| Poll |
| Do or Die - Interesting concept you would support? |
| Yeah! I want to retire those chaosteams with my elves! |
|
33% |
[ 32 ] |
| Nice concept, but noone will risk his teams. |
|
46% |
[ 44 ] |
| Man, you are nuts. This just sucks. |
|
14% |
[ 14 ] |
| Uhm.. dunno what to chose. Will post my detailed thoughts. |
|
5% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 95 |
|
The_Mighty_Ren
Joined: Oct 12, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 19:16 |
 
|
I think Feta had the best suggestion - just treat a loss like a concession.
More realistic than retiring a whole team, fairer than just retiring 2 players and easier to code too (I assume).
If it's a draw, then treat both teams like they've conceded.
It should be all about the win, and the winner should take ALL.
EDIT: If I had any high TR teams I'd be up for it. |
Last edited by The_Mighty_Ren on %b %03, %2005 - %00:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
DonKosak
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 19:41 |
|
I fail to see how this concept can lead to more matches between elves and bashers.
Probable outcome for the elven coach if he wins:
- Prestige
- The fuzzy warm feeling of forcing some of those foulsmelling, foulhappy killermachines into an early retirement
- A team consisting of about four mng players
Probable outcome for the elven coach if he loses:
- A team consisting of two mng players (the winning basher-coach forced the other two to retire)
Probable outcome for the bashy coach if he wins:
- Prestige (gee, I destroyed an elven team without any kind of cherrypicking involved)
- The fuzzy warm feeling of collecting those elven skulls <i>and</i> forcing two of the survivors into an early retirement
Probable outcome for the bashy coach if he loses:
- Two killermachines less on the roster
So... If I were an elven coach - would I use this concept?
No. The risk of getting beaten into oblivion is the same as before, and if I lose the match I'll lose even more players.
If I were a bashy coach- would I use this concept?
Maybe. But I would still rather cherrypick some noob and smash his team without taking the risk of getting players retired. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 20:30 |
|
I actually can't understand the numerous of positives replys here.
Well considering the most succesful R groups drag 70 coaches and most around 40,
considering that, a chaos team, with tackle claw -RSC can easelily beat an elven team, I think it would be an extreme cherry picking group.
I could enter with an elven team. If circular's basher ask me to play I know acurately the result:
a loss + a loss of 2 guys.
Well I also think that at first unlucky loss I foresee guys retire from the group.
I don't see this as beeing viable.
Oh and I wouldn't play do or die. I couldn't be nasty enough to force retirement of oppo best guys, nor beeing interested in retiring my guys. |
|
|
SziroRicsy
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 21:28 |
|
I think it is a great idea, getting more adrenaline that is.
Also, I would like to post my idea to the matter:
Maybe the satisfaction of ruining a bashy team is not enough for the slippery elves, and they have a point. What do they gain of the extra risk? There should be something extra reward like ‘leeching’ the looser’ s treasury or ff or spp. Like agree on the stakes: I wage 5 ff, meddling chaos dwarf.
Or an other, marking and counting the DorD games, and get some special reward for it. Like for 3 games healing a niggle. Skull collecting, or Highlander styleif you like…
The only problem is that we need to manipulate the roosters for this, but if it’ s a group of [R] 250+ tr and the 2 retire rule then it would attract much attention. Maybe an admin would enforce the dues ex in some cases ... |
|
|
caileanhawk
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 21:52 |
|
What about starting a new league...as suggested before...with TR 100 teams.
Every game the winning coach gets to pick a certain amount of SPP's to be retired (ex. say 50 SPP). The SPP could be any number of players (say a max of 3-5 players)...say 50 SPP is the number...you could retire 1-50 SPP Star or 2-25 SPP Semi-Stars ...etc...
To stay in the tournament the owner would have to retire the players stated (post in a forum or something).
Set up a TR / SPP Cost range before the tourney starts. Once teams get into the higher TR range the risks would be greater...but you could play lower TR teams if you lose players and be able to still play in the tournament. You could set up a scoring system and a time period for the tournament to run and the team with the most points would win.
Sample TR/SPP Cost Chart
TR SPP Retired
100-125 10
126-150 20
151-175 40
176-200 75
201+ 100
Note: The TR would be the Rating of the team that loses.
Just some ideas to add to the fire.
Another idea might be to have the losing coach pick which players to retire from their own team...up to the SPP amount specified. |
_________________
Thx
Caileanhawk
"Hospitality to the better sort, and charity to the poor; two virtues that are never exercised so well as when they accompany each other. " - Francis Atterbury |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 22:25 |
|
@DonKosak:
You seem to have great fear of basherteams. Sure, you will lose players when you play them but not too much. The chance that they kill my 2 greatest stars is low. So when I play do or die, suddenly we BOTH put out best players at a severe risk. Me by fielding them against the worst bashers, him by playing me with a team not really siutable for ballplay. That´s fair I guess. I might have double risk (playing and the possible loss), but that´s made up by the fact, that I can retrain my elves MUCH quicker. Skilling up a good slayer (you know, those with claws AND RSC) takes ages.
