GreySeerFerretBitten
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 10, 2003 - 23:55 |
 
|
Stemming from Petter's post regarding the FUMBBL language on reloads stemming from disconnects:
I have run across a couple of situations like this, and I am a new player. The question I have is this:
Is the intent to duplicate the "play" or the result of the play before the disconnect? It makes a big difference. Here is a benign example. First move of the turn, mummy throws a 2 die block and double skulls. Turn ends. Disconnect. Reload. Should the mummy throw the 2 die block again in trying to duplcate the "play" or should the turn be hit to duplicate the result of the block?
The same is true for a TD. Are you trying to stay true to the intent of effecting a TD, or are you trying to stay true to the attempt to get the TD?
On a side note, communication is clearly the answer, however, I would just like clarification on the intent of the rule language.
Thank you
The Grey Seer FerretBitten |
|
|
olivers
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 00:19 |
|
In short yes. If the opponent changes tactics or keeps disconnection on 'unfavourable' dice rolls then report to admin. |
|
|
GreySeerFerretBitten
Joined: Oct 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 00:44 |
|
Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
I understand that one should not change tactics, rather they should stay true to the intent of the lost turn. So if in the lost turn you designed a play to get a touchdown, in the reload you should try to get that TD, not set up a really nasty foul with no means toward the TD.
The questions really centers on what BadMrMojo said in the other discussion. Do you just try once to get that TD, or do you try again and again until the result of the lost turn is duplicated to sufficent effect?
Thank you,
Grey Seer FerretBitten |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 01:12 |
|
I think the spirit of the rules is rather optimistically to replay it over and over again until the results are close enough to be indistinguishable from the initial turn. Regarding the effect or the exact rolls, I personally believe it's the same effect.
Let's say you have a turn where you throw a bunch of blocks to no effect and then score a TD and promptly crash. When you reload you should just score your TD, since the effect is identical. No one got hurt and you scored. Same effect.
That said, it is often impractical to do repeat an effect easily. If you made a lucky CAS and then an improbable play and moved the ball downfield, then it'll take you a long time to repeat those same results. This is where the optimistic part comes in and where people have a chance to really shine as a part of the whole community. I would hope that anyone here would be willing to give that turn another shot and deal with the results.
If I was the person who lost a player and gave up the TD, I would be willing to let them try again. If they went 5 or 6 times without repeating it (very possible, in this scenario), I'd ask them to try to make a play that they thought was 'good enough'. If they're not satisfied, then they have every right to keep trying, by the rules. I will, however, make a mental note to pass on the next chance to play this opponent.
If I was the person who made had the lucky turn, I'd generally try it again and go with the results, barring catastrophe. Sometimes, even if it was catastrophic.
This would technically mean I was breaking the rules. Would my opponent complain? I doubt it.
If anyone here would report me, then I'd quit. It's just that simple. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 03:39 |
|
I think BadMrMojo's points speak to the heart of the issue. What is the spirit of the rule? I believe fairness is at the heart of the rule. I don't believe an exact replication of the past turn is required if both coaches have goodwill and are willing to discuss things. Hopefully, most coaches would be able to talk there way to a fair solution but unfortunately there are some coaches who will do just about anything to win.
If the above isn't clear enough I hope a few examples might clear things up:
Example 1: Offense scores prior to a disconnect but doesn't injure anyone with their blocks before their completion for a touchdown.
Suggestion actions:
Offense shouldn't bother throwing any unnecessary blocks. A defensive death or injury would not replicate the past turn, so there is no need to throw any blocks that aren't crucial to the score. The offense should just stick to the parts that are essential for the score. Not only does it guarantee that the defense isn't penalized with an injury but it also saves time, especially as you might need to redo the turn a couple of times.
Defense shouldn't bother trying to make an interception attempt. It didn't happen the first time, so there's no need to move your passblockers to make an attempt on the ball. Again it saves time too. As the coach who benefited from the disconnect, the defense should continue replaying the turn until the Offense is satisfied with the result. The Offense may decide that the score is too difficult to replicate and the Defense should be willing to compromise with a fair solution.
Example 2: The Defense blocks the Offense's star catcher and BHs him before the disconnect.
Suggested Actions: On the replay the Offense can agree just to not use the star catcher for the rest of the game rather then force the Defense into replaying the down over and over again until the star catcher is BHed again. This saves time and has the same result except that the Defense loses out on some SPP.
