Borgen
Joined: Sep 06, 2005
|
 Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 17:45 |
 
|
And this is a problem because? Maybe both coaches don't want the star in question.
I like adding some strategizing to the pre-game sequence. The back-and-forth procedure involves a lot of strategy in terms of trying to force the other player to reveal how they will spend their money before you do. And you can get burned if they decide to accept the matchup as-is. As long as you do it in a back-in forth manner where you are taking a risk once you say "done" i dont see it at all as an agreement among the players. Its actually quite the opposite - its a back and forth competition with your opponent to try to push through the best possible matchup for your team. And you don't need any outside party involved to make it happen. |
_________________
British or British-based? Join the White Isle League! |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 18:16 |
|
| Borgen wrote: | And this is a problem because? Maybe both coaches don't want the star in question.
I like adding some strategizing to the pre-game sequence. The back-and-forth procedure involves a lot of strategy in terms of trying to force the other player to reveal how they will spend their money before you do. And you can get burned if they decide to accept the matchup as-is. As long as you do it in a back-in forth manner where you are taking a risk once you say "done" i dont see it at all as an agreement among the players. Its actually quite the opposite - its a back and forth competition with your opponent to try to push through the best possible matchup for your team. And you don't need any outside party involved to make it happen. |
I'm not saying it's a problem, but it would be different to the other methods proposed. For example, if I was playing orcs with orcs I could hire just the wizard first and say done. Then, my opponent would see I didn't waste money on, say, Morg and buy just the wizard himself and say done. I would then accept the game and we'd play.
However, if both players have to send their planned changes to a third party, I wouldn't want to risk playing against Morg so I'd hire him just to be sure. My opponent might do the same so in the end we both end up paying 100k extra. Of course, both of us would prefer not to spend this money and save it for the next rounds.
Both systems would be fine with me, but there a huge difference in the outcome. |
|
|
Pirrekurr
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 18:21 |
|
| Meech wrote: | 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! |
Also open for debate. I would say that the game begins with the pre-match sequence and ends with the post-match sequence, i.e. the pre-match sequence is part of the game and discussing it falls under "in game strategy".
| RandomOracle wrote: | | 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. |
Then there is no problem. If nothing is discussed, then all is ok. I thought the problem was if coaches discussed it and decided not to hire the starplayer to save money. Then of course it would be okey for one, or maybe both of the coaches to hire the starplayer anyway, and we are back on square one. I see no probelms at all with how it is played right now. I think there is no problem and I merely tried to show that the discussing of hiring or not hiring starplayers might constitute a breach against the rules of the FUMBBL site. I would say it definetely does, but others will argue differently. |
|
|
Plorg
Joined: May 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 18:27 |
|
| 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. |
I believe this has happened in at least one XFL tournament.
In XFL, all teams are from the same race so the Star selection is the same for both teams.
Sometimes you will see two XFL teams play where neither one hires the Star even though both teams have the cash for it. |
|
|
Arktoris
Joined: Feb 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 18:34 |
|
Ideally Synn's way is best...though would require extra services of the commissioner and his staff. However, if the system is only used when 1 person asks for it, probably won't use up too much of staff's time.
The back and forth way favors the more powerful team. They don't need to hire and therefore simply say "done" and wait and see what the weaker team does...then counter appropriately. However, the secret ballot to a third party levels the playing field perfectly.
