Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
 Posted:
Sep 08, 2010 - 19:05 |
 
|
| DonTomaso wrote: | | I say we burn those that voted Pie! |
I couldn't resist pie, but if I was allowed 2 votes then it would be definitely be for the No option. Please dont burn me  |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 08, 2010 - 19:39 |
|
Pie heretics must be burned. |
_________________
 |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 08, 2010 - 19:43 |
|
| uzkulak wrote: | | It might be an idea to backward redeclare this "petition" as a forum misclick and allow the OP to leave the area with some dignity. |
Classic LMAO!!! |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
gandresch
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 08, 2010 - 21:20 |
|
Hi,
i like the idea of undoing a step, when no dice have been rolled. If you misclick on a OT and lose the game because of that, an undo would be great. After 1 or more dice have been rolled, i would not allow to undo before the last dice roll and only for the active player. So if a player has ended the action, then no further changes on that are possible.
You have 4 minutes for a turn and if you spend your time with undoing steps, then you don't get back the time you used to make the steps.
But:
This should only be optional. I think for a Major or other big tournaments, there should be no undoings allowed. For Academy, League, Ranked and all "average" games, the option should be no real problem. Perhaps every player can decide for himself and if one player is against such a rule, then it isn't used in the game.
Greets,
gan |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 08, 2010 - 21:24 |
|
^^^ can I have a retake on life plskthx? |
_________________
|
|
Cevap
Joined: Jun 24, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 08, 2010 - 22:00 |
|
It's a nice idea, but the rulebook is strictly against it. Maybe it could be implemented for Academy though. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 09:54 |
|
| uzkulak wrote: | | It might be an idea to backward redeclare this "petition" as a forum misclick and allow the OP to leave the area with some dignity. |
Firstly, it was a suggestion, nothing more. I may eventually adapt or it may keep negatively influencing my gameplay, but in the long run i will learn to deal (and if only with the annoyance).
Secondly, why would my dignity be affected by the fact that a majority of forum voters is so desperate to win that they will insist on an unnecessary rules-familiarity advantage just to keep an edge?
EDIT: I just realized there's a third point. The 'petition' is part of the suggestion for FFB, which does not make this thread a petition. But why should you let illiteracy get in the way of your desire to make a pun?  |
Last edited by Fela on %b %09, %2010 - %10:%Sep; edited 1 time in total |
|
BooAhl
Joined: Sep 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 09:58 |
|
After 91 votes, it is amazing that nobody has a better idea than this idea. |
|
|
blocknroll
Joined: Aug 04, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 10:46 |
|
i have to say that "the rules" are quite clear about when you declare what you are doing, so it's not really fair to say that "coaches are so desperate to win" because after all the client is just following the rules very precisely. i dont know if you have played TT mainly with a group of friends, but in a tournament setting although there would usually be a little consideration shown by the other coach if you did wish to redclare something this is essentially at their discretion. there is a big difference too (imo) to how that kind of slight leeway (which is after all optional in the first place) is worked out face to face in person and over the internet. essentially the rules are the rules and the old client has made fummblers in general not have to pay too much attention to certain aspects of them (eg declaring). this is not a bad thing in and of itself but does not mean that striving to implement a client that is as true to the rules as possible is a bad thing. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 12:34 |
|
| blocknroll wrote: | | but in a tournament setting although there would usually be a little consideration shown by the other coach if you did wish to redclare something this is essentially at their discretion |
Which is PRECISELY what the 'petition' option I outlined would do.
I've never been on any kind of official BB tournament before, so I'm really curious now:
Are you guys actually really saying something like 'I'm declaring a move action with Fred' before you take Fred and move him? Every single time?
In our private league, we would just move pieces and only declare when it's something other than move action. And _of course_ that would mean sometimes one of us was halfway through a (supposedly) move action when he said 'oh..i forgot to mention, i'm performing a pass action here'.
So, were we really playing in our private utopia completely removed from BB reality? |
|
|
Maverick13
Joined: Oct 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 15:14 |
|
in tournaments it is generally accepted it is a move action unless otherwise stated - blitzes are always declared prior to moving and generally pass /handoff are the same - however as people point out when playing face to face there is an ability to agree slight consideration for both parties - i.e. moving a piece as long as no dice have been rolled a move action is allowed to be changed into a pass action however this is down entirely to your opponents discretion and no hard feelings which ever way he chooses to play.
<< my tuppence  |
_________________
<a href="http://fumbbl.com/help:ShepherdOnFouling" target="_blank" class="postlink">Something to think about.</a> |
|
Calthor
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 15:55 |
|
| Quote: | | Are you guys actually really saying something like 'I'm declaring a move action with Fred' before you take Fred and move him? Every single time |
Blitz, Pass and Hand-off are always announced. If not announced, Move or Block is assumed. That's generally how it goes. |
|
|
bxnyc
Joined: Jun 23, 2009
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 16:09 |
|
| Fela wrote: | Are you guys actually really saying something like 'I'm declaring a move action with Fred' before you take Fred and move him? Every single time?
In our private league, we would just move pieces and only declare when it's something other than move action. And _of course_ that would mean sometimes one of us was halfway through a (supposedly) move action when he said 'oh..i forgot to mention, i'm performing a pass action here'.
So, were we really playing in our private utopia completely removed from BB reality? |
Yes |
|
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 16:32 |
|
| Calthor wrote: | | Quote: | | Are you guys actually really saying something like 'I'm declaring a move action with Fred' before you take Fred and move him? Every single time |
Blitz, Pass and Hand-off are always announced. If not announced, Move or Block is assumed. That's generally how it goes. |
And foul ofc |
_________________
 |
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
Sep 09, 2010 - 16:57 |
|
The huge difference is that in the computer-game you need to define an action from start anyway. either if it is move of blitz. So enforcing the rule in this case is not that bad. Look at it as if you say move, you are saying a move-action. Why would you change what you said afterwards?
Would you want to allow a person to first say foul, and then blitz instead?
Not to mention all the hustle of the coding of this none-issue as it has more to do with being used to do it. Or all the potential bugs it could lead to, or the amount of extra time it would take if people had the chance of trying stuff first and then go back.
There is nothing else in the game that allows you to go back, so i don't see why this would allow that either. |
|
|
|
|
SWL Season CI
Search
