12 coaches online • Server time: 07:53
* * * Did you know? The most casualties in a single match is 21.
Recent Forum Topics  Inscription JBL Sais... | Public Service Annou... | Replays |
2009-01-18 21:06:59
67 votes, rating 2.2
67 votes, rating 2.2
Concession Rule
So, my understanding is that the rule limiting concessions was put in place to avoid players conspiring to fix matches or to build up bankrolls for major tournaments.
I recently had to deal with my account being disabled after I had conceded a match where a Black Orc Blocker on a brand new team was niggled on the second or third turn. Needless to say, I didn't see much reason to continue using the team when I could simply create a new one.
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=2509744
While such a situation may not be a permissible concession under the rule, it it clearly not an example of the sort of cheating the concession rule is intended to address.
Perhaps the community should consider permitting concessions where a team is retired after the game unless there is a clear indication that the concession and retirement was just a ploy to commit the sort of collusion mentioned above. Or at the very least, permitting such concessions where the conceding team is brand new.
Edit: Apparently this is not a popular position among the uber-hardcore blog-rating crowd...
I recently had to deal with my account being disabled after I had conceded a match where a Black Orc Blocker on a brand new team was niggled on the second or third turn. Needless to say, I didn't see much reason to continue using the team when I could simply create a new one.
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=2509744
While such a situation may not be a permissible concession under the rule, it it clearly not an example of the sort of cheating the concession rule is intended to address.
Perhaps the community should consider permitting concessions where a team is retired after the game unless there is a clear indication that the concession and retirement was just a ploy to commit the sort of collusion mentioned above. Or at the very least, permitting such concessions where the conceding team is brand new.
Edit: Apparently this is not a popular position among the uber-hardcore blog-rating crowd...
Comments
Posted by SillySod on 2009-01-18 21:17:07
Teams which are about to be retired are the last teams that should be conceding. The ONLY tactical value in a concession is to preserve the team. If you are going to retire then conceding wins you nothing, it just provides free handouts.
Posted by MichN18 on 2009-01-18 21:37:35
See, I consider the hour I would otherwise waste playing a game with a soon-to-be retired team to be pretty important, especially with BlackBox matches scheduled on the half hour.
Posted by Kryten on 2009-01-18 21:40:15
Those are exactly the crappy concessions I'd rather not see on FUMBBL. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for quitters that discard teams after one permanent injury.
Posted by MichN18 on 2009-01-18 21:48:47
Well, I hope everyone who has responded negatively to this blog can honestly say that they have NEVER conceded a match due to frustration, irritation, or any other perfectly understandable but apparently impermissible reason.
Personally, my leisure time is valuable to me and if I think a team is going to be retired, I concede so as not to waste that time.
Personally, my leisure time is valuable to me and if I think a team is going to be retired, I concede so as not to waste that time.
Posted by Hogshine on 2009-01-18 21:53:11
I have never conceded a match due to frustration, irritation etc. I've conceded one match, a 1v1 match (in L), mostly just to "annoy" my opponent who is a good friend of mine (SillySod). I play this game because I enjoy playing this game. Not because I enjoy building teams. If I wanted to do that, all I'd get is just a spreadsheet and a couple of dice ;)
Posted by Hogshine on 2009-01-18 22:01:00
As more of an actual response to the blog as opposed to your comment below, I don't think a change in the rule is needed. It is there for a reason, and while your concession in itself may not be necessarily against the spirit of fumbbl in that it wasn't delibrate cheating, or purely to benefit your opponent, it is still against the rules of fumbbl. Your suggestions for improvements aren't particularly great, as say a group of 11 (to avoid the 1 in 10 rule) of us decided to build a team for a major. We could start off with all rookie teams, and then one player be conceded to by all the others so he gets all the MVPs, maybe be "allowed" to make a few passes or score (not delibrately, just because he received the ball), then he gets a team with a few skills and a load of cash. TS limits probably wouldn't be an issue as you could get up to about TS160 with no problems, and then spending all the cash could take it to TS200 I would expect. This is blatantly cheating, but because all the conceding teams were brand new, you'd allow it? Or because the teams are retired after the game you'd allow it? I think perhaps not ;)
(btw, I'm not suggesting this is what you're doing, just what could potentially happen with your change to the rules)
(btw, I'm not suggesting this is what you're doing, just what could potentially happen with your change to the rules)
Posted by MichN18 on 2009-01-18 22:17:34
Hogshine, the scenario you propose is exactly why I included as a caveat above that such concessions should not be permitted where concession and retirement was just a ploy to collude or cheat. As it stands, an admin still has to examine the match report before sanctioning the conceding player. Thus those sanctions are purely discretionary.
