mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Azure wrote: | I dislike #1 honestly.
When there is a bug like this where there is no easy solution - then have to play it how the client has it implemented until it is fixed.
So, for now, shadowing is slightly more powerful. Of course if you know of the bug and your opponent does not - it is only sporting to inform your opponent at the start of the game if there are players with shadowing. |
I think it's more than slightly though, particularly if shadowing totally neuters the blitz attempt.
Example: Player A moves player in range of the TD. 1 of player B's has a chance of blitzing him. Player A covers this by marking player B's potential blitzer with a shadower, thus guaranteeing the score.
This, in my opinion is not right. |
Maybe, but it is something that you'd do anyway (If only one player was in range you'd mark with your shadower). If there is more than one player in range and the site rule is you must inform your opponent then they're gonna know about it and declare a blitz with the other player.
Maybe not relevent, but also Shadowing isn't very common or powerful. Making it worse sucks, whereas making it better, even just temporarily, may be preferable. |
|
|
Loew
Joined: Feb 02, 2005
|
 Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:39 |
 
|
I believe we need some tests to determine under which circumstances the bug occurs. I'm pretty sure I've seen/ done the following: select blitz -> dodge away from shadower, shadower follows 1 field -> dodge away again, shadowing fails -> move some more fields -> throw block.
I had the bug affect me when i tried to block the shadower, because the original target was very hard to reach after a successfull shadowing |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:44 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Example: Player A moves player in range of the TD. 1 of player B's has a chance of blitzing him. Player A covers this by marking player B's potential blitzer with a shadower, thus guaranteeing the score.
This, in my opinion is not right. |
The score isn't guaranteed. Even if you can't blitz, you can attempt to dodge from the shadower to put a TZ on the potential scorer, forcing them to dodge... |
_________________
 Nerf Ball 2014 |
|
C3I2
Joined: Feb 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:45 |
|
You play it as is, and fix the client. |
|
|
Azure
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:45 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | Azure wrote: | I dislike #1 honestly.
When there is a bug like this where there is no easy solution - then have to play it how the client has it implemented until it is fixed.
So, for now, shadowing is slightly more powerful. Of course if you know of the bug and your opponent does not - it is only sporting to inform your opponent at the start of the game if there are players with shadowing. |
I think it's more than slightly though, particularly if shadowing totally neuters the blitz attempt.
Example: Player A moves player in range of the TD. 1 of player B's has a chance of blitzing him. Player A covers this by marking player B's potential blitzer with a shadower, thus guaranteeing the score.
This, in my opinion is not right. |
I am thinking of this from the prespective of R or B games - where I have a shadowing gutter runner or pro elf catcher.
Unless I am against other agility teams, my shadower often can lock down the blitzer. So if suddenly I have to allow them to simply dodge away and blitz to free the ballcarrier to score - that seems very lame imo.
For stunty it is different because much more dodging occurs. However, for regular R or B games, to maim shadowing in this way would just suck.
Also - I have never run into this bug (mostly because it is very rare for someone to try to dodge away from shadowing to do a blitz in non-stunty games).
Thus - perhaps we only need to come up with a solution for stunty games - not for all games in general. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:46 |
|
Ok, ok but you get my point.
I've just ran a test match, testing this with pygmies under varying situations. And I didn't get the bug once in 13 attempts...... Be they blitzing targets 1 square away, many squares away or passed or failed shadow attempts. |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:46 |
|
Is this an official house rule from the FUMBBL administration?
In main competitive divisions, Delf Assassins have Shadowing from the start, so it affects those teams considerably.
It could be prudent for Christer to make an official announcement, if such house rule will be effected. Also it would be useful to update the Release notes and Site Rules.
Currently the default case is "If the client does something wrong in the result calculations it is considered as an interpretation of the rules and the match stands as-is." Proposed ruling would move this to the "Abusing obvious bugs for your own benefit is not allowed."
Personally, I think it would be easiest to go with the option 3 proposed, as that requires no special gimmick plays or co-operation among coaches. |
|
|
gamelsetlmatch
Joined: Mar 05, 2013
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:54 |
|
When I fail a dodge for a blitz I can't hit the ball carrier, can we make a site rule against failed dodge rolls too then?
