westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
 Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:25 |
 
|
| westerner wrote: | | I do not mind how you play in TT, but on fumbbl there are rules to cover concessions. You may think they are unnecessary, but they are still the rules. |
| nexusvalhees wrote: | | Hey that's great let's take something completely out of context and make it as if I'm trying to force fumbbl to conform to my groups rules Ya that's what I was going for. |
Are you the same guy who wrote this on a previous page of this thread?
| nexusvalhees wrote: | | Yes I have get rid of the stupid rule it was meant to avoid team pimping and as that is pretty much a pre match agreement it is not needed to begin with. The only real reason imho to concede is because you no longer wish to play the game whatever got you there is irrelevant. Perhaps your pixels are falling apart, perhaps you have company, perhaps your just tired of looking at your computer, none of that really matters we play the game to have fun once it's no longer fun feel free to stop playing theres a perfect system in the game for it. I've played in real life leagues as well and no one ever cared that someone conceded there either. |
Hardly out of context, is it? when you respond to me saying the fumbbl rule on concessions is stupid and you play in RL leagues where no one cares about concessions.
The fumbbl rules on concessions are fine the way they are, and they are especially needed in [B]. |
_________________
\x/es
Last edited by westerner on %b %15, %2008 - %16:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:27 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | Yeah, i agree with you it's hard to distinguish. I'm just saying that in both cases, as i see it, people forget it's a game you play together, and don't really care that they might be ruining the other guy's fun by not playing the game.
| koadah wrote: |
If the league has no rules on how much damage you can cause but does have rules on no concessions then you should play or forfeit. Unless there are rules on forfeits too. Then you should just play. |
All the rules are in the LRB. shadow would say the LRB never says the goal of the game is to win by scoring more TDs, but then, the LRB also states the rules for conceding.
So, again, i fail to see why "conceding" would be any different than other matters =) |
To concede in turn 1 you must already know or at least guess how the other person would play.
So, you could forfeit that game.
Not wasting the other persons traveling time/costs, baby sitting costs etc.
Not rewarding their team with extra cash, MVP and probably FF, potentially unbalancing the league and validating the killer tactic.
Not costing yourself FF and maybe players. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 4 more teams needed |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:36 |
|
| koadah wrote: | To concede in turn 1 you must already know or at least guess how the other person would play.
So, you could forfeit that game.
Not wasting the other persons traveling time/costs, baby sitting costs etc.
Not rewarding their team with extra cash, MVP and probably FF, potentially unbalancing the league and validating the killer tactic.
Not costing yourself FF and maybe players. |
All i'm saying is that it's within the rules. I'm not saying it's good. I don't like it. I'm just drawing a parallel =) |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:52 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | | koadah wrote: | To concede in turn 1 you must already know or at least guess how the other person would play.
So, you could forfeit that game.
Not wasting the other persons traveling time/costs, baby sitting costs etc.
Not rewarding their team with extra cash, MVP and probably FF, potentially unbalancing the league and validating the killer tactic.
Not costing yourself FF and maybe players. |
All i'm saying is that it's within the rules. I'm not saying it's good. I don't like it. I'm just drawing a parallel =) |
In your league cool. But Fumbbl does have rules about concessions. So Christer could also add a rule about playing to kill.
| Quote: | | The team taking excessive casualties is one acceptable reason to concede. |
Not 'Fear of the team taking excessive casualties is one acceptable reason to concede.' |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 4 more teams needed |
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 15:54 |
|
I thought we were talking about tabletop. And, please, let's not start the debate "playing to kill, part of the game?" again, it's not the correct place =) But quoting the FUMBBL rules, there is a part about not "playing to lose", which might be interpreted as "playing to win". The itnerpretation is loose, but so is the terms in the rule you quoted are quite vague too.
Anyway, all i'm saying is that concession and maiming are "part of the rules", so i don't understand why you think one is ok and the other is not. Personally, i think both are NOT ok. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 16:26 |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 16:35 |
|
| Eddy wrote: | But quoting the FUMBBL rules, there is a part about not "playing to lose", which might be interpreted as "playing to win". The itnerpretation is loose, but so is the terms in the rule you quoted are quite vague too.
Anyway, all i'm saying is that concession and maiming are "part of the rules", so i don't understand why you think one is ok and the other is not. Personally, i think both are NOT ok. |
I wouldn't draw a parallel between fumbbl rules on concessions and potential rules on maiming. The former is a "ground rule" ensuring coaches actually play scheduled matches, and the latter is about playstyle - something considerably harder to rule on.
I think it would be a stretch to interpret the fumbbl rules as requiring "playing to win" (i.e., via TD) but as you said, that has been debated in several other threads.
I suspect when [B] comes out of test mode we will see clarification from the admins on what constitutes a valid concession. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 18:04 |
|
| pac wrote: | | You know the person sitting opposite you and you know that he doesn't concede. In fact, you've played against him and got lucky, taking out so many players that he had no chance left to win. He took it as a challenge and played on, trying to keep the score down and the number of CAS taken down as much as possible. Now you're in the opposite situation - and you're just going to drop out? |
If we are in a league and someone chooses to do the brave thing rather than the sensible/powergaming one that is their judgement call, not mine. If we were playing chess, warhammer, or any other stand-alone competitive game I would advocate fighting to the bitter end because it is both fun and polite. However BB is a progression game, that means that you have to play tougher than in chess... if you want to win the next game you cant afford damn fool things like bravery. If you've ever played Necromunda you'll probably see a strong parallel, a good gang leader knows when to pull out instead of letting their two downed heavies get mulched.
