26 coaches online • Server time: 03:14
* * * Did you know? The best blocker is Taku the Second with 551 casualties.
Recent Forum Topics  Exempt teams | Secret League Americ... | Secret League Old Wo... |
2011-03-29 12:17:09
46 votes, rating 4.3
46 votes, rating 4.3
Concession and the social contract
So, I've been thinking about the recent spate of antisocial clawpomb teams; or rather, clawpomb teams with anti-social coaches. For me, the problem isn't some skill combo, it's coaches who laugh in your face as they destroy your team and jeer the whole way through. This kind of behaviour would not be tolerated by me in real life. So what can I do about it?
The social contract is the unwritten rules we all sign up to in some way when we interact with other people. In game theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma is often used as an analogy for social interaction. Check Wikipedia for details.
Anyway, the point is that, although the Prisoners Dilemma makes certain predictions about how people should be expected to behave, these didn't match with observed reality until an extra factor was taken into account.
Specifically, people seemed to cooperate in reality far more than the theory predicted they should.
What was missing, was that people choose with whom they interact. If I have to interact equally with everyone in society I will be vulnerable to exploitation by people who want to take advantage. Instead, I choose with whom I interact: I don't park my car in dodgy car parks, I don't buy insurance from strangers I've never met, I don't give my bank details to the head of Nigerian Oil Corporation who I swear has a million dollars he needs to share...
Why don't I deal with them? Because they are abusing the social contract to take advantage of people who WILL deal with them. When you offer a 20% share of a million dollars but actually empty my bank account of my life savings, that's breaking the social contract.
When you offer a game of Blood Bowl but actually want to set a new record for breaking people's teams then that's breaking the social contract.
In real life I would just never play that person. Life is too short for me to waste time on a game I will not enjoy. If I was drawn against them in a league I would happily give them the victory rather than actually play the match.
So why can't I concede as soon as the game starts? It's in the rules. If I want to take the team development hit, where's the problem? I would rather risk losing some star players and one FF than waste an hour or my time watching my team be dismantled. I'm not talking here about conceding just because the opponent has some clawpomb players, but conceding because the opponent is an unpleasant person who will ruin my day.
Why do we have a house rule for concessions? If taking 4 clawpomb players and minmaxing so as to play only rookie teams and destroy them is in the rules, well, so is conceding, to deny you any targetted spps and to avoid wasting my time.
I see conceding in turn 1 as a valid way of countering unpleasant coaches who spam clawpomb and go out of their way to be rude and inhospitable.
Any opinions?
The social contract is the unwritten rules we all sign up to in some way when we interact with other people. In game theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma is often used as an analogy for social interaction. Check Wikipedia for details.
Anyway, the point is that, although the Prisoners Dilemma makes certain predictions about how people should be expected to behave, these didn't match with observed reality until an extra factor was taken into account.
Specifically, people seemed to cooperate in reality far more than the theory predicted they should.
What was missing, was that people choose with whom they interact. If I have to interact equally with everyone in society I will be vulnerable to exploitation by people who want to take advantage. Instead, I choose with whom I interact: I don't park my car in dodgy car parks, I don't buy insurance from strangers I've never met, I don't give my bank details to the head of Nigerian Oil Corporation who I swear has a million dollars he needs to share...
Why don't I deal with them? Because they are abusing the social contract to take advantage of people who WILL deal with them. When you offer a 20% share of a million dollars but actually empty my bank account of my life savings, that's breaking the social contract.
When you offer a game of Blood Bowl but actually want to set a new record for breaking people's teams then that's breaking the social contract.
In real life I would just never play that person. Life is too short for me to waste time on a game I will not enjoy. If I was drawn against them in a league I would happily give them the victory rather than actually play the match.
So why can't I concede as soon as the game starts? It's in the rules. If I want to take the team development hit, where's the problem? I would rather risk losing some star players and one FF than waste an hour or my time watching my team be dismantled. I'm not talking here about conceding just because the opponent has some clawpomb players, but conceding because the opponent is an unpleasant person who will ruin my day.