On a serious not though, there are times when I am playing my Vampire team and I fail a Bloodlust and have to chow on a thrall, the game freezes and I have to click on my Vampire to end its action but it ends my whole turn, even if there are more actions I could take.
This is annoying but until this bug is fixed I just suck it up and play on. I don't see how this bug for shadowing can be any different. |
_________________
Stargate!
“In our play we reveal what kind of people we are.” |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| gamelsetlmatch wrote: | When I fail a dodge for a blitz I can't hit the ball carrier, can we make a site rule against failed dodge rolls too then?
On a serious not though, there are times when I am playing my Vampire team and I fail a Bloodlust and have to chow on a thrall, the game freezes and I have to click on my Vampire to end its action but it ends my whole turn, even if there are more actions I could take.
This is annoying but until this bug is fixed I just suck it up and play on. I don't see how this bug for shadowing can be any different. |
Well I think the perception was that this bug is more common and more frequent, thus worth ruling on. Mouse's tests seem to have proved otherwise though so maybe there's no ruling needed at all  |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 15:58 |
|
Well, I've had a few recent matches where shadowing has decided the outcome. Thus I have come to the decision that there needs to be an official ruling on how to handle the situation.
As there are stunty players in CRP, whatever is decided can't just be for the Stunty division. It will be site wide.
A similar situation happened with early FFB vampires. Vicius wrote a guide on what he thought was the correct protocol with the vamp bugs, and the staff decided to use his guidelines as the correct protocol on how to handle the vampire bugs.
Right now, not knowing how to handle the situation, is the worst of all worlds, and comes down to player ethics (for example I gave away a near certain draw, as I felt it was unethical to cancel my opponents blitz). Obviously, as a pygmy player, I'm more than happy to play with shadowing as it is, as long as that is the accepted protocol.
The other problem is, that if a coach takes shadowing, because of the bug (i.e. to use it to kill blitzing attempts), this is 'abusing obvious bugs for your own benefit'. So the problem already falls under this rule.
I think one thing we're all sure of, it's a very difficult problem. |
|
|
gamelsetlmatch
Joined: Mar 05, 2013
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 16:02 |
|
Are you talking about this shadowing thing being more common? I don't have that many games on here, around 400 or so but I didn't even know there was an issue with it.
Maybe that is because I prefer Diving Tackle over shadowing and if I am facing a team that has shadowing on it, I plan my turn around it so as to not...you know...NOT allow the shadowing player to mess up my plans... |
|
|
uuni
Joined: Mar 12, 2010
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 16:07 |
|
What are the counter arguments to make special Shadowing rules to Stunty, harvestmouse? |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 16:07 |
|
| gamelsetlmatch wrote: | there are times when I am playing my Vampire team and I fail a Bloodlust and have to chow on a thrall, the game freezes and I have to click on my Vampire to end its action but it ends my whole turn, even if there are more actions I could take.
This is annoying but until this bug is fixed I just suck it up and play on. I don't see how this bug for shadowing can be any different. |
This is out of the hands of the player, and there is no protocol needed. Entirely different situations.
Client bugs come in all different shapes and sizes, and cannot be ruled on equally. They need to be (if deemed necessary) ruled on case by case. For example; there is no way, we would allow the abuse of the leap bug or the hand off bug. These are very very simple though "Do it, and we get the hammer out."
Here, we have a situation, where the coach has input into causing the bug, however his input isn't directly abusing a bug. Therefore, one way or another, protocol in this situation is needed. To protect both players from criticism in these situations. |
|
|
xnoelx
Joined: Jun 05, 2012
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 16:14 |
|
I don't think there's an issue with people taking Shadowing to exploit the bug; a potential one yes, but not in practice as yet. I think this is a play as is bug.
But I think this thread is useful in that at least it raises awareness, and so if your opponent has a Shadowing player, you can try to play around it. Blitzing with someone else, or making the Shadower a target, or positioning differently, etc. |
_________________
Nerf Ball 2014
Last edited by xnoelx on %b %23, %2013 - %16:%Aug; edited 1 time in total |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 - 16:15 |
|
| uuni wrote: | | What are the counter arguments to make special Shadowing rules to Stunty, harvestmouse? |
Because stunty players (or players that are not concerned by tackle zones) exist in CRP too.
Because the bug affects the situation equally in both divisions.
Because it's plausible for the skill to be taken, due to this bug existing. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Borg Invasion
Search
