FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Gumbo

Joined: Oct 11, 2003

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 18:52

ClemsonPhysics wrote:

However, if you see the star then decide not to play them, not only are you being a liar (since you agreed to play) but you are also being a coward

What was agreed to be played was a different set of circumstances; i wouldn't have agreed to play in the 2nd set of circumstances against a star (im not saying i would never play a star; i've played vs many, but i've always known they would be purchased ( except a few times, hence my beef). The deception is clearly in the first instance of roster changing, and would therefore imply cowardice by having to be underhanded about it. Hence why shouldn't some one be able to turn that down if they spot it?

I'm sorry to repeat my point for those of you following the thread but i feel it has to be reiterated when i hear this sort of thing.

Eddy

Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 19:01

freak_in_a_frock wrote:

In a game of football (soccer if you must) if a player dives and wins a free-kick or penalty it is bad sportsmanship, and yet he is trying to help his team to win. In rugby when plays stamp on each other it is bad sportsmanship and so on. Even American sports like in baseball when you delibratly hit a player with the ball to make him walk, it is a good tactic but doesn't make it good sportsmanship.

Now following this logic through it is always bad sportsmanship to foul, crowd push and stall. Although i don't see that i could be seen as bad sportsmanship to 'punt' the ball. Bad sportsmanship is when you try to achieve a goal in a way that is not becoming for a gentleman/women.

that is true but from the perspective of the players on the pitch only. from the two coaches, this should not be "bad sportmanship" because this is part of the game. if the game was not supposed to be played like that, there would be rules. if crowd pushing was judged too harsh and bad, then you wouldn't have the possibility. if fouling was so lame it would be removed.

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou

Jinxed

Joined: Jul 04, 2004

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 19:15

Quote:

if fouling was so lame it would be removed.

So if it is nerfed, is it lame? Twisted Evil

_________________
Nuffle sucks

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 19:16

Gumbo wrote:

ClemsonPhysics wrote:

However, if you see the star then decide not to play them, not only are you being a liar (since you agreed to play) but you are also being a coward

What was agreed to be played was a different set of circumstances; i wouldn't have agreed to play in the 2nd set of circumstances against a star (im not saying i would never play a star; i've played vs many, but i've always known they would be purchased ( except a few times, hence my beef). The deception is clearly in the first instance of roster changing, and would therefore imply cowardice by having to be underhanded about it. Hence why shouldn't some one be able to turn that down if they spot it?

I'm sorry to repeat my point for those of you following the thread but i feel it has to be reiterated when i hear this sort of thing.

You are not a liar, but you broke an agreement you made. IF this client would follow the LRB exactly, then you would have to connect to the game and THEN both of you could decide to hire a star/freebooter.

But that`s not how the client is. So you guys first agree on a match. Note, that you can see his whole team INCLUDING his money. If you think he could hire a star, ask him BEFORE you agree. If you don`t ask, you accept to play against the potential, his treasury displays. A potential, which may give you a handicap or deny him one.

So if you agree on a match, you should play!

Gumbo

Joined: Oct 11, 2003

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 19:46

I really don't understand the problem with being open and honest about whether you intend to hire a star or not, given the state of the client players should declare they're going to hire a star if only to protect the newer members of fumbbl who aren't used to this sort of practice. Of course i ask now if my opponent is going to hire a star, but i've been here a while. Other coaches will fall foul of this due to lack of experience with the fumbbl client and as such i'm proud to stand by my advice of checking team rosters before connecting to a game that is 'up', hosted by your opponent. Then let them find a game with the star present and visible and not play sneaky tactics to screw an uneven game out of people.

_________________
Question: Who discovered how to milk a cow and what did they think they were doing at the time?

Eddy

Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 19:48

Jinxed wrote:

Quote:

if fouling was so lame it would be removed.

So if it is nerfed, is it lame? Twisted Evil

there are two points about fouling:
- is it too powerful ?
- is it "bad" ?

the answer to the first point was "probably yes" and is being addressed. the answer o the second is "definitely no, grow up kid", and that's why fouling remains an option in the rulebook =)

EDIT: about hiring a star without letting your opponent know about it, this is bad practice. the point is to have fun together, not to sneak upon an unsuspecting player. so my advice is definitely to cancel a game if you notice that and are not willing to play it through anyway.

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou

CorporateSlave3

Joined: Feb 07, 2004

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 21:34

Eddy wrote:

EDIT: about hiring a star without letting your opponent know about it, this is bad practice. the point is to have fun together, not to sneak upon an unsuspecting player. so my advice is definitely to cancel a game if you notice that and are not willing to play it through anyway.

Note that he means (or at least I really hope he means) if you notice it BEFORE you have joined the game. Fumbbl rules are VERY specific on this point and it is very illegal to disconnect and refuse a game that has already been joined, even if the other coach has hired additional players!

