Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 19:03 |
 
|
I'd expect the Charity slots to go to big teams that also have huge treasuries.. unless I've misunderstood, all those teams with multimillion banks are eligible for it. |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
cthol
Joined: Nov 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 19:42 |
|
| Kelkka wrote: | I always thought this rule was pre-emptively prevent concession abuse.
New rules say that if you can't field 3 players, you can conceed freely and get to keep your MVP and money. This would be the ultimate way to build your 2 legend min/max team in an hour. |
No, it wouldn't. Rules don't say that. They say any teams which concede with less than 3 players left "suffer no additional penalties" i.e. no penalties in addition to losing their MVP and cash.
Any team conceding loses their MVP and cash. But if you have three or less players remaining to set up, you can concede and you won't lose your 51+ spp star players. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 21:36 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | Ok, last time this came up Harvestmouse stated that using loners while having a big pot of cash and no MNG players would incur his BANHAMMER!
That's what he posetd, anyway. Interpret as you will. |
Yes, but Harvest gets confused at times, poor little feller! |
That's simply not true! Do you want to taste the taste of my HANBAMMER?!
I'll state it once again though.
I'm not really interested in a team that saves for 2 positionals for a few games, then buys both. However a team that has its postionals/required players, and delibrately refuses to replace journeymen while saving a pot for some time, I deem illegal and abusing the system. I know I'm not the only admin interpreting the rules this way, and unless instructed not to do so, I will continue. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 22:04 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
I'm not really interested in a team that saves for 2 positionals for a few games, then buys both. However a team that has its postionals/required players, and delibrately refuses to replace journeymen while saving a pot for some time, I deem illegal and abusing the system. I know I'm not the only admin interpreting the rules this way, and unless instructed not to do so, I will continue. |
I think that's just stupid. I think a team should be allowed to keep journeymen so that they can build up cash and then replace many players at the same time. It makes a lot of sense to keep journeymen on the LOS if you can't get to over 11 players anyway. I know I've done this before with my Blackbox chaos team with the impression that this is allowed. If it isn't, feel free to retire the team in question and ban me or whatever the punishment is. |
|
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 22:59 |
|
I think HM's "saving a pot for some time" is rather longer than "enough to get me to 12/13 players" |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 23:03 |
|
| cthol wrote: | | Kelkka wrote: | I always thought this rule was pre-emptively prevent concession abuse.
New rules say that if you can't field 3 players, you can conceed freely and get to keep your MVP and money. This would be the ultimate way to build your 2 legend min/max team in an hour. |
No, it wouldn't. Rules don't say that. They say any teams which concede with less than 3 players left "suffer no additional penalties" i.e. no penalties in addition to losing their MVP and cash.
Any team conceding loses their MVP and cash. But if you have three or less players remaining to set up, you can concede and you won't lose your 51+ spp star players. |
Actually, Kelkka is right:
| CONCESSIONS (CRP p 29) wrote: | | A coach that concedes (see page 15) before setting up for a kick-off where he could only field 2 or less players suffers no additional penalties. If one coach concedes the match for any other reason then the winner gains all of the loser's winnings and MVP from this match. |
So if you have only 2 players in the roster (no joyrneymen, they are optional after all), you could concede before the starting kick-off and gain the MVP and winnings.
I have reported the 2 player abuse to the site admins 2 times before and once on TFF. I think my friend has reported it to TFF couple of years ago during LRB 5+ or so. In my opinion, it is a bug in the rules.
Currently the 2 players trick does not work on FUMBBL, as the client does not comply with the 2 player concession rule. Related bug reports are: http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=bugs&op=view&id=356 and http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=bugs&op=view&id=653. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 02, 2011 - 23:44 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: |
I'm not really interested in a team that saves for 2 positionals for a few games, then buys both. However a team that has its postionals/required players, and delibrately refuses to replace journeymen while saving a pot for some time, I deem illegal and abusing the system. I know I'm not the only admin interpreting the rules this way, and unless instructed not to do so, I will continue. |
I think that's just stupid. I think a team should be allowed to keep journeymen so that they can build up cash and then replace many players at the same time. It makes a lot of sense to keep journeymen on the LOS if you can't get to over 11 players anyway. I know I've done this before with my Blackbox chaos team with the impression that this is allowed. If it isn't, feel free to retire the team in question and ban me or whatever the punishment is. |
Didn't I just say that saving to replace players isn't really of interest to me? Personally I can't see any reason why you need to save and replace in one, however if replacing is the obvious and achievable goal, it doesn't interest us. Worst comes to the worst, you'll be asked to buy some of the players you are saving for, not really a massive issue is it?
