thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
 Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 07:23 |
 
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | You silly people respond too fast at 5am in the night. |
It was not even midnight. I'm not suggesting any pampering either, only that concessions may affect the rebuying power of a team.
I have no idea why you think concessions should be a "loss for both sides." |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 08:10 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: | | You silly people respond too fast at 5am in the night. |
It was not even midnight. I'm not suggesting any pampering either, only that concessions may affect the rebuying power of a team.
I have no idea why you think concessions should be a "loss for both sides." |
And I have no idea why you are thinking the new system would encourage concessions. For all you have said you have only brought arguments why it would be bad to conceed.
Edit: And why loss for both sides?
Because rewarding concessions encourages cheating. The game system has to be focused on the health of the game system, not of an individual.
The person that is awarded a concession already gets lot of stuff they don't deserve since they didn't play a full game. Also nobody conceeds out of the blue, it is commonly an interactive outcome that is not entirely beyond control of the other party.
Wouldn't use the term 'responsible' but well... pampering seems like a stretch. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 08:27 |
|
I have no idea why concessions are even an issue at all. This is FUMBBL not Cyanide. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 13:08 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | And I have no idea why you are thinking the new system would encourage concessions. For all you have said you have only brought arguments why it would be bad to conceed. |
Put the two idea together: there are situations where conceding could be bad for the person against whom you concede.
Imagine a 20 games season of a rookie basher. He wins 6 games with 4 TD-CAS, loses 10 with 1 TD-CAS, and gets 4 early concessions with an average of 2 TD-CAS, games he could easily get one CAS and one more TD. That gets him 410k to rebuy his team instead of 450k or more. That rookie basher has less money to rebuy what could be a bigger team than without concessions, because four times he won double winnings.
That sucks.
These numbers also indicate that a system that incentivizes TD and CAS may penalize rookies and veterans who can't reach the expected average of TD and CAS.
| Wreckage wrote: | Edit: And why loss for both sides?
Because rewarding concessions encourages cheating. |
A system that penalizes the winner of a concession rewards concessions.
I thought the point about the small team me and PC discussed earlier was obvious. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 13:12 |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 13:41 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | thoralf wrote: | | Wreckage wrote: | | You silly people respond too fast at 5am in the night. |
It was not even midnight. I'm not suggesting any pampering either, only that concessions may affect the rebuying power of a team.
I have no idea why you think concessions should be a "loss for both sides." |
And I have no idea why you are thinking the new system would encourage concessions. For all you have said you have only brought arguments why it would be bad to conceed.
Edit: And why loss for both sides?
Because rewarding concessions encourages cheating. The game system has to be focused on the health of the game system, not of an individual.
The person that is awarded a concession already gets lot of stuff they don't deserve since they didn't play a full game. Also nobody conceeds out of the blue, it is commonly an interactive outcome that is not entirely beyond control of the other party.
Wouldn't use the term 'responsible' but well... pampering seems like a stretch. |
Not really, I have had four people concede against me, they all conceded pretty much out of the blue really. One was after one MNG and the oppo was 1-0 up, one -ma, killed one guy. And finally the last was another MNG.
No other perms than the ones listed and few other injuries in general. Any of the monster damage? No. The odd guy dying in blood bowl is sort of expected don't you think? And two when the worst has been MNG?
A game system where somebody trying to play a match in good faith has a loss when an oppo concedes is not healthy. That is not a system that will help the health of the site at all. And that would be under the CRP system. The new rules make this doubly so if implemented. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 13:53 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | The new rules make this doubly so if implemented. |
That conclusion is too strong - there are ways to "hamper" the effect once it is recognized. I thought this was Wreckage's point at first.
Also, there is no real "if" - we should expect the system to be implemented. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 14:00 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: | | The new rules make this doubly so if implemented. |
That conclusion is too strong - there are ways to "hamper" the effect once it is recognized. I thought this was Wreckage's point at first.
Also, there is no real "if" - we should expect the system to be implemented. |
So you think it's certain that conceding will lead to the match counting as a loss for both teams? OK.... |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 14:09 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: |
So you think it's certain that conceding will lead to the match counting as a loss for both teams? OK.... |
The only one who ever proposed that was you, Matt  .
I was talking about rewards for concessions being too strong. Which is two MVPs and double money at no risk of injury. That's what we are talking about.
Thoralf believes with a league impact on the open environment (whereas you don't lose anything whatsoever form a concession in an open environment) - with this nerf there should be a house rule to boost the reward for concessions so that teams that encounter this 'horrible fate' of free money (which they can use to rebuy their team on reset) - and which is in any respect completely unfair to anyone who sincerely plays and survives through a full game, should be somehow rewarded over actually archieving coaches with i dunno what 100 cas extra or whatnot.
And I just fundamentally disagree and say even if it wasnt an open environment and would be a league, which it is not, it is wrong to reward that sort of thing at all with anything extra.
That is completely different from calling it a 'loss'.
Edit: Just to put that into perspective:
A concession average monetary bonus is 35k, whereas two additional cas would be a bonus of 10k on reset. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 14:23 |
|
With the treasury rule it's not really as much of a benifit as before. In some cases it could be more like a penalty.
Who wants to be a forfeit recipient anyway? I have never conceded, I pat anybody on the back who never has or has decided they won't ever again. I hate it when people concede against me espechally when they have not even been bashed up.
The money is not as important as now, the missed chance for CAS and espechally TDs is doubly annoying as before. On top of that the usual frustration at basically wasting 30/60 min of your time when you could have been playing somebody else who would play the full match with you.
In a seasons environment, there is a need for compensation of some kind for being on the receiving end more than ever. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 14:25 |
|
35k you can't actually keep much of the time for the rebuy because you may lose your entire treasury? Gee thanks, so much better lol. |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 14:26 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | A system that penalizes the winner of a concession rewards concessions. |
That would be the case if the conceeding coach would profit from putting the other coach at a disadvantage. Which he does not.
Looking beyond the game, the two coaches both compete with the environment, not with each other. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 14:29 |
|
Matt, you say yourself you rarely encounter concessions, yet you think it is somewhat a good idea to reward somebody with a stronger team because he goes through 10 concessions or whatever? If what you say is true, you should have 0 interest in helping that sort of thing. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 15:16 |
|
| Matthueycamo wrote: | | So you think it's certain that conceding will lead to the match counting as a loss for both teams? |
No, I don't think so.
What I think is that admins ought to brace themselves, and we need to account for concession rates in the calculation of team efficiency. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 05, 2016 - 15:33 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: |
That would be the case if the conceeding coach would profit from putting the other coach at a disadvantage. |
That's not the only case.
Think. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
|
|
Roster Tiers
Search
