23 coaches online • Server time: 02:57
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post ETA on seasonsgoto Post double on MA10 gutte...goto Post Stuff de Vindaloo do...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
Which turn limit fix would you prefer?
1. Timeout! button
23%
 23%  [ 72 ]
2. Pause button + start of turn blanking
27%
 27%  [ 86 ]
3. Global emergency timer
41%
 41%  [ 129 ]
4. Something else (explained below)
8%
 8%  [ 26 ]
Total Votes : 313


Craftnburn



Joined: Jul 29, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2007 - 22:14 Reply with quote Back to top

shadow46x2 wrote:
christer, it seems to me like you've already made up your mind


That's been fairly obvious since the issue began. That's why I support option 1 That way the 75% of the coaches who are against the limit can just ignore the damn thing!
vanGorn



Joined: Feb 24, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2007 - 22:35 Reply with quote Back to top

shadow46x2 wrote:
vanGorn wrote:
shadow46x2 wrote:

as for people opposing the competitive nature of ranked?...when has anyone opposed ranked being competitive?...

I suppose he aimed at those coaches who exploit the glitches in the coach rating system to sneak to a higher 'rank' in an uncompetitive way.


fair enough, i can respect that....

but how does enforcing time limits fix that?

--j

That's a different matter, but think about those guys playing two or three matches at once. If one of those matches is [F] or [R] that will be hard to manage.

_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
Image
Quod



Joined: May 03, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2007 - 22:58 Reply with quote Back to top

Christer wrote:

1. Timeout! button
Has been referred to as Illegal procedure in previous threads. Using another term to not mix it with the real BBowl term of the same name.

Pros: Quick and easy
Cons: Can cause hostility to others for using it. Technically tricky to fully synchronize two clocks, which could cause arguments ("I had 3 seconds left!"). Potentially makes the turn limit useless.


This is the one I think would best suit Fumbbl.

Alot of the time it wuld not be used, as your opponent usually tells you whats going on. If your opponent is taking too long all the time, or it's a tournament, or you want to win at all costs, then it would get used.

Imo, this most closely ligns up with real tabletop, as it is the THREAT that you only have 4 minutes rather than the reality that makes people play faster.

On the con side, the easier it is for Ski to implement, the more likely that he will be able to implement it for us. Go go SkiJunkie!

_________________
Teams
Vae, puto deus fio!
johan



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2007 - 23:04 Reply with quote Back to top

I voted for (3), but I honestly see almost no difference between that and how things worked before the timer. The timer was implemented to make the game LRB compliant, and then the extra 15 minutes removes that compliancy. It doesn't really hurt, but it introduces extra complexity with no real results.

I still think it's better just to ditch the whole thing, but that wasn't an option in the poll...

_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”

—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess
xyphoid



Joined: Jun 16, 2005

Post   Posted: Feb 27, 2007 - 23:22 Reply with quote Back to top

I like 3, just becuase the problem with slow players isn't anything to do with one turn going over 4 minutes. I'd be much less frustrated at one 10 minute turn than an entire game of 3 min 55 second turns.
lauth81



Joined: Aug 21, 2004

Post   Posted: Feb 28, 2007 - 08:36 Reply with quote Back to top

Voted 4.

I´m against the 4 min rule enforced in an online environment. I don´t think it does add anything. LRB compliancy? We have differences in the gameplay already. We live with that.

And, btw., the whole CR ranking system (and TS) is a house rule, the league format in LRB 4 is different.

But I seem to repeat myself. If it is to be implemented I would go either with option 2 or 3.

_________________
no plan survives contact with the enemy
erzkanzler



Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 01:08 Reply with quote Back to top

I would sooo love to call illegal procedures, hitting a button - but I am aware that this would be a house rule for the turn limit. Still, even if not calling it that way, it might pose a different approach to enforcing the time limit in that it is completely optional to the players involved. It is not so much a house rule, but a practical implementation of the 4 min rule to online BBowl - it is the same as your friend in RL blood bowl "pausing" the timer when you go to attend to pressing matters, if you choose not to enforce the turnover, until the baby is fed in online gaming.

