Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 23:29 |
 
|
Should we do this, alot of games have already been played so most of us will be waiting 2-3 weeks when we have faced all opponents. It would also allow us to solve some rules questions. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 23:36 |
|
Make them all two weeks and see how it goes. If we still have most of the games played very quickly, make it 1 week. |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 23:45 |
|
hehe i was thinking you meant shorten the matches, like only 8 turns for a match  |
|
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 23:51 |
|
Well no actually, you're right. The new rule is all games must take at least 2 weeks to play. |
|
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 23:54 |
|
I'd say stop this tomfoolery |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 23:59 |
|
| DeadFool wrote: | | I'd say stop this tomfoolery |
BOOO! BOOO!
*Throws things at DClaw* |
|
|
mstrchef13
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 00:40 |
|
I'd say one month, simply because some of us can't play 11 games in one day due to family obligations. I'd like to think I can get them all in in two weeks, but I'm not certain I can. If we shorten to two weeks, then IMHO we need to limit the number of teams. Play in divisions if we want, or separate groups where the winners play for the monthly title or something, but 19 games in two weeks is a stretch for someone like me who can't predict when he's going to be online, and lives in the US and has difficulty playing all those Europeans 6 and 7 hours ahead. |
|
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 00:41 |
|
| DreadClaw wrote: | | I'd say stop this tomfoolery |
Stop whining. You could create a two DPs team... |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 00:54 |
|
I think two weeks is a good compromise. It's supposed to be a quick and funny tournament so waiting three weeks would probably kill it. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
keggiemckill
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 01:05 |
|
2 weeks is good, but if the guys are done sooner change it. Float the tournament time frame. |
_________________
The Drunker I get, the more I spill
"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro |
|
Wotfudboy
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 13:14 |
|
I think leave it as it is for this tournament, and then make the next tournament two weeks. Do take people like mstrchef13 into account... not all of us are glued to the Blood Bowl screen every night for hours at a time... we all want to be, but we can't all be! :p |
_________________
See my blog: https://wotfudboy.blogspot.com/.
WIL. |
|
xen7ric
Joined: Jan 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 11, 2005 - 13:49 |
|
My experience so far is that it's VERY easy to get 2-3 games in in the time it takes to play 1 normal game and so far there has been alot of action.
In that case a 2 week time limit is about right, but should be a little flexible for those hard to get hold of opponents in the last couple of games.
How about a stated aim of finnishing in 2 weeks with another week of flexibility built in for those of us who can't be online in FUMBBL for 8 hours a week. |
|
|
|
|
BB2020 - Kick team m...
Search
