JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
 Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 17:49 |
 
|
I agree it would be good to have some clarification. For example, does the 'play for a win' rule mean that it's not ok to play conservatively an accept a draw in the last couple of turns, if 'going for the win' would risk exposing yourself to a counter-attack?
I assume the intention is to prevent cheating/game fixing, rather than force people to play a certain way in-game? |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | I assume the intention is to prevent cheating/game fixing, rather than force people to play a certain way in-game? |
Correct. |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 17:59 |
|
For the greater good of Fumbbl, maybe it is Charley Sheen "Winning" to take out a legend at the expense of a score.
It is really subjective though, for sure. |
|
|
m0gw41
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 17:59 |
|
I'm sure I once saw Studman have a chance to score to get something out of the game: he was carrying the ball with his clawpomb wolf, blocked with him, got the knock down and instead of going for the score he piled-on. It seemed funny at the time. |
_________________
 |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 18:38 |
|
The "play to win" standard is to prevent game fixing -- fair enough, I agree with that limited stance. There is no etiquette standard though, as far as I'm aware. If there was one, it would probably be something like, "take reasonable measures to give your opponent a good experience if possible." Or in other words, "no griefing." Many people here would argue that they have no responsibility for the other person's feelings, and that there's no way to know what one person prefers over another -- and they would be correct. But consistent behaviour that denigrates the overall playing experience, in the many ways it can manifest itself, ought to be sanctionable in my opinion. Unfortunately that would require subjective judgement, and enforcement, and nobody wants to be that guy, especially as the admins are all volunteers (and Christer maintains this site out of his own pocket and out of the goodness of his heart; the last thing I want is to make life less enjoyable for him, of all people). Which leaves the community to police itself. I've been more vocal lately for this reason, but the will is fading. Frankly, being more vocal denigrates the experience for some people, including (and especially) me.
There is no easy solution for anti-social personalities on the internet. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 18:56 |
|
well, if you kill the entire other team, you are gonna win. maybe
it's a valid strategy |
_________________
 |
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 18:58 |
|
| BillBrasky wrote: | For the greater good of Fumbbl, maybe it is Charley Sheen "Winning" to take out a legend at the expense of a score.
It is really subjective though, for sure. |
| m0gw41 wrote: | | I'm sure I once saw Studman have a chance to score to get something out of the game: he was carrying the ball with his clawpomb wolf, blocked with him, got the knock down and instead of going for the score he piled-on. It seemed funny at the time. |
Well, Studman's tactical prowess aside... one time I played against a rather famous coach (better than I am) who *happened* to be playing Zons at low TV in the box before the scheduler fix. This coach soundly defeated me with an earned win (played better than I did, among other things), but since the score was already 1-0, opted NOT to walk in the extra score with the statfreak ballcarrier to avoid gaining any spp on a +ag awesome zon. Instead opting to gain an extra assist on a random (unskilled?) lino to end the game.
This isn't against the rules, I didn't report it... game over. But seriously, what goes through someone's head when they are avoiding spp that much on the best player on their team when it is totally free? They are truly playing a different game than I am.  |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
Last edited by happygrue on %b %03, %2016 - %19:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 19:16 |
|
There are grey areas here - but certainly there are some that are highly questionable that I have experienced:
1. Scored tied 1-1 with 4 turns left in game, opponent receiving - lines up all men LOS and bashes away - never sending a player back to try to pick up ball. Instead bashes and fouls until end of game.
2. I am up 1-0 kicking off in second half. Opponent still have 10 players but no apoth. He lines up so no blocks on kickoff, then runs all his players away from the ball and away from me into a corner and hides.
Stuff like this has happened...but it is less than 1 in 1000 games. You can do some super mental gymnastics that would make a lawyer proud to come up with how these were "playing to win." Honestly though - something super extreme like this happens - sure go ahead and report it...but most of the time it is just difference in play styles. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 19:23 |
|
|
Harad
Joined: May 11, 2014
|
| Posted:
Feb 03, 2016 - 20:11 |
|
There was a forum posting a while back which similarly was challenging the 'non-enforcement' of a rule which said something about not playing the same opponent twice in 10 games.
To my mind this is very similar. Both rules:
play to win; and
don't play the same opponent again and again.
were included not because those who make the rules wanted those things but namely to avoid two other situations:
people deliberately playing in a way designed to make it artificially easy for your opponent to build teams; and
playing opponents repeatedly who may facilitate team building more than the norm either through the above or unintentionally.
There may be good reason to include the rules as they are but I might be tempted to more simply write out the principles we want people to adhere to. As some of the people point out above, I don't think we are really looking for people to play to win (theme teams, spp farming, playing ogres). I applaud what the rules are trying to achieve but wonder if they could be misleading.
Perhaps it would be better to state:
There are many different reasons to play blood bowl and we encourage you to enjoy the game as you see fit but please be mindful that we will not allow practices which are deliberately designed to gain your opponent an advantage in the future. This is obviously a subjective matter where choosing to take a risky action for fun is likely to be acceptable but repeatedly playing the same opponent and not throwing any blocks is likely not to be. Please be sensible. |
|
|
jarvis_pants
Joined: Oct 30, 2008
|
| Pentalarc wrote: | | I know that odds are 51% of the responses are going to be "lol, kill all menz". |
"lol, kill all menz".
 |
_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher |
|
Endzone
Joined: Apr 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 04, 2016 - 09:46 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | I assume the intention is to prevent cheating/game fixing, rather than force people to play a certain way in-game? |
Correct. |
There we have it then. The endless speculation and over analysis of what 'play to win' was intended to mean is at an end. It is simply there to clarify that match fixing is forbidden. Any play style is acceptable - this may include (for example) playing for meta goals and/or playing for a draw when playing for the win carries too great a risk of a loss. A nice discussion about an interesting question - which has kindly been answered. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 04, 2016 - 10:00 |
|
| Endzone wrote: | | Christer wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | I assume the intention is to prevent cheating/game fixing, rather than force people to play a certain way in-game? |
Correct. |
There we have it then. The endless speculation and over analysis of what 'play to win' was intended to mean is at an end... |
LOL
No it isn't. We've know this for ages. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
jarvis_pants
Joined: Oct 30, 2008
|
| Endzone wrote: | | Christer wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | | I assume the intention is to prevent cheating/game fixing, rather than force people to play a certain way in-game? |
Correct. |
There we have it then. The endless speculation and over analysis of what 'play to win' was intended to mean is at an end. It is simply there to clarify that match fixing is forbidden. Any play style is acceptable - this may include (for example) playing for meta goals and/or playing for a draw when playing for the win carries too great a risk of a loss. A nice discussion about an interesting question - which has kindly been answered. |
Be very careful generalising if it was that simple... that would be the rule. Just so that no one points at this forum as an excuse for noncompetitive play. |
_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher |
|
m0gw41
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
|
| Posted:
Feb 04, 2016 - 10:49 |
|
I guess we'll have to address this topic again if the spot fixing betting scandals of cricket/tennis/football etc make their way into the bloodbowl world... |
_________________
|
|
|
|
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
