| Poll |
| Should the TS difference rule go? |
| Yes! Stunties need fair odds more than anyone else. |
|
19% |
[ 24 ] |
| No, all stunties should be relegated to Stunty Leeg. |
|
11% |
[ 14 ] |
| I don't care. |
|
17% |
[ 21 ] |
| This poll is stupid. |
|
51% |
[ 63 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 122 |
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
 Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 02:48 |
 
|
| Skrofler wrote: | | CorporateSlave3 wrote: | | I don't quite understand your argument. Your team is about 156/124. Why can't you play other TR 156-sh teams? Their TS should be within the 40 point limit almost all the time. |
Almost doesn't cut it. Besides that I would be even worse off with a few more serious injuries lowering my TS even more. In such a case I would really not like to give away handicap. That's just too unfair for me and unfairness doesn't belong in games. |
Heh, dude, you're just trolling right? I mean, almost doesn't cut it how? You're not making any specific sense. At one point you seem to be saying that you want to play even TR matches so you don't suffer handicaps, decrying Fumbbl 'house rules' of TS and TS limits, then you argue that being able to play even TS but not giving up TR handicaps (!!!) would be better...but isn't this throwing the LRB away? Besdies, you wouldn't even know about 'TS' without the Fumbbl formula. Do you like it or not? I don't get it. (I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic. I really don't know what you are getting at.)
I mean, you don't like the 40 point TS limit rule in Ranked. But removing it would just mean you can play teams far, far more powerful than your own...giving you what advantage exactly? I don't see how this is any 'better' for you, or why making sure these games don't take place have put you at some disadvantage.
Can you provide some specific examples of when it would be helpful for you to be able to play past the 40TS limit rule? I've heard you say it can't give you any advantage to have the limit enforced - but I can't follow that logic without some proof, or at least examples. I am perfectly willing to beleive you if you can provide such backup to your argument.  |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 10:33 |
|
| Alanir wrote: | | I don't really understand . |
See original post. |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 10:50 |
|
| CorporateSlave3 wrote: | | You're not making any specific sense. At one point you seem to be saying that you want to play even TR matches so you don't suffer handicaps, decrying Fumbbl 'house rules' of TS and TS limits, then you argue that being able to play even TS but not giving up TR handicaps (!!!) would be better...but isn't this throwing the LRB away? |
No, you misunderstood. I have never found any use for TS. Currently it is just messing up my games. I don't like it at all.
| CorporateSlave3 wrote: | | I mean, you don't like the 40 point TS limit rule in Ranked. But removing it would just mean you can play teams far, far more powerful than your own...giving you what advantage exactly? I don't see how this is any 'better' for you, or why making sure these games don't take place have put you at some disadvantage. |
Once more then: If I want to play against a Lizard team right now I would have to give handicap. This is to my disadvantage because handicaps can be nasty. If my team were to be hurt, losing more TS, it could be impossible for me to get any game without giving handicap. That's why this rule is bringing down on already weaker teams (and cherypickers).
The other bit I don't agree with you on is that teams on equal TR with goblins are "far, far more powerful". Come on! I've played dozens of goblins games against evenly rated teams and I won most of them. I don't need a nanny.
| CorporateSlave3 wrote: | | Can you provide some specific examples of when it would be helpful for you to be able to play past the 40TS limit rule? I've heard you say it can't give you any advantage to have the limit enforced - but I can't follow that logic without some proof, or at least examples. I am perfectly willing to beleive you if you can provide such backup to your argument. |
The advantage to be gained is, pure and simple, greater selection of match-ups and not having to give away handicap for a recovery game. |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 10:56 |
|
As others have pointed out you could just play in Unranked. Again - as others have said - Ranked is a competitive division and therefore the TS limit is there to prevent "over careful match selection" as it against the very spirit of ranked. Stunties are not competetive teams and very good winning records can only be achieved by the aforementioned method of match selection.
If fair match ups for stunties is what you want Ranked is not for you I guess. I mean if you don't care about CR or winning why bother complaining? If it's only because it's "easier" to find games in Ranked you're being selfish in your complaint; you demand the rules being changed in order for you to be pleased but give no consideration for other people on the site who care wether or not fair match ups take place. |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 13:59 |
|
Let's get things straight.
Stunties are competitive teams. All teams are.
Of course I care about winning. Who said I didn't?
Of course my complaint is selfish, as all complaints ultimately are. That was the first thing I admitted.
Now, getting people to realise that stunties are needlessly discredited was the first aim of this thread.
The second, which I was hoping I could get to much quicker than this, is actually discussing whether:
A) this is relevant
B) what could be changed
I do wish there were more people open-minded enough to at least accept this as a hypothesis and a genuine basis for discussion.
If "the spirit of Ranked" truly is to keep stunties shorter than LRB wants them then I agree. There is no reason for my claim. However, I seriously doubt that this is the case. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
Jigplums
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 14:38 |
|
I think ts should just replace tr entirely |
|
|
origami
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 16:22 |
|
To the best that I can tell, he seems to be saying that it is better to face a superior team than to give up handicaps.
He is also saying that he doesn't care if the changes mess up other people's experience with the game, as long as he gains an advantage from it.