Why do we have a house rule for concessions? If taking 4 clawpomb players and minmaxing so as to play only rookie teams and destroy them is in the rules, well, so is conceding, to deny you any targetted spps and to avoid wasting my time.
I see conceding in turn 1 as a valid way of countering unpleasant coaches who spam clawpomb and go out of their way to be rude and inhospitable.
Any opinions?
Comments
Posted by Purplegoo on 2011-03-29 12:23:47
I suspect this blog may run and run.
'For me, the problem isn't some skill combo, it's coaches who laugh in your face as they destroy your team and jeer the whole way through.'
I've been lucky enough not to encounter any of these guys, either via play or watching. Don't name names, but are you getting jeered at? If so, that's sad.
I should think if a T1 concession is in the works, numbers of Claw/MB/PO teams will go up rather than down. If playing these teams gets to you so much, I recommend R. I must confess; when faced with the minmax variety, I get a bit frustrated, but I’m trying to take the rough with the smooth whilst B hangs around.
Best of luck - and I hope this comments section behaves!
'For me, the problem isn't some skill combo, it's coaches who laugh in your face as they destroy your team and jeer the whole way through.'
I've been lucky enough not to encounter any of these guys, either via play or watching. Don't name names, but are you getting jeered at? If so, that's sad.
I should think if a T1 concession is in the works, numbers of Claw/MB/PO teams will go up rather than down. If playing these teams gets to you so much, I recommend R. I must confess; when faced with the minmax variety, I get a bit frustrated, but I’m trying to take the rough with the smooth whilst B hangs around.
Best of luck - and I hope this comments section behaves!
Posted by maysrill on 2011-03-29 12:27:53
The concession rule is to prevent people colluding to give the extra MVP/cash for free to the other team, and to a lesser extent artificially inflating the ranking of the other coach.
You sound like a great candidate for Ranked. Teambuilding is affected by the social contract you talk about. Teams are built to win, surely, but fewer are built to grief, and heck, you can ignore those anyway! :)
(or you can choose to play them and get relatively easy wins, your call)
You sound like a great candidate for Ranked. Teambuilding is affected by the social contract you talk about. Teams are built to win, surely, but fewer are built to grief, and heck, you can ignore those anyway! :)
(or you can choose to play them and get relatively easy wins, your call)
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-03-29 12:30:18
I think the key point in your blog is the choice you have in real life, you can choose the insurance provider you prefer, you can choose the bank you deal with.
FUMBBL is little different, if you wish to have the choice then [R]anked serves your purpose perfectly. There is no need to debate [B] versus [R], they just serve different purposes, but for you [R] wins through.
Don't forget, you are also part of that 'social contract', so if you concede in T1 you are giving that team more money and skills ready for the next opponent he plays, as well as reinforcing his views that he has an unbeatable team.
Don't be that person, be the one that takes a clear view of the wide choice FUMBBL has to offer and pick the place that suits you, which I would suggest is [R].
FUMBBL is little different, if you wish to have the choice then [R]anked serves your purpose perfectly. There is no need to debate [B] versus [R], they just serve different purposes, but for you [R] wins through.
Don't forget, you are also part of that 'social contract', so if you concede in T1 you are giving that team more money and skills ready for the next opponent he plays, as well as reinforcing his views that he has an unbeatable team.
Don't be that person, be the one that takes a clear view of the wide choice FUMBBL has to offer and pick the place that suits you, which I would suggest is [R].
Posted by SillySod on 2011-03-29 12:36:48
Conceding on turn 1 just encourages claw teams.
(having said that, I think the current concession rules are poor)
(having said that, I think the current concession rules are poor)
Posted by fabik on 2011-03-29 12:38:04
I Agree with Duke but perfectly understand the Blog point of view.
I Like the [B] idea but the box it's not a social league.
Random opponent, no chat, also during the match sometimes no "hi mate".
A lot of ppl there are just dropping their frustration destroing some pixel, they have some sadic idea tha this let them feel good.
I think we are talking about a minority but for me it's enoug to not play anymore in [B].
