|
Post by hermit on Apr 14, 2010 15:05:51 GMT -5
Sometimes it is possible for Warlocks to inadvertently violate rules in a league match. In the past, violations typically resulted in an immediate loss to the offender, unless both Warlocks agreed to start their match over.
Rules violations should definitely be punished, but I hate to see a worthy opponent lose over an honest infraction. Therefore, I offer the following idea for discussion to the community:
----------------
Warlocks failing to follow rules in a league match must submit double '-' on their next turn, or forfeit the game.
Regardless, the violating warlock cannot win due to a rules violation on the winning turn. In this case the opponent is declared the victor.
No points are to be awarded for a rules violation. In addition, any violation will cost the offending warlock 5 points (and earn their opponent 5 points)
----
Perhaps the idea is good, but needs refinement, or perhaps everyone considers it a bad idea entirely. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 14, 2010 18:37:38 GMT -5
I like the concept, but not necessarily the implications. For example, if I can hit you with a bolt and amnesia by violating a rule, I'm gunna do that if my penance is a double null.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 15, 2010 10:17:22 GMT -5
While the Point of the League is "fun" - the Challenge of the League is playing by the varied and sometimes inane alternate rules.
If a player cannot track the League Battles they are in to know what Rules apply, they should lose the battle. Why reward what could arguably be called cheating? "Honest Violations" are an oxymoron.
This isn't the same as a speeding violation, this is more like a physics violation... violating the speed limit might get you a speeding ticket (but not every time, you have to get caught first) - attempts to violate the laws of physics usually have messy results
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Apr 15, 2010 13:11:00 GMT -5
Actually, I would say it's more like a speeding violation, as per your analogy. The built-in rules of the program would be the physics... you can't violate those. These rules are arbitrary, and can easily be violated by error. Truthfully, haven't you seen this happen plenty of times when the person obviously wasn't trying to cheat?
Anyway, it's here for discussion. Maybe I'm one of the few who like to give a break if possible for a small mistake (thanks Bio for doing that to me a few months back!)
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 16, 2010 7:37:56 GMT -5
Down the garden path Imho, fwiw, the League Rules are the physics constraints within which the League Battles occur. Just because one *can* accidentally violate these rules (due to lack of programmatical enforcement) does not mean one *should* [be allowed] to violate them. In other phrasing, the League Rules alter the built-in programming - effectively making anything outside the League ruleset "impossible" but we have no way to programmatically enforce this - so the only possible response we have in the case of a violation is the violators' immediate loss and their surrender. The Challenge (and therefore the Fun) of the League is playing to win, within an arbitrary (and often logically irregular) altered ruleset *without violating the League Rule.* I hate it when I violate a month's Rule - but I accept the consequences of my foolish folly & attempt to surrender gracefully and with humour. To me, it seems counter-productive to allow or be allowed to ignore a violation. If one violates the League Rule, by accident or otherwise, the result is a loss for the violator
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Apr 16, 2010 10:10:33 GMT -5
I have sentiments that lean both ways here. On the one hand, I always feel bad if a league match ends with one party accidentally violating a rule and having to surrender, but on the other hand, the rules need to have some kind of force behind them, and since we can't reprogram the game each month, we rely on people being able to consistently pretend that a given rule is being enforced.
In my opinion, the best way to address this is in the month-to-month rule creation. Whenever possible, I will try to limit the number of situations in which a player can break a rule and forfeit a game. The easiest way to do this is to establish a penalty in the rule for that month for breaking the rule (or playing in a less-preferable fashion), that's appropriate for that month's rule.
Also, since league points are ultimately the reward and penalty system of league, I think that putting penalties in terms of league points will usually be more effective than punishing the offending player's strategic position (but again, it may depend on the rule that month).
In any case, if the rule on a given month clearly establishes the reward/penalty for any given action, then you no longer have such a clear "cheating" vs "honest play" dynamic, just actions with penalties (that may still be worth taking).
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Apr 16, 2010 17:31:41 GMT -5
In my opinion, the best way to address this is in the month-to-month rule creation. Whenever possible, I will try to limit the number of situations in which a player can break a rule and forfeit a game. The easiest way to do this is to establish a penalty in the rule for that month for breaking the rule (or playing in a less-preferable fashion), that's appropriate for that month's rule. I want to comment that I agree 100% with ellipsis here and this was, in fact, the main reason why the rules were originally written as they were. As you may recall, I was pretty strict about what I would allow as monthly rules for just this reason. I'm glad that relaxing the guidelines has proven to work well, but as the monthly rules have gotten increasingly loosey-goosey, more is required. Perhaps the following proposal would work well: The default penalty for violating a monthly rule in any way, is to score the match as if the player in question had surrendered (and targetted no spells at anyone) the turn of the rule violation. However, the monthly rule may specify the use of alternate penalties.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 17, 2010 8:12:30 GMT -5
The key is a *clear* Rule - which, as repeatedly mentioned, has been less and less the norm.
Slarty's default clarification works well *when a clear Rule exists* - the Rule is a #fail if an impartial judge must be called upon for a Ruling.
Perhaps a further League Rule guideline could be applied: If a League Rule must be adjudicated by the Weaver or Unraveller (or other impartial judge) the Clan which created the Rule either: 1. forfeits their League Points for that Rule, or (if they win the League under the Rule) 2. may not create the next League Rule (League Rule option passes to the next highest-scoring Clan)
|
|
|
Post by xade on Apr 20, 2010 0:45:19 GMT -5
How about we make the punishment convoluted!-
Rule violation base penalty = Throwing -/- For every point of damaged earned through said violation = Throwing -/- For every non-damage spell landed = Throwing -/- Landing a Disease/Poison/FoD/causing other players death = Instant loss Haste = -/- on every hasted turn
|
|
|
Post by hermit on Apr 20, 2010 10:53:44 GMT -5
under that plan, xade, the odds are likely the violator will still lose the match, but at least he can struggle to overcome the odds. Sounds interesting.
I agree with Ellipsis and Slartucker that in general the best rules are those which are impossible (or difficult) to violate. The last few months rules have been great examples of that, and I think we all appreciate ir.
The only reason I asked this question in the first place is I have been toying with what could be a very fun rule, but unfortunately has myriad opportunities for violations to occur, without any rule enforcement built in to the program. It was because of this I would hate to see a good battle forfeited due to a careless mistake (maybe 'careless' is a better word than 'honest', eh?)
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Apr 20, 2010 15:15:00 GMT -5
We haven't had a good rule in a while that changed the game radically, but such rules exist; in order to make them work properly, I think we need them to be fully enforced to the point where intentionally breaking them is not an option. Consider this (completely hypothetical ) case: MikeEB is up 5 health but facing a para-troll combo from Dubber. The league rule forbids casting PSDD on monsters and awards league points for dealing damage with them. As such, Dubber leaves the troll unprotected. MikeEB charms it anyway, accepting the 5-point and -/- penalties (actually -/D due to para) but turning a game-losing position into a game-winning one. In addition, he gets the league points back for later hits from the troll. With the proposed punishment systems, one could call the league rule flawed because it allows this exploit, but the rule itself is perfectly fine. EDIT: @ Hermit: Would you hate to see someone lose a game against you for accidentally surrendering? If so, would you like to see those gestures transmuted to -/-?
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Apr 25, 2010 14:29:47 GMT -5
We haven't had a good rule in a while that changed the game radically, but such rules exist; in order to make them work properly, I think we need them to be fully enforced to the point where intentionally breaking them is not an option. Consider this (completely hypothetical ) case: MikeEB is up 5 health but facing a para-troll combo from Dubber. The league rule forbids casting PSDD on monsters and awards league points for dealing damage with them. As such, Dubber leaves the troll unprotected. MikeEB charms it anyway, accepting the 5-point and -/- penalties (actually -/D due to para) but turning a game-losing position into a game-winning one. In addition, he gets the league points back for later hits from the troll. With the proposed punishment systems, one could call the league rule flawed because it allows this exploit, but the rule itself is perfectly fine. EDIT: @ Hermit: Would you hate to see someone lose a game against you for accidentally surrendering? If so, would you like to see those gestures transmuted to -/-? But the rule's not fine, then. This seems like another case of the rule not laying out an appropriate penalty for PSDD, if charming a monster also allows you to gain league points. The penalty with that particular combination of rules should be very severe, possibly even forfeiting the match, but that's the kind of thing the rule creator should consider when combining these rules.
|
|