As for the possibility of both hiring the same star and losing the money?....welcome to majors folks  you knew the risk when you handed over the cash. All part of the 'mental duel'.
personally I'd consider coordinating with your opponent what to hire to be a violation of the rules. Stars and wizards are used in game. coordinating to prevent same star hiring and thus being in better shape for the next game is like agreeing not to foul...to increase your chances of being healthy next game. |
_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 18:40 |
|
I'd tend to agree with Arktoris and Pirrekurr that agreeing not to hire a star is against at least the spirit of the rules. However, what I'd really like is an official clarification before the next tournament starts. |
|
|
MadTias
Joined: Jun 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 19:08 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | I'd tend to agree with Arktoris and Pirrekurr that agreeing not to hire a star is against at least the spirit of the rules. However, what I'd really like is an official clarification before the next tournament starts. |
Isn't that a coincidence? The next major starts on... let's se... Well, wouldn't you know! It starts on Saturday!  |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 22:19 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | ...For example, if I was playing orcs with orcs I could hire just the wizard first and say done. Then, my opponent would see I didn't waste money on, say, Morg and buy just the wizard himself and say done. I would then accept the game and we'd play. |
Of course I see where this is heading.
But look at this from the other side. I´d say all Orc teams that will enter the qualifiers have 15 players (maybe some 14), so there is only space for one Star.
Now, consider you are the first to make a choice. You look at the rosters and think what you need to win.
There are 3 possibilities: Either you think you need Morg to win the game or you think you do not need him and would win with Morg not playing at all or you think you will win with Morg playing against you.
In last case, you are best off, but of course you can hire him to make it an even more easy win (whether you get him or none gets him). In first case, hire him. If your opponent hires him as well, you have a tough time, but don´t you think if your opponent has made first choice he wouldn´t have hire him or another star just to make sure he will win?? Hey, it is a KO game, don´t you think he will make sure he wins?
In the second case, you can just wait, or you hire him to make sure he won´t play or he plays for you.
See where this is going? If you have the cash hire what you think you need. If you make that choice one day or one second before the game starts does not really matter. Only that last thing is rather lame.
I do not think Orc teams enter with cash problems. And it is only 3 games to go before you can refresh your cash. (and no Orc team will play 3 games against other Orc teams!)
I have seen XFL Halflings. Those who could afford hired Deeproot directly after the last game. There was no sneak hiring. Same goes to my games in other tourneys. All teams were ready to go hours or days before the game was played.
I see there might be an advantage in waiting and maybe sneak hiding. But it is greatly accepted that it is bad sportman-ship. So, all I am saying is there is not such a great disadvantage in hiring a star first, and it shows your good spirits.
On the other side, by no means you can prevent sneak hiring or coaches agreeing on not hiring and saving cash before the game. You cannot even detect the last one.
Maybe it should just generally be suggested that rosters are ready long before the game (or if changes are made, your opponent is to be informed). I still do not believe there is or will be much mis-use of the "who hosts"-issue. And maybe we should boo coaches who sneak hire in tourneys. Hey, it is pre-game, but make this FC a fair and fun event! |
|
|
Mateuszzzzzz
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 22:31 |
|
|
Pirrekurr
Joined: Mar 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 22:54 |
|
| Arcon wrote: | | ...make this FC a fair and fun event! |
Fun at least, that is most important. I second that motion. |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 04, 2006 - 23:02 |
|
well, maybe I was too theoretical, here more practical:
This is THE Major tournament. We want to see a great show. We do not want to see cheating, bad sportmanship and sneak hiring.
I like Synns idea, too, but I think it is not easily facilitated. If you want to have it, you could not start a game without an admin or other trusted coach being there.
So, since I think it is common use that stars are hired well before a game starts (actually I would be kind of shocked if those known coaches posting here use sneak hiring tactics), there would be an easy way to at least stopping sneak hiring:
-All coaches participitating should be aware that dirty tricks before the game are not wanted.
-Before a game is hosted each coach should send a pm to Malthor which contains TR and TS of both teams.
-If there is a mismatch or a mismatch in the report after the game, there should be a penalty. This could range from public booing (again, I do not think a reknown coach would do this) or banishment from further events (depends on how strictly followed it could even mean not being allowed to play in the Cup even though the team won a qualifier).
This solves only the "who hosts" issue, not the who hires first, but has the advantage that 2 coaches ready to play can just do that.
And I think it solves the greater of the 2 problems.
----
To come back to the 2 Orc teams and the general issue of who hires first.
