|
Post by spez on Nov 12, 2007 9:00:56 GMT -5
Just an idea, maybe we could keep an other count in the scoreboards. The number of games that were "ignored" due to timeout? This would facilitate the "clan-shaming" thing that Slartucker is hinting, and even before clans are in, and give us an idea of who may be stalling or not.
I don't think that using more abusive ruling for the timeouting is necessary. It will only complicate things, and will probably not be in use that much.
And someday, if there is some kind of Player Rating (Elo like, but with a different formula using only the League matches), we could count the Timeout matches in them.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 12, 2007 11:07:45 GMT -5
I like the count idea, but it is more likely to catch slow players, who are generally slow all the time, than stallers, who would be selective, if they exist.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 12, 2007 12:05:48 GMT -5
I don't think that using more abusive ruling for the timeouting is necessary. It will only complicate things, and will probably not be in use that much. You have a good point there. And, like Slarty said, I don't think people are really very likely to do it. I'm more worried that we're going to get a whole load of false claims/accusations now, and I'm not sure what we can do about that either.
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Nov 15, 2007 15:04:09 GMT -5
um, i'm not quite understanding this league- to put it into my (footballing) terms, is it one big league like the Premiership, or mini-leagues like the Champions League group stages? sorry for the poor comparisons. if it is mini-leagues, how are these resolved to find an overall winner?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 15, 2007 17:44:52 GMT -5
It's one big league, but winners are determined more regularly (monthly, although there's been talk of bigger overall winners too) and you don't play everyone in the league, you just play five (randomly-matched) games. Think of it a bit like a non-knockout chess tourney if you remember those back in the day! Oh and there's only one group so there's no relegation and stuff. Hope this makes it clearer or I could just be muddling stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 15, 2007 21:01:07 GMT -5
So we'll award the Champions' Cup on a monthly basis? Or will the Cup be determined over a longer term with a running tally of points for the standings?
I'd say 3 or 6 month bragging rights for holding the Cup would be plenty of time for inter- and intra-clan RP and storylines.
How many clans we talkin' again? I'd be happy to resurrect the Black Rose moniker and theme, if people feel the possible baggage from an ancient legacy won't kill the new league.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 15, 2007 23:17:07 GMT -5
The league is supposed to be more fun and less competitive. The inspiration came from my days as a CCG 'product champion' running a weekly tournament and a weekly league day, which involved organized play and a little prize but was more about just gathering to play and have fun.
I have no current plans for any kind of champion that lasts longer than monthly, and complicated plans for monthly championhood, to be revealed next month. At any rate I don't think I'll tally longer term stats and I may even discourage such rankings.
A revival of Black Rose never occured to me, but it could actually be quite cool. Bhahahaha. Sounds great. Definitely put in an application for it when we get to that part, Dubs.
I'm planning on about 4 clans, but the number will depend on how many good applications I get, and could certainly change later in the league's existence.
|
|
|
Post by dni on Nov 21, 2007 7:11:59 GMT -5
2 Slartucker: About rules. What if your opponent forces you to break monthly accepted rules? For example, the rules may say: 'You may not cast fire spells' and your FoD which was PWPFSS was double-paralysed so you finish with PWPFSSDD. What's then? Surrender? More simple situation: the rule 'You may not stab' or 'You may not cast Shield' can easily be forced by 'Charm person' of your opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 21, 2007 7:38:54 GMT -5
At the moment there are no monthly rules that your opponent can force you to break. If and when there is one the rule will address this specifically.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Nov 21, 2007 8:27:46 GMT -5
I suppose that if the rule is "You may not cast fire spells" and your paralysed / amnesied into one, you could cast it at Nobody.
Just like when we play the multitude of Alaric's variants
|
|
|
Post by dni on Nov 22, 2007 3:21:28 GMT -5
2 Slartucker: Ok, i understood it. I think that League rules can be harder by inclusion the point of "You may accidently break additional rules through mind control spells directed on you, so be aware of this!"
2 Spez: I thought that "You may not cast fire spells" and "You may not direct fire spells at opponent" was different things. More than that, there's a variant with: LH: ...CD RH: ...CP You want to continue with DSP/PSD but you was double-charmed and you unexpectedly cast CDPW on the left hand. Let's suppose that rules said as 'You may not cast Dispel Magic'. This spell is unstoppable with Counter Spell so you can't avoid it's effect. So what's then?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 22, 2007 8:01:48 GMT -5
I am a big stickler from rules, and clarifying rules before things start. So I'm kinda glad you've raised this Dni. I believe that any spell that is targeted (ie, charm person, or Fod), then aiming it a no-body should be a valid way of countering the rule. *but*, for the spells that can't be re-directed, (ie, dispel magic, elementals), then ..., if you set yourself up with that thread, and then get double charmed. Then really, you deserve to lose the battle. (and if the rule is made for no shields, I can imagine Charm Person being a very powerful spell... but it's just as powerful for *both* people, so eveyone would need to be made aware that if they are charmed, then they might want to aim *both* their hands at "nobody"... no matter what they were planing on casting.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Nov 22, 2007 8:09:42 GMT -5
there is also the option that "If you force your opponent to cast an 'illegal' spell, you are the one responsible for doing it, therefore, you lose"
It's a very different dynamic than than making sure every spell you cast that you can't be forced to do something illegal, and I'm not sure which one I prefer, but I stil would want to consider it
It can give us somethings like : You may not cast firespell EVER, and you go for the FoD. Now if your opponent wanted to Amnesie you at the last minute, HE will LOSE because he forced you to cast fireball...
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 23, 2007 11:20:57 GMT -5
*sigh* If one is charmed into a verboten spell, who is the caster of the resultant spell? The *charmer* is effectively the caster - as that is where the gesture originated. So if *you* are charmed into a forbidden spell, *your opponent* loses the game. Simplest and fairest rule wins.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 23, 2007 11:23:02 GMT -5
Yes, i just realized zade already said that. */sigh*
|
|