I guess what I would recommend is some sort of additional guide to admins focusing on the need to deter cheating and collusion and to avoid sanctioning players who are just fed up with a given game and want to concede.
Unless of course the goal of the rule is to force players to play on until they think an admin would approve of the concession regardless of any motive to cheat. But that seems foolish. Concession is a rule of Bloodbowl as sure as blocking or fouling. The need to limit concessions to avoid collusion and cheating is clear, but I do not see the need to limit concessions when the concession is not against the spirit of the rules.
I guess what I would recommend is some sort of additional guide to admins focusing on the need to deter cheating and collusion and to avoid sanctioning players who are just fed up with a given game and want to concede.
Unless of course the goal of the rule is to force players to play on until they think an admin would approve of the concession regardless of any motive to cheat. But that seems foolish. Concession is a rule of Bloodbowl as sure as blocking or fouling. The need to limit concessions to avoid collusion and cheating is clear, but I do not see the need to limit concessions when the concession is not against the spirit of the rules.
Posted by Zombie69 on 2009-01-18 23:16:47
Whether or not you were doing it to help your opponent is not the point. The fact is that regardless of your reasons, the end result is that you do give an unfair advantage to your opponent.
The rule in place is a good one. The only reason for conceding that's accepted is so that you can preserve your team's health. At that point, preserving your team becomes more important than whatever unfair advantage is given to the opponent. If you then disband your team, then preserving it was not the reason for the concession, and a ban should be given, as it was.
The rule in place is a good one. The only reason for conceding that's accepted is so that you can preserve your team's health. At that point, preserving your team becomes more important than whatever unfair advantage is given to the opponent. If you then disband your team, then preserving it was not the reason for the concession, and a ban should be given, as it was.
Posted by koadah on 2009-01-18 23:58:15
You care a lot about how your leisure time is valuable to you but you don't seem to care much for your opponent's leisure time.
Some people don't have much time to play. It doen't go down too well that you waste their game window by starting a game then conceeding after two or three turns.
They often will not then have time to get in a 'proper' game in that time slot.
Some people are here to actually play games not just build teams.
Some people don't have much time to play. It doen't go down too well that you waste their game window by starting a game then conceeding after two or three turns.
They often will not then have time to get in a 'proper' game in that time slot.
Some people are here to actually play games not just build teams.
Posted by EvolveToAnarchism on 2009-01-19 01:12:19
I don't like concessions, so I don't concede, but I don't see the point in limiting other people from using a specific rule that is part of the game's rulebook. I wouldn't ask the site to ban DP, stalling or gratuitous passing, so I definitely don't see the point in punishing people for exercising a legitimate game option.
Posted by Vol on 2009-01-19 03:48:40
Wow, that is rather wussy, not to be overly rude about it. You were going to retire a team because one player niggled? So, you might've still won the match, but you just wanted to concede anyway?
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2424380
Two fatalities in their first match. They still play. I don't see any reason why you conceded, so I have say the ban was appropriate.
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=2424380
Two fatalities in their first match. They still play. I don't see any reason why you conceded, so I have say the ban was appropriate.
Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-01-19 05:12:15
Well... you concede after a single permanent?
I'd LOVE to play you. I could easily kill or niggle one of your players in 2 or 3 turns.
Collect 5spps on 2 players plus the 2spps for the Cas.
Collect enough money to buy 2 new players.
Play somebody else and then schedule YOU again.
You REALLY deserved the TINY slap on the wrist you were given.
I'd LOVE to play you. I could easily kill or niggle one of your players in 2 or 3 turns.
Collect 5spps on 2 players plus the 2spps for the Cas.
Collect enough money to buy 2 new players.
Play somebody else and then schedule YOU again.
You REALLY deserved the TINY slap on the wrist you were given.
Posted by catmando on 2009-01-19 08:20:23
You still had a chance to win. I MIGHT consider the notion of conceding IF I had 5 players who sustained permanent injuries, all in the same game. But I would keep playing to annoy the other coach and deny him the pleasure of a concession. To date, I have not conceded a match.
Lame dude, just lame.
Lame dude, just lame.
