| Poll |
| Is trading in divX worth trying? |
| Yes, this is worth experimenting with. |
|
57% |
[ 82 ] |
| No, it would never work. |
|
42% |
[ 61 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 143 |
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 19:40 |
 
|
"Short answer: It's not going to happen.
We are here to run a large community for LRB play. Some may want something else, and they are perfectly free to go create their own site to do it on, just as we have. If you want to see a league run the way you want to do it, you can do the work to make it happen, don't expect others to do it for you.
As for DivX, there will be plenty of things going on there in the future. Fanatic games is not going to stop publishing experimental rules, they are in fact going to expand upon them with their upcoming Playtesting Vault. DivX will continue to be used to test officialy experimental rules, ageing included, if and when they publish new test rules for it." |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 19:41 |
|
Grumble -----> Dude.... you kill me lol .... For a guy who has such a dry sense of humor on-line sometimes you crack me up beyond belief. Thanks.
(BTW i wish I had mIRC at work)
The following was written BEFORE Grumble's response.
Monty -
| Quote: |
trading is never going to be an official GW rule
|
Then do you agree that's totally against what Klipp is saying ? To me, this whole thread is contradictory to Klipp's statement above. |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 19:49 |
|
Grumbledook, if that statement still applies, why have you implemented non-experimental rules like no aging and negative winnings in DivX? Your own actions have broken what you quoted there. That statement obviously does not apply any more. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 19:59 |
|
cause i have spoken to the BBRC about it
also i just copied and pasted that from mully's post saying you only got away with no one saying it cause you aren't force and that you are a (respected?!) admin |
Last edited by Grumbledook on %b %26, %2004 - %20:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Matt_wyeth
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:00 |
|
here's the thing explain to me how you would cheat by trading? i mean coaches who feel they need to cheat will cheat and find ways of cheating, you can't stop that you can find out about it and ban the cheaters but coaches which want to cheat will. you don't see the government try to take away peoples arms because some people use them to hit other people and hurt them do you. trading isn't about cheating its about well trading, to bartar ones unwanted goods for a more desirable good. and it would balance the game more. as teams could get better players and compete with teams that get lucky on skills rolls. i might trade 2 catchers for an + str blitzer if i could. you might need to replace your thrower which just bite the big one and decide that your +mv blitzer would be worth a thrower with strong arm and accurate. the possibillities for a trading system would give coaches more options, and the small percentage of coaches that would abbuse the system shouldn't be allowed to terrorize decision makers into chopping off peoples arms off, and ruining what could be a very cool and fun feature of blood bowl. |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:15 |
|
Yes Grum, my eyebrow raised several degrees on that word "respected"  .
Force deserved to be censured because his proposals were all about creating a better environment for him to grief, whereas I am proposing trading to offset what I foresee will be the bad effect of negative treasury: that it will not make the game fun. Basically, I read the rules about negative treasury, and thought to myself: "If that happened to me, I would get frustrated and angry, and the game would be less fun... what could be done to avoid that happening to me and other players?' The trading concept is the obvious complement to it. That it also achieves the long-stated view of the BBRC to decrease TR of big teams is an added bonus. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:19 |
|
Mully already expressed my main concern about the idea -- if this was implented, the data received from testing negative winnings wouldn't be nearly as useful anymore. Normally you would retire a player so that the TR would go down and the team would hopefully be in a lower income bracket. With this rule, you would get a lot of additional money from retiring (selling) the players, which would certainly skew the statistics. |
|
|
Matt_wyeth
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:32 |
|
I think the entire roster system needs to be reworked. winnings don't make any sense to me. i mean each fans that shows up will pay ticket prices regardless of who wins. And if it was from betting on the match why not let the coach decide how much to risk. on the part of the players i'd expect to get paid ever once in a while why should it be automatically deducted from the winnings which prolly wouldn't be where the money is anyway. I'd say you keep aging add play saleries which could be computed using the number of skillz and player cost original cost. make aging based on number of games played. Make the number of fans that show based on the number of fans that show up ticket price, and stadium capacity. heck add rules for stadiums while we're at it. It would be awesome to build a team and own stadiums. i want franchise mode! |
|
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:45 |
|
...
