How to deal with bugs

[notjarvis]

Generally, to stop argument we should just play the positions we are given.

From My point of view, when I started with 10 players in my last game it never occurred to me that La should or even might have placed a player out of the way.

Was just a complication for my side to deal with (and it actually had no effect on the eventual result). I just set-up differently and sucked it up.

In the specific case in Gandalf's game, I generally agree with Rav's reasoning, it's really difficult in most cases to produce a "Fair" resolution

For the Treeman not there - he still had 10 players to cover the line of scrimmage, (or even set back a space so Orcs don't have a clear run to his side of the field).

It's awful luck that the Tree didn't appear, but he had time to adapt his formation to cover the gaping hole and chose not to.

Unfortunately, the formation he chose was left horribly exposed by the fact Dai got a lucky Blitz, which is awful, awful luck, but not really Dai's fault, and to be frank, I would likely have done the same.

For the non-pass, it's so difficult to do something "fair" there.
There's always a chance the pass would have failed completely anyway (The next dice roll he made was a 1 for the GFI), and Gandy was in almost as a bad a position.
After he couldn't make the pass there is no good option which wouldn't have disadvantaged one of the players.


General Notes
Bugs are in the nature of any game really, I generally just aim to play through them, You have to hope it balances out over the season.

If a couple of players agree something that's fine.
However I don't want to feel under an obligation to agree to something. If the other player says I think you shouldn't move N player because I couldn't do this, and I disagree, we should be able to continue the game in a civil manner and take it up later if there is a real problem..

If there are awful bugs which really ruin a game we should replay it (at the commissioners arbitration)

[id3nt1ty]

However I don't want to feel under an obligation to agree to something.

Me niether.

[Raveen]

I would particularly like to hear from nj and Idan.

Wyld is pretty quiet on the forums and Spinx has RL stuff going on so I don't expect to hear from them.

[notjarvis]

I would particularly like to hear from nj and Idan.

Wyld is pretty quiet on the forums and Spinx has RL stuff going on so I don't expect to hear from them.

Look two posts above yours

[Gandalf]

It would be nice to get a view from the rest of the league participants.

Those who have real jobs...

*waves*
Yeah just got home. I'll probably have an epically long post up tonight at some point.

[notjarvis]

One other thing I forgot to mention. Dai seems like a nice guy, and I know Gandalf is a really nice guy. Whatever is decided can we remember this is just a daft video game we play for fun And hardly of immense importance.


I'm pretty sure what happened was just different assumptions about what we call 'fair' and was never a deliberate attempt to cheat.

Can we be absolutely clear on that please.

[Raveen]

I would particularly like to hear from nj and Idan.

Wyld is pretty quiet on the forums and Spinx has RL stuff going on so I don't expect to hear from them.

Look two posts above yours

Shush you!

[Gandalf]

It would be nice to get a view from the rest of the league participants.

Those who have real jobs...

*waves*
Yeah just got home. I'll probably have an epically long post up tonight at some point.

Sorry y'all, I'm writing too much and need to give my brain a rest. It'll be finished & up tomorrow evening.

[Raveen]

No worries Gandalf, it's always a good idea to take time and make sure you're saying exactly what you mean.

[Gandalf]

Preface

Firstly, some have raised issue with my general attitude towards luck, losing etc. frankly you have a point and I think I need to make some changes. So as a way to start resolving that, I'll commit to not commenting on my own match this Sunday unless they are vetted first (Rav you want to volunteer? and then there's a week off. I'll send some PM's to some people in that time to try and find a way forward. But that's not what this thread is about, so I'm parking that issue to one side for now.

Secondly, it's clear some people have looked at the game logs and/or watched the replay. Thanks for doing this, as it's possible I had been recollecting things incorrectly, and besides there's enough people in the world today espousing views on things without looking into the issue at hand (eg http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2014/ ... 1400844741) so thanks for not being like that.

So here we go then. It's an awful lot of text. I have spent a lot of time these last couple of days thinking how best to put across my points. I am no great writer so I've probably erred in one or two places so do forgive the sloppiness. I've probably repeated some things two or three times and failed to make some points properly. I haven't re-read this through in full, as it's late and i wanted to get this out there.