In non-progression games you're pulling out because you cant be bothered to play on... in BB you might pull out because of that or you might pull out for strategic advantage. I dont think that the latter is an inherrantly bad thing, depending on the league format.
Of course there are real life elements like time, travel, babysitters, and getting punished by wives without even getting a game of BB. Online we can mostly forget these concerns, in real life there are plenty of workarounds. If I were to do that I'd probably a) tell you in advance and b) hope to play against you in a friendly in the newfound spare time. Just because the league game is over incredibly quickly dosent mean that both coaches should then stop having fun and go home.
I found it interesting that you mentioned play-to-kill coaches in comparison to coaches that concede because I think that they are very much alike. Both categories have their cool coaches... those that play tough, go for the throat, and/or are generally very fun. Equally both categories have their lame coaches... those that give up very quickly or are looking for an excuse or an escape from competing.
I've played against some of the lame coaches from both categories before and its never fun, I always very uneasy and uncomfortable both online and in real life. Likewise I've played against the cool ones, and they are always a blast. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 18:18 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | If we are in a league and someone chooses to do the brave thing rather than the sensible/powergaming one that is their judgement call, not mine. If we were playing chess, warhammer, or any other stand-alone competitive game I would advocate fighting to the bitter end because it is both fun and polite. However BB is a progression game, that means that you have to play tougher than in chess... if you want to win the next game you cant afford damn fool things like bravery. If you've ever played Necromunda you'll probably see a strong parallel, a good gang leader knows when to pull out instead of letting their two downed heavies get mulched.
In non-progression games you're pulling out because you cant be bothered to play on... in BB you might pull out because of that or you might pull out for strategic advantage. I dont think that the latter is an inherrantly bad thing, depending on the league format. |
Still, being BB a game of dice and luck, where your elves can get unnatural armor rolls and pwn the hell out of Dwarves in the right day, conceding in turn 1 is quite a lame thing to do.
I mean, you're not running from a likely obliteration... you're running from the simple thought of the possibility... which is kinda meh. |
_________________
 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 18:36 |
|
It depends on the situation. If you are unlikely to win and very likely to get obliterated then its just good sense... like you dont use your star oneturner to turn 16 -3D block a claw in the hope of getting triple pow so you can mark their ballcarrier and hope they skull out pushing you away. Its just a judgement call. Sometimes people are too conservative and other times they can be too reckless, being too conservative might not be as exciting but its not any more wrong. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 19:17 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | It depends on the situation. If you are unlikely to win and very likely to get obliterated then its just good sense... like you dont use your star oneturner to turn 16 -3D block a claw in the hope of getting triple pow so you can mark their ballcarrier and hope they skull out pushing you away. Its just a judgement call. Sometimes people are too conservative and other times they can be too reckless, being too conservative might not be as exciting but its not any more wrong. |
The worse it can happen in the first turn of the game is 5 rips.
Rock: RIP apofail.
3 Blocks on los: RIP RIP RIP
Blitz: RIP
Foul: you don't have anyone to foul.
Now, how likely is that? The worst turns will give you no more than a couple casualties, and one of them is very likely to be a BH... I guess you can sacrifice a permanent injury on the altar of "trying"...
NOT EVEN trying is lame, no matter what you say. Hell, you can always concede in turn 2, or 4, or when things just start looking really bad, with half your team KOed and the rest on the ground.
As a veteran, you know all too well that no match is written in stone. Claiming that something is so hopeless it's not even worth trying, is... well... false?
But turn 1 concessions... I wouldn't even do that with high TR norse. |
_________________
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 19:58 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | pac wrote: | | You know the person sitting opposite you and you know that he doesn't concede. In fact, you've played against him and got lucky, taking out so many players that he had no chance left to win. He took it as a challenge and played on, trying to keep the score down and the number of CAS taken down as much as possible. Now you're in the opposite situation - and you're just going to drop out? |
If we are in a league and someone chooses to do the brave thing rather than the sensible/powergaming one that is their judgement call, not mine. |
You aren't addressing the example. In that case would you really say that to have the boot on the other foot is not fair play? Would you really cop out where your opponent had played on?
You go on to talk about strategic advantage. You're vastly missing the point. Concessions are a rule included by GW so that upset kids don't have to go to the nuclear option of flipping the board over and so that there's an option when someone has to leave suddenly and the game can't be left set up.
Using a rule like that to your own advantage has nothing to do with good coaching. By that argument, the best coaches in Ranked would be the best cherry-pickers - they're just extracting the best advantage they can out of the rules, aren't they? To coach well your team has to be on the pitch.
Comparisons to war games which have progression don't cut it: BB is not war it is sport, so there is no strategic retreat. There is simply either letting down the fans or putting on the best show you can.
I see now why you are getting so defensive on this subject. You have a Blackbox fling team that bounces around at low TS picking on new teams. When you looked in danger of having a rough game vs CDs, you conceded.
Do you want other coaches' blessing that this is good coaching? You're not going to get it here. It's just cheap. Especially in [B] where - however beaten up you get - your next opponent will be roughly on your level anyway. No, I'm afraid your opponent here is a better coach than you. He played on.
| Quote: | | I found it interesting that you mentioned play-to-kill coaches in comparison to coaches that concede … |
I didn't. Eddy did. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 20:06 |
|
| pac wrote: | | BB is not war it is sport |
Can I quote you on this in future discussions? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 20:09 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | pac wrote: | | BB is not war it is sport |
Can I quote you on this in future discussions? |
Given that you going to quote me in completely unrelated contexts, forcing me to spell out the obvious in excessive detail, no. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2008 - 20:15 |
|
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