You are all free to create your own game / site / client...  |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 20:55 |
|
| Quote: |
Yes Grum, my eyebrow raised several degrees on that word "respected" .
|
** Mully's way of kissing @ss while going toe-to-toe on an issue. **
"It would be awesome to build a team and own stadiums. i want franchise mode!"
<b>Oh .......my..........god.....</b> |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Kommando
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 21:21 |
|
hm. how about this absolutely hypothetical no-way-its-ever-gonna-happen system, because i really cannot see how it could be abused:
players are sold to a transfer pool and the seller immediately receives their str-value in cash. these players can now receive bids over a couple of days and the highest bidder gets them.
ok, i found one way, teams which easily can get skill combos which overly increase the str value (like amazons with block and dodge) could use it as an easy way for income. but this could be solved, no doubt) |
|
|
Bretter
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 21:57 |
|
| Grumbledook wrote: | | "We are here to run a large community for LRB play. Some may want something else, and they are perfectly free to go create their own site to do it on, just as we have. " |
This is perhaps one of Grum's better ideas... |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 22:20 |
|
| Chickenbrain wrote: | ...
You are all free to create your own game / site / client... |
First of all, I realize and accept that it is the right of SkiJunkie, Fumbbl admins/owners etc. to say things like this. That being said, I am a bit tired of hearing this, it's not very constructive regarding this dicussion. I mean, yeah if I had the know-how, time and equipment I might do it, but I don't, so that's not really an option, at least not for me. Wish it was 
The fact that Christer, Mr-Klipp and more DO have the know-how, time and equipment is cool, and I love this site. I don't think anyone wants it to degenerate into a battlenet sort of place, but I think that given proper thought, a trading system could be set up that couldn't be used to cheat. |
|
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 22:25 |
|
Might be. But i'd take Grumbles statement as an official one. I am only the little dude rubbing it in again and again. And i still don't see a point in buying a player which i can build up on my own within a short period of time (one / two skills) or i can't buy, cause paying 200k for one player is just plain stupid. As a zon coach i get 4 players for that. Each of them will have one easy skill roll. Only 6 SPP needed. So really easy. So the whole discussion lacks somehow constructiveness. And putting players into a slot for others to buy em, who will never buy em anyway... I still don't see the point...
Player trading like in RL would be somehow funny, but is not part of BloodBowl. |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 22:51 |
|
| MixX wrote: | | Chickenbrain wrote: | ...
You are all free to create your own game / site / client... |
First of all, I realize and accept that it is the right of SkiJunkie, Fumbbl admins/owners etc. to say things like this. That being said, I am a bit tired of hearing this, it's not very constructive regarding this dicussion. |
Actually, you're asking to get something done and someone is giving you a suggestion to allow you to accomplish just that. I call that constructive.
As far as being a bit tired of hearing this, try looking at it from another perspective. Imagine you were commish of your own league and you had an idea. You thought it was a good one and literally thousands of people signed up for it and agreed to play by your rules. Yet each and every one of them is constantly telling you how to do it better by changing your basic idea. Would you get tired of that, too?
| MixX wrote: | | I mean, yeah if I had the know-how, time and equipment I might do it, but I don't, so that's not really an option, at least not for me. Wish it was . |
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nuffle/
There. Someone already did it for you. It's an option. By the way, stating that everyone who does all this swell free stuff for you 'has the time' is rather rude.
Lest I get my post deleted by mods again for being off topic, here's my on topic contribution. How's about at least giving the massive changes to divX a chance before trying to nag, cajole, while and otherwise ride on the coattails of others to get new changes put in for your own satisfaction?
I'm not particularly opposed to player trading. I think that it could be fun on occasion (roleplaying the sleazy skaven agent. heh.) but that the potential for abuse is too great and I happen to be tired of hearing a bunch of people acting like children with a bad case of 'entitlement issues.' If the admins want to put player trading in, they will. Can we leave it at that? Everyone knows by now that some people want it and some don't.
(disclaimer: I'm sick. And cranky. Go ahead and disregard any inflamatory remarks or perhaps you could email/PM me hate mail instead, rather than filling up the discussion board with it. Oh, and no, I'm not trying to single you out, MixX. Your quote was just the most applicable.) |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies
Last edited by BadMrMojo on %b %26, %2004 - %23:%Feb; edited 4 times in total |
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
