FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:16

JanMattys wrote:

peke wrote:

interesting stuff...

*bullshit* ...Ranked is a competitive division, it's whole structure is designed that way... *bullshit*

...more interesting stuff

One of Paulhicks' last Ranked games ended 0-0 because the dude decided to foul in T16 with the eye on him before scoring. He got sent off and game ended.
The game was reported to admins (not by me, but I specced the game) and Angie said it is legal and does not contradict the rule that states:

Code:

Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated. The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.

This is total bullshit. Paulhicks traded a 100% win for a 50% win with a choice that didn't have an impact on the game (already had 2 casualties for FF roll) and didn't improve his own team for future games (no spps, no money gained). On the other hand, he granted a tie to an opponent that had NO chance to get away with a draw.

Now, one of the two following things apply:
either a) This behaviour does NOT belong to ranked
or b) rules for ranked have to be changed or at least rephrased.

I had a talk with other coaches (Shadow, Purplegoo) and we seemed to agree on the fact that forcing a competitive behaviour in R can be walking down a dangerous slope. I agree.

BUT, PLEASE, stop feeding us non-hardcore gamers with "Ranked is Competitive" arguements. We had to eat enough of them during the original 4-mins rule dicussions, and they are simply FALSE.

We could work together for a better solution, but STOP treating us all like idiots.

Thanks.

Disclaimer: This is in no way directed at peke alone. I just used his words because they were there and because the same point of view seems to be shared by many.

Disclaimer2: I love Paul. I have nothing against Paul and his way of playing the game. I am pointing out inconsistency in the rules, not pointing finger at one of the funniest coaches around.

Maybe he didn't see that he could scoure and made a mistake of fouling first. Sometimes people block before scoring, roll a double skull and then whine how unlikely it is.

I actually used to do that, but nowadays I mostly score instead. It just goes to show that there are different skill levels in ranked and consequently Paul has a CR < 150.

The rules of ranked don't need to be rephrased and making a bad call doesn't take away from ranked being a competetive division. Peke is right on with his post as far as I'm concerned.

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:22

Optihut wrote:

JanMattys wrote:

peke wrote:

interesting stuff...

*bullshit* ...Ranked is a competitive division, it's whole structure is designed that way... *bullshit*

...more interesting stuff

One of Paulhicks' last Ranked games ended 0-0 because the dude decided to foul in T16 with the eye on him before scoring. He got sent off and game ended.
The game was reported to admins (not by me, but I specced the game) and Angie said it is legal and does not contradict the rule that states:

Code:

Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated. The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.

This is total bullshit. Paulhicks traded a 100% win for a 50% win with a choice that didn't have an impact on the game (already had 2 casualties for FF roll) and didn't improve his own team for future games (no spps, no money gained). On the other hand, he granted a tie to an opponent that had NO chance to get away with a draw.

Now, one of the two following things apply:
either a) This behaviour does NOT belong to ranked
or b) rules for ranked have to be changed or at least rephrased.

I had a talk with other coaches (Shadow, Purplegoo) and we seemed to agree on the fact that forcing a competitive behaviour in R can be walking down a dangerous slope. I agree.

BUT, PLEASE, stop feeding us non-hardcore gamers with "Ranked is Competitive" arguements. We had to eat enough of them during the original 4-mins rule dicussions, and they are simply FALSE.

We could work together for a better solution, but STOP treating us all like idiots.

Thanks.

Disclaimer: This is in no way directed at peke alone. I just used his words because they were there and because the same point of view seems to be shared by many.

Disclaimer2: I love Paul. I have nothing against Paul and his way of playing the game. I am pointing out inconsistency in the rules, not pointing finger at one of the funniest coaches around.

Maybe he didn't see that he could scoure and made a mistake of fouling first. Sometimes people block before scoring, roll a double skull and then whine how unlikely it is.