It might be I am just too inexperienced in this Star Player matter, if so, just someone tell me and I will shut up...
I guess a Star Player will not make the Underdog win easily. Sure, he helps a lot (as does Virus, Morleys, even get the ref kick off result), but can Morg really turn the game? Can the Count do it for Undeads, can Zara? Hmm. I think a Star Player can mainly influence the outcome of the game when both teams are almost equally strong. While in a one off game hardly a team hires a star when 2 equally strong teams meet, it is highly recommended in KO-games.
We now have 2 equally strong Orc teams. Provided the coaches do not make agreements not to hire a star to safe cash (boo) nor sneak hire (boo), one has to hire first. In this case I do not think choosing first is the disadvantage, but can be an advantage. You choose which Star might best fit into your team and might increase chances for winning best. Is it Morg? Is it another one? You choose. Your opponent now does not have free choice any more. He can only decide does he counter-hire or does he play your star and hire another one. But the best Star for your team (or the most feared one) will either play for your team or for none. |
|
|
Markus
Joined: Aug 26, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2006 - 08:33 |
|
I think the overdog should host. In Lrb 5 he has to make all his purchases before the underdog makes his. This favors the underdog as he doesnt have to guess.
Synns proposal makes both coaches guessing and is neutral as both have to presume the worst. The team with more cash can just better project what the other guy is going to hire. This means burning more treasury for both coaches and less cash for future games. The overdog is favored slightly as the underdog has to hire sthg to get an even game.
Borgens proposal favors the overdog or coach with more cash as he can always see what his opponent is going to do. This means the high ts teams can keep all/more of the cash for later rounds unless the underdog just thinks of winning his very next game, hiring all improvments right from the start. Anyway the overdog can only be forced to either play a riskier game or to burn his cash. This would lead to finals with a high treasury for the players.
As i was always cheering for underdogs, i'd just say the overdog has to go first, make all his purchases and the underdog can do as he likes to improve his team and chances of winning after he knows the team he is going to face.
M |
_________________
"When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers."- Oscar Wilde
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."- Niels Bohr |
|
cmac
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2006 - 08:46 |
|
I like the overdog idea, but what happens on a tie.... |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2006 - 09:20 |
|
Synn's Idea:
If you are playing tabletop...... once you find your opponent and look at his/her roster....... you can decide on using your bank. So both of you walk off and scribble with your pencil/pen/boba fett super edition lightpen in the stars you are going to hire.
Ta da! You come back and get the surprize factor of what the final roster looks like.
In a competitive tourney environment, the only way to get this process down involves a third party.
This, however, does NOT need to come down from some admin. I assume that if you have been following this post, than you know about the FC. Announce your game in chat and ask out if someone wants to assist. I know i am going to bring it up to my opponent regardless of the fact that my team can only hire one thing.
Blood on the pitch,
__Synn |
|
|
Malthor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 05, 2006 - 09:49 |
|
I discussed Synn's earlier idea (reporting what you will or will not hire to an official before starting the match) with him when he proposed it.
While it has some merit, here are the issues.
1) Who are the respected neutral coaches if we are going to have people other than admins being the arbitrator.
2) What happens if coach A tells the official that he is hiring nobody, and then hires anyway after managing to see the other guy's roster due to some false starts? What happens then? Is it breaking the rules (not at the moment)? What do we do after it has happened? Allow the other coach to hire again (which may not be suitable anyway)? A forfeit is too heavy a penalty. Force the coach to not use that star or wizard? What if he does?
Just seems like an awful lot of officiating just to start a match...
That is why I say just do a BBd6 in main chat to determine who will host the game. Both hire/not hire, once the game has connected, the coaches cannot rehire - doing so IS a violation of exsiting FUMBBL rules -> you cannot edit your roster once the game has connected. |
_________________
ex Monkey (original Team Approvers in 2004)
ex Admin
ex Ranked Tournament Manager
still disliked all round! |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
