|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 23, 2007 11:55:35 GMT -5
I don't buy the "charmer is responsible" rule, because the charmee still sets the targets. If you can't cast cDPW and you charm someone to cDPW they can't avoid it, but if you charm to FOD and they can't cast FOD then they can theoretically cast SD instead.
I think the simplest solution would be to just say that you are responsible for what you cast, disrupted or not.
However, we can discuss it more, because this will be totally irrelevant to the first league rule. :-D
|
|
|
Post by spez on Nov 23, 2007 14:13:03 GMT -5
When a rule will have such possibilities, we'll just include in the rule the corollaries to it (You may not cast spell X, and if you are "distrupted" into casting one, you are still guilty of.) I suppose since the League winner of one month can chose he rule for the next month (am I mistaken, i remember having read that somewhere?), he can chose the possible corollaries.
I suppose we could have other type of penalties, like : If you distrupt your opponent into casting a forbidden spell, you must stab yourself with both hands. (Or the charmed one must to it), instead of losing.
Hey, that could be fun. Rule: Anti-spell makes you "double-stab", or "Clap", instead of "nothing".
<spam> Are we in december yet? Are we in december yet? Me wants to start the league already :-P </spam>
|
|
|
Post by dni on Nov 26, 2007 2:30:42 GMT -5
2 Spez: Hmm... and if you will look it from the other side... It's a perfect possibility to evade Paralysis when casting FoD, for example... Oh, penalties! Hih, let me offer the 'Magnetic Finger' penalty -- FoD targetted on yourself. Of course, you still may use other hand to try to win. Or the 'Monster Swarm' penalty -- all monsters you have must targetted to yourself till end of game. 2 Slartucker: And just another question. Assumes that somebody violates month rules. So he needs to surrender at the next turn. So what if he kills his opponent at current turn? Who is the winner? The loser? And just another offer to month rules. The Virtual Spells. For example: - FSDFSc: Pestilence. All controlled creatures must attack yourself at the next turn. The warlocks forced to stab themselves, the monsters must to attack themselves.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Dec 1, 2007 13:56:48 GMT -5
Suggestion on 8th paragraph:
8. At the end of the league period, if a player has more then 50% of battles unfinished, all his unfinished battles are treated as if he surrendered in all of them. If a player has 50% of less of unfinished battles, his unfinished battles are ignored. Then the results of all finished battles are tallied.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 1, 2007 14:10:27 GMT -5
I should clarify that the plain text "Description & Rules" has replaced the numbered draft.
|
|
spacca
Ronin Warlock
(Tchichi #2,342,106)
Posts: 55
|
Post by spacca on Dec 4, 2007 11:25:32 GMT -5
Have I missed something but what is the scoring for the December leagues. 2 points for a win?, 1 for a draw?. A bonus point for a kill?. How are we separating ties on points?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 4, 2007 12:41:52 GMT -5
Wins minus losses, I think, keeping things simple. Kills and deaths count double. In the case of ties, we'll go to a swiss style differential (as discussed in I think this thread).
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 4, 2007 16:32:13 GMT -5
Ooh that's interesting. I assumed kills and deaths were just to tiebreak. So we really should be pushing for blood, then?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Dec 4, 2007 17:01:36 GMT -5
So double deaths and double surrenders both count for the same zero points?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 4, 2007 23:16:42 GMT -5
Yes -- it seems the only fair way to record them.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Dec 5, 2007 0:17:55 GMT -5
Double for a kill is interesting. It makes all games kind of like ladder games (in other words, surrender before you die...don't risk final 50/50's etc). How does everyone feel about that? Basically, you have two games going at once. One could be a friendly match whereby your ELO is affected only and whereby you would ordinarily take a risk that might end up in death and at the same time be playing a League game whereby to risk death is a serious disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Dec 5, 2007 8:48:17 GMT -5
I think that if the death/kill is worth double (which i think is a pretty interesting idea), ppl should be made aware of it.
At least for the next League, because people may want to surrender instead of saying what you usually say in a VF match "ah well, its a VF"
--- Making kills/death worth double is a 2 sided bladed. It makes thing "more interesting", but it makes it less "friendly" and more competitive...
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Dec 5, 2007 9:19:16 GMT -5
The league description & rules specifically mentions it. As well as other things that people should be aware of. Not reading the rules is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by spez on Dec 5, 2007 9:47:08 GMT -5
you are right. and when i re-read it, i remembered having read before the "because killing is fun " , so just forget what i said.
|
|