I actually used to do that, but nowadays I mostly score instead. It just goes to show that there are different skill levels in ranked and consequently Paul has a CR < 150.

The rules of ranked don't need to be rephrased and making a bad call doesn't take away from ranked being a competetive division. Peke is right on with his post as far as I'm concerned.

But then, there was that 30+ page thread about how some people just like fouling on the last turn becuase they find it fun and don't care if it costs them the game.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:23

nice lawyer talk, Optihut, but we both know Paul and we know he did it on purpose Very Happy

I also stated very clearly in my post that what bothers me is the fact that that foul gave Paul nothing in perspective. I mean, in a competitive environment I might think I need more tackle. If I have a blitzer at 13 spps, I might want to try and handoff to that player for the 3 spps and the skill instead of just scoring with some other dude.
That is a choice based on future development of the team, aimed to make the team better for the battles to come.

But that foul was useless (no 2nd injury for FF, no more cash, no more spps... well, you got the point), so it was just trading a 100% win for a 50% win.

Besides, the point in my post was not discussing Paul's special case (I hoped I put it clearly enough...), but to make it clear that I totally refuse any arguement based on the supposed competitiveness of Ranked because it's just blatantly false in too many cases to be ignored.

_________________

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:27

JanMattys wrote:

nice lawyer talk, Optihut, but we both know Paul and we know he did it on purpose Very Happy

I also stated very clearly in my post that what bothers me is the fact that that foul gave Paul nothing in perspective. I mean, in a competitive environment I might think I need more tackle. If I have a blitzer at 13 spps, I might want to try and handoff to that player for the 3 spps and the skill instead of just scoring with some other dude.
That is a choice based on future development of the team, aimed to make the team better for the battles to come.

But that foul was useless (no 2nd injury for FF, no more cash, no more spps... well, you got the point), so it was just trading a 100% win for a 50% win.

Besides, the point in my post was not discussing Paul's special case (I hoped I put it clearly enough...), but to make it clear that I totally refuse any arguement based on the supposed competitiveness of Ranked because it's just blatantly false in too many cases to be ignored.

It is competitive: Not only what's good for your team helps out, but also what makes any other team worse. Given that, I would argue that people who don't turn 16 foul are actually not playing as competitive as they could and should. But that all falls into the discretion of the individual coaches, the fact that there are few turn 16 fouls and a sometimes turn 16 fouls that prevent a crucial touchdown are merely exceptions to the rule. With the rule being that ranked still is a competetive division.

Big-Al

Joined: Feb 17, 2006

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:28

SOmewhere there is a quote that majors are for spectators. And that extra time puts a drag on everyone. Hmm somehow I though Majors were a contest between coaches. We're just happy, free spectators. Our opinions as spectators have no relevance to the situation. If your arguing as a participant the argument may have some merit.

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:30

Optihut wrote:

JanMattys wrote:

nice lawyer talk, Optihut, but we both know Paul and we know he did it on purpose Very Happy

I also stated very clearly in my post that what bothers me is the fact that that foul gave Paul nothing in perspective. I mean, in a competitive environment I might think I need more tackle. If I have a blitzer at 13 spps, I might want to try and handoff to that player for the 3 spps and the skill instead of just scoring with some other dude.
That is a choice based on future development of the team, aimed to make the team better for the battles to come.

But that foul was useless (no 2nd injury for FF, no more cash, no more spps... well, you got the point), so it was just trading a 100% win for a 50% win.

Besides, the point in my post was not discussing Paul's special case (I hoped I put it clearly enough...), but to make it clear that I totally refuse any arguement based on the supposed competitiveness of Ranked because it's just blatantly false in too many cases to be ignored.

It is competitive: Not only what's good for your team helps out, but also what makes any other team worse. Given that, I would argue that people who don't turn 16 foul are actually not playing as competitive as they could and should. But that all falls into the discretion of the individual coaches, the fact that there are few turn 16 fouls and a sometimes turn 16 fouls that prevent a crucial touchdown are merely exceptions to the rule. With the rule being that ranked still is a competetive division.

