Petter
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 06:01 |
 
|
The rules state:
| Quote: | | If you get disconnected in the middle of a turn, do your best to make it fair. If a play has already been made, try to replicate it as closely as possible. For example, if your opponent scored a touchdown the first time, it's only fair that the team scores after a reload. The same holds for other in-game events. |
Now, this sounds all good and fair to me - but tonight I saw an implementation of this rule I would not have imagined. I was spectating a FUMBBL Cup game between two coaches (let's call them A and B just to stick to the rules debate rather than getting all inflamatory) who are both far from newbies around here. Coach A(gile) played an agile and quite mobile team and Coach B(ashy) played a slower and more bashy team.
Coach A had the ball, did a long run and managed to get a long bomb off into the endzone somewhere in mid first half. The score is then 1-0. However during the setup that follows something goes wrong with their connection and they are forced to reload. After the reload Coach A tries the same move but fumbles the ball on the longbomb attempt.
So it's turn 5 starting (IIRC, it might have been turn 6) and Coach A just dropped the ball on a longbomb attempt that had worked out before the reload. There was no talk about what to do next, and Coach B moves in to try to get/protect/steal the ball. Coach A does not say anything about this, but when his turn comes he just clicks turn (in anger or frustration I would assume?) rather than playing from this position and trying to retake the ball and score (which IMO was very doable still). To sum up the rest of the game; Coach A clicks turn up until Turn 6 2nd Half or so, when all of a sudden the two coaches start talking a lot. It was just after B's 2-0 TD, and Coach A was setting up offense... I kept speccing for another 30 minutes or so where Coach A refused to click "turn" to finish setting up players and went on by calling Coach B a cheater --- referring to the rules section I quoted above. Finally, after an hour of setting up team, still on Turn 6 2nd Half, Coach A disconnects - saying he will not finish the team and that the management of FUMBBL supports this view.
- - -
Woah, long story, but I'll keep on talking for a little bit about the rule and why I think it was wrong of the management to allow the discconect.
I think the general idea of the rule is very good, but I think some element of sanity must be brought into the enforcement of this rule. Obviously, if the "replay" of what happened before the reload is starting to take more turns than it originally did -- and that hurts one of the teams, the reload itself is starting to get its own life and affecting the game more than the play that is supposed to be replayed did, and I will use tonights game as an example;
If Coach B would just click turn to give Coach A another turn to try to score that means a severe impact to the ability to score in first half, since Coach B was playing a clumsy and rather slow team. So there is a dilemma:
* It is not fair that Coach A lost the ball, since the ballhandling move worked before the reload.
* It is not fair for Coach B to start losing important turns to mimic the score previous to the reload.
* Since the game was autosaved on the turnover of the ball fumble, there is no possibility of repetitative rollback to get the same result (the .INC file was apparently corrupt in some way, as I have seen happen to other games as well).
- - -
I think it was a very odd call by the management to allow Coach A to disconnect and call off the game. If there should be a cancellation it should happen at or around the time of the reloading incident - not one half of non-play later where one coach is basically just forfeiting turns.
I also think that the rules are in fact NOT clear on how to handle a situation like this. I do think most coaches in the same situation would have been very frustrated for missing a TD, although it didn't yield a counter-TD automatically, but whenever things like this has happened to me in a game we sort of just move along and try to get the game back on track. If the management thinks one should forfeit as many turns as it takes to get a score to happen that happened before reload I think this needs to be clarified in the rules. That is certainly not the way I would interpret the paragraph quoted at the top of this post.
- - -
What I suggest:
* Client change; savefile history, so that all turns in a game are saved by number, so that a rollback to a specific turn any number of times is possible.
* Until such an implementation is possible; forfeiting of turns to produce a similar result as before the reload should be done with the entire scope of the game in view rather than just one score or injury or such. Just as a touchdown can be important to the, so can a successful BH of a powerful star player. If a game is reloaded, we sort of need to keep playing from there and we can't really expect identical results. It's one of the drawbacks by playing this game on computers over the internet.
Regards, and as always thanks for a great site,
Petter |
|
|
cusi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 06:21 |
|
I think people should keep in mind first thing that it is a imperfect online gaming setup. YOu have to play through mess ups though in the heat of the moment it can be tough.
I think playing through and knowing that bad online things can happen is part of it.