Posted by JanMattys on 2009-01-19 10:45:54
I'll try and explain why it is not a popular position:
1) you conceded a game where you could STILL put up a fight. That is a lame thing in itself. People here like to play to win, and if you play to teambuild then you are not going to be very popular. After all, you could play on, try to win, and eventually retire anyway, with the warm fuzzy feeling of getting to win a game. Apparently, winning doesn't give you that fuzzy feeling. That's why you are not popular. Who wants to play against someone who is not interested in winning?
2) Every BB player in the world knows that bad dice and good dice happen. Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Now, the system encourages you to take it in stride and play on when you're the bug... and you know why? Because this is the only way to grant you a pleasant game when you're the windshield. The fact that losers just don't concede and quit is what makes winning worth it and enjoyable. If losing doesn't grow its own style, chances are that wins get more and more unsatisfactory as well. And that would be bad.
3) Evidently, as Koadah pointed out, you care about your free time but you don't care about your opponent's free time. Maybe he just wants to play on and enjoy the game he is winning? Focusing only on your needs is not a very popular stance on here. You're leeching on the fun reserve of the community when you need it, but you refuse to contribute. What the hell...
4) You were still in the game. Many people don't like people who quit when they are still in the game, because they think:... hell, what happens when you get a REAL spanking from Nuffle??? Bad losers make poor opponents.
1) you conceded a game where you could STILL put up a fight. That is a lame thing in itself. People here like to play to win, and if you play to teambuild then you are not going to be very popular. After all, you could play on, try to win, and eventually retire anyway, with the warm fuzzy feeling of getting to win a game. Apparently, winning doesn't give you that fuzzy feeling. That's why you are not popular. Who wants to play against someone who is not interested in winning?
2) Every BB player in the world knows that bad dice and good dice happen. Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Now, the system encourages you to take it in stride and play on when you're the bug... and you know why? Because this is the only way to grant you a pleasant game when you're the windshield. The fact that losers just don't concede and quit is what makes winning worth it and enjoyable. If losing doesn't grow its own style, chances are that wins get more and more unsatisfactory as well. And that would be bad.
3) Evidently, as Koadah pointed out, you care about your free time but you don't care about your opponent's free time. Maybe he just wants to play on and enjoy the game he is winning? Focusing only on your needs is not a very popular stance on here. You're leeching on the fun reserve of the community when you need it, but you refuse to contribute. What the hell...
4) You were still in the game. Many people don't like people who quit when they are still in the game, because they think:... hell, what happens when you get a REAL spanking from Nuffle??? Bad losers make poor opponents.
Posted by maznaz on 2009-01-19 11:34:17
The comments to this blog just show what a bunch of joyless people play on this site. It's should not be up to anyone except the guy playing the game to decide if the concession has "merit" or not. Fun works both ways and if one person isn't having fun why should they be forced to carry on? Personally, I would find most satisfaction in trying to get revenge for the situation explained above, but that's my personal choice, not my opponent's and certainly not any of yours. There is a valid rule mechanic in place to deliberately penalise concessions. If you don't think it's harsh enough then you need to raise that on talkbloodbowl.
Exploiting concessions to artificially boost teams for a friend or even a second account is obviously something that belongs in the jursadiction of the admins and should be dealt with harshly, but the situation described above is not that. As Evo hinted at, if you're allowing people's definition of "lame" to decide what warrants a site ban, you're going down a horrible path. Turn 16 fouls, surfing when a game is virtually over hell, even NOT fielding DPs are all considered lame by some people. Get over yourselves and try and remember that everyone should be having fun, or what's the point?
Exploiting concessions to artificially boost teams for a friend or even a second account is obviously something that belongs in the jursadiction of the admins and should be dealt with harshly, but the situation described above is not that. As Evo hinted at, if you're allowing people's definition of "lame" to decide what warrants a site ban, you're going down a horrible path. Turn 16 fouls, surfing when a game is virtually over hell, even NOT fielding DPs are all considered lame by some people. Get over yourselves and try and remember that everyone should be having fun, or what's the point?
Posted by Vol on 2009-01-20 02:49:09
Maznaz, I think everyone is well over themselves. He can concede and be a little wimpy and retire a team after one match. And everyone else can simply avoid playing him.
Again, FUMBBL needs a karma system or something. I'm not saying Mich is a horrible person that shouldn't be allowed to play at FUMBBL, I'm just saying, as I think we all are, that no one should be forced to play against someone that isn't going to put up time for the match.
Again, FUMBBL needs a karma system or something. I'm not saying Mich is a horrible person that shouldn't be allowed to play at FUMBBL, I'm just saying, as I think we all are, that no one should be forced to play against someone that isn't going to put up time for the match.