Raveen wrote: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.
Response:
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.
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.
The more I think about it, the more the fact I failed the GFI was a reasonable substitute for the pass, since both required a 2+. So I'm not upset about the specifics of this case anymore, but a) there's still the principle in my previous quote, which we need to either adopt in some form, or reject.
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.
Response:
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.
If not I think we do have a general consensus that you play on.
No... we really don't, see the whole "So... what do people think about this? What version are we trying to play?" section of my last post.
As I typed out the last post, I realised that the fundamental question we are trying to answer is, are we playing v2 (where we try to minimise the impact of the client's issues) or v3 (where anything goes), or somewhere inbetween? This question has not been answered. I'd prefer version 2 but I don't mind if we go with v3, I just want a resolution to be agreed on & implemented. If we go for v3 then a lot of what I have said is moot, I don't mind this.
I think the answer is somewhere inbetween. Here's a couple of examples - one player said we shouldn't play with 12 players on the pitch if that's what the game gives us, and another says he doesn't feel the opponent should compensate if it gives you 10 when you should have 11. This appears inconsistent, but if we really do think 12 is not OK and 10 is OK, this should be laid down as a rule.
Second example - id3nt mentions the time Spinx couldn't connect, so the game gave me 2 MVPs and a load of money. This isn't really comparable to the rest of the post, as I had no idea that was what was going to happen. However now we know what happens and how to work around this client issue, namely that the player who isn't disconnected uses Alt+F4 to kill their game so he doesn't get the MVP's. This is more v2 than v3 - so if we are going to use v3 going forwards, this also needs to be listed as a specific rule. Notj had this dilemma recently, and if it wasn't for some of us being there who remembered the previous incident, he wouldn't have known what to do.
PS I am not angry at Diagoro, I am upset about the incident. This might sound nuts but it is true and I hope the sheer length of what I have written convinces you all that this is true, and that I haven't lobbed any muck directly at him (and neither he to me). I do not think he deliberately set out to cheat, gain an unfair advantage etc., and I am sorry if any of my posts gave that impression. In fact what has become obvious is that the true issue is a misunderstanding on how we approach the game and this is what I want fixing/clarifying.
PPS @ notjarvis, who said
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.
I'm the one who raised this who issue so I think it's only fair I got to have my say, so I think this comment was a wee bit harsh as it came directly after my first post on this thread.
Just to recap...
Are we playing v2 or v3?
Specific cases need clarifying.