...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Lemme think.
No.
Totally unsatisfying response as far as I concern (basically, in such a large open environment as Ranked, making your team worse doesn't really hold any importance for my success... it's not like we have a closed league or anything), but at least that's a nice try.

_________________

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:36

JanMattys wrote:

...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Lemme think.
No.
Totally unsatisfying response as far as I concern (basically, in such a large open environment as Ranked, making your team worse doesn't really hold any importance for my success... it's not like we have a closed league or anything), but at least that's a nice try.

Trust me, if you would be turn 16 fouled in every game, it would make a difference, especially since you have this "retire all injured players" policy. If everyone would play competetively they'd turn 16 foul.
But my point in this case was that even if few, some or all players are not playing 100% competetively all the time, it still doesn't change the aim of the division itself.

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 15:39

Opti, it would only make any difference if Ranked is a race to the highest TR.
If you trim down my TR by T16 fouling me, who cares? In R I will always find opponents of the same TR to play, so I will never have a disadvantage by being trimmed down.

I would just have to play TR 150 instead of 180. Big deal Smile

ps: but we are going off topic in this thread. All I wanted to point out is that the competitive nature of R is irrelevant as far as I concern, because there are more than 1% coaches (I think it's about 20% of them actually) who don't play as competitive as they could.
(this also includes the likes of one of my last opponents, who let me win 2-1 with humans against woodies simply because after using the apo he stepped back with all his players and refused to press the ball, preferring not to get more injuries).

The amount of non-competitive approaches to the game makes the "R is competitive" argument EXTREMELY flawed for all purposes, imho. Unless Christer starts to force all non competitive games that get reported into L or U. But that would create a whole lot of other problems.

Just that.

_________________

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 16:13

JanMattys wrote:

Opti, it would only make any difference if Ranked is a race to the highest TR.
If you trim down my TR by T16 fouling me, who cares? In R I will always find opponents of the same TR to play, so I will never have a disadvantage by being trimmed down.

I would just have to play TR 150 instead of 180. Big deal Smile

Ok, yeah, you're right. Damn, there goes my argument.

Quote:

The amount of non-competitive approaches to the game makes the "R is competitive" argument EXTREMELY flawed for all purposes, imho.

I still believe that it's competetive in general, despite individual coaches' subagenda.

As for the time limit, again I agree that real life emergencies need to be taken into consideration, but I also think that the 10 minute extra time as it is implemented right now, is a bad solution to that problem.

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 16:18

shadow46x2 wrote:

now you want to push things one step farther to limit casual coaches that much further, and restrict majors to only the hardcoringest of the hardcore?

One step further? So that would be a first step then seeing as the time limit as it is today is nonexistent...

And this topic was about play in the majors. Not open ranked play or anything else. And so what if you lose your turn because of something that happens in real life... it's just "stupid little pixels and dice" anyway right? So what is the loss? Wink

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

erzkanzler

Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 16:18

Are the tournaments not the last place in [R] where unduely behavior is not only tolerated, but welcomed? I mean entertainment wise it is a one time treat to watch some coach instructing his Big Guy not to jeopardise the last turn TD attempt by eating the gobbo - and after successfully thowing the team mate watching him gasp in despair, as he ran out of time to complete the task, due to his chatting. But should we not give them coaches who displayed enourmous tactical team building skill and devotion a break, if they are entertaining us? Let them enjoy themselves and aim for the most often quoted in game comment. They went through a tedious qualification period!

As some one put it before: We are allowed to spec a game, so when speccing I won't whine at their choices. But I'd rather have one of their choices be chatting away and commenting on themselves while playing the game, even if they exceed time limits in that fashion. So that I won't be forced to watch only the 40 min display of tactical prowess that, while still entertaining, just does not make for a special atmosphere I hope to find in the finals. The former, much to every body elses loathing, also creates more time for me to flood the chat with mindless chatter, as I bring the reincarnation of a fast food icon upon you...

