MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
 Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 19:29 |
 
|
Meech said to make a new thread of this and I always do what Meech says. 
Here's the original post:
Right... I thought I'd turn my attention to an over-looked subject when it comes to the majors. The majors are becoming more and more professionalised and I for one am happy to see this development. Coaches are metagaming harder in preparation of the majors (I know I am). Once there, teams are BIG and often loaded with cash for stars and wizards. Everybody is there to WIN. Nothing strange there, but...
On the eve of a majors game, you check your opponents team and see that she, like you, have a hefty treasury. So, you think about your chances and decide you want to hire a star. So does your opponent. Now... Who hires first? There is an obvious advantage to going last. If you go last, you will be certain of the respective team STR. At present, this is left up to the coaches to agree on.
In a more professionalised environment, I think there should be rules/guidelines for this as well. Even if the rule is just to roll a die to decide who hires first. Someone HAS to hire first, and since it's a disadvantage, neither coach really wants to. In the interest of a friendly atmosphere, coaches should not have to agree on who gets that disadvantage. So...
Anybody care about this besides me? |
|
|
MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 19:31 |
|
Synn then had this proposal:
| Synn wrote: | Madtias......
I have been thinking the same thing and have an idea?
Concept of "Commissioner".
Works like this:
If two Orc teams are playing each other, then they find a neutral 3rd coach. Each Orc coach PMs the commissioner what they are doing with their money. Then the whole hosting procedure becomes a moot point.
I would like to see this idea gain some kind of official notice. Simply b/c i think sneakiness is fluffy and should be left in the game..... not before it.
Thoughts?
__Synn |
|
|
|
MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 19:32 |
|
...and Borgen had this:
| Borgen wrote: | MadTias - it is a good point and this is a procedure that I did with PeteW prior to the XFL Dark Elf Final and I think it works quite well.
Coach #1 (doesnt matter who they are, you can flip a coin to see who goes first) makes any number of changes as they like. Once they are done, they say DONE.
Coach #2 has two options - Option #1: they can accept the game as is - MAKE NO CHANGES to their team - and the game MUST start. Coach #1 can NOT make further changse. Option #2: Coach #2 can tinker with their team as much as they like - then they pass back over to Coach #1.
Coach #1 then can either accept the game as is (and Coach #2 can make no further changes), or further tinker.
so on, and so forth, until both coaches say DONE without making any further changes.
I think this works very well because you have the chance to make as many changes as you would like until you are satisfied with the rosters. Very simple and very fair process. And if you try to delay and force your opponent to spend first - you run the risk of them accepting the game as is, without spending any money, and you do not get to spend your cash. |
|
|
|
Lemmy
Joined: Aug 21, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 19:40 |
|
|
MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 20:03 |
|
I was really hoping to hear something more from Malthor on this... |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 20:26 |
|
I just think that each team should hire without seeing what the opponent has hired. I hate the concept of a "ebay sniper" mentality.
__Synn |
|
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 20:40 |
|
| MadTias wrote: | Synn then had this proposal:
| Synn wrote: | Madtias......
I have been thinking the same thing and have an idea?
Concept of "Commissioner".
Works like this:
If two Orc teams are playing each other, then they find a neutral 3rd coach. Each Orc coach PMs the commissioner what they are doing with their money. Then the whole hosting procedure becomes a moot point.
I would like to see this idea gain some kind of official notice. Simply b/c i think sneakiness is fluffy and should be left in the game..... not before it.
Thoughts?
__Synn |
|
I like this idea.
The best thing about this is that both teams could lose their cash if they hire the same star. |
_________________
The plural of anecdote isn't data.
Last edited by torsoboy on %b %03, %2006 - %20:%Oct; edited 1 time in total |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 20:45 |
|
There's also a big issue when two teams that can hire the same star play each other. They could both hire the star and waste their money or decide not to hire them so that winner has more money for the next round. Is the latter allowed? It would be nice to have an official clarification before the games start. |
|
|
Pirrekurr
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 21:05 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | There's also a big issue when two teams that can hire the same star play each other. They could both hire the star and waste their money or decide not to hire them so that winner has more money for the next round. Is the latter allowed? It would be nice to have an official clarification before the games start. |
Hmm. In the rules it says:
"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."
As I see it any speaking about hiring or not hiring stars should be considered discussing in-game strategy and hence both teams should be disqualified if they discuss which stars they may or may not hire. Of course this can be avoided by discussing in more general terms, i.e. "I usually don't like to hire Zara, do you?" This is not considered an in-game strategy discussion, but rather a general discussion about one's preferences in blood bowl. It is semantics I know, but it is the way I see it. |
|
|
MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 22:09 |
|
So, there seems to be a possible issue here that an official ruling could adress? *hint, hint* |
|
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 22:28 |
|
Randomoracle, I can tell you that if you play me and we both want to hire Griff, I am going to hire him. You can then decide to counter hire to nullify my griff or save your money for the next round. If someone - not you specifically of course - suggests that we both not hire Griff and save our money, I'd go ahead and hire him anyway.
People with a different mindset, who need to be policed, can't really be policed as it is impossible to prove that they had an arrangement. |
|
|
Pirrekurr
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 22:31 |
|
| Optihut wrote: | Randomoracle, I can tell you that if you play me and we both want to hire Griff, I am going to hire him. You can then decide to counter hire to nullify my griff or save your money for the next round. If someone - not you specifically of course - suggests that we both not hire Griff and save our money, I'd go ahead and hire him anyway.
People with a different mindset, who need to be policed, can't really be policed as it is impossible to prove that they had an arrangement. |
 |
|
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 22:38 |
|
Also, hiring is part of the pre-match sequence, so it really isn't "in game strategy" if we are truly splitting hairs.
I am so going to ebay Ramatut and the Count! |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 22:38 |
|
Why am I neither quoted nor answered?
Has there been a problem with sneak hiring in official tournaments?
I know this to happen in open R games. I also know that in fixed shedule tournaments teams hire what they want long before the game starts.
In a KO game all that matters is to win. So you just hire what you can afford and think you need to win.
Maybe it is just my small tourney experience, but maybe there is no big problem here.. ??
Could anyone give me reason to believe there is a big problem, that there has been some nasty surprise? Some bad sportmanship in majors? Or is this a discussion about theoretical problems? Thx |
|
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 03, 2006 - 22:42 |
|
| Pirrekurr wrote: | | RandomOracle wrote: | | There's also a big issue when two teams that can hire the same star play each other. They could both hire the star and waste their money or decide not to hire them so that winner has more money for the next round. Is the latter allowed? It would be nice to have an official clarification before the games start. |
Hmm. In the rules it says:
"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."
As I see it any speaking about hiring or not hiring stars should be considered discussing in-game strategy and hence both teams should be disqualified if they discuss which stars they may or may not hire. Of course this can be avoided by discussing in more general terms, i.e. "I usually don't like to hire Zara, do you?" This is not considered an in-game strategy discussion, but rather a general discussion about one's preferences in blood bowl. It is semantics I know, but it is the way I see it. |
The thing is, the scenario posted by Borgen would make it possible for the coaches in question to not hire the star available for both of them. The coaches wouldn't even need to discuss anything at all. |
|
|
|
|
Problem to organize ...
Search