Covering Raveen's post

OK, so I will now mimic much of Rav's opening post but with my own POV instead of his, since he invited me to in his opening post. Especially since I debunked a good third of it minutes after he posted it. :p


Issue 1 - The Treeman

At the kick-off to the second half Diagoro was kicking so set up first. Gandalf was then due to set up but his Treeman had vanished and Gandalf was not able to place it on the line of scrimmage. As a consequence he left a gap at the front & centre - normally he puts his ST6 treeman with guard and two ST3 skilled linemen there, but up against a ST5 ST5 ST4 front line he understandably didn't want to put three ST3 AV7 players there. The treeman appeared in Gandalf's backfield and when the Blitz was rolled, Daiagro's unmarked Troll was able to move into Gandalf's backfield and defend the landing ball blitzed the wardancer who was standing where the ball was due to land, 4 squares further back. This was the only thing he did with the Blitz event, even though he could've moved other players.

There are many things that could've been done, to try and even things up, if Diagoro had considered what had happened was unfair on him and wanted to mitigate this unfortunate event. Here are the ones I thought of inside a minute, along with the thinking behind them.

- "Gandalf's big guy is in his backfield through no fault of his own so I'll try and do the same" - use the Blitz to move his ogre back 4 spaces (I think he's MV4?). Given the treeman is MV2 it's still more in Diagoro's favour though he does lose the advantage of the blitz.
- "Gandalf had back luck due to bad coding, now the game has given me some good luck so I will turn it down to help mitigate Gandalf's bad luck" - just hit end turn. This was the first thing I thought of when considering what Diagoro could've done, so it's probably what I would've done. Combining the glitch & the blitz - Daiagro still has the best deal in this situation, as his big guy is somewhere useful, not some 8 sqares downfield (with movement 2 per turn).
- "If Gandalf hadn't suffered that glitch, then my ogre couldn't blitz - but one of my guys further backfield could've." - move the ogre back one space and blitz with a guy from further backfield through the gap created. This is fair because normally he would've been able to go round my front line, but wasn't due to my "avoid the big guys" setup caused due to the missing treeman. Maybe he could've even walked right by one of my front linemen and roll a dodge, to simulate what would've been the case if I had done the usual with-treeman setup.
- If he chose not to consider the glitch at all, then he would do what seemed most advantageous on the board which is what he did do.

We could play what if all day but that's for post game threads, not during the game and certainly not with a 2 minute time limit bearing down on you It was a blitz move so some players couldn't do anything, so he had more time than normal to consider what to do. Even if you try to assume that the Treeman was in the correct location, how long should Daigoro have had to wait before assuming that his players could move? 1 turn? 2 turns? as long as it took to get the Treeman into position?
I don't like this previous line from Raveen. It's a path he has laid out that many of you have followed in your response - "we can't undo all the effects of the glitch and create a "fair" result, so let's do nothing."
I'm not saying that we should manouever the pieces to be back exactly how it was, just that an attitude of sportsmanship should prevail. As you can see from my list, there are many things that could've been done, and any of them bar the bottom one would be saying, "what happened to you is not fair, I recognize it and offer this as a way to level the playing field somewhat" - and would still mean Diagro was at an advantage because of the glitch. This is what I mean when I say there was an utterly obviously wrong course of action. The only one that did not consider the glitch at all. There are many varying degrees of "right" ones if you agree with my definition of sportsmanship, but the one wrong choice was the one chosen.

Issue 2 - The Unthrown Pass

Later in the half Gandalf had the ball and was running down pitch. He had a receiver who was out of range of the orcs but found that the ballcarrier would not throw the ball. The ballcarrier was left in range of an orc blitz when ideally the ball would be out of reach. As a result, and with time running out, he did a GFI to try and get out of range instead, but failed.

As I see it there were four options.

- Carry on and play the pieces as they were. Disadvantage Gandalf.

- Base the ball carrier, making the pass harder but still allowing the elves the chance to carry on. Disadvantage Gandalf.I don't understand what this means.