@sk8bnc:
A good elven team can beat a chaos team, provided the chaos team doesn´t get lucky with the injuryrolls. You have to play good for 2 drives (=1st half). If you lead 2nd half with 2-0, which is more than a remote possibility and have 8+ players (yes.. you should have, even when he makes a cas every turn), then you should take the victory home, especially when the basher has focussed on bashing skills.
You can believe me: I know how it is, to play some of the worst bashers with a battered elven team - I just did it in the invitational.
It´s not nice, only to be on the recieving end, only getting beaten up, while the basher may lose the game, but remains with his favourite players while he beats/fouls your into bloody pulp - at this place I want to sent a special thx to a certain CD-coach for fouling my favourite DE blitzer to death when the game was already decided.
Sure, the pride is nice, when you pull of a victory, but I rate it unfair, that only I put my players at risk. Pulling of a victory and retiring his worst bashers - that´s something to fight for. Put this basher in your shoes, fearing for his players.
Even if I start repeating myself:
Good players are the only resource that is important to a vast majority (if not all) players on fumbbl.
So why should only elven coaches risk them at the games? |
|
|
PirateRob
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2005 - 22:46 |
|
It seems like most of the replies have missed the point.
Of course it doesn't make things even, what it does is put both teams at risk.
Insated of the av9 bashy team not putting thier palyers at serious risk and the elven sissies putting thier players seriously at risk, both players are now. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 09:50 |
|
Yep... so both coaches have to show if they are sissies or not. |
|
|
DonKosak
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 10:04 |
|
I get your point, but I still think that if this concept is launched the only result will be, that new name-dropping possibilities arise... Before the elven coaches could cry "You f#%"&£$ killer-happy lunatic!" and the like. Now they can cry "Sissie!" too... 
But an actual increase in the number of games played between killerteams and elven teams? No.
The idea of creating an environment where both sides want to play each other is sympathetic, but I'm afraid this is not the way. |
|
|
Mithrilpoint
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 10:23 |
|
I agree with DonKosak here for the resons he stated earlier. Imo this will not in any way increase the number of games between those two very different kinds of teams.
The rule of "do or die" is open to abuse and it starts a different discussion : Can other things be wagered in games between teams? I.e. "we play and the loser has to discard a reroll/lose money/play the next 5 games against chaos etc." It´s all covered in the rules of FUMBBL that states that no pre-match arrangements can be made.
This rule would change the fundamentals of which the game is based. Elf coaches can just say "no thanks" for christ sakes. And if they wanna play bashy teams and prove that they are superior ballplayers they can go right ahead and do that. Join the E.L.F if you need recognition for your elf team, but don´t change the premises of the game. Not in Ranked.
But it would make a fun tourney in unranked i think.
M |
_________________
Stop the Whining! |
|
Cannonfodder
Joined: Nov 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 10:23 |
|
I belive, should this be implimented, that only good will come from it. Either it will encourage elf players to play bashy teams because they feel that both players are bringing somthing to the betting table or it will see the number of playerkilling focaused teams drop so that they can get games vs elves which arnt do or die. All we need to do is to adjust in such a way that elves cannot do or die every match, perhaps only once every 4 matchs or a similer limit. On the side: I think it would have to be a pm to a specially created admin because forum posts can be edited... |
_________________
'A Dagger in the Dark is worth a Thousand Swords at Dawn.'
'These are my principals, if you dont like them, I have others.' |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 10:30 |
|
@Mithril:
I checked the fumbbl-rules and do-or-die would not count as pre-game-arrangement, because the rules clearly state, that you may not agree on IN-GAME things.
| Quote: |
Do not discuss or agree on in-game strategy before the game is started. This includes agreeing on not fouling or any other type of in-game events. |
So this kind of bet would be legal. |
|
|
Mithrilpoint
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 10:58 |
|
| Zy-Nox wrote: | Slight conflict in the official fumbbl rules.. " no pre game agreements" i think this falls squarely into that category, but otherwise a nice idea ;]  |
Last time i checked Zy was an Admin.
But i agree CircularLogic, the wording of the rules makes this legal. But the interpretation seems to be different though .
M |
|
|
DonKosak
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 11:14 |
|
Yaarrr - call the lawyers 
Unfortunately for you CL, Fumbbl is not a constitutional state based on the rule of law - it is an oligarchical dictatorship  (Flame me for saying this if you want to - but I don't think dictatorship here on Fumbbl is a bad thing. It's what makes Fumbbl work).
As long as the admins don't agree with you on the interpretation of the Fumbbl-rules you won't get an official admin-driven handling of the concept including forced retirement of the losing coach's players, and as long as you don't get that, I think you'll face great problems trying to make the losers follow the rules they agreed upon before the match/tournament. |
|
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 03, 2005 - 11:26 |
|
well, I have an idea for both bashers and ball players alike, do what you want to do in ranked, the cherrypicking will not go away, ever. But instead start playing in more tournaments, because that's where you have to win. In tourneys it's not about surviving, or killing. It's about winning the game. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Jump up on a tree?
Search