I have strong yet mixed feelings about hiring players (or wizards) after a match is agreed on, but I won't go too far into them here. I will say this: When you agree to a match when the opponent has 120K in the bank (which is easy enough to check on), and he hires a star player or wizard or something consider this: who is the guy who tried to pull the fast one here in the first place? The one hiring the freebooter star player before the match but after it is agreed on (per the LRB), or the coach trying to get a game vs. a team with a handicap's worth of useless TR from all that treasury?

Renegade

Joined: Dec 17, 2003

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 21:40

CircularLogic wrote:

If you would think about what I have written, you would see, that I followed my standards even in this game.

1) When I win the game 2-0, there aren`t too many turns, where the game is decided.

2) I highly doubt, that I went on with fouling and crowdpushing, after the game was won - your blackorc was killed in one of your blocks, not on a block/blitz/pushout/foul of one of my players.

3) Looking at the report, I should have continued fouling and crowding you, because there were some strange disconnects and you refused to recreated despite the rules.

4) I didn`t retire your team - I killed only one player.

Man, I just hope, you didn`t intend this post as serious and this is some kind of joke.

Get off your high horse and recognise a light hearted post!

Your previous post does no justice to the methods you employ to win a game. But am I wrong to point that out?

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 23:07

I never said, that I won`t play hard (but still fair) to win the game. After all, winning is a goal of the game, isn`t it?

I just said, that after I have clearly won or lost the game, I won`t foul or crowdpush. And as far as I can remember, I haven`t done so if the opposing coach wasn`t a rude idiot.

Your post accused me of acting against my principles. I couldn`t read any humor in it, so I took it as serious and had a look at the gamereport. At the game you thought you were the by far better coach and told it many times. Everything was just luck (and I had luck, that`s right) and the client crashed several times - accidently just when bad things happend for you. In the end it was the only game I enjoyed beating someone just by luck. Funny, that you took a match as prove...

ClemsonPhysics

Joined: Dec 03, 2004

Posted: Aug 06, 2005 - 23:59

I guess my thoughts can be summed up as follows:
When you agree to play, you agree to their entire roster, including the cash they have in the bank and whatever they decide to do with that cash.

Gumbo

Joined: Oct 11, 2003

Posted: Aug 07, 2005 - 00:07

Yep, and for more experienced players thats something they can consider. But what about the relative newbies; even those with tr 200 teams who are relatively new and havent had the chance to play teams that have enough cash to sneak in a star. They get screwed over. Its wrong.

_________________
Question: Who discovered how to milk a cow and what did they think they were doing at the time?

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Aug 07, 2005 - 01:07

They might lose one game, but learn from this.

Better to learn it early against a fair coach than to learn it against someone who just wants to kill.

I don`t spring stars myself, as I rarley have the money. There are only a few team, that might hire a star and usually there is a disclaimer in the teambio saying so.

ClemsonPhysics

Joined: Dec 03, 2004

Posted: Aug 07, 2005 - 01:14

Gumbo wrote:

Yep, and for more experienced players thats something they can consider. But what about the relative newbies; even those with tr 200 teams who are relatively new and havent had the chance to play teams that have enough cash to sneak in a star. They get screwed over. Its wrong.

If you take it easy on newbies then they'll never learn. Personally though, I don't think fumbbl is a good place to learn BB anyway. Better to play it tabletop where you can take back moves, its easier to discuss them before you make them, etc.

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Aug 07, 2005 - 12:48

right clemson. it's also hard because play level is pretty high here and you need 50 games usually at least to get more effective.

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

Eddy

Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Posted: Aug 07, 2005 - 13:01

CorporateSlave3 wrote:

Eddy wrote:

EDIT: about hiring a star without letting your opponent know about it, this is bad practice. the point is to have fun together, not to sneak upon an unsuspecting player. so my advice is definitely to cancel a game if you notice that and are not willing to play it through anyway.

Note that he means (or at least I really hope he means) if you notice it BEFORE you have joined the game. Fumbbl rules are VERY specific on this point and it is very illegal to disconnect and refuse a game that has already been joined, even if the other coach has hired additional players!

I have strong yet mixed feelings about hiring players (or wizards) after a match is agreed on, but I won't go too far into them here. I will say this: When you agree to a match when the opponent has 120K in the bank (which is easy enough to check on), and he hires a star player or wizard or something consider this: who is the guy who tried to pull the fast one here in the first place? The one hiring the freebooter star player before the match but after it is agreed on (per the LRB), or the coach trying to get a game vs. a team with a handicap's worth of useless TR from all that treasury?

except that the team's ST is different with used or unused treasury. when you agree on a game, even if the other team has a big treasury, it may be a BALANCED game. then, the other one throws in a broken Star. that's abusive.

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou