FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Mar 30, 2004

Posted: Sep 09, 2010 - 17:29

The "problem" is that in skijunkie's clienty you didnt need to declare passes or handoffs. People who have got used to that are finding the proper system a little taxing during the first couple of matches. However, after about 10 games (or less for most people), players will become accustomed to the new client and will no longer make that mistake. And btw in the case of misclicks provided that the player hasnt actually moved yet, if you did select the wrong option you can just deselect player and start again. Nothing lost / nothing gained.

pythrr

Joined: Mar 07, 2006

Posted: Sep 09, 2010 - 17:44

and its in Beta anyway - use this time to get used to it.

_________________

Fela

Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 09:37

I'm still not getting it. (It being the tremendously high number of NO votes)

While it's true, that technically you DID explicitely declare a Move action in the client in the first place, so did you implicitely in an official BB match where a movement without declaration is considered a Move action. The explicit declaration thus can be seen as just a shortcoming in the client's ability to simulate an actual BB match.

What I tried to do with my suggestion was bringing the simulation one step closer to the actual thing.

Yet from the numbers, it can't be that only hardcore rulemongers voted against it. IMO there's only very few logical explanations for voting NO here:

- being illiterate or not understanding the poll for other reasons
- being unhappy with the status quo in TT that allows a little fair play and thus being glad that the client enforces the rules more strictly
- being so desperate to win against less constantly rules-aware players that you need another obstacle for them to overcome
- something else that i overlooked (?)

What it boils down to so far is that if someone voted NO they're either stupid or against fair play - which is no a very happy thought considering the numbers Sad

.

Shraaaag

Joined: Feb 15, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 09:48

I don't mind it in Academy or private leagues, but when it comes to competitive divisions and leagues the silk gloves come of, and people better be on their toes.

In my experience when you add ways to undo mistakes, people get lazy and learn bad habits. You will only learn the rules if you play by them.

_________________

freak_in_a_frock

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 10:08

Fela wrote:

What it boils down to so far is that if someone voted NO they're either stupid or against fair play - which is no a very happy thought considering the numbers Sad

.

Hmm, strange choice of words to level at the vast majority. I would assume they are neither stupid or against fair play, but rather they don't like the idea that mistakes shouldn't be punished. This is an online game, it is no different from playing CoD when it comes down to the competitive nature of the game. Would people welcome a button in CoD for when they went the wrong way and got shot?

Last edited by freak_in_a_frock on %b %10, %2010 - %10:%Sep; edited 1 time in total

Sinner

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 10:40

Fela wrote:

I'm still not getting it. (It being the tremendously high number of NO votes)

While it's true, that technically you DID explicitely declare a Move action in the client in the first place, so did you implicitely in an official BB match where a movement without declaration is considered a Move action. The explicit declaration thus can be seen as just a shortcoming in the client's ability to simulate an actual BB match.

What I tried to do with my suggestion was bringing the simulation one step closer to the actual thing.

Yet from the numbers, it can't be that only hardcore rulemongers voted against it. IMO there's only very few logical explanations for voting NO here:

- being illiterate or not understanding the poll for other reasons
- being unhappy with the status quo in TT that allows a little fair play and thus being glad that the client enforces the rules more strictly
- being so desperate to win against less constantly rules-aware players that you need another obstacle for them to overcome
- something else that i overlooked (?)

What it boils down to so far is that if someone voted NO they're either stupid or against fair play - which is no a very happy thought considering the numbers Sad

.

I think I am one of the stupid ones:
I do not get it, a coach should know beforehands whether he wants to pass with a player or not. Assuming he knows there is a move option and a move+pass option the choice shouldnt be that difficult.

Allowing to redeclare is a crutch that is not necessary. If you make that mistake once the coach probably didn't know (the rule that has been around since i do not know which edition), if the coach does it twice he is a little slow in learning.

So, yes I am stupid to not see the point why the client should encourage coaches not to learn.

I disagree to allow redeclaration in Academy. As coaches switch from [A] to competetive divisions they might miss the redecleration. Rather learn the handling and rules in the safe environment of [A].

I still hope most coaches around try to get better at playing and not just carving in heads.

_________________
Sinner
Darkie's Dreams - successfully cherrypicking any race, any coach, any rating, any number of DP since 20/09/2003 ... and still winning!

Gran

Joined: Jul 07, 2005

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 11:44

Now, despite your everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-me-is-an-idiot attitude, I'm going to assume that you are serious when you say that you think that this redo option would make FFB closer to a game of "normal" relaxed TT. You said:

Fela wrote:

In our private league, we would just move pieces and only declare when it's something other than move action. And _of course_ that would mean sometimes one of us was halfway through a (supposedly) move action when he said 'oh..i forgot to mention, i'm performing a pass action here'.

Now, I can perfectly understand - I've been there myself - that sometimes you're so deep into a turn that you forget to declare out loud what you are in fact thinking, and so you will be half way through a move when you blurt out: "Oh, sorry, this is a blitz by the way." People are usually fine with this, and I would say that that is one of the luxuries of TT.

My problem is that what you suggest is not an "Oups, forgot to declare out loud"-option, it's a "Oups, declared something completely different"-option, because in the client you are "out-loud" declaring every action by picking a button. That is not implicit declaring, that's very explicit declaring. Some would say this suggestion is more of a "You know, I had no real clue what I was doing when I decided to try this and I just saw a better way to play this turn"-option, and that is breaking the rules.

The problem here is not that FFB is handling the implementation of the rules in a devil-reads-the-bible kind of way as you seem to suggest but rather that Skijunkie's client has taught us that you have to declare a move action in order to pass or make a hand-off. Bummer!

The remedy? Play more FFB games and relearn the rules. Oh, and have fun!

EDIT: Just read Sinners post and I agree that implementing such a thing in [A] would be counter-productive. In my first ever game I forgot to move the turn marker seven (7!) times and couldn't do anything for half the game. I got slaughtered, but guess what: it taught me to always think of the turn marker. Wink

_________________
The trouble is that things *never* get better, they just stay the same, only more so.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)

Today Is A Good Day For Someone Else To Die!
-- (Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay)

Fela

Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 12:02

The point is that i think the 'declaration' of a move action in the client is a bit overinterpreted.

When the majority of what you're doing as a start of an action is pressing the M key - as compared to saying nothing in TT for the majority of your moves - it becomes habitual to do so. I.e. every single time you do something else the effort is not really about DECIDING to do that other action, it's about breaking the habit of starting the default action.

Thus both, the 'Oops I forgot to declare out loud' in TT and the 'Oops i declared M instead of..Z/P/H' bsically mean the exact same thing:

'Oops, i forgot to overcome the habit i trained myself to have, so that we both can have more fun playing, because the majority of moves is faster'

Woodstock

Joined: Dec 11, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 12:18

Gran wrote:

The problem here is not that FFB is handling the implementation of the rules in a devil-reads-the-bible kind of way as you seem to suggest but rather that Skijunkie's client has taught us that you have to declare a move action in order to pass or make a hand-off. Bummer!

The remedy? Play more FFB games and relearn the rules. Oh, and have fun!

Thread. And a very good idea!... More games people! Twisted Evil

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 12:35

Fela wrote:

I'm still not getting it. (It being the tremendously high number of NO votes)

While it's true, that technically you DID explicitely declare a Move action in the client in the first place, so did you implicitely in an official BB match where a movement without declaration is considered a Move action. The explicit declaration thus can be seen as just a shortcoming in the client's ability to simulate an actual BB match.

What I tried to do with my suggestion was bringing the simulation one step closer to the actual thing.

Yet from the numbers, it can't be that only hardcore rulemongers voted against it. IMO there's only very few logical explanations for voting NO here:

- being illiterate or not understanding the poll for other reasons
- being unhappy with the status quo in TT that allows a little fair play and thus being glad that the client enforces the rules more strictly
- being so desperate to win against less constantly rules-aware players that you need another obstacle for them to overcome
- something else that i overlooked (?)

What it boils down to so far is that if someone voted NO they're either stupid or against fair play - which is no a very happy thought considering the numbers Sad

.

I have a problem with people not following the rules exactly, and that problem is without 'fixed' rules, the grey area can become messy.

I used to play a lot of pool in my local pub. Sometimes players would allow other players to 'get away' with nudging the white, or hitting one ball slightly before the other and it became expected that it would be ignored. Suddenly an important shot comes up on the black, or someone not local is playing and the foul isn't ignored ... and an argument starts about 'local rules' and 'leeway'.

I have also seen the take back option on a chess site, and you would be surprised at how many people get upset when the take back is refused. They presume because the button is there, you are just going to accept, but sorry you have made the move.

With clear, Black and White rules, if someone makes a mistake they only have themselves to blame. I get no great joy from winning a game from someone else's carelessness, but if they make a mistake once or twice, you can be sure they will damn well check the third time.

You can also be sure that if what happens is controlled by the client then they can blame no-one but themselves. You might think a take back option would lighten the mood, but believe me when I say, it would only add to the battles and woes about what is 'fair play'.

So the reason I voted 'No' was. The rules are the rules, if you made a mistake learn from it, don't expect others to keep letting you off.

Fela

Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 14:33

So let's take your examples:

A third party nudges you while passing behind, thus causing you to touch a ball. Strict ruling or not?
A bar is a place with lots of distractions, thus probably the leeway. Something similar may be valid for your opponent's situation in FFB, the point being we don't know, but if we have no means to accomodate then we won't have a choice if it comes up.

The chess example is a bit closer to what we might face, but then probably not. Your chess opponent's movement effectively ends his turn and creates the ingame situation you have to build your turn on. Also it stops his clock and starts yours. Both doesn't apply to an action redeclaration that happens while your FFB opponent's player is in mid move.

I can emphasize with the reluctance towards having the responsibility to actually make a judgement about the validity or fairness of your opponent's request for a correction of his mistake.

But let's face it:
Voting to not implement a means to give some leeway when fairness would require it is effectively the same as saying no every single time a request comes up without looking at any circumstances. You're just not taking direct responsibility for it.

Shraaaag

Joined: Feb 15, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 14:43

Speaking of chess, once you've lifted a piece from the board, that's the piece you have to move. You can't go: oops, I meant to move something else.

_________________

Cevap

Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 14:59

As far as I'm aware, FUMBBL is supposed to follow the rulebook as much as possible. This is not in it so it's pretty much not negotiable Wink

Cloggy

Joined: Sep 23, 2004

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 15:01

Fela wrote:

*Bangs head against wall repeatedly*

Sometimes the reason that everybody disagrees with you is that you're wrong.

Life can truly be that simple.

If your idea had merit a lot of the really active coaches in FFB would agree with you, while in fact they are pretty clear that it's just not needed once you get used to the client.

_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life.

Chingis

Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted: Sep 10, 2010 - 15:07

Fela wrote:

You're just not taking direct responsibility for it.

Precisely! There definitely shouldn't be a petition button, which will lead to feelings of pressure, guilt or bad blood if the petition is/isn't accepted.

The take-back (with no opponent responsibility) is less of an issue. I think if it existed it would be accepted like the extra fifteen minutes timer is at the minute. But, I don't think it should be implemented because you cannot have a take-back for moves where dice have been rolled. It would be an odd situation if you could take back a misclicked move from an free square, but not one from a tackle zone (the dodge dice having already been rolled), for instance. So I reckon it's a bad idea.