other guy has to make next turn, or what moves you'll have to make after those. If someone knew exactly what cards were going to be drawn in Poker then it wouldn't be a betting game - the unknown aspect is what creates the risk associated with each move.
There is variable risk to manage wtf..

You don't know what cards the players in poker have so its risk management, The unknown aspect is what creates the risk associated with each move. (The cards you get are RNG but you can win and often do win hands before the final card is flipped over though bluffing alone)

This is my example I used for a new blocking system

Code: Select all

Blocking: There are so many ways to make blocking work this is just one of many. If both players have equal ST the AC can choose (without rolling) Push Back or Defender stumbles AND the DC can choose "Defend against Push back" or "Defend against Defender stumbles" If AC choose Push back and DC choose to "defend against Push back" nothing happens, If AC choose Defender stumbles and Defending coach chose "Defend against Defender stumbles" it becomes a both down. If AC has higher ST they can choose any option (But defender down can only be chosen if you have 3 or more ST) If AC has lower ST the DC can choose Attacker Pushed, Both down.
You HAVE no idea what the other player is gonna choose and it's the unknown aspect is what creates the risk associated with each move.

Just because the enemy player is choosing what happens doesn't mean there is no unknown aspect that creates risk associated with each move. Because it does

Same with every element of the game there is multiple outcomes. What the enemy player does is pretty much random to you so there is unknown aspects that creates risk associated with each move.

Same with chess you don't know what move the enemy chess player will do, So there is unknown aspects that creates risk associated with each move.
This doesn't mean that randomness is inherently better than non-randomness in games, just that the two types of games are significantly different. If you move a game from being one into being the other, you've changed the game in a non-trivial fashion.
Yep that's the idea. Change the game to significantly removing most RNG to make the game more skill based.

Doesn't make skill based(player choice driven) games better, It does however make it more competitive.
It has everything to do with that. It's about what you prefer games to be versus what this game actually is, and about how big a difference there would be between what you're saying you want, and what the game currently is, and whether it'd be objectively better or not.
I'm saying a BB game with Less RNG (not no RNG) will be based more on skill and player decisions and objectively more competitive.

Whoever likes it or not is besides the point.
It makes games themselves far more predictable, and while that's peachy in games like chess, it's very different from what Blood Bowl always has been. The idea that the randomness you're asking to remove is unnecessary is pretty subjective, as well.
Time for a change then, That's my suggestion. Board game is fine for 1987 but this is the 21st century why not bring the game up to speed and make a online matchmaking version of it.
Please list off all these popular, competitive games that have no element of randomness... I suspect you're simply not seeing the randomness they use.
Read the thread and there are plenty of links, of developers of and game makers from COD to LoL or do your own research on google.
Then remember I don't want all RNG removed just most of it. (most games NEED some RNG but the entire game based around dice is outdated)
Randomness absolutely does affect ranking systems - it introduces variation in outcome. The size of that variation is typically associated with the amount of randomness (and/or other unmeasured factors). In a game without randomness the size of the variation becomes nearly zero as you go up in player skill level, as the games come down to who makes a mistake first. There's room in the world for such games, but I don't see any reason to convert BB into such a game.
This is where your wrong.

Ranking system SHOULD be 100% based on skill......If a ranking system is effected by RNG then it's not longer "A system that ranks players based on skill" its a system that rated "How lucky players are"

In a game with low RNG (Like the top 50 Esports in the world right now) the "Size variation" comes from skill. I dunno if you just have no faith in yourself that you can't come back from mistakes without RNG to help you or what. But games are way more complex then tic-tac-toe (Where it's always a tie unless someone makes a mistakes)

No one is perfect chess grandmasters go back and forth the first mistake doesn't dictate the winner and video games are way more complex with way more things to fail and do wrong. (To gain and lose advantages, The winner isnt decided on first mistake NO WHERE NEAR THAT i honestly don't understand that mindset)

User avatar
Koadah
Posts: 1211
Joined: 08 April 2009, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Need more Creativity and Competitiveness!

Postby Koadah » 22 January 2014, 18:33

Who ever likes it or doesn't is irrelevant to : Is moving BB into a skill based game to suit PC online matchmaking a good idea.
If no one likes it then it's not a good idea. ;)

Someone will like it if it is done well. That still depends on doing it well. People won't like it purely because you got rid of the dice.
CaRBB


Return to “Ideas and Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron