|
Post by garrick on Oct 7, 2016 22:23:37 GMT
Rules for conceding are on page 29 of the CRP rules with the additional caveat that the winning team may allocate 3 touchdowns to a player or players of his choice to reflect running in touchdowns against an empty field. This is done before the Post-Match Sequence i.e. before the random allocation of MVPs earnings etc.
|
|
|
Post by HumptyTrump on Jun 15, 2017 8:31:55 GMT
I am not sure that these rules should apply when the match has already been started, especially if TD's have already been scored.
|
|
|
Post by garrick on Jun 15, 2017 11:40:34 GMT
Encourages coaches to play to the bitter end. Nobody wants their opponent to concede when they are winning.
|
|
|
Post by HumptyTrump on Jun 15, 2017 16:33:19 GMT
I disagree, if you get to keep your already completed TD's, casualties, etc. and having an extra 3 TD (9 SPP) to allocate where you want and you still get a win, then it is in your interest to get them to concede.
|
|
|
Post by garrick on Jun 16, 2017 8:49:51 GMT
You now appear to be arguing to keep the rules as they are.
|
|
|
Post by HumptyTrump on Jun 16, 2017 9:02:10 GMT
No we are not in complete agreement, maybe I have not made my point sufficiently clear. My concern is when a game is conceded after it has started. In my opinion the rules as stated in the first post excessively benefit the player who is conceded to and effectively penalise the other coaches in the league.
In a league this will very strongly motivate a player to encourage his opponent to concede as it gives him (the conceded to) an advantage over the rest of the coaches in the league. It can also affect the Silver Awards for most SPP or most TD.
My aim is to discourage conceded games, specifically once the game has started.
The option I am considering is: When a game that is underway is conceded, all SPP that so far occurred in the game are discarded and all injuries still apply, any players who missed the game due to MNG are considered to have the MNG completed. (So the result would 3-0.)
Any other suggestions are welcome.
(You changed your post while I was posting the reply.)
|
|
|
Post by garrick on Jun 16, 2017 10:07:57 GMT
The rules on page 29 of the CRP explain when it is possible to concede without penalty. The 3TD penalty is there to robustly discourage coaches from conceding when they don't meet the criteria on page 29 because ideally we don't want any coaches to concede.
Certainly we should stop any coach from encouraging his opponent to concede IMO that is not in the spirit of the game and certainly something I personally have never considered. The reason for playing Blood Bowl is to play Blood Bowl not concede and I for one have never conceded a match.
"My aim is to discourage conceded games, specifically once the game has started." and the 3TD penalty does this, taking this away encourages it.
Messing around with SPP gained strikes me as an unnecessary complication.
In an ideal world nobody would concede and all games would be played to conclusion, the 3TD penalty is there to robustly encourage this.
|
|
|
Post by HumptyTrump on Jun 16, 2017 10:27:28 GMT
The rules on page 29 of the CRP explain when it is possible to concede without penalty. The 3TD penalty is there to robustly discourage coaches from conceding when they don't meet the criteria on page 29 because ideally we don't want any coaches to concede. Certainly we should stop any coach from encouraging his opponent to concede IMO that is not in the spirit of the game and certainly something I personally have never considered. The reason for playing Blood Bowl is to play Blood Bowl not concede and I for one have never conceded a match. "My aim is to discourage conceded games, specifically once the game has started." and the 3TD penalty does this, taking this away encourages it. Messing around with SPP gained strikes me as an unnecessary complication. In an ideal world nobody would concede and all games would be played to conclusion, the 3TD penalty is there to robustly encourage this. I understand and agree what you are saying from the perspective of the person who does not concede, however I don't believe that giving away an additional 3 TD concerns the person conceding. It is the others in the league who are affected, either by facing a team with additional skills or by losing out on SPP points from the Silver Awards. This is a marginal issue and not really worth getting worked up about, I would like to hear what other people say on the matter, especially ones who have conceded.
|
|
|
Post by tycho on Jun 18, 2017 10:11:21 GMT
Having been involved with this process, I have to say that 3 TDs does seem a bit too much. I already feel bad enough for dicing the opponent and taking their MVP...getting SPPs for 3 TDs as well seems a bit like adding insult to injury. I guess I'm also not sure it's actually a good disincentive against quitting mid-way through. I'd assume that a person quitting isn't doing it to keep the opponent from getting more SPPs, but rather because they've just become sufficiently frustrated/disheartened that they want to make it stop. Put another way: If someone quits mid-way through, it's probably because the game is going really, really badly for them, and the other player has probably already racked up a games worth of SPPs, so we don't necessarily need to reward them any more.
|
|