Harr, Harr.
Now, before I spam the forum with more threads on fouling, let me end this post with a grave experience instead: Not only does it look harder for the layman to find games in [U]. I have even experienced my team being fouled into oblivion after (as reported from a 3rd party speccing: unjustly) being accused of slow and foul play. Is all hope lost?

_________________
...

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 16:24

How did this thread go from being about time limits to Turn 16 fouling so quickly? I think you guys are in the wrong thread …

Back on topic, we have such a broad range of perspectives on the issue here: some posters think the spectators' interests are key; others think Major coaches should be under more pressure; some think the rules need to be consistent between vanilla Ranked and the Majors; others clearly think that the entire time limit concept should never have been put in place.

I think we should be able to agree though, that at present the time limit has almost no effect (with a few comical exceptions). Coaches who were fairly quick before remain so. If they exceed 4 minutes on one or two turns, this doesn't come close to consuming their allowance. Coaches who are slow still have more time than (you would think) they know what to do with.

If both sides used their full time allowance then - allowing for set-ups and other situations where the clock stops - a 16-turn match could last 3 hours quite easily. Is one aspect of the problem more that some coaches may have been led to believe that it's okay to take the full four minutes (plus) regularly? If one coach does that, a match will exceed the recommended 90 minutes.

But that's getting away from the Majors, where we have a different problem. In my opinion, just striking the additional time won't hurt the slow coaches very much. These are experienced coaches who know all the tricks: they can (and, according to many, already do) take advantage of points when the clock stops (particularly Side Step decisions) to plan their later moves without using up their allotted time.

Okay, you say, let's add a time limit on those decisions. Say, 15 seconds. Well, that's fine for Majors - but what happens in a normal Ranked game when a coach goes off to do something in his opponent's turn and his one Sidestepper gets blocked? Is the cost in inconvenience to your average game worth this 'solution' to a problem in the Majors? (All assuming, of course, that Ranked and the Majors won't have separate sets of rules.)

In the end though, I expect that the slow-playing coaches will always find another route or loop-hole. Any technical solutions attempted to force them to speed up will, I expect, end up causing problems for others, who were not the targets, while the slow-players themselves find new ways to give themselves more thinking time.

It comes down to a decision for the admins and the tournament organisers: if they want to make Majors more spectator-friendly, they can take steps to that effect - if they wanted to, they could ban coaches who they deemed to be playing too slow (their tournament: they make the rules). On the other hand, they might note that even some qualifiers reach 100 spectators or more and conclude that (despite the complaining) specs seem to be happy with the current conditions.

_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi Very Happy

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 16:35

Hopefully the lustrian challenge has a 2 minute turn limit with no extra time.

Synn

Joined: Dec 13, 2004

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 16:51

This has nothing to do with spectators. If you are good enough to make a major... you are good enough to NOT need to dip into your time.

Also, this has nothing to do with real life emergencies. There are certain coaches in the GLT who consistently dip into their 10 extra minutes in the manner with which it wasn't intended. I was originally not in favor of the 4 minute rule being introduced. Now that it is here.... I am all for getting rid of the ten minutes in the majors.

__Synn

McLaren

Joined: Jan 19, 2006

Posted: Jun 25, 2007 - 17:01

Purplegoo wrote:

Borgen wrote:

And with regards to a RL emergency determining the outcome of a Major Final, like I said if there is a RL emergency the players should feel free to save and restart the game.

Yeah - that's fair enough too, but whilst we have the 10 minute timer there, I'd like to see it used for what it's designed for - a one-off, 10 minte extension for that emergency situation. Not 30 seconds more here, and a minute more there as some coaches use it for.

Definetly stop the silly thirty seconds every now and then... a ONE-OFF... as it was meant to be.