Hence I voted _something else see below

for the opponent enforcer button. A button pops up on the opponents screen, if one takes longer than 4 mins (right when the sound occurs now). With this button the turnover can then be enforced by the opponent.
In a perfect world, this would really make for a perfect solution - if all people were perfect sports that is, and if they would allow their opponent to take care of burning cats, rather than taking advantage of the call. As this is open for abuse under the above mentioned case (the burning cat) I don't know whether it is really practical.

However, abuse is likely to occur in all presented scenarios I am afraid, so it might be a question of how easily exploited such 4 min option is. I doubt that with penalizing overly excessive use of any pause function (even option 3) we could rule out exploitation - there is just no telling when someone lies to cheat, so accusations might go haywire if we call the admins on such cases in the future as well (as if they didn't have enough to deal with already).

Lastly, I find that part of the argument for an option to be implemented should address the amount of work it takes by altering the client. With this in mind, option 2 (without the screen going blank) seems to take the least amount, but as I am no expert on this, I might be completely off track.

To sum it up - the simpler the better: out of the above number three has my vote (unless the enforcer button actually finds support)

Thank you for your consideration and effort Chris - and SkiJunkie for putting up with us asking for more!

I bid you good day.

_________________
...
Rijssiej



Joined: Jan 04, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 13:16 Reply with quote Back to top

When chosing to implement the time limit to be more LRB compliant, i'd say there shouldn't be a fix, even though i am not pro-time limit.
asperon



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 13:19 Reply with quote Back to top

Timeout button, but that you opponent controls, i mean, just write a quick message to him/her, and have the game paused. That way it wont be abused.

_________________
anything with two wounds will have a lot going for it
Kalimar



Joined: Sep 22, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 13:44
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

I voted for the timeout button. And I wonder why Christer didn't do so himself. It's the one option which is closest to boardgame play and the LRB. If time's up sound the horn and display a popup for the opponent. If the opponent clicks on it an illegal procedure is called and you won't be able to choose a new player (but may finish your current move), just as it is now. The popup goes away as soon as the turn counter is clicked.
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 13:48 Reply with quote Back to top

Remember, if a break is going to be very long, and the opponent is agreeable, there is always a time-out option: re-load the game again later!

I think it makes more sense to add a different functionality (like option 3), rather than duplicate in the client something that you can do already.
Kalimar



Joined: Sep 22, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 13:58
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

@Pac: Sorry, I might be stupid and I'm not a native speaker, BUT I don't understand your answer at all. The "Illegal Procedure" button enables an opponent to force a timeout on you and thus speed up play. But if it's ok for both players the button doesn't need to be used. Timeout's are optional and that's the way myself and others have been playing the boardgame the last 10 years or so ...

The way it was before (just sounding the horn) there was no option to speed up play. The way it is now (automatic timeout) there is no sensible way to take a bit longer while chatting or caring for the kids. The "Illegal Procedure" button is the middle ground for me ...
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 14:18 Reply with quote Back to top

Kalimar wrote:
@Pac: Sorry, I might be stupid and I'm not a native speaker, BUT I don't understand your answer at all. The "Illegal Procedure" button enables an opponent to force a timeout on you and thus speed up play. But if it's ok for both players the button doesn't need to be used. Timeout's are optional and that's the way myself and others have been playing the boardgame the last 10 years or so ...

Yes, but if you want to give someone as much time as they need to finish their turn, you will always be able to do that: by re-loading again later.

What your option does not provide for is the situation where your opponent decides to be uncompromising, and ignores all appeals regarding burning babies and smoking cats. Option 3 gives a coach a small amount of leeway which is not reliant upon the other coach's generosity.

_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi Very Happy
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 14:25 Reply with quote Back to top

I like Illegal Procedure though I can see that it could upset people. Smile

But then... The rules say 4 minutes so you don't have much argument. 4 minutes, burning cats not not.
As with fouling people can put in their bios whether they push the button dead on 4 mins Smile

I am superstitious. I don't like restarts. They change the 'natural' flow of luck. I am sure to think that I only won/lost because of the restart. Smile

_________________
Image
Secret League - SLUMBBL Shield - 16th November!
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 01, 2007 - 14:29 Reply with quote Back to top

koadah wrote:
I am superstitious. I don't like restarts. They change the 'natural' flow of luck.

Aha! I told you luck was superstition! Very Happy
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits