Afro
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 14:58 |
 
|
Playing BB should be fun. If a match isn't fun at all (Nuffle knows why), why continue to get bored and piled on by nuffles bad sense of humour and waste another hour of precious time ? |
_________________
Luck is only for dumb people |
|
Gitzbang
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 15:11 |
|
Well, Captain, if you don't like participants in your tournaments to conceede, than ban that option - no problem in real life - and you won't have 'em conceeding. Me personally, i don't fancy conceeding much, either. But i am not in this particular tournament nor was in the the position to actually make the choice and i just think we should respect the choice the players who are actually in the tournament made.
Additionally one of the main arguments against conceeding was that it would screw up the balance in further matches. Well, if this was the case, then Pmg and Kfoged would be the first entitled to moan about the concession of their predecessor, which they didn't.
I am not trying to deny anyone their right to an opinion about conceeding in a tournament, but that wasn't the topic here, the topic here was the concessions in Fumbbl Cup and i think they are to be respected wether we outstanders are happy about them or not. As said at the beginning: If any organizes doesn't like 'em, than he should forbid them first place. |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 16:02 |
|
| Gitzbang wrote: |
I am not trying to deny anyone their right to an opinion about conceeding in a tournament, but that wasn't the topic here, the topic here was the concessions in Fumbbl Cup and i think they are to be respected wether we outstanders are happy about them or not. As said at the beginning: If any organizes doesn't like 'em, than he should forbid them first place. |
The real topic I was interested in seeing discussed was not the concessions in the FUMBBL Cup. But Concessions in a FUMBBL Major (see topic of this thread). Or even more broadly concessions in all [R] tournaments.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 16:29 |
|
As other posters have pointed out, conceding in Blood Bowl is distinct from conceding in Chess or in Magic, as the outcome of the match affects the starting point for subsequent matches. Whether conceding would make the team which progresses <i>stronger</i> (bonus MVP and cash, suffers less damage) or <i>weaker</i> (racks up fewer in-game SPPs) is actually beside the point. What signifies is that conceding has <i>an</i> impact.
Given that concessions have an effect (of whatever kind), it is reasonable for tournament organisers to implement a rule relating to them, and so bearing this in mind we can return to (Evo's hoped for) topic of discussion:
| EvolveToAnarchism wrote: | | The real topic I was interested in seeing discussed was not the concessions in the FUMBBL Cup. But Concessions in a FUMBBL Major (see topic of this thread). Or even more broadly concessions in all [R] tournaments. |
So, a more useful debate might be: what <i>specific</i> penalties for a concession might be considered both reasonable and suitable by fumbbl coaches? What would be too much for you to consider even joining the tournament? What would be too little to actually discourage concessions? What would be practical/impractical for tournament staff to administer? |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
Malthor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 16:42 |
|
pac, that is a flawed argument.
Playing on and trying to foul every turn has an impact.
Playing on and running away and letting the opponent run in easy TDs has an impact.
Playing on and trying to win against overwhelming odds has an impact.
Playing at 2 AM when you are tired has an impact, should we have a rule on that too?
There have been 2 concessions in how many cup games all up (including the 32 qualifiers)? Do we really need more rules for an event that happens very rarely?
The fact that there are so many different opinions, and rational argument (sometimes) for both sides suggests that the balance/rule is ok as you can't please everybody. |
_________________
ex Monkey (original Team Approvers in 2004)
ex Admin
ex Ranked Tournament Manager
still disliked all round! |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 16:53 |
|
| Malthor wrote: | | pac, that is a flawed argument. |
Quite the reverse: it's a very specific argument, and not the one you seem to think it is. I'm arguing (on the basis I set out) that it is <i>reasonable</i> for a tournament organiser to consider implementing rules regarding concessions. I am not arguing that it is automatically necessary, just that it is reasonable.
You're right, all of the things you mention <i>would</i> have an impact - it would also be <i>reasonable</i> for a tournament organiser to make rulings on those, imo. The difference would be that in each case it would be much more impractical.
| Quote: | | Do we really need more rules for an event that happens very rarely? |
I don't know: that's the matter under discussion. Let someone propose a specific rule, and you can explain why that rule would be undesirable/impractical, and how it would affect your willingness to participate in a tournament.
I also agree that you can't please everybody: that was the conclusion of an earlier post of mine in this thread. My intent was simply to move the debate on from 'You conceded - boo!' 'Wait, I can concede if I want!' which is a topic I think we've exhausted. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 17:05 |
|
Actually, (I can't believe I'm weighing in on this) I think there would be little harm to including the note in the Tournament info. If Conceding isn't allowed, it can be noted up front, so there is no question. Why not? In fact, I'm going to go add that as a note in my King of the Hill group (AS it would ruin the point of the group). |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Captain1821
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 18:04 |
|
| Gitzbang wrote: | | Well, Captain, if you don't like participants in your tournaments to conceede, than ban that option - no problem in real life - and you won't have 'em conceeding. Me personally, i don't fancy conceeding much, either. But i am not in this particular tournament nor was in the the position to actually make the choice and i just think we should respect the choice the players who are actually in the tournament made. |
Listen, I never asked of your opinion on what should I do to the tournament I administrate. I deal with that very well for the past year.
What I told you is that you don't have the right to make negative comments about those that do not agree with you. |
_________________
STATUS: CLOWN |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 20:53 |
|
Neither gitzbang nor me have ever made a negative comment about the people not qualified for the finals.
We both just noted, that the negative comments about concessions and how they influence the fumbblcup came from people not being involved why those guys "suffering" from the concessions never complained.
Isn`t it ironic? Most of the coaches beating on how bad concessions are for the tourney belong to the "fun coach crowd". Who are always claiming they are playing not to win, rather just for the fun - and now they are telling me, that I have to play on, though there is no hope and DEFINATLY no fun for either side?
Now back on topic:
If you ban concession, I want a ban on T16 fouls AND any fouls committed after a game has been decided.
Because fouls that win you nothing, because you cannot win influences the whole tourney to a large extend! In fact we should play with non-progressing teams - that would make it fair, wouldn`t it? |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 21:23 |
|
I hope you don't take this too personally, Circ, we've had several good games and would hope to have many more (when I'm more free to play) - I think that without the 2nd consecutive concession, things wouldn't have come to a head this way. As it is, a situation has arose that had not been anticipated, and Evo sees the need to prevent it happening in future. Evo did not advocate banning all coaches who conceded, only those who do so in certain circumstances. What those circumstances are have yet to be determined, exactly. Maybe that's where we need to move this discussion along to. In trying to come up with example, I've realised that such conditions are different depending on the races playing - e.g. Elves can score even with being down players, whereas Undead teams can happily survive a team-killing exercise when over-matched. |
_________________
Join The Cult of Tzeentch, mutate randomly! | Hug a newb! Join the Faculty of Academy Instructors! |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2005 - 22:00 |
|
Colin, if we move that way and declare some concession as OK and some as not, then we should consider T16 fouls banned, if there is no overtime.
Most of the arguements aim towards "impact of concession on the following matches". I can understand that - and I really advocate to ban coaches who conceed in the RRR - where it`s against the rules. There the impact is enormous. In the fumbbl cup the impact of a concession is WAY less.
The only banable offense should be - if one coach simply not shows to play his game - like in the Ulthuan Invitational, where a certain picky elven coach gave some mean chaos coach a free ticket to the next round. |
|
|
Captain1821
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2005 - 02:00 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Neither gitzbang nor me have ever made a negative comment about the people not qualified for the finals. |
I didn't say that you did any negative comments.
I talk about the bad comment made by Gitzbang:
| Gitzbang wrote: | | Funny thing is, by the way, none of Malthor's future opponents claim the concessions where unfair. It's only spectators and guys that didn't manage the Cup... |
Maybe it is the language barrier. The above comment and specially the part in bolt letters is provocative towards those that tried to be in the Fumbbl Cup, if you translate it to Greek. |
_________________
STATUS: CLOWN |
|
Zedread
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2005 - 03:07 |
|
Clearly you people take games too serious. Try to live your REAL life like most players do, get out of fumbbl planet once in a while...
If someone wants to concede then he should be allowed, it's his team so no one else has nothing to say about anything. |
|
|
DonKosak
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2005 - 08:41 |
|
| Malthor wrote: | Playing on and trying to foul every turn has an impact.
Playing on and running away and letting the opponent run in easy TDs has an impact.
Playing on and trying to win against overwhelming odds has an impact.
Playing at 2 AM when you are tired has an impact, should we have a rule on that too? |
My words exactly.
| CircularLogic wrote: | If you ban concession, I want a ban on T16 fouls AND any fouls committed after a game has been decided.
Because fouls that win you nothing, because you cannot win influences the whole tourney to a large extend! In fact we should play with non-progressing teams - that would make it fair, wouldn`t it? |
My words exactly.
Unfortunately all of Evo's 5 reasons for suggesting a punishment for concession
| Evo wrote: | 1. Unfair advantages
2. Open to abuse.
3. Premier tournaments
4. High stakes events
5. Background |
can be applied to lots of other actions too - for instance hiding in the corner, clicking it through, fouling, stalling and so on...
I asked you Evo because your original post hints that you'll make the final decision in this matter, which makes it most interesting to know your reasons behind the suggestion.
Sorry, but I still haven't seen any rational argument for shooting specifically at the concession-possibility... |
|
|
OldBugman
Joined: May 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2005 - 08:48 |
|
Concession.. it's part of the game.. pg16 and 45 of the LRB |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
