| Author |
Message |
Bevan |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Nov 13, 2006 - 05:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: How about this? You can reset to the start of the previous round if you have lost more than 20TR permanently off the team roster in that round during gameplay (not sackings).
Feel free to debate whether the 20TR is the right figure - but what do people think? It removes the 'commish approval' issue.
"20TR permanently" is going to be hard to achieve.
GardenGnome had 2 werewolfs missing (240k) but he probably had some SPPs and cash so I suspect his TR went down less than 20. And one of his wolves was SI so was not permanently off the team, since you are not allowing sackings, so his TR would have decreased by less than 10.
A player niggled in round 5 is still on the roster but will only play one more game and might even miss that one. A lot of coaches would like to sack such a player, but your rule would prevent a team with a death plus several NI in a game from resetting even though they are short several players in round 6 but still have a high TR so won't even benefit from handicaps.
Did other coaches at MOAB feel that GardenGnome deserved his first place? With no losses and only 1 draw he must have played reasonably well. Or did they think that it was unfair that he was able to keep going by resetting? He certainly could not have reset with this rule or even a 10TR permanent reduction rule.
I can see that you don't want coaches sacking healthy players to qualify but is there any reason why missing players should not count in the team reduction?
A problem with any specific limit is that some coaches will just miss out, despite being as badly off as others that just make the cuttoff. Counting missing players as though they were present just makes it worse. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Rabid_Bogscum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 13, 2006 - 07:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
Australia
Posts: 255
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
| Babs how many complaints have you had in the past as a commish when you have run a reset to 100 tr rule. It seems this rule you first ran at MOAB has been nothing but controversy. If you insist on running lrb 4.0 progression tournaments, just use the tried and tested.. especially for Cancon. All this rules lawyering only serves to jade players to the whole system. I think for the sake of many things, namely the small little 'babs' rules (e.g. 40k zombies, this reset rule etc.... which I know you are only implementing as a passionate guy who wants to make these days fun for everyone) which really are just a bit too reactionary to the success of certain teams and/or coaches. After Cancon the new tournaments should really move in line with official rules and go LRB 5.0 which intrinsically is structured to deal with these problems of progression. I plan and making it to more tourneys next year (work permitting) and will adjust to whatever rules available. I would prefer all went lrb 5.0 I suppose, but I will never begrudge the commissioners who put in all the effort choosing how they wanna run things. Then again ressurrection euc bowl already caters for the 'smashed team' syndrome. Honestly how many complaints have you had over the years to justify all this fiddling with rulesets. Ok so beefy won with the count, garden gnome won with the reset rule.... etc, do you notice that no one has really complained, and those that do still tend to mention that those particular coaches also played very well and were more than deserving of the title. Is this all open to debate only because it was your dark elves that showcased the deficiencies in the rule? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 13, 2006 - 07:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Despite everything I've said I'm happy to stick with the standard reset to start (TR100) rule that we've always had. But if we have an extra rule I'd like to it to be fair to everyone.
However Babs added the extra reset rule, then (despite Chunky's good advice) set up a poll and asked for comments.  The problem is you can never please everyone, so it looks to Babs as though we're hitting him from all directions, when we are really just responding to a request for comments. 
I'm now concerned that whatever rule we use, if we leave it too late, someone will have already dowloaded the instructions from the website and won't bother to go back and check again. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 13, 2006 - 09:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Bevan wrote: Babs wrote: How about this? You can reset to the start of the previous round if you have lost more than 20TR permanently off the team roster in that round during gameplay (not sackings).
Feel free to debate whether the 20TR is the right figure - but what do people think? It removes the 'commish approval' issue.
"20TR permanently" is going to be hard to achieve.
Why should it be considered easy to justify upsetting the standard progression of a team with a reset? This is not something that everyone should get a change to take advantage of, a reset should only be considered in an extreme situation. If you ask me a 20TR drop isn't high enough (although I'd like to see anyone able to take a TR100 reset at their own discretion, for those who get screwed in their first game).
But then, if you ask me we should stick to the rule that has served well enough for years and avoid the rule that has already caused controversy during the one and only tournament that it has been trialed. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 14, 2006 - 07:03 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Trust me. This hasn't been some reactionary 'Jervis style' musing arrived at from thinking about it in my bathtub (and don't ask OK - let's just say this comparison is too true to home). The reason for the rule was simple: Feedback from coaches. Like You. And I had enough people ask for it after last year's CanCon that I thought it would get a run at MOAB. Which, no-one had a seious complaint about it and everyone had a great time. Sure _I_ pushed the issue, smashing GardenGnome everywhere I could - to see if the rule had problems. Which it did. Now I'm copping a lot of flack for considering a rule which I'm implementing to prevent players having a lousy tournament after their team suffers a shocker after some unbelievable dice rolling at the hands of a Necromantic team.
So it's a rule suggested from the gaming community. It wasn't my original idea. I think it has merit enough to try it in some form. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 14, 2006 - 10:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
You know what, I have another suggestion which might help. If a team gets to reboot their team to the status they were at the game before, they should also have to reboot their tournament score. If the team goes back in time, why should they keep any tourny points from the game they magically didn't just play?
If you grant them permission for this kind of reset, then it should be as if the team missed the game and therefore received no points for it. That would avoid the problem of a team going hard and winning no matter what the cost and then also scoring several resurrected team stars. That would be LESS "devastating" than a reset to TR100, as they still have a reasonable chance of winning their NEXT game too, but doesn't reward someone who just won but lost players by letting them keep the win AND the players too. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 15, 2006 - 01:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
Sounds like a good compromise to me (look, I like to keep interested, ok  ), but it should be recorded as the actual result for NAF rankings. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 21, 2006 - 09:33 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| Sounds like a good concept to me. Others? |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 21, 2006 - 09:34 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
| Except that if they've had a shocking game, then they're only likely to lose about 1 or 2 points. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject: Points deductions
Posted: Nov 22, 2006 - 12:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm not sure if the program can handle the points correctly in its current form.
But I can add a special button for you to make these deductions. I'll label the button
"Extra penalty for coaches who have just had a bad day, to make sure they have a really bad day." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 22, 2006 - 02:32 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm not a fan of Virral's idea. Basically if your team has gone backwards after a game and you reset then the penalty is that you've just missed out on the advancement (1-2 skills per game for most teams) that everyone else has got. IMO that's penalty enough.
That said I dislike all the extra complexity and in some ways I think you just have to add "reset requires organisers approval" clause and basically prevent anyone doing when they are just trying to abuse a rule to stop people getting shafted after round 2. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Virral |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 23, 2006 - 03:16 PM
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Australia
Posts: 92
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
That assumes the SPP you gained didn't go onto the players who were lost, in which case the penalty is next to nothing. If loss of SPP on your team is going to be considered a real disadvantage to you, perhaps that means you don't really need a reset? There are plenty of games I've played where I've managed to skill up a wolf or a ghoul in a game only to see them die or receive a stat decrease, and in those situations a reset would be highly beneficial to me as the rewards of regaining an expensive player outweigh the loss of winnings and the SPP i won't be receiving anyway.
Removing their tournament points would really only be important for players who just won their game (proving that they are capable of winning games with their current team) but got smashed (meaning they are unlikely to win any further games). If they are permitted a reset, they return to having a game-winning team and no longer suffer from the losses that their win cost them. In those circumstances, is it really fair to allow them to keep the points from their win if the team no longer "earned" them. Other players may have also won but suffered lesser but still significant damage, putting them in a worse position than the freshly reset team (but on the same standing points wise). That is when I think a points penalty could be worthwhile.
If teams have been losing and reset, who cares if they lose a couple of points, since they aren't likely to win the whole thing anyway? It is only when people are actually WINNING but can also justify a reset that it may have an unbalancing effect on the tournament. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Bevan |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 23, 2006 - 06:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 194
Status: Offline
|
|
Virral wrote: There are plenty of games I've played where I've managed to skill up a wolf or a ghoul in a game only to see them die or receive a stat decrease, and in those situations a reset would be highly beneficial to me as the rewards of regaining an expensive player outweigh the loss of winnings and the SPP i won't be receiving anyway.
In order to encourage coaches not to want to reset it might be useful to scrap the aging roll for this tournament. It would not be desirable to have a coach suffer losses and be allowed to reset and end up better off than a coach who suffered no casualties but has a player in worse condition due to increased SPPs. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 23, 2006 - 07:55 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| Scrap the bloody reset rule. If people are going to abuse it (or are perceived as abusing it) then it isn't worth it. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 23, 2006 - 09:30 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 742
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: It is only when people are actually WINNING but can also justify a reset that it may have an unbalancing effect on the tournament.
Exactly! So why scrap something that can be beneficial to the enjoyment of a majority of coaches because of a select few who may consider a hint of a potential for abusing it??????
To me, the slightest potential of abuse from this rule has completely dominated discussion. OK so it's not watertight. Do I think that coaches will _deliberately_ abuse it? Unlikely.
Did Garden_gnome deliberately abuse it at MOAB? No way. I actually kind of forced it upon him by deliberately hitting out at his wolves.
The biggest issue I have is that some people, if I just say. "Tough, that's the rule" Might deliberately set out to abuse it to spite my face.  |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