I disagree with the first, and I certainly don't care for the second. |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 16:28 |
|
| Quote: |
Stunties are competitive teams. All teams are.
|
I have to disagree. Stunties were designed under powered deliberately. They are joke teams nothing more - good jokes but jokes no less.
| Quote: |
The second, which I was hoping I could get to much quicker than this, is actually discussing whether:
A) this is relevant
|
I think people have vented their oppinions on this matter. It seems most people do not find it relevant at all as everyone else can come to terms with the fact that there is a 40 TS limit and find it fair.
| Quote: |
B) what could be changed
|
As everyone else seems to get along find with the rule, shouldn't it be you who presented an alternative to the existing?
The list of problems that would be solved by removing the TS limit is painfully short compared to the amount of problems that would be introduced by removing it.
If you can somehow convince me that the benifits of the removal of a rather sensible rule is for the greater good of all of FUMBBL I'd be rather surprised. I guess we just have very different oppinions on this matter |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 17:39 |
|
| origami wrote: | To the best that I can tell, he seems to be saying that it is better to face a superior team than to give up handicaps.
He is also saying that he doesn't care if the changes mess up other people's experience with the game, as long as he gains an advantage from it.
I disagree with the first, and I certainly don't care for the second. |
That is a very sensible opinion. However, it is impossible to change anything without someone gaining or losing from it. That's the whole point of change. |
|
|
Winson_Paine
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 17:48 |
|
| MixX wrote: | | Quote: |
Watching your opponent blame all of your dicerolls for any little success you might have.
|
Hehe that happens everywhere not just in Stunty! Earlier today I had a coach claiming I was "extremely lucky" for making a 3+ pickup (with reroll) a 4+ pass (with Pass) and a 2+ catch (with Catch)... heh!
I would say the right reason to play stunty leeg is for the craziness.. anything can happen, and it usually doesn´t matter. |
You were pretty lucky. Discounting the reroll you have around a 20% chance or so of all those happening at once. |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 17:49 |
|
| RedFish wrote: | | As everyone else seems to get along find with the rule, shouldn't it be you who presented an alternative to the existing? |
That's what I just said.
I have been trying to move to the constructive part of this complaint but too many coaches didn't even understand the problem.
Anyway, I already seem to have some support for a reform. 11 are pro, 7 against and 32 didn't understand the topic. There seem to be a lot of middle ground to gain from a discussion.
I admit that the solution is the tricky part. My first thought was to set a quota for games played versus weaker (lower TR) opponents. But then I actually lack the motivation to construct a replacement since I'm not personally afraid of cherrypickers.
Why not just change to a TR+/-X restriction? |
|
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 17:49 |
|
| Skrofler wrote: | | The advantage to be gained is, pure and simple, greater selection of match-ups and not having to give away handicap for a recovery game. |
...But, without TS to tell you what 'shape' a team is in, how do you have any idea if it is a recovery game or not? I'm sorry to pester, but my brain's logic center is overheating as I try to follow your train of thought.
My question is: How would eliminating the TS rule help you get more even recovery matches?! You'd end up playing even TR teams with even fewer players of your own, wouldn't you? So, no handicaps given up, but hells bells you'd be even more outclassed on the pitch...
I guess what I should say is, I understand what you are saying (i.e. the meaning of what you are saying), but I just can't find specific examples when what you are saying would be true. You seem to want easier games, but everything you ask for would end up making your 'new choices' all harder games... |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 18:12 |
|
| CorporateSlave3 wrote: |
...But, without TS to tell you what 'shape' a team is in, how do you have any idea if it is a recovery game or not? I'm sorry to pester, but my brain's logic center is overheating as I try to follow your train of thought. |
Don't sweat. I was not aware that a recovery game on FUMBBL was based on the opposition. What I mean by recovery game is simply a game when I need to recover my team. I wouldn't sink so low as to seek out other crippled teams just to relax.
| CorporateSlave3 wrote: | My question is: How would eliminating the TS rule help you get more even recovery matches?! You'd end up playing even TR teams with even fewer players of your own, wouldn't you? So, no handicaps given up, but hells bells you'd be even more outclassed on the pitch...
I guess what I should say is, I understand what you are saying (i.e. the meaning of what you are saying), but I just can't find specific examples when what you are saying would be true. You seem to want easier games, but everything you ask for would end up making your 'new choices' all harder games... |
Well, let's put it this way. If I wanted easy games I wouldn't be playing goblins. I just think that their natural disadvantages are enough. I don't need TS messing things up.
I want tough opposition. I want to play even TR games. I just don't want to give handicap because
A) I shouldn't have to
and
B) The wrong handicap roll could easily reduce my chances by a lot. |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 21:37 |
|
| Skrofler wrote: |
That is a very sensible opinion. However, it is impossible to change anything without someone gaining or losing from it. That's the whole point of change. |
In this case the change was that the TS limit was introduced - the stunty coaches suffers and almost everyone else benefits. Was this a good or a bad change? I'd say good as it benefits the vast majority of coaches and only affects a minority of coaches. On top of this most experienced stunty coaches would disagree with you when you claim that giving up handicaps is worse than playing against equally TS rated teams and give up 1+ handicaps.
If you're afraid of Virus fire the nigglers - sensible on any team really. Giving up 1 handicap is not worse than playing up 24 in TS.
What upsets me is your interpretation of the poll. You look at the few in favor, say only 7 disagree and then simply discard the vote of 32 who have used an option you gave them and say they are too dumb to understand the topic when you didn't even give them the choice of saying "I disagree - the current TS rules are good." That's rather insulting to the intelligence of every coach here. |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Sep 18, 2005 - 21:45 |
|
i never voted, because the option 'I think it fine as it is, and stunties can play where they like' isn't there. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Welcome Newcomers - ...
Search