Personally i would have given him another opportunity to score a td is a big deal to lose. It is good to be known as a fair player and gets you repeat games etc...
Dealing with it in a mature way between the coaches is probably the ideal way.. but hey this is a fantasy football game where you squish hobbits 8?) |
_________________
Check out the latest issue of The Grotty Little Newspaper yet? |
|
ClayInfinity
Joined: Aug 15, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 06:59 |
|
My 2cents is that karma comes and goes. I agree with cusi that an online game can cause "continuity" issues when there is a disconnect and I think we should all play with that in the back of our minds.
I say that Coach A should have said "fark! that's bad luck" and played on knowing that sometime in the future, the dice and the internet will be in turn kind to him.
The most telling part of this story is that no dialogue took place between the coaches until 8 turns later. I think that's appalling - we're all collective friends here sharing a common hobby. The internet is not perfect and it wasn't Coach B's fault so maybe Coach A should have swallowed his pride and asked his opponent his thoughts... and come to some imperfect solution to an imperfect problem.
Remember it is a game of electronic pieces with mathematical stats... it ain't a big deal in the broader scheme of things... |
|
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 07:05 |
|
restarting from the save a couple of times to get the turn to work similar is fine, but the fumbbl rule says
try to replicate it as closely as possible.
ie... if you can't replicate it... tough, you have to continue the match... it's happened to everyone... |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 16:37 |
|
| cataphract wrote: | restarting from the save a couple of times to get the turn to work similar is fine, but the fumbbl rule says
try to replicate it as closely as possible.
ie... if you can't replicate it... tough, you have to continue the match... it's happened to everyone... |
That's one interpretation of what it says, but I disagree. Your version should read, "Try once to replicate it as closely as possible and then continue play." The other interpretation could be phrased as, "Try by whatever means necessary, including reloading again to replicate the first result as closely as possible."
Now reloading after failing the TD is only possible if the host made a copy of the save game before reloading it after the crash. However as coach B in this scenario, I'd just give coach A another chance. As coach A, I'd just deal with the hand I'd been dealt and play on unless coach B offered to skip a turn or what not.
Neither solution is perfect, but both are acceptable. I think that coach A in your example should have handled it better. His/her motives were understandable but the actions were inexcusable. Coach B wasn't much better but was only bad through omission of action. Really, how hard is it to say, "Hey, why'd you stop playing?"
If this happens to you, please, I beg of you... Suck it up and take one for the team/community. The lucky party can give up an advantage out of a sense of fairness, but the unlucky one can't do the same with their disadvantage. Act accordingly and always keep your Karma up. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 16:44 |
|
Simple solution ... just communicate. This has happened to me several times. All I do is talk to my opponent in chat and decide what we will try and recreate and how many times will we try to do it. If the pre-disconnect actions were very hard to duplicate we will usually come up with a compromise. In all the times this has happened, I've never had an ugly situation due to the simple fact that we talked and agreed before hand.
But not saying anything, stewing about it at your PC, and then quitting the game is inexcusable. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Petter
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 20:31 |
|
| Mully wrote: | | Simple solution ... just communicate. This has happened to me several times. All I do is talk to my opponent in chat and decide what we will try and recreate and how many times will we try to do it. If the pre-disconnect actions were very hard to duplicate we will usually come up with a compromise. In all the times this has happened, I've never had an ugly situation due to the simple fact that we talked and agreed before hand. |
But IMO the rules should be clear enough so when a complete breakdown of communication happens between two people, there should be little or nothing to argue about. |
|
|
psikobunny
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 21:10 |
|
Both sides are at fault here (A for not handling it well and B for proceeding without clarification), so allowing the disconnect and saying no harm no foul probably the best answer. You can play shoulda coulda woulda all night, but for once cusi and I agree about the vagaries of online play.
There was no breakdown of communication there was a refusal to communicate, so no rule can allow for human pigheadedness. Neither side gains from having no match, and depending on how the tourney is being run, they can lose a bit of ground from not having the experience of the game. |
|
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 07, 2003 - 22:09 |
|
Hrm. Know what, there's an easy solution to this.
If a disconnect occurs after a difficult play, before you re-load, copy the .dat files and save them somewhere else - both players should do this. If the play fails, reload the old save at the different location - guess what, it won't have been over-written by the auto-save after a fumble/trip. You can attempt to recreate it to your heart's content - you'll get it right some time.
