18 coaches online • Server time: 02:16
* * * Did you know? The fouliest player is Bruce Wayne XVII with 2010 fouls.
Recent Forum Topics  DIBBL Awards | Secret Stunty Cup - ... | Blood Bowl 2024 Edit... |
2015-12-06 03:55:35
9 votes, rating 3.8
9 votes, rating 3.8
Play to Win
A week ago, I received three concessions in a six game stretch. In at least one of these cases, the opposing coach made the strategic choice to concede the game for the long term benefit of the team. This seemed non-intuitive to me, so I asked my opponent why. The idea is that concession will result in fewer injuries occurring on an already beat up team. This is particularly true if a few manageable injuries have occurred, but the team's stars are still on the pitch. The logic was clear even if the exact details require a judgement call. Still, I felt that my opponent had given up too soon.
Over the last few days, I have been looking at the debate and found the community divided on the issue. Those against strategic concessions seem to fall into two radically different groups. The first cares deeply about the issue and believes that it violates the code of e-honor. The second is apathetic and says that the end of some internet pixels doesn't matter. Those in favor of strategic concessions care about their teams and their players.
While I can see the logic of each point of view, I can't really agree with any of those. Rather my opinion is best expressed by Herm Edwards. When asked if he cared about his team's losing record the NFL head coach said, "This is what's great about sports. This is what the greatest thing about sports is. You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters."
Winning is fun for me, so I only concede when I can't finish the game. However, remember that Blood Bowl is only game, so do what you think fun. If that means conceding to give me more wins, I will take it. A win is a win.
Sal-utations
Over the last few days, I have been looking at the debate and found the community divided on the issue. Those against strategic concessions seem to fall into two radically different groups. The first cares deeply about the issue and believes that it violates the code of e-honor. The second is apathetic and says that the end of some internet pixels doesn't matter. Those in favor of strategic concessions care about their teams and their players.
While I can see the logic of each point of view, I can't really agree with any of those. Rather my opinion is best expressed by Herm Edwards. When asked if he cared about his team's losing record the NFL head coach said, "This is what's great about sports. This is what the greatest thing about sports is. You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters."
Winning is fun for me, so I only concede when I can't finish the game. However, remember that Blood Bowl is only game, so do what you think fun. If that means conceding to give me more wins, I will take it. A win is a win.
Sal-utations
Comments
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-12-06 04:06:51
Well my view is this:
I don't actually care about people conceding against me, it's a free win and I'd rather they conceded and left than whined for an hour. I dislike the coach type that just concedes with no word and leaves, it's rude.
However I care deeply for the integrity of the site and the spirit of the game. The concession rules were not meant to facilitate what goes on at Cyanide. Rather to protect teams. So I do care about the concession rule and care about it being upheld. As, coaches want to play a full game and should expect to be able to do so when they sit down.
Sportwise, all sports are different and played with different written codes. My sport for example is cycling. I'm not going to get into my past but often quitting a cycle race is the best option, physically. However; contractually, you generally aren't allowed to do that and it's not good to get into the habit of 'giving up'. So, where am I going with this.....when the win is gone so is the will to compete. However it's better in the long run not to press that concede button/jump in the broom wagon as mentally it has negative consequences.
I don't actually care about people conceding against me, it's a free win and I'd rather they conceded and left than whined for an hour. I dislike the coach type that just concedes with no word and leaves, it's rude.
However I care deeply for the integrity of the site and the spirit of the game. The concession rules were not meant to facilitate what goes on at Cyanide. Rather to protect teams. So I do care about the concession rule and care about it being upheld. As, coaches want to play a full game and should expect to be able to do so when they sit down.
Sportwise, all sports are different and played with different written codes. My sport for example is cycling. I'm not going to get into my past but often quitting a cycle race is the best option, physically. However; contractually, you generally aren't allowed to do that and it's not good to get into the habit of 'giving up'. So, where am I going with this.....when the win is gone so is the will to compete. However it's better in the long run not to press that concede button/jump in the broom wagon as mentally it has negative consequences.
Posted by happygrue on 2015-12-06 04:31:53
I'd add that sometimes you play to do the best you can. Winning not possible? Play for the tie, at least. Sure, sometimes you just lose, but you have to play the game! Then you get to have the occasional game like this:
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3335478
It's a joke. Min-maxed Necro with a legend clawpomb wolf vs my silly flings. My opponent 1d/-2d frenzies my star fling on turn 2... but removes him from the pitch. He trashes me all game long. The suffering is intense. And yet, I didn't give up, and in the end I am awarded with a hilarious draw even after getting almost pitch-cleared both halves.
Fortunately, a legend wolf (300+ spp) on a lame Necro team hanging out at 1240K doesn't happen too much any more, since the scheduler change!
But the point is - never give up!
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3335478
It's a joke. Min-maxed Necro with a legend clawpomb wolf vs my silly flings. My opponent 1d/-2d frenzies my star fling on turn 2... but removes him from the pitch. He trashes me all game long. The suffering is intense. And yet, I didn't give up, and in the end I am awarded with a hilarious draw even after getting almost pitch-cleared both halves.
Fortunately, a legend wolf (300+ spp) on a lame Necro team hanging out at 1240K doesn't happen too much any more, since the scheduler change!
But the point is - never give up!
Posted by Jeffro on 2015-12-06 05:14:58
I will contradict to a point and still agree... (cuz that's what you do when you are half in the bag)
Play. Are you playing?! You should play. You don't want to play?! Don't play. Why start? Don't start playing if you don't want to play.