- Do nothing and hit the turn end allowing the elves to play on and presumably score The clock would roll on. Thus making the orcs chance to score back harder as less available time to play would make a second TD much harder for a slow team like Orcs. Disadvantage Daigoro. This is excessive and Gandalf wasn't expecting anything like this, if he did then he would've reacted in kind, by trying to make the pass then hitting end turn straight away.

- Try to act as if the pass had happened, do everything your turn as if it actually had happened, short of marking/blitzing the ball carrier, so Gandalf could do the pass at the start of next turn. There were other players he had that he could've used to blitz, foul, mark, whatever. Then on Gandalf's next turn, the first thing he does is try to pass the ball. If it succeeded, then we are 100% back to where we were before, apart from the ex-ball carrier not being marked, and Gandalf not being able to make a pass this turn. If it fails, then again we are almost back to where we would've been had the pass happened and failed the previous turn.

Three versions

There are three possible versions of the game we are playing. Each has their own frustrations.

1) The Blood Bowl Board Game.
This is the game played on a table-top, as per the published rules. It has ups and downs, good dice rolls, terrible dice rolls. By agreeing to play each other, we implicitly agree to go along with all this. I think this is obvious, but feel it needs pointing out as id3nt1ty said "The fact that glitches occur at all is inherently unfair, but so is rolling double skulls twice in a row" and goes on to suggest that "all misfortune is equal" - I disagree. No-one is suggesting we try to manually balance out bad luck with the dice. To do so would be to deny the very nature of the game.

2) Blood Bowl the perfectly-implemented computer game.
This is based on number 1, but has a few extra things on top. Examples include strict time limits, buttons on a screen to click instead of physically moving pieces, and possible hardware failure. There are things that go wrong on this level too. Some of them, if they are no-fault cases, we can and do rectify - eg disconnecting if our opponent disconnects so as to not claim a free win. Many of them we don't, such as....
- clicking to see how many dice a blitz would result in, but then accidently doing that blitz by clicking again when we didn't mean to.
- deciding to blitz with a player, but then moving that player meaning he can no longer blitz.
- moving a ST2 ball carrier next to a treeman.
- clicking end turn by accident.
- not noticing that your player is dodging into two tackle zones instead of one before trying to make the dodge.
Whilst not part of the core game, they are nonetheless direct results of actions made by the players - actions have consequences so it can be argued that it's fair enough that players face those consequences. And I agree with that.
Sometimes an opponent may offer some recompense but it's rare and should be seen as entirely optional. For example I once remember hitting end turn before doing any actions, when my opponent claimed he had accidently done so himself. But I can't remember the specifics, maybe I was 3-0 up with 4 turns left or something like that.

3) Blood Bowl by Cyanide.
Presumably, Cyanide tried to create version 2, but instead created version 3 - which has several bugs/glitches on top of version 2. Examples...
- you buy a player, he doesn't show up.
- you have 11 or more players, but when the game starts, fewer than 11 actually appear on the pitch.
- Clicks are not recognized straight away, you may have to click the same thing multiple times in order for the game to realise what you are trying to do (eg that pogo goblin, or failing to make a pass in the last 2 seconds as the game isn't co-operating)
- players disappear when you click on them whilst your opponent is setting up for kick-off (this is v3 not v2 as it's not intended behaviour) and appear somewhere random.
- under certain circumstances you appear to be unable to throw the ball, when you would be able to under versions 1 and 2.
The only ones that have happened to me are the last three. The "disappearing player" has never been a huge issue before - because it hasn't been my treeman. Sure, it's a minor inconvenience to have one of your two throwers, catchers or wardancers somewhere you wern't expecting, but minor is all it is and I wouldn't expect the other player to do anything in return. But my lone treeman - that's a massive issue, for reasons which I hope are obvious but will expand on in the addendum.
I have played against people who have had less than 11 players for no gameplay reason, just buggy code. So I've put a player of approximately equal value in the far corner out of the way, to level things up. I'm surprised to hear that other people don't do this, seems kinda obvious thing to do to me and I'm surprised I haven't encountered this before.

I was always under the impression that we were trying to play version 2 - a fair computer-based version of the board game, and not version 3, where we are all expected to take what hits us. But from reading your posts in detail, this is not a unified picture, in any direction.

So... what do people think about this? What version are we trying to play?

From reading this thread at a glance it seems there is consensus. But there isn't!
id3nt1ty is firmly in version 3.

The fact that glitches occur at all is inherently unfair, but so is rolling double skulls twice in a row.

The whole point of the game is to try and engineer as much misfortune as you can for your opponent, and then take advantage of it.

and finally he directly equates dice rolls to bad code.

I don't think we should be expected to give someone a free pass because some unlikely line of code got run.

Lawastooshort has a foot in version 2 and another in version 3.

There are too many permutations to reliably say what might happen if you compensate for most of the bugs. (The exception is the “having 12 players on the pitch” bug – leave one at the back, and also the bug with Hypnotic Gaze – using it is just cheating.)

Raveen is... well, I don't know. He says this which sounds very much like version 2.

My overall feeling is that both players should try to mitigate bugs where it is reasonably practicable to do so. If you're not sure what that means I'm essentially saying that we should try to balance out bugs so far as we can within the rules of the game and without disrupting gameplay.

So I'd be interested in what he thinks about my reply to his post, which was made under false assumptions about what "Blitz" is which he has admitted to.
He also says

Play the game as it appears before you, unless you come to a quick resolution that both parties agree to.

Which I don't think is entirely compatible with his first quotation. Maybe they need merging somehow.

Notj appears to in favour of version 3, saying that it's part of the game.

Bugs are in the nature of any game really, I generally just aim to play through them, You have to hope it balances out over the season.

He also says

In the specific case in Gandalf's game, I generally agree with Rav's reasoning, it's really difficult in most cases to produce a "Fair" resolution

I believe this is again based of Rav's erroneous description of possibilities with the ogre-blitz and would like his opinion now I've listed some of the true choices.
However, finally he says:

If there are awful bugs which really ruin a game we should replay it (at the commissioners arbitration)

So maybe he's not a hardline version 3 guy after all.

Andy only has Rav's one-sided post, knowing people in RL and a lack of experience to go on, so it's not surprising he's come out with what he's come out with, and I don't blame him for it. It sounds like he's never came across any glitches himself yet. Whilst I don't mind Rav's post being one-sided, as he did say he would let me put forward my POV, I believe it has made this thread more one-sided than if people had all the arguments in front of them at the start.

So, in summary for this section, there is certainly not a consensus, and we need one going forwards.

What is sportsmanship? Why is it important?

There are many aspects to sportsmanship, however the one I'm concentrating on for now is the concept of fairness - of winning a game fair and square. Now this does depend on what game we are playing. Are we playing BB v2 or BB v3?

Anyway, I've said enough about that. One of the things people have said are "you should've discussed it in the game" - but, I don't think it should be necessary to, if everyone is trying to play fair. Can anyone quote any sporting incidents that have happened as a result of the "wronged" person requesting something be done? I don't think you will. Acts of sportsmanship come out of a sense of fairness, a belief in what is right, and maybe out of not wanting to cheat someone out of something. I'll just quickly summarise some real life examples from here... I'll let you join the dots to how they have strong parallels with the blitzing ogre. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/ten-exa ... 28038.html
- Paulo Di Canio sees goalkeeper lying injured but does not try to score. The goalkeeper is probably at least partly to blame for his own injury but that doesn't factor into Di Canio's thinking.
- Robbie Fowler is given an advantage that he shouldn't have had (a penalty). He turns down this advantage by purposefully missing.
- Andy Roddick - same as Robbie Fowler, gets a call contrary to the rules of the game, and points it out so the injustice can be righted.

So why is sportsmanship important? Well, firstly, it's just a game and should be treated at such. If people aren't having fun then what's the point - it really is the taking part that counts, not the winning. In my opinion it would be sad and pathetic if a "win at all costs" mentality was the prevailing one. Sure, bad things happen in the game, and if they are obviously caused by ourselves, or by an intentional aspect of the game (dice) then that is part of the game as it is meant to be and you have to deal with them. But if things happen outside of these, then I believe it is only right that we make some sort of gesture to close the gap. Empathy and sympathy are two of the most positive things that make us human and they should be heartily encouraged.
RT has always stood for fairness, winning on an equal playing field. It's why we didn't abuse glitches in Allegiance. It's why we never picked ridiculous settings on a map to counter our opponent's faction (remember Masta and NI?). To see squad members effectively saying "tough luck" is hurtful.... I honestly thought the RT's here held themselves to higher standards than that.

Other issues raised
Notj:

For the Treeman not there - he still had 10 players to cover the line of scrimmage,

No I didn't, I think it was 8. Maybe 9. And anyway as discussed in the addendum I just did the most logical choice.

You should've discussed it in the game

I didn't want to tell him how I really felt, as a) I would've probably said stuff I would regret, b) why ruin the mood of the game, and c) hoped he might see my point or at least admit of his own accord that glitches had significantly contributed to his victory at some point after the game. Saying that, I did try to let him know of my unhappiness during the game by pointing out there were glitches and that he didn't have to take advantage of them.
Besides which, it seemed really obvious the missing treeman was an issue. If the opponent doesn't mention it then the assumption is they don't see it as an issue, so raising it as one would likely create disharmony & an argument in the heat of battle.
To expect the wronged player to ask for a resolution would be preposterous in any of the examples of sportsmanship I listed above and I think the same as true here.

Conclusions

I believed that we were trying to play BB v2 and nothing I have seen in the 20+ games I have played contradicted that, until now. So, what are we playing? We need to decide.

I believe that glitches are not part of the game we are trying to play. It is obviously impracticable to try and work around them entirely and I'm not sure why people have felt the need to point that out, it's obvious.

Instead I propose simply this.

- Where possible, players should not be suffer the full effects of being disadvantaged by something that is outside their control (the sole exception being dice rolls).
- It is the onus of the non-affected player to bring up these issue and start the discussion of how to eliminate or reduce the impact of the event.
- The affected player can point out what has happened, but they are not expected to demand a resolution of some sort. The first move towards a resolution must be by the player with the power to make that resolution.

Here endeth my magnum opus. Sort of.

Addendum - why I didn't set up 3 linemen against the 3 players he had there
Several people have put this forward as the correct resolution to the situation. I refute them, and thus also refute Diarago's assertion that he capitalised on my mistake, not the glitch. It's mainly a question of interpretation, he was playing BB v3 whereas I was playing BB v2. What I saw an a glitch he saw as an opportunity, I assumed under v2 rules he would see it as a glitch too.
I've played many games with the wood elves and studied the numbers so the "right" thing to do regarding team setup was obvious to me within about 2 seconds. I thought it was obvious to others too but given people's responses it seems not, so here's a nice long explanation.

Let's first take it as a given that the kicking team puts three plays in the middle of the LoS, this has been very standard from what I have seen this season.

Scenario 1: I have my treeman, against an equal or weaker front line.
I stick my treeman in the middle at the front, and put linemen either side of him, they tend to be ones who are tricky to get down (or Alan, the elf with guard).
Why is this? Well firstly, the treeman is just made to sit on the front line. Strength 6, movement 2, and every turn he does something he has a 1 in 6 chance of taking root - rendering him unable to move for the rest of the drive (or unless he gets knocked over). If he's going to take root, you want him standing somewhere awkward. He helps control the middle of the pitch.
He also has guard. This basically means that he gives +1 ST to anyone blocking someone next to him, even if he is in other player's tackle zones. This, along with the "not getting pushed over" skills on the linemen (dodge/wrestle/block) means that the opposition has difficulty in getting them all over. Sure, it's still possible, but the treeman holds the whole thing together and makes it a front line that can stand up for itself.

Scenario 2: I am facing a stronger front line.
When I play a against a strong front line (Khemri 4 x ST5) or someone with a big guy as big as or bigger than the treeman (ie ST6+) then I may not go for scenario 1, but scenario 3. So moving on to that...

Scenario 3: I don't have my treeman.
Elves are St3 armour 7. If you can't support them, then three of them on the front line are going to get a load of 2 and 3 dice blocks against them, assuming the other team can muster something better than ST3. The Orc front line is ST4/5/5. Ouch. So, if I don't have a treeman I'm going to set up my players to mean I have to face fewer dice/blocks, so only 2 of them are touching enemies, and only 1 enemy each at that. This is a familiar, standard setup that I have faced myself a couple of times this season - people would rather be hit by elves than a treeman.
Slight digression

So, I chose scenario 3, especially since I was an elf or two down anyway, I didn't want to risk more getting injured. This was not a "mistake" - nor was it "blindingly obvious" to have stuck 3 elves on the front line, but it was a common, logical formation. Yes it leaves a gap in the middle, but that's not going to matter unless an unlucky kick-off is rolled, and I'd be surprised if anyone sets up a) specifically to counter certain kick-off rolls, and b) for the ball to land in one small specific area of the map. The odds of rolling a blitz and the ball landing in a place the ogre can blitz to are really, really tiny (especially when the orcs didn't have anyone with the Kick skill). There are bigger things to plan for kick-off than for than this precise event.

If it wasn't for the glitch, scenario 1 would have occurred. As it was, I had to go with scenario 3. Is it too much to ask, that just for one bonus turn, the opponent can pretend that scenario 1 actually happened? As I outlined earlier, there's a whole range of possible actions that could've been taken if the premise was accepted. Any of which I would've accepted & been thankful for.

[Idanmel]

Ah... our first fight!
Just please don't expect me to part of any sort of make-up sex you might be planning.

As for my feedback.
I think you are too English for your own good. As the middle eastern of this bunch, expect me to punch someone over the net the next time I get into an argument with you guys.

[notjarvis]

To be honest I'm getting a bit tired of this subject, and I'm slightly saddened that people are still discussing in depth a game that happened days ago.
So I think this is going to be my last post in this thread, it's a long one though.

Preface

So, I chose scenario 3, especially since I was an elf or two down anyway, I didn't want to risk more getting injured. This was not a "mistake" - nor was it "blindingly obvious" to have stuck 3 elves on the front line, but it was a common, logical formation. Yes it leaves a gap in the middle, but that's not going to matter unless an unlucky kick-off is rolled, and I'd be surprised if anyone sets up a) specifically to counter certain kick-off rolls, and b) for the ball to land in one small specific area of the map. The odds of rolling a blitz and the ball landing in a place the ogre can blitz to are really, really tiny (especially when the orcs didn't have anyone with the Kick skill). There are bigger things to plan for kick-off than for than this precise event.

This was kindof my point though. The treeman wasn't there so you chose to have a gap, for whatever tactical reason you decided on.

Extremely bad luck with the kick off then (as I said) but the gap in the centre of the park was down to a tactical decision, albeit one changed due to the Treeman issue, but it's difficult for an opponent to think through all this and plan their own moves assuming a tactical decision you have spent several paragraphs explaining.

Preface

Covering Raveen's post
Issue 2 - The Unthrown Pass

Later in the half Gandalf had the ball and was running down pitch. He had a receiver who was out of range of the orcs but found that the ballcarrier would not throw the ball. The ballcarrier was left in range of an orc blitz when ideally the ball would be out of reach. As a result, and with time running out, he did a GFI to try and get out of range instead, but failed.

As I see it there were four options.

- Carry on and play the pieces as they were. Disadvantage Gandalf.

- Base the ball carrier, making the pass harder but still allowing the elves the chance to carry on. Disadvantage Gandalf.I don't understand what this means.

- Do nothing and hit the turn end allowing the elves to play on and presumably score The clock would roll on. Thus making the orcs chance to score back harder as less available time to play would make a second TD much harder for a slow team like Orcs. Disadvantage Daigoro. This is excessive and Gandalf wasn't expecting anything like this, if he did then he would've reacted in kind, by trying to make the pass then hitting end turn straight away.

- Try to act as if the pass had happened, do everything your turn as if it actually had happened, short of marking/blitzing the ball carrier, so Gandalf could do the pass at the start of next turn. There were other players he had that he could've used to blitz, foul, mark, whatever. Then on Gandalf's next turn, the first thing he does is try to pass the ball. If it succeeded, then we are 100% back to where we were before, apart from the ex-ball carrier not being marked, and Gandalf not being able to make a pass this turn. If it fails, then again we are almost back to where we would've been had the pass happened and failed the previous turn.