It's easier to take an unpolite opponent, it's easier to get an unfriendly opponent, 80% teams are bashin clawbomb teams.
I Like the [B] idea but the box it's not a social league.
Random opponent, no chat, also during the match sometimes no "hi mate".
A lot of ppl there are just dropping their frustration destroing some pixel, they have some sadic idea tha this let them feel good.
I think we are talking about a minority but for me it's enoug to not play anymore in [B].
It's easier to take an unpolite opponent, it's easier to get an unfriendly opponent, 80% teams are bashin clawbomb teams.
Posted by cmelchior on 2011-03-29 12:47:25
If it was up to me I would allow a limited blacklist for Blackbox.I know it would be against the spirit of the truly competitive division, but so is playing against a coach whose sole purpose is to destroy your team. It is however a very slippery slope, and I can understand the sentiment to keep blackbox the way it is.
Based purely on the spirit of Ranked/Blackbox, those kill-everything teams belong in Ranked, but they very well know they would never get games there, hence they come to blackbox where they can break the social contract without consequence.
So alas if you want to play blackbox, it just seems you have to hope to avoid those unfortunately individuals, which thankfully is a minority.
Based purely on the spirit of Ranked/Blackbox, those kill-everything teams belong in Ranked, but they very well know they would never get games there, hence they come to blackbox where they can break the social contract without consequence.
So alas if you want to play blackbox, it just seems you have to hope to avoid those unfortunately individuals, which thankfully is a minority.
Posted by cthol on 2011-03-29 12:57:55
But why do I have to hope to avoid them? Why can't I concede on turn 1 and reactivate? The game rules allow this.
@Purplegoo:
Yeah, I've been jeered. Yes, it's sad, no it doesn't make me cry. But it's a complete waste of my time and not behaviour I would tolerate in real life. I have a ten year old son who has played on here occasionally, and if anyone spoke to him like I have been spoken to I would be insanely angry. Which is why I don't let him play here any more without me vetting the opponent. Now I know part of that is my problem for having kids, but it's also just the sad state of the internet that people feel they can get away with bad behaviour just because they anonymous, AND THE REST OF US HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO SIT BACK AND PUT UP WITH IT. I want an option. The option to not play them beyond a turn 1 concession.
Although I totally take the point about Ranked, I still don't see why I should have to put up with douchebaggery just because I like having random scheduled matchups.
@Purplegoo:
Yeah, I've been jeered. Yes, it's sad, no it doesn't make me cry. But it's a complete waste of my time and not behaviour I would tolerate in real life. I have a ten year old son who has played on here occasionally, and if anyone spoke to him like I have been spoken to I would be insanely angry. Which is why I don't let him play here any more without me vetting the opponent. Now I know part of that is my problem for having kids, but it's also just the sad state of the internet that people feel they can get away with bad behaviour just because they anonymous, AND THE REST OF US HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO SIT BACK AND PUT UP WITH IT. I want an option. The option to not play them beyond a turn 1 concession.
Although I totally take the point about Ranked, I still don't see why I should have to put up with douchebaggery just because I like having random scheduled matchups.
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-03-29 13:02:25
cthol, if you don't to play random opponents, don't play Blackbox, it cannot be put any more simply than that.
People think this is all new, but it's not. Long before Claw/PO teams we have the 8 DP Khemri teams, they are there, they are beatable, they just play a different game to you.
Look up 'Loved by Elephants' and you will see the previous incarnation of more damage, less wins teams. If you wish to avoid such teams, Ranked is the perfect place to play.
I am sorry to say, but your blog and post makes it sound like you want to keep your cake and eat it.
People think this is all new, but it's not. Long before Claw/PO teams we have the 8 DP Khemri teams, they are there, they are beatable, they just play a different game to you.
Look up 'Loved by Elephants' and you will see the previous incarnation of more damage, less wins teams. If you wish to avoid such teams, Ranked is the perfect place to play.
I am sorry to say, but your blog and post makes it sound like you want to keep your cake and eat it.
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2011-03-29 13:19:53
whiners gonna whine
Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2011-03-29 13:35:42
What is the point of having a cake and not eating it?