Example 3: Disconnection problems result in the Defense losing a turn. The Offense can now score on T7 to win the game and the Defense can't respond to tie the match like they could have before.
Suggested Action: The Offense benefits here. Even though he may think the Defense would have had a slim chance to tie the game, as the benefitting party he should give the Defense the benefit of the doubt. That may mean not scoring and being happy with the tie.
When you benefit from a disconnect, you are the only one who can guarantee that a fair result ensues. Responding with "concede or continue" is against the rules and will definitely get you on my Do Not Play list. The above examples demonstrate that it is possible to find a fair solution to a diconnection but they require that both coaches show goodwill, an ability and willingness to communicate, and a sense of fairplay. Sometimes that may mean taking one for the overall health of the community. But if my experience is any indication, someone will return the favour in the future. But if you insist on taking advantage of a disconnect, you'll be setting an example for your fellow coaches, that will encourage a poisonous unsporting atmosphere.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Soccer Link |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 14:52 |
|
Very valid points above for those situations. Let me throw in a tricky one here.
Opponent A on offense about to start their turn. Opponent B gets disconnected, but no one realizes it (B just assumes coach A is taking along time to think). After 5 minutes of dead time, Coach A asks Coach B in IRC why he isn't setting up for a kick off. Coach A claims to have performed a miraculous 5-5-4-5 die TD move.
The problem is Coach B lost connection and wasn't able to witness any of it and so cannot confirm if this happened or not. This is a stickier situation and has happened to me a couple times. Sometimes we have replayed it and sometimes we haven't. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 15:44 |
|
Well, for those occasions, I do a quick screenshot . And anyone, who wants to tell me, that I faked such a shot in those 3 mins, isn´t really right at mind.
Though it happend to me 2 days ago, when my opponent accidently closed the clients, because "his screen went blank", on turn 8 2nd half, when all I had to do was a GFI with reroll. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 11, 2003 - 17:30 |
|
Circ - good idea - thanks |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Jared
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2003 - 11:59 |
|
if i disconect and loose out i just try and replay what i did, if things go worse for me, what the hey let it roll, nut i will try to repeat what i did,
the only problem i have is when someone completly changes their go, ie instead of blitzing the person A in they suddenly pull them back and blitz over with person C in a different situ, that annoys me, if however they/me do blitz with A and get a Skull - BH i tend to take it as just one of them things, |
_________________
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=2440
XXXtreme ball with added XX |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2003 - 15:55 |
|
Maybe we need to invoke a NHS rule.
Try to replay your turn to the best of your memory, but if it doesn't quite work out as before, then Nuffle Has Spoken!
Seriously, just try to replicate the outcome, rather than the exact moves. If you can get your players in the same or roughly equivalent position, great! If you can't then take your medicine and move on. We all (I would certainly hope) are here for the fun of it and how much fun is it to reload 6 times so that your opponent can watch you try to kill off his star player again?
Talk with your opponent and be willing to be flexible. How hard is that? |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2003 - 19:30 |
|
| Quote: | | If you get disconnected in the middle of a turn, do your best to make it fair. |
As Evo already mentioned, exactly that first sentence is (in my opinion) the core of the mentionend rule.
| Quote: | | If a play has already been made, try to replicate it as closely as possible. |
This part - to me - is already part of providing an example of what "making it fair" might look like, just as the last part of the rule that reads
| Quote: | | 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. |
.
We are touching a point here that really has a lot of real live correspondance - how well can rules (i.e. laws) and regulations solve a problem that can happen with a huge set of possible variances. I.e. no rule/law - ever - can account for every given problem without leaving room for interpretation. A rule is just a rule is just a rule, whereas the situation ruled by that rule can arrive in a countless number of different shadings. That's why there is any need for courts and lawyers to "decide" on justice at all. The same "negative" quality applies to rules in Fumbbl of course, and I don't think one can improve the wording a lot in a rule dealing with discussions like that. Personally I'd strengthen the core part of the rule, and leave the rest as an open wording that clearly states the two coaches have to find a solution themselves.
I'd change the wording to something like this:
| Quote: | | If you get disconnected in the middle of a turn, do your best to make it fair. A fair solution always depends on the situation at hand and often requires the involved coaches to find a satisfying compromise between themselves. For example, If a play has already been made, try to replicate its result as closely as possible. |
Everything in italics are my additions. I left out any specific examples as I belive that especially that part of the rule would make narrowminded coaches focus too much on the example overlooking and missing the general idea of the rule. I also added "its result" in the formulation to keep the sense that a touchdown should happen if possible, but that a BHed instead of a RIPed player is well within the spirit of the rule.