It's worked for me, every time I have asked my opponent nicely. If I recall correctly I've also offered the same grace to my own opponents. |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 08, 2003 - 01:47 |
|
Petter, that was a nice story. I've got a few questions for you.
1. Are you sure you didn't leave out any important details?
2. Are there some details that you left out that might want to include upon further reflection?
3. Are you positive you didn't miss some chatting that actually took place between the action?
4. How many assumptions did you make when telling this story?
5. Are you certain that were actually there spectating or was this a retelling of the story from someone else's account of it?
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Mystery Link |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Petter
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 08, 2003 - 02:01 |
|
| EvolveToAnarchism wrote: | Petter, that was a nice story. I've got a few questions for you.
1. Are you sure you didn't leave out any important details?
2. Are there some details that you left out that might want to include upon further reflection?
3. Are you positive you didn't miss some chatting that actually took place between the action?
4. How many assumptions did you make when telling this story?
5. Are you certain that were actually there spectating or was this a retelling of the story from someone else's account of it?
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Mystery Link |
I was spectating the game up until 30 minutes into the Turn 6:2nd Half stalling but I might have missed a lot of things since the game wasn't really all that interesting to watch, however my point was on a generic policy level and I used this one game as an example. Pointing fingers is useless and I would much rather see a development of the FUMBBL rules than a flame war, please. If any feelings are hurt because of things I missed, I apologize and ask you to look beyond that and focus on the policy level of my argument. Thank you! |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 08, 2003 - 02:45 |
|
If you wanted to focus on the policy, you should have used a hypothetical example rather than completely distort what actually happened in a real game.
| Quote: |
(let's call them A and B just to stick to the rules debate rather than getting all inflamatory) |
Unfortunately your fabricated story is inflamatory, as it omitted important details and completely misrepresents an important point which subsequent posters have focused on. I would like to believe that it was inattention that prompted you to post a story with very little resemblance to reality but the misrepresentations would have been blatantly obvious to anyone who was actually watching the match, so I'm left to conclude that you probably possess some very morally reprehensible traits that I are best left between myself and Petter, so that everyone else can focus on discussing potential revisions to the rules.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
P.S. I responded with questions initially, in order to give Petter the opportunity to add/change elements of his fictional example. I have no great desire to correct Petter's story or engage in a flame war. I'd rather not pollute the board or waste my time engaging in a reality war with a piece of fiction. I hope everyone can focus on the actual issue. The problems caused by the new autosave feature. I believe Mezir and BadMrMojo are on the right track but that's for another post. |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Petter
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 08, 2003 - 08:33 |
|
I'm sorry you refuse to accept my apology and instead come to the "probably possess some very morally reprehensible traits" conclusion. Again I ask you to keep this topic free of personal attacks and rather talk about the issue about how reloads can be game-breaking and what would be a good set of rules for those times where two coaches cannot come to an agreement about what to do after a reload gone bad. If you want to call me names, please do so in a PM or over the IRC.
I think the suggestion about doing manual copies of the saved games is a good one in theory but might prove a bad one in practice, seeing that some people are not as skilled with computers as others are. As long as both sides needs copies of a position-mirrored (?) file, this could also prove to be a gamekiller if one of the coaches make a mistake somewhere. To make this a rule might or might not be a good idea... I still think having a turn-selection feature on the reload might be the best way to go, and shouldn't be too much of a pain to implement in the client (however, it would steal development time from other issues). What do you think? |
|
|
dinaturz
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 08, 2003 - 09:00 |
|
For me, the "copy the save file somewhere else" option is more than acceptable.
Considering this solution from a higher point of view, it could also be seen as a way to correct the "let's do thing easy for not skilled people" way of thinking.
I am for the user friendly solutions, but things that are too user friendly tend to decrease the computer skill of everage people, who will more and more expecting a big "click here" button instead of keeping on (or starting to  ) thinking how to do.
my 2 cents.
marco |
_________________
Not only am I redundant and superfluous, but I also tend to use more words than necessary. |
|
Dooby
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2003 - 14:53 |
|
I am new to the site and had some experience of these disconnections. I played a game where, to be fair, my opponent went for a tackle and got a result where my werewolf was flattened with the ball. The internet disconnected and when we reloaded he went for the same tackle and failed. I never even thought about reloading it and trying to achieve the same result but will do from now on.
Thank you for your wisdom. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