Do we really want fumbbl to become like cyanide where 30% of RandomOracle's wins came by early concession?
Do we really want fumbbl to become like cyanide where 30% of RandomOracle's wins came by early concession?
Posted by Calcium on 2011-03-29 13:37:24
I agree with Duke.
I am regarded as a basher that delights in killing teams and not winning. This is not true at all. I love winning! I do love the blood, but I like all playstyles and actually admire elfballing etc.
This is just another blog crying about taking damage. Apply your own 'social contract' rubbish and if you don't like how it plays out in Blackbox/FUMBBL etc...DON'T PLAY!
For the record, you keep referring to REAL LIFE. This is so not real life mate, I think you need to distinguish between the two more.
As Paulhicks stated, 'if the worst thing that happens is a bunch of your pixels dies then you should consider it a good day'.....
I am regarded as a basher that delights in killing teams and not winning. This is not true at all. I love winning! I do love the blood, but I like all playstyles and actually admire elfballing etc.
This is just another blog crying about taking damage. Apply your own 'social contract' rubbish and if you don't like how it plays out in Blackbox/FUMBBL etc...DON'T PLAY!
For the record, you keep referring to REAL LIFE. This is so not real life mate, I think you need to distinguish between the two more.
As Paulhicks stated, 'if the worst thing that happens is a bunch of your pixels dies then you should consider it a good day'.....
Posted by Ehlers on 2011-03-29 13:48:17
I dont agree on your thoughts on concessions, but I do understand your feelings towards those that just laught into your face while your team gets destroyed.
Why I am actually beginning to hide the chat either with another program or simple to put something on my screen.
I would actually wish for a function to hide the chat function all together.
Why I am actually beginning to hide the chat either with another program or simple to put something on my screen.
I would actually wish for a function to hide the chat function all together.
Posted by belshamharoth on 2011-03-29 13:52:28
I think the point being made is being ignored except for maysrill comment. Mainly by pro bashers it seems too.... I want to bash your team, put up with it, isnt really a discussion on the merits of the difference fumbbl maintains on the conceding rule.
The rules of bb (not fumbbl) state u can concede (no limits of when or why). I rarely concede matches and have taken some hammerings, maybe 10 in 1000 odd games? Feel free to trawl my games to count i cant be bothered :)
However playing the box has introduced me to more games where i just sit and take a pasting wondering why im wasting an hour of my life on that game. I recently came to the conclusion i would concede these matches from now on as after about the 4th cas its well within the rules if i think the opponent is doing it to kill my team and increase his bash rating at the expense of my team.
My comment to cthol would be i agree with you as a relative non basher who likes to team build but also like the quickness of playing in the box. However fumbbl does allow you to concede so just play as normal and after a cas or 2 do it. In the mean time u might get somewhere so play it until that point. Therefore keeping within the rules but avoiding a boring pasting.
The rules of bb (not fumbbl) state u can concede (no limits of when or why). I rarely concede matches and have taken some hammerings, maybe 10 in 1000 odd games? Feel free to trawl my games to count i cant be bothered :)
However playing the box has introduced me to more games where i just sit and take a pasting wondering why im wasting an hour of my life on that game. I recently came to the conclusion i would concede these matches from now on as after about the 4th cas its well within the rules if i think the opponent is doing it to kill my team and increase his bash rating at the expense of my team.
My comment to cthol would be i agree with you as a relative non basher who likes to team build but also like the quickness of playing in the box. However fumbbl does allow you to concede so just play as normal and after a cas or 2 do it. In the mean time u might get somewhere so play it until that point. Therefore keeping within the rules but avoiding a boring pasting.
Posted by maysrill on 2011-03-29 13:54:08
I love that PaulHicks quote :)
Seriously though, you're trying to legislate douchebaggery out of existence on FUMBBL. While a noble goal in theory, it's not going to happen. Consider the following:
1. Dicks exist, including on FUMBBL
2. When getting assigned a random opponent, you may receive one
3. Those who are widely considered dicks may favor an environment where opponents are assigned randomly
4. Conceding just reinforces their behavior. To the true griefer, your sweet sweet concession tears are like wine
Ranked is more work. It sounds like you want all the benefits of Ranked (well, basically everything that follows from being able to vet your opponents), but with the ease of Blackbox.
#1 reason there can NEVER be a T1 concession rule in Blackbox: it would completely let you select your opponents! People wouldn't use it just on a small number of griefer coaches, it would be used for zon/dwarf games, and recovering from 3-4 MNGs, and all sorts of other nonsense.
Seriously though, you're trying to legislate douchebaggery out of existence on FUMBBL. While a noble goal in theory, it's not going to happen. Consider the following:
1. Dicks exist, including on FUMBBL
2. When getting assigned a random opponent, you may receive one
3. Those who are widely considered dicks may favor an environment where opponents are assigned randomly
4. Conceding just reinforces their behavior. To the true griefer, your sweet sweet concession tears are like wine
Ranked is more work. It sounds like you want all the benefits of Ranked (well, basically everything that follows from being able to vet your opponents), but with the ease of Blackbox.
#1 reason there can NEVER be a T1 concession rule in Blackbox: it would completely let you select your opponents! People wouldn't use it just on a small number of griefer coaches, it would be used for zon/dwarf games, and recovering from 3-4 MNGs, and all sorts of other nonsense.
Posted by stej on 2011-03-29 14:25:54
Question. IS it possible to play more than one game at once with different teams?
If this is the case you could just leave one game running and do nothing and your opponent would have to wait to time you out every turn and so his uber killer team would be tied up for a whole hour at least.
In the meantime, you could go about playing other matches against other people and have fun. Even for a killer team, I cant see there being much fun in a game where you have to sit for 4 mins before you can do anything.
Maybe thats a good way of sticking it to the man!
If this is the case you could just leave one game running and do nothing and your opponent would have to wait to time you out every turn and so his uber killer team would be tied up for a whole hour at least.
In the meantime, you could go about playing other matches against other people and have fun. Even for a killer team, I cant see there being much fun in a game where you have to sit for 4 mins before you can do anything.
Maybe thats a good way of sticking it to the man!
Posted by SillySod on 2011-03-29 14:29:26
A limited but functional blacklist would be a useful social feature - if unpleasent types suddenly got no games in the box they might shape up a little.
Posted by Ruiner on 2011-03-29 14:34:06
"When you offer a game of Blood Bowl but actually want to set a new record for breaking people's teams then that's breaking the social contract." How so?
When I play my goblins, expecting the win is just too far off in some cases so I resort to depitching players. Sometimes setting a new record in breaking teams is necesary in order to win.
Whether it's a Clawbomb team or not, the problem can only be with the coach because this is a game where you can build your team however you like, there's always going to be killer teams unless you physically remove the blood.
So what are you going to do if the coach isn't anti-social but you don't like his team?
And conceding against those teams is hardly going to put someone off, "free win and SPP? Clawbomb ftw!"
When I play my goblins, expecting the win is just too far off in some cases so I resort to depitching players. Sometimes setting a new record in breaking teams is necesary in order to win.
Whether it's a Clawbomb team or not, the problem can only be with the coach because this is a game where you can build your team however you like, there's always going to be killer teams unless you physically remove the blood.
So what are you going to do if the coach isn't anti-social but you don't like his team?
And conceding against those teams is hardly going to put someone off, "free win and SPP? Clawbomb ftw!"
Posted by DukeTyrion on 2011-03-29 14:37:19
belshamharoth - I made my comments as a Rat coach as well as a Dwarven coach, and I am quite happy to meet any team with either race, so I presume I am not one of the 'bashers; you refer to.
stej - There 2 key rules on FUMBBL. 1) You cannot unreasonably delay the game (which would be the case if you let the clock run down for 4 minutes) and 2) You can only play multiple games after agreement with both opposition coaches, since you do not know who the opponent will be in [B] you could not have previously made that agreement.
stej - There 2 key rules on FUMBBL. 1) You cannot unreasonably delay the game (which would be the case if you let the clock run down for 4 minutes) and 2) You can only play multiple games after agreement with both opposition coaches, since you do not know who the opponent will be in [B] you could not have previously made that agreement.
Posted by fabik on 2011-03-29 14:52:17
I think the the proble is not bashing.
The proble is attitude.
As it is [B] is not social, you don't need to be part of a community, you can just connect, Bash and leave.
After that all the blood and the violece will leave you happy with yourself.
On the other side, if you are the beaten one the match will be frustrating.
There's nothing special about that, in Blackbox it's easier facing opponents who don't care about anything than their game, it's something sadic lol.
Nothing bad, if you don't like play Ranked!
The proble is attitude.
As it is [B] is not social, you don't need to be part of a community, you can just connect, Bash and leave.
After that all the blood and the violece will leave you happy with yourself.
On the other side, if you are the beaten one the match will be frustrating.
There's nothing special about that, in Blackbox it's easier facing opponents who don't care about anything than their game, it's something sadic lol.
Nothing bad, if you don't like play Ranked!
Posted by Nighteye on 2011-03-29 14:53:44
I am more or less in agreement with the OP. However I have long ago decided blackbox is not for me. You really need to do the same. As you yourself put it; in real life you choose where you park your car. The same goes for FUMBBL.
As for the idea with a functional blacklist, that is about the most exploitable plan ever. For example the first thing I would do with such a list, was to blacklist every single coach I knew had dwarf teams in the box., just because I generally prefer to be hit in the head with a bat, than play vs dwarfs.
But this is why we have [R]anked. Not so you can cherrypick, as people are fond of calling it when you sort through challenges to your team, but so you can decline challenges from coaches you know are douchebags etc.
As for the idea with a functional blacklist, that is about the most exploitable plan ever. For example the first thing I would do with such a list, was to blacklist every single coach I knew had dwarf teams in the box., just because I generally prefer to be hit in the head with a bat, than play vs dwarfs.
But this is why we have [R]anked. Not so you can cherrypick, as people are fond of calling it when you sort through challenges to your team, but so you can decline challenges from coaches you know are douchebags etc.
Posted by Postie on 2011-03-29 15:10:52
Stop acting like a little girl and grow a piar?
Posted by Keith-Lemon on 2011-03-29 15:14:25
Quote from belshamharoth's comment,
"I recently came to the conclusion i would concede these matches from now on as after about the 4th cas its well within the rules if i think the opponent is doing it to kill my team and increase his bash rating at the expense of my team."
So true while the bash rating is there your going to get players doing this get rid of it there is no need for it any way.
"I recently came to the conclusion i would concede these matches from now on as after about the 4th cas its well within the rules if i think the opponent is doing it to kill my team and increase his bash rating at the expense of my team."
So true while the bash rating is there your going to get players doing this get rid of it there is no need for it any way.
Posted by fabik on 2011-03-29 15:15:51
I reaaly don't understand the problem.
I don't like [B] style, i don't play [B].
what's the matter?
I don't like [B] style, i don't play [B].
what's the matter?
Posted by belshamharoth on 2011-03-29 15:32:45
The problem is easy to understand difficult to fix
People want the ease of getting a game in b with the pickability of ranked Everyone has a difference tolerance limit to what they will put up with for the ease of B gaming.
For those who hate bash setup a b style schedule system where certain skills are banned ie any that increase armour break or injury type skills :)
Call it white box
For elves who like playing elves!
People want the ease of getting a game in b with the pickability of ranked Everyone has a difference tolerance limit to what they will put up with for the ease of B gaming.
For those who hate bash setup a b style schedule system where certain skills are banned ie any that increase armour break or injury type skills :)
Call it white box
For elves who like playing elves!
Posted by Fela on 2011-03-29 15:33:48
@DukeTyrion: Please point out the rule against playing slowly because i cannot find it. There's a timeout option built in the client to prevent it from becoming unreasonable.
@cthol: You're a father, so it's not unreasonable to expect something might just come up in real life, like your son stumbling over the lan cable, disconnecting you. Now, if you just happened to have to take some time to scold him, that would be unfortuate, but sadly unavoidable. Stuff like that might even happen several times during one match, possibly culminating in your opponent calling it off, who knows?
@cthol: You're a father, so it's not unreasonable to expect something might just come up in real life, like your son stumbling over the lan cable, disconnecting you. Now, if you just happened to have to take some time to scold him, that would be unfortuate, but sadly unavoidable. Stuff like that might even happen several times during one match, possibly culminating in your opponent calling it off, who knows?
Posted by Fela on 2011-03-29 15:40:59
@belsham..: Cthol clearly stated he wants not only the ease of getting matches but the randomness of the Box too. He just doesn't want to have to put up with very few asocial coaches.
That really doesn't sound too unreasonable.
@DukeTyrion: forget it, found the rule. However, it clearly says intentionally, so if it's just the consequence of doing something else instead, bad luck.
That really doesn't sound too unreasonable.
@DukeTyrion: forget it, found the rule. However, it clearly says intentionally, so if it's just the consequence of doing something else instead, bad luck.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-29 16:36:50
"I see conceding in turn 1 as a valid way of countering unpleasant coaches who spam clawpomb and go out of their way to be rude and inhospitable. "
I see conceding in turn 1 as a valid way of getting BANNED.
I see conceding in turn 1 as a valid way of getting BANNED.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-29 16:40:54
"Posted by stej on 2011-03-29 14:25:54
Question. IS it possible to play more than one game at once with different teams?
If this is the case you could just leave one game running and do nothing and your opponent would have to wait to time you out every turn and so his uber killer team would be tied up for a whole hour at least."
*************
No, this too will get you BANNED
Question. IS it possible to play more than one game at once with different teams?
If this is the case you could just leave one game running and do nothing and your opponent would have to wait to time you out every turn and so his uber killer team would be tied up for a whole hour at least."
*************
No, this too will get you BANNED
Posted by Grod on 2011-03-29 17:14:34
To be honest,
Coaches in real life usually have more of a sense of humor about deaths on the pitch than on FUMBBL. Here was say "they are only pixels", but in RL, you don't even have that.
Coaches in real life usually have more of a sense of humor about deaths on the pitch than on FUMBBL. Here was say "they are only pixels", but in RL, you don't even have that.
Posted by WhatBall on 2011-03-29 17:33:56
I don't think concession is the way to go.
I have no issue playing someone like Calcium (for example) who may take apart my team, but is fun to chat with. I do agree there are some that are just around to grief, and make playing them is a tedious and joyless event, regardless whether you are winning or losing. I would like to either be able to close the chat, or better yet, have a small blacklist for [B] that you can have a limited number of coaches on. (maximum 3, maybe only 2 even). The Box would then never schedule you against these players.
I have no issue playing someone like Calcium (for example) who may take apart my team, but is fun to chat with. I do agree there are some that are just around to grief, and make playing them is a tedious and joyless event, regardless whether you are winning or losing. I would like to either be able to close the chat, or better yet, have a small blacklist for [B] that you can have a limited number of coaches on. (maximum 3, maybe only 2 even). The Box would then never schedule you against these players.
Posted by stej on 2011-03-29 18:06:48
Is there anything against not playing to win in ranked or box?
Posted by Calcium on 2011-03-29 18:21:50
Should have added Whatball....love u, but I'm gonna havta smash you to hell on the pitch for that comment ;)
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-29 19:02:27
completely agree with Calcium (who, btw, is loads of fun to play against and is a complete gent!).
Posted by Chewie on 2011-03-29 19:19:59
Cal's ace. Pyth, on the other hand, smells. :P
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-29 19:31:47
I keel ur elf with my axe Wookie!
Posted by Macavity on 2011-03-29 19:58:08
I would say ignore them. If it's not a hicksian crazy fun basher, and they just want under your skin, don't give them the satisfaction. They can go away feeling like they got their kill-jollies, but really, they want you to be upset with them. Ignoring them, or being excessively reasonable is the way to go.
