60 coaches online • Server time: 18:52
* * * Did you know? The best interceptor is Leena with 22 interceptions.
Recent Forum Topics  add the redraft info... | Smurf/Goblin/Halflin... | Increasing the max R... |
2010-02-01 13:45:19
53 votes, rating 5.3
53 votes, rating 5.3
Diary of a Whiner
In my time playing Blood Bowl, I've formed, abandoned, and re-formed a number of opinions re: the game, and how it 'should' be played. I've taken some time to think about this, and realized that nearly everything I think is wrong with the game stems from the subtle arrogance that I understand what is fun (which of course means that you do not).
This assumption, of course, is absurd. This fact has been pointed out to me by certain coaches who play the 'unfun' races. I didn't take it well at the time, but I appreciate it now.
Not only do I not have a great grasp on what is fun for a large, varied community, I don't have a particularly great notion of what is fun for myself. Looking back over my complaints over the months I've been here, they all point to one incredibly stupid conclusion:
The game I WANT to play isn't Blood Bowl, it's checkers.
Checkers is unerringly fair. The teams are even, and there's no dice. The checkers never miss their next game, and I never have to fret over naming a new one, because they don't die either.
Checkers is boring. Blood Bowl is not. If you take away all the things that make Blood Bowl interesting, it's checkers.
Are Orcs fair? Are Dwarves fun? Do Ogres have the tools necessary to play with/against 'competitively' as opposed to relying on luck? The two things that seem clear to me now are that:
1. These questions (and their kin) cannot and should not be answered by one person (such as myself).
and more importantly...
2. The answers to these questions aren't particularly relevant. The game is fun precisely because there's an element of chance, imbalance, and variation to every match. To take away those elements, even at the extremes, would be foolish, and damaging to the game.
It would be further arrogant to assume all coaches with complaints fit into my previous faulty mindset. But I think it's fair to imagine that some do. So to those coaches, I hope my personal epiphanies serve you as well as I hope they'll serve me. If not... idk, rate 1. You probably stopped reading by now ;)
Thanks for reading
~pubstar
This assumption, of course, is absurd. This fact has been pointed out to me by certain coaches who play the 'unfun' races. I didn't take it well at the time, but I appreciate it now.
Not only do I not have a great grasp on what is fun for a large, varied community, I don't have a particularly great notion of what is fun for myself. Looking back over my complaints over the months I've been here, they all point to one incredibly stupid conclusion:
The game I WANT to play isn't Blood Bowl, it's checkers.
Checkers is unerringly fair. The teams are even, and there's no dice. The checkers never miss their next game, and I never have to fret over naming a new one, because they don't die either.
Checkers is boring. Blood Bowl is not. If you take away all the things that make Blood Bowl interesting, it's checkers.
Are Orcs fair? Are Dwarves fun? Do Ogres have the tools necessary to play with/against 'competitively' as opposed to relying on luck? The two things that seem clear to me now are that:
1. These questions (and their kin) cannot and should not be answered by one person (such as myself).
and more importantly...
2. The answers to these questions aren't particularly relevant. The game is fun precisely because there's an element of chance, imbalance, and variation to every match. To take away those elements, even at the extremes, would be foolish, and damaging to the game.
It would be further arrogant to assume all coaches with complaints fit into my previous faulty mindset. But I think it's fair to imagine that some do. So to those coaches, I hope my personal epiphanies serve you as well as I hope they'll serve me. If not... idk, rate 1. You probably stopped reading by now ;)
Thanks for reading
~pubstar
Comments
Posted by maysrill on 2010-02-01 13:59:47
Are orcs fair?
Yes. They are probably a bit better than most of the races, but not absurdly so. They are all-around competent and hard to eliminate from the pitch, making them more reliable than most races. Reliability reduces the amount of risk, and that's good for experienced coaches. Noobs also are drawn to them, since while they will struggle with winning, their team won't be shredded regularly.
Are dwarfs fun?
Yes. I'm apparently in the minority who think so though. I like lots of complicated messes of blocking, with Guard players and varying strength all over, and where effective placement and chain pushes determine who comes out ahead. I'm much better at bashing races in general, and dwarfs in particular, because of this.
Can ogres be competitive?
Not really. In any given game they've got a "puncher's chance" because of all their ST and MB, and the chance for a OTT with TTM. Not to mention that a BT ogre who picks up the ball is hard to stop. But in the long run they can't string together victories against any competent opponent, since they roll too many dice every turn, have too low AG, very few G skills even on high TR teams, and 1-2 bonehead-riffic turns in a game are insta-lose.
(I like answering unanswerable/rhetorical questions)
Yes. They are probably a bit better than most of the races, but not absurdly so. They are all-around competent and hard to eliminate from the pitch, making them more reliable than most races. Reliability reduces the amount of risk, and that's good for experienced coaches. Noobs also are drawn to them, since while they will struggle with winning, their team won't be shredded regularly.
Are dwarfs fun?
Yes. I'm apparently in the minority who think so though. I like lots of complicated messes of blocking, with Guard players and varying strength all over, and where effective placement and chain pushes determine who comes out ahead. I'm much better at bashing races in general, and dwarfs in particular, because of this.
Can ogres be competitive?
Not really. In any given game they've got a "puncher's chance" because of all their ST and MB, and the chance for a OTT with TTM. Not to mention that a BT ogre who picks up the ball is hard to stop. But in the long run they can't string together victories against any competent opponent, since they roll too many dice every turn, have too low AG, very few G skills even on high TR teams, and 1-2 bonehead-riffic turns in a game are insta-lose.
(I like answering unanswerable/rhetorical questions)
Posted by Ancre on 2010-02-01 14:10:00
Orcs aren't fair, they're ugly :P
And for dwarfs, I find them fun, because they create complicated positioning of players in order to maximise guard assists and get a lot of 2d block. It's always a pleasure for me to be forced to think and find out a mistake in the dwarf coach's plan to try and break his line (or miserably fail, that's fun too, but less ;] ). I actually think they are one of the funniest bashy race to play against.
And for ogres ... I have yet to play against them. :]
And for dwarfs, I find them fun, because they create complicated positioning of players in order to maximise guard assists and get a lot of 2d block. It's always a pleasure for me to be forced to think and find out a mistake in the dwarf coach's plan to try and break his line (or miserably fail, that's fun too, but less ;] ). I actually think they are one of the funniest bashy race to play against.
And for ogres ... I have yet to play against them. :]
Posted by Frankenstein on 2010-02-01 16:02:05
I think I disagree with your implied message.
Balance is important and certain rosters are over-/underpowered, whereas others are boring indeed.
This doesn't necessarily mean that you want to play checkers, it can mean that a better balance / design might make for a better game experience.
I am personally convinced, that better designed rosters could be created easily (this is true for LRB 5 as well), especially as far as humans, orcs, dwarfs and ogres are concerned, and the game would NOT be damaged by that, quite the opposite: it could benefit largely by those changes.
In fact, I daresay that the game contains many superfluous checkers elements.
Not gonna rate your blog, as I don't want to spoil its high score ;)
Balance is important and certain rosters are over-/underpowered, whereas others are boring indeed.
This doesn't necessarily mean that you want to play checkers, it can mean that a better balance / design might make for a better game experience.
I am personally convinced, that better designed rosters could be created easily (this is true for LRB 5 as well), especially as far as humans, orcs, dwarfs and ogres are concerned, and the game would NOT be damaged by that, quite the opposite: it could benefit largely by those changes.
In fact, I daresay that the game contains many superfluous checkers elements.
Not gonna rate your blog, as I don't want to spoil its high score ;)
Posted by fly on 2010-02-01 17:07:40
dwarfs are boring, because even seasoned coaches have to take some time to figure out the best possible turn. makes the game slow, thus boring.
orcs are only too cheap, BoBs and Blitzers should be 90 or even 100k.
ogres are just random.
thanks for reading and the interesting read.
i love to foul orcs.
orcs are only too cheap, BoBs and Blitzers should be 90 or even 100k.
ogres are just random.
thanks for reading and the interesting read.
i love to foul orcs.
Posted by Cavetroll on 2010-02-01 19:55:48
I find your analogy to checkers irrelevant and inaccurate. After playing Bloodbowl, I would want to paint my checkers different colors, give them names and become attached to them. Then I would be sad when they got captured :( [note -this is supposed to be humor, since I can't convey tone in a post]
I'm in that minority of people who enjoy playing with Dwarves. I like the methodical, tactical approach and generally play most races with this same method. Which seems to annoy more opponents than the RNG does. Go figure.
I'm in that minority of people who enjoy playing with Dwarves. I like the methodical, tactical approach and generally play most races with this same method. Which seems to annoy more opponents than the RNG does. Go figure.