What I believe is abuse, are the teams that clearly aren't saving to replace players, horde cash and continue with the journeymen. A common example of this is the 6 cds 2 bcs and 3 journeymen hobbos lineup. All this said there isn't a categoric ok/abuse line. Each team is different and so is each ruling. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 00:14 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | RandomOracle wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: |
I'm not really interested in a team that saves for 2 positionals for a few games, then buys both. However a team that has its postionals/required players, and delibrately refuses to replace journeymen while saving a pot for some time, I deem illegal and abusing the system. I know I'm not the only admin interpreting the rules this way, and unless instructed not to do so, I will continue. |
I think that's just stupid. I think a team should be allowed to keep journeymen so that they can build up cash and then replace many players at the same time. It makes a lot of sense to keep journeymen on the LOS if you can't get to over 11 players anyway. I know I've done this before with my Blackbox chaos team with the impression that this is allowed. If it isn't, feel free to retire the team in question and ban me or whatever the punishment is. |
Didn't I just say that saving to replace players isn't really of interest to me? Personally I can't see any reason why you need to save and replace in one, however if replacing is the obvious and achievable goal, it doesn't interest us. Worst comes to the worst, you'll be asked to buy some of the players you are saving for, not really a massive issue is it?
What I believe is abuse, are the teams that clearly aren't saving to replace players, horde cash and continue with the journeymen. A common example of this is the 6 cds 2 bcs and 3 journeymen hobbos lineup. All this said there isn't a categoric ok/abuse line. Each team is different and so is each ruling. |
You said this: "a team that has its postionals/required players, and delibrately refuses to replace journeymen while saving a pot for some time, I deem illegal and abusing the system".
A team can have its positionals (say, 4 chaos warriors) but only 4 beastmen leaving 3 loners. In this case, it can make to sense to keep the 3 loners for LOS duty and save money until you get to something like 13 players, buying 5 beastmen at once (300k). According to your earlier quote, this would be against the rules.
Besides, what's the problem with gathering cash in the first place? |
|
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 01:17 |
|
Extreme example time for clarity
Woodelf team = 2 legend wardancers 2 legend catchers 1 legend thrower 6 journeymen
Treasury = 4.3 million
Could be maintained for many games and win a lot of games
Examples like this are abuse where deliberate money hoarding while remaining very competitive. May even see the HAMBANNER get used. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 01:59 |
|
| bobsarmy wrote: | Extreme example time for clarity
Woodelf team = 2 legend wardancers 2 legend catchers 1 legend thrower 6 journeymen
Treasury = 4.3 million
Could be maintained for many games and win a lot of games
Examples like this are abuse where deliberate money hoarding while remaining very competitive. May even see the HAMBANNER get used. |
Sorry dude. I can't see the advantage of having 6 journeymen and 4.3Mil over only having 2 journeymen which apparently isn't a big deal..
If you are not going to buy anything then the money in the bank has no value.
If all your stars die in the same game you can replace them all with rookies immediately. That's nice. Not an earth shattering exploit though. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 02:30 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | bobsarmy wrote: | Extreme example time for clarity
Woodelf team = 2 legend wardancers 2 legend catchers 1 legend thrower 6 journeymen
Treasury = 4.3 million
Could be maintained for many games and win a lot of games
Examples like this are abuse where deliberate money hoarding while remaining very competitive. May even see the HAMBANNER get used. |
Sorry dude. I can't see the advantage of having 6 journeymen and 4.3Mil over only having 2 journeymen which apparently isn't a big deal..
If you are not going to buy anything then the money in the bank has no value.
If all your stars die in the same game you can replace them all with rookies immediately. That's nice. Not an earth shattering exploit though. |
Play with av7 much? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 02:46 |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 10:15 |
|
I see no reason why you need to save for 5 beastmen to replace 3 journeymen. The required number here is 3, which fittingly is what you also need for los. |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 11:12 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | I see no reason why you need to save for 5 beastmen to replace 3 journeymen. The required number here is 3, which fittingly is what you also need for los. |
So because you see no reason for it, it should be banned? Whether I have 3 proper beastmen or 3 journeymen is pretty much the same. The LOS beastmen are there to take hits mostly and I'm still going to be playing with 11 players. The real change comes when I have a bench, which I can't have with journeymen. It can make a lot of sense to jump directly to 13 players rather than keep losing LOS beastmen if you're going to be playing with 11 players for some time anyway. Besides, it can be useful to save some money at a lower TV and then jump higher so you have a war chest for spiralling expenses. But of course, hoarding cash is gross violation of the site rules according to you. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 03, 2011 - 11:31 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Problem to organize ...
Search