Conceding is not helpful, as it means they feel intimidating, and move on. What we really need is the more socially aware coaches to stop seeing these guys as amusing little chihuahuas to bait. Group ignoring is the way to go. It doesn't matter if it's a persona, or they are actual tools, either way, don't give them the press.
No changes to the system or divisions is needed, though removing bash rating certainly wouldn't kill anyone.
Conceding is not helpful, as it means they feel intimidating, and move on. What we really need is the more socially aware coaches to stop seeing these guys as amusing little chihuahuas to bait. Group ignoring is the way to go. It doesn't matter if it's a persona, or they are actual tools, either way, don't give them the press.
No changes to the system or divisions is needed, though removing bash rating certainly wouldn't kill anyone.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-29 20:01:55
Oh Mac, stop making sense.
Posted by Cyrus-Havoc on 2011-03-29 20:50:54
I am glad to say I have not played any of these unpleasant people. If they are being rude and or offensive I believe you have a right under the rules to stop playing them. Go to admin and ask them to spectate. Play slowly after all you need more time to deal with the problem so this is not unreasonable. But don’t concede that will just make them worse.
But at the end of the day stop playing Blackbox that will cure it for good.
Remember folks it’s not the team & its skills it’s the unpleasant attitude of the coach we need to deal with.
But at the end of the day stop playing Blackbox that will cure it for good.
Remember folks it’s not the team & its skills it’s the unpleasant attitude of the coach we need to deal with.
Posted by WhatBall on 2011-03-29 21:17:12
Bring it on Calcium! I'm always ripe for the picking. :D
Posted by torsoboy on 2011-03-29 21:34:32
A SHAMEFUL DISPLAY
Posted by Frankenstein on 2011-03-29 23:15:21
1) Where exactly lies the risk in losing one FF? I'd consider that a reward nowadays, actually.
2) The BBRC are fully responsible for this situation and therefore to blame, in my opinion (though they still got the nerves to actually claim everything was fine and that there is no problem at all). It has been an epic game design fail to make the griever's no. 1 approach towards the game the strongest one, inevitably causing confusion insofar that many coaches mistakenly are considered grievers all of a sudden. The BBRC reminds me of a certain Japanese electric utility ("absolutely unpredictable!"). I'm actually sort of grateful, as LRB6 has provided me a good excuse to cancel my internet subscription (access at work and gf should suffice) as the game has become rather dull and one-dimensional, not because of too much blood, I wouldn't mind even more of that, but because of a completely overpowered and dead boring skill combo.
2) The BBRC are fully responsible for this situation and therefore to blame, in my opinion (though they still got the nerves to actually claim everything was fine and that there is no problem at all). It has been an epic game design fail to make the griever's no. 1 approach towards the game the strongest one, inevitably causing confusion insofar that many coaches mistakenly are considered grievers all of a sudden. The BBRC reminds me of a certain Japanese electric utility ("absolutely unpredictable!"). I'm actually sort of grateful, as LRB6 has provided me a good excuse to cancel my internet subscription (access at work and gf should suffice) as the game has become rather dull and one-dimensional, not because of too much blood, I wouldn't mind even more of that, but because of a completely overpowered and dead boring skill combo.
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-29 23:22:03
EPIC
FAIL
FAIL
Posted by Macavity on 2011-03-29 23:50:36
Back to your tree, simian!
Posted by pythrr on 2011-03-30 00:03:01
you are so close to the truth that it scares me. are you watching me via Spiro-sattillite?
Posted by Arktoris on 2011-03-30 05:57:01
one of the great things about the new foul rules.
you get to hurt those clawbombs....and safely leave the field at the same time.
instead of giving them the satisfaction of a concession win, why not foul every turn which allows you to fight back, have some fun, get your money and spps, and not break the rules?
you get to hurt those clawbombs....and safely leave the field at the same time.
instead of giving them the satisfaction of a concession win, why not foul every turn which allows you to fight back, have some fun, get your money and spps, and not break the rules?
Posted by t0tem on 2011-03-30 21:05:15
On a practical note i would suggest you add such people to your BuddyList so you can avoid them in the future.