That being said... I've conceded a few times. The latest being because real life interrupted. Time before that, I remember being really pissed about a bunch of stuff unrelated to the game and I took it out on the game (kick-the-dog mentality). But while I will defend the ability to concede, I will also argue that it shouldn't be done if you can help it.
Have I successfully talked out of both sides of my mouth while riding the fence with that reply?! I will say... I did and I didn't.
;)
Play. Are you playing?! You should play. You don't want to play?! Don't play. Why start? Don't start playing if you don't want to play.
That being said... I've conceded a few times. The latest being because real life interrupted. Time before that, I remember being really pissed about a bunch of stuff unrelated to the game and I took it out on the game (kick-the-dog mentality). But while I will defend the ability to concede, I will also argue that it shouldn't be done if you can help it.
Have I successfully talked out of both sides of my mouth while riding the fence with that reply?! I will say... I did and I didn't.
;)
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-12-06 05:47:08
Ragefinder
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2015-12-06 07:34:47
I don't concede, but I will not bother to apo a badly hurt player if it's in a game I have adjudged myself to have absolutely no chance of winning. That's pretty sub-optimal play.
Btw, in every game you have absolutely no idea what your opponent classes as "winning".
Your definition is a subjective concept that results from your introduction of singular (and ultimately meaningless) competition into a hobby. That is to say, you take each match as a singular entity and apply competition to it - here's the thing, it's not that simple, because in both Ranked and Box, you're playing a never-ending division. That means your opponent may consider other factors to be "winning", eg. beating the box by simply keeping a sub-optimal team alive in it, or playing a certain number of games.
Basically, don't judge another man's wheat by your bushel. You might not be using the same standards as you. Hell, he might not even have wheat.
Btw, in every game you have absolutely no idea what your opponent classes as "winning".
Your definition is a subjective concept that results from your introduction of singular (and ultimately meaningless) competition into a hobby. That is to say, you take each match as a singular entity and apply competition to it - here's the thing, it's not that simple, because in both Ranked and Box, you're playing a never-ending division. That means your opponent may consider other factors to be "winning", eg. beating the box by simply keeping a sub-optimal team alive in it, or playing a certain number of games.
Basically, don't judge another man's wheat by your bushel. You might not be using the same standards as you. Hell, he might not even have wheat.
Posted by mattwakeman on 2015-12-06 09:28:21
Playing for fun is not a bad thing, especially in an environment such as this. What is bad is making the time that you are playing against somebody not fun whether that is by excessive whining, sullen silence or quitting but I don't agree that winning is the only reason to play a game. Herm Edwards was talking about professional athletes whose job was to win. Fumbbl is an online hobby. There is a real and significant difference between the two.
Posted by ianuk77 on 2015-12-06 12:27:06
Even in professional sport, it is reasonable to concede if the cost of continuing is deemed to outweigh the value of carry on hoping for a snatched result. No one would dream of insisting a boxer being pummelled in the corner and being knocked down round after round carries on to the end of the 12th - despite always having the chance of landing a lucky KO.
I think the rules on conceding are fine, no SPP, no earnings and ideally in a league 0 points where even a loss picks you up a point or 2. I have never conceded but have had an opponent concede and had no issue with it. Personally I enjoy the team building aspect of BB, so when a game is gone, why watch the potential dismantling of a hard built side?
I think the rules on conceding are fine, no SPP, no earnings and ideally in a league 0 points where even a loss picks you up a point or 2. I have never conceded but have had an opponent concede and had no issue with it. Personally I enjoy the team building aspect of BB, so when a game is gone, why watch the potential dismantling of a hard built side?
Posted by akaRenton on 2015-12-06 13:16:02
It's not a sport, it's just a nerdy pixelated game. Analogy fail.
Posted by ianuk77 on 2015-12-06 14:18:11
You're reiterating my point.
Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-06 14:43:36
The ability to concede is there. It's in the rules. No money, no mvp and potential loss of stars is bad enough, so - while i never concede - if the opponent concedes in a non-cheesy way (no turn 1 concede, no turn 16 concede etc...) that's fine.
We'd all want to play each game until the end, but you can't just force someone who lost the will to play - or the fun, or the chances to have fun - to play on, or if he feels it's a better strategy in long term for his team.
We'd all want to play each game until the end, but you can't just force someone who lost the will to play - or the fun, or the chances to have fun - to play on, or if he feels it's a better strategy in long term for his team.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2015-12-06 16:54:22
This blog is very egotistical, and shows what is wrong with this game. Blood bowl isn't a sport, its a game. There is no life or death. Herm Edwards said that because if he doesn't win, he gets fired. With the chance of losing you income, winning becomes much more important. Please ask permission before Blogging from now on.
Posted by happygrue on 2015-12-06 18:17:53
I don't agree with everything in the OP, but the *point* of it is, as I read it, is that we shouldn't concede to avoid taking damage. That I whole heartedly agree with. Coaches who walk off the field as part of a meta-game strategy (rather than as Jeffro points out, RL), are doing nothing to help the community. When I win as a result of a concession I feel like my time was wasted - what's the point?
Sure, we can't always play to win. Playing for fun, playing personal challenges are great. Sometimes they are even more fun than winning - but all that is undercut if you walk off the field.
Sure, we can't always play to win. Playing for fun, playing personal challenges are great. Sometimes they are even more fun than winning - but all that is undercut if you walk off the field.