-Mnemon |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2003 - 13:49 |
|
I would say, that the one who got disconnected cannot claim retries.
Example:
Offense throws 2 blocks (no knockdowns) to open a score route and scores. Defense gets a disc.
2nd try and offens not only scores, but inflicts 2 cas at the blocks. Defense has to take it, cause after all it was "their fault". If offense got a disc, the defense could claim a retry until only pushbacks have been made. |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2003 - 14:58 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Well, for those occasions, I do a quick screenshot . And anyone, who wants to tell me, that I faked such a shot in those 3 mins, isn´t really right at mind. |
Yeah, that happened to me once...I got disconnected and didn't realise, and then my opponent claimed that I had cheated because he had seriously injured one of my players, and gotten hold of the ball (which I was close to scoring with). So I sent him a screenshot of the game where my player is clearly still on the pitch (and holding the ball), and then my opponent claimed that it didn't prove anything because the screenshot was taken after the disconnection!  We finished off the game and he complained the whole time, so I said he should report the incident to Christer (I mean I would if it happend to me), and he refused to do that! Either he was the least logical thinker in the world, or he was embelishing on just how good his turn had been......
I also agree that whoever gets disconnected shouldn't be able to claim retries, not because it's their "fault", but because it's obvious the other guy didn't do it to get a better turn. Of course if the other guy is a good sport he shouldn't accept a turn that ends up 10 times better for him than originaly (like the time my opponent disconnected and on the replayed turn I killed 1 player and gave -1ST to another, where there had just been a single stun before....I ended up with a turn where I failed to even knock either of those players over, but I wasn't in the mood to spend all day replaying the turn so I just accepted it), but it should be in his hands, and not the guy who disconnected in my opinion (but only to the degree that he can prove that the player who disconnected hasn't gained anything from the disconnection).[/u] |
|
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2003 - 20:12 |
|
| Evo wrote: |
if you insist on taking advantage of a disconnect, you'll be setting an example for your fellow coaches, that will encourage a poisonous unsporting atmosphere.
|
Well I haven't been around much recently, but I used to be a regular. Some of the older hands at Fumbbl will remember me. But that statement by Evo, is the #1 reason WHY you don't see me around very much.
Not too long ago, a friend of mine (a real flesh and blood friend, not one of the pixelated types) Decided to come back after a two month Hiatus and play some of his teams. He got in a match, and according to him, his opponent disconnected 3 times after a key player was injured or an amazing unreplicable play was made. All three times, according to my friend, his opponent did not do his best to replay, or come up with a fair solution, but instead played like there was never a reload. My friend was frustrated after the first one, but after the third, and still no give from his opponent, he was done with the game.
Now, I make a point of saying 'according to my friend', because I niether witnessed the game or heard the other side of the story. BUT, going off of what information I had. I think that my friends reaction was understandable. AND had I been playing someone and THREE disconnects went my way, I would, at the very least, offer the match up as a friendly, not to be reported. I understand that disconnects are not fun, and every single one of them is suspect to cheating, just because of the nature of the internet.
But this is what happened. My friends opponent reported it to the admins, and my friends account got frozen (or team or whatever the current solution is.) He told his version to Christer, and Christer said to just play the guy again. My friend then offered to play the guy again, from the beginning, based off of a suggestion by myself. I thought it was fair compromise, and if the problem persisted, he could ask me or an admin to spec it. The opposing coach refused anything other than a concession, for wasting his time. (that and I think he had played his team since, because it was a several day argument, but I can't confirm that either.)
So now my friends account is locked. Some twerp gets to feel powerful, and the spirit of the rule has been twisted. Now I freely admit that I only got one version of the story, BUT back to Evo's comment.
If you insist on taking advantage of a disconnect, you'll be setting an example for your fellow coaches, that will encourage a poisonous unsporting atmosphere.
This situation could have been totally avoided had either side given a little. I think it is up to the person that is having the connection trouble to give a little more than the person that isn't, especcially with multiple disconnects. Furthermore, I think there should be an addition to the rule, that if there are multiple disconnects, the game can be called off, by the person who isn't have connection issues.
Asperon Thorn |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 13, 2003 - 21:15 |
|
I´m sorry.. I couldn´t follow... who got disconnected... your friend or his opponent? |
|
|
|
|
| |
anyone know how to c...
Search