Frankly it was bad luck again. But as you point out with the GFI your next D6 roll was a 1, which if you rolled when your player attempted the pass meant it would have failed as I believe he didn't have pass or a reroll?
I don't like the idea of assuming the pass would have succeeded, which is what you are saying by saying Dai shouldn't mark the ball carrier. Anything in BB could fail.
In real terms "Option 4" isn't hugely different to "Option 3" you are still asking your opponent to not attempt to get the ball for a turn. If the pass failed after the turn of semi-inaction, Dai would be in a worse position than if fyou managed an attempt the pass the first time and failed then (less turns to get the ball and move it).

It's clearly not a zero sum option, and it only works out "the same as before" if your pass succeeds.

I genuinely think we are over-thinking this to death, though, and there is no way I'd have thought through all those permutations in the game.

So why is sportsmanship important? Well, firstly, it's just a game and should be treated at such. If people aren't having fun then what's the point - it really is the taking part that counts, not the winning.

Which is also my feeling. But I take a different point of view. Winning isn't important, so if a glitch gets in the way it's part of the unpredictable excitement.
I was kind of amused and exasperated by starting with 10 the other day, but I just played on because
a) winning really isn't important
b) It was an extra challenge of sorts.

In my opinion it would be sad and pathetic if a "win at all costs" mentality was the prevailing one. Sure, bad things happen in the game, and if they are obviously caused by ourselves, or by an intentional aspect of the game (dice) then that is part of the game as it is meant to be and you have to deal with them. But if things happen outside of these, then I believe it is only right that we make some sort of gesture to close the gap.

To be honest, as I said before - I really don't think there was a "win at all costs" mentality in Dai's movements. He was just playing a game that was in front of him, and saw the glitches as part of the daft game we are playing.

In your "terms" he was playing V3 rather than V2, which is a different choice but not a moral position on "fairness" as such glitches can happen to any player.

I think I'm generally pretty fair, and I would have probably done the same as him to be honest.

Empathy and sympathy are two of the most positive things that make us human and they should be heartily encouraged.
RT has always stood for fairness, winning on an equal playing field. It's why we didn't abuse glitches in Allegiance. It's why we never picked ridiculous settings on a map to counter our opponent's faction (remember Masta and NI?). To see squad members effectively saying "tough luck" is hurtful.... I honestly thought the RT's here held themselves to higher standards than that.

I'm not saying "tough luck" I'm saying you genuinely had a lot of bad luck with dice in that game already, and had a couple of glitches which perhaps further affected the game to an extent, which left you feeling aggrieved (when the bad dice already felt tough).
Which is harsh, harsh luck and you have my sympathy.
But Dai didn't abuse any glitch or stack the game in some way deliberately.
All he did was he didn't take some actions to accommodate some client weirdness that you felt he should have taken. Which in both cases I felt was fairly understandable, as there is a short time limit where we aren't going over it again and again like we are here.

Carrying the Allegiance theme It'd be like in Allegiance asking the opponent to stop bombing for a minute if a couple of your players crashed out whilst you got back in game.


I really think you are being a bit hard on Dai to be honest, I say again
In your "terms" he was playing V3 rather than V2, which is a different choice but not a moral position on "fairness" as such glitches can happen to any player, and they will/should balance out over games/the season, so in a sense playing that way is equally fair.

I try to play "Fair" from my point of view. I remind opponents if I think they haven't realised the clock is running down. I try to discuss their moves with them to help, if they are clearly thinking hard. I try to applaud them when they pull off some clever move.
I happily pause the game if RL intervenes.
If a bad bug happens which disrupts the game hugely I would probably suggest we replay it. But I don't really want to spend half my game thinking of Permutations to make it "fair" if there are relatively minor bugs floating around.

I suspect by your standards I'm more V3. Not in an arrogant "suck it up" sort of way, more in a "We play on a ridiculous client which is buggy, lets just make the best of it and play as well as we can within those confines, without worrying about it too much"

An Addendum
Part of sportsmanship from my point of view is being respectful of other competitors, and crediting them with their victory (even if you don't feel it sometimes), and I think, being completely frank, you have been a bit rude about Daigorami on these forums (perhaps unintentionally, but it has come across a bit rude), and it is to his credit he hasn't responded back in some way and turned this into an argument.

I think you are both nice guys, who just have different interpretations on something. Can't we all just get along :-)

[id3nt1ty]

I think you are too English for your own good. As the middle eastern of this bunch, expect me to punch someone over the net the next time I get into an argument with you guys.

I know for a fact Daigaro was brewing a good old fashioned Black Country Pap. I've only seen one once, but that was enough for me. But that's the advantage of writing to people on the internet. You get a good chance to think about what you are writing and cool off a bit. I know I've written a hell of a lot more than I've posted on this particular issue. Which is silly, because it's just a game between friends.

In your "terms" he was playing V3 rather than V2, which is a different choice but not a moral position on "fairness" as such glitches can happen to any player, and they will/should balance out over games/the season, so in a sense playing that way is equally fair.

For example, that time Spinx disconnected and Gandalf got two MVPs and loads of money. I reckon Gandalf is about even now on the glitches.

I try to play "Fair" from my point of view. I remind opponents if I think they haven't realised the clock is running down. I try to discuss their moves with them to help, if they are clearly thinking hard. I try to applaud them when they pull off some clever move.
I happily pause the game if RL intervenes.
If a bad bug happens which disrupts the game hugely I would probably suggest we replay it. But I don't really want to spend half my game thinking of Permutations to make it "fair" if there are relatively minor bugs floating around.

I suspect by your standards I'm more V3. Not in an arrogant "suck it up" sort of way, more in a "We play on a ridiculous client which is buggy, lets just make the best of it and play as well as we can within those confines, without worrying about it too much"

This is where I stand too.

It's Nuffle in the machine, a feature not a bug.

[Raveen]

Ok, to answer some of the specifics from Gandalf's post (and excuse me for not quoting but these posts are getting long enough already ).

Basing - a term carried over from tabletop meaning to place a player in base to base contact with another player. In other words to mark the player or place a tacklezone on him. Sorry, you'd mentioned before that you didn't know that term and I forgot to change the language when cutting and pasting.

The Treeman.

Gandalf, your answer highlights exactly the problem with your solutions. Firstly it requires a detailed knowledge of the rules. One of the reasons I play the PC game is because it knows the rules so I don't have to. I don't know off the top of my head what a Blitz result means beyond Kicking Team Gets Free Go and I've played a ludicrous amount of BB.

Secondly you suggest a number of different possible actions that you came up with in under a minute (so half a turn for the record). What is the decision process for determining the correct course of action? With my line of thinking it's simple, you just play. You have not proposed any concrete way of dealing with the general case, only this specific one.

Thirdly, what if a blitz had not been rolled after the bug had occurred. Would it be appropriate for the Orcs to compensate for the bug in this case? What action would be appropriate then? Clearly you set up expecting the Troll to behave as if play was going to continue normally hence you avoided standing next to it. I'm not sure that this demonstrates a consistent approach.

Aside - I think you made the wrong choice tactically too - I'd have spread your guys out and then dodged them away late in your first turn but that's really not the point here.

The Pass

You suggest that playing as if the pass had been made is a sensible way forward. But that's exactly the problem, we have no way of knowing if the pass would have been made. Yes it's a 70% chance that it would have been successful (assuming no rerolls, I can't remember what skills/TRRs would be in play) but there's a 16.7% chance of a fumble and the same again of the catch failing. So should the Orcs have played as if the ball was in one of the square that it had a 2% chance of being in? You could say that the likeliest outcome should be followed but that's not the game we're playing, the dice are important.

Again, you don't propose a mechanism for making the decision about these things. You cannot expect everyone to react the same way to every perceived disadvantage unless there is a set way to go about it.

So Gandalf, if you can propose a mechanism that works I would be happy to hear it. It needs to work in the general case, not the specific and be quick and simple to apply when these bugs come up.

If not I think we do have a general consensus that you play on. If I've misrepresented anyone please speak up, everyone's opinion is important and valid here and I do not want to belittle any coach's opinion.

[Raveen]

As for my feedback.
I think you are too English for your own good.

I'll let the good Professor handle this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkF_XpA5P48