|
Post by gone on Aug 24, 2015 10:38:18 GMT
deleted
Don't forfeit. Just let your guys stay on the ground. Don't let your opponent get free spp's by forfeiting a match and get your well deserved money instead of giving it away.
1) Opponent's don't get any spp's by fouling you! So if all your players are left on the ground, they cannot get any spp's by hurting you! However, this does allow them to get easier spp's by passing and scoring. But, if that part is abused, this can be "reset" or "declined" by the commisioners after a review. Which would be very sweet justice if they continue to foul as well.
2) Helps discourage opponent's from fouling as they literally won't have anything to gain by doing so.
3) You keep your money instead of giving it away.
4) Allows you and drives you to remember who it was you played. That way in the future, you know what you may wish or need to do so that you can continue with league play IF THEY CONTINUE TO TRY AND DEMOLISH YOUR TEAM!
5) Shows exactly how ugly the opponent is and how shallow they may be.
Keep in mind the damage you received before you go off and do any "social media" about said a**es. If all you got was badly hurts, this would show you being a cryer and opponents that play you will love making you cry. If you got 4 players that all received deaths or perma-injury and the opponent keeps fouling, then that would sound like they were the a**es if they don't relent. Remember that good players pay attention to a**es and cryers and may avoid them or remember them to inflict mass destruction! Doing this can create a lack of willing players for the dumba**es to play and/or bring in some hard hitters that are more than happy to give bitter sweet justice. Just make sure that you are in the right when using "social media!!!" And I strongly encourage you not to carry it on for too long. You know who the jerk is, so simply don't play them again or remember to repay in kind if you are given the chance.
|
|
|
Post by parrigan on Aug 24, 2015 12:59:10 GMT
I'll second most of this - forfeits can definitely put you behind the 8-ball in the future and give an unfair boost to your opponent for their next match (in the form of spp and money at lower levels, and in the form of a fully healthy roster the next week at higher levels).
However, there is one point I'd like to make: the bit about throwing INTs to each other is equally bad form in my opinion, as that's tantamount to farming spp and gives both coaches a lot of spp they didn't truly earn (and thus I disagree with calling those "true" stats). Simply laying down toward the end of a half and letting your opponent do whatever they want is fine, but if one coach winds up with 5 extra TDs and 10 extra passes as a result, this is pretty unfair to the rest of the league as well.
So please play your matches straight. If the other guy chooses to lay down, by all means do whatever you like: foul, pass, score (though you may need to be prepared for potential ill will from your opponent depending on what you decide to do).
But the "nudge nudge wink wink" stuff isn't cool.
|
|
|
Post by parrigan on Aug 24, 2015 13:42:15 GMT
For me it's not really the winning coach I take issue with in this situation, it's the one who chooses to lay down in turn 3 and gives his opponent free reign to do whatever they want for most of a match. I don't expect the winner to just sit on their hands, because as you said, if they have a major numbers advantage, they would be hard to stop anyway... but at least make them work for it. At the very least, stand up after the next kickoff and make some kind of effort (assuming you have at least 6 players available, you should be able to attempt something).
Everyone has those matches that go horribly wrong, where it feels like everything you attempt fails, and every failure results in an injury. And everyone has had those matches where it's wiser to stay on the ground or run away. The occasional lay-down isn't a huge deal, but making a habit of it is a bad plan, and it doesn't win anyone any fans.
|
|
|
Post by cerumol on Aug 24, 2015 22:05:57 GMT
I also agree that forfeiting matches is a negative thing to do unless you are in the position of severly reduced numbers of players. I'm not sure if the 51spp rule is in place here or not. I'm also unsure if this is an issue. I have (as we all have) encountered this sort of thing many times in public BB, I have not had any issues on this front in IP. However, I also disagree with the idea of an 'ingame agreement' such as you stay on the floor and I do whatever. This in many ways is worse than conceding. The player has already conceded the game by refusing to act in a competitive manner and offers the other coach a greater benefit than a simple concede through SPPs and allowing that coach to choose who those SPPs go to. I think its best to suggest to ppl that they dont concede matches, and bear in mind it is a game so keep it competitive and fun for all
|
|
|
Post by jounisii on Aug 25, 2015 6:15:10 GMT
However, I also disagree with the idea of an 'ingame agreement' such as you stay on the floor and I do whatever. This in many ways is worse than conceding. The player has already conceded the game by refusing to act in a competitive manner and offers the other coach a greater benefit than a simple concede through SPPs and allowing that coach to choose who those SPPs go to. I happen to disgaree with that part. I've never abandoned a match, let alone DCed one. But sometimes when I get pommeled, I just choose to lay down. This has happened when I'm at big player disadavantage and have no way of popping the ball anymore. Hell if I stand my players up to get further mauling. If my oppo fouls, he fouls. If he puts on a passing show, so what? Those kinda matches rarely are competitive anyway, since Nuffle has decided them for one team...
|
|
|
Post by cerumol on Aug 25, 2015 6:22:39 GMT
Sure but that's different to agreeing in game that one team will stay on the ground and in exchange I will not foul you. We all know what happens in games like you have mentioned. I have chosen to stay prone to hopefully avoid damage, but recognise that there is the risk of being fouled (which also brings that risk for my opponent).
|
|
|
Post by jounisii on Aug 25, 2015 6:23:50 GMT
Anyway, my insight is that if I hurt a team enough to make it a sure thing for me to win or maintain my lead, I don't want to keep pummeling my opponent so their next match is difficult. This is my rule in league play. The next opponent that they play doesn't need an easy time of getting a victory/win. Screw that, they can have a challenge to get that! But, on the other hand, why not continue to try and get more spp's?!!! Maybe I will just quit fouling.... Its a tough decision to make as to what you will do, but its something that you may want to consider when playing in league play! In league environment I often keep on pounding in these situations (not always tho). Especially if the match is against a team, which is a close competitor of mine. Better try to knock the team out of the contention then and there.
|
|
|
Post by vinnypett on Aug 25, 2015 6:36:52 GMT
Yea I hate to admit it but as much as it sucks if you are ultimately playing for a championship what good is it to back down. Even more so to someone you know you will likely see again in the next rounds.
|
|
|
Post by jounisii on Aug 25, 2015 12:47:48 GMT
Well, if you play in high TV environment, you should be able to take the bad as well as the good. When playing at those levels, the players are usually a bit more experienced and tend to be more ruthless as well. If one can't take the demolishing of one's team, maybe those levels are not the right place to play in. I take those situations as challenges - and trust me, I've been challenged plenty lately with some of my teams.
And btw. FatZomby. Seems to me like you contradict yourself in some sense. You'd decline many stats because of TV control in fear of or to get more inducements. Atombombed teams get more of those precious indus. (I disagree with the thought tho, I'd rather have more skills and stats on the pitch than worry too much about the inducements - but that's another discussion.)
|
|
|
Post by Ren Höek on Aug 25, 2015 13:31:15 GMT
I disagree with the pummeling/fouling vs. an opponent who has 'given up'. I understand your theory of crushing an opponent so they are weaker next time you meet. But I find that it is very seldom (at least in the leagues I play in) that I meet an opponent twice in a season. And if my opponent is outnumbered and outNuffled I always choose to go easy on them. Partly because I well know the feeling of being Nuffled and having no chance woth your 4-5 remaining players, and partly because most often my opponent is going to play vs my OTHER opponents before we ever have a chance to meet again. And if I destroy his team - my opponents will have easier matches. (And I am also a softie- I value me and my opponent having a pleasant game more than I value a win in the pixel world.)
|
|
|
Post by Squiggy on Aug 25, 2015 15:22:44 GMT
The way I see it is simple. if the league rules say I can quit once in the event of, for example, more than five injuries, I'm going to do so if there is strategic value in doing so. If the league in question says no quitting regardless then I'll suck it up, bend over and take it. The one and only time ie forfeited a league match was seven players out, five injuries, by turn five, against my kryptonite (hi comfort you evil git) the game before I faced the most dangerous and developed team in the league, with me facing twelve turns of 11v5 at best, with my opponents two 'killer' pieces on field. In those circumstances Damn right I will use the one quit rule! If the rule wasn't there I would respect the league's rules and finish the game
|
|
|
Post by cerumol on Aug 25, 2015 17:01:58 GMT
It's an interesting discussion and comes down to how you approach the game. I have no issue with a team being fouled if on the floor and equally if they are left alone. I simply wonder if making an agreement in-game is the way to go. I'd rather leave that decision to an individual coach and bear this in mind with future encounters. On multiple occasions I have been in both positions and if I am in control of the game I make a decision not to keep sticking the boot in and therefore weakening my opponent for future matches(on most occasions). I wouldn't suggest this as a deal though, but consider this a better way to approach the game. Some people take a different more ruthless approach in their play and that's ok too
|
|
|
Post by cerumol on Aug 25, 2015 17:02:49 GMT
The way I see it is simple. if the league rules say I can quit once in the event of, for example, more than five injuries, I'm going to do so if there is strategic value in doing so. If the league in question says no quitting regardless then I'll suck it up, bend over and take it. The one and only time ie forfeited a league match was seven players out, five injuries, by turn five, against my kryptonite (hi comfort you evil git) the game before I faced the most dangerous and developed team in the league, with me facing twelve turns of 11v5 at best, with my opponents two 'killer' pieces on field. In those circumstances Damn right I will use the one quit rule! If the rule wasn't there I would respect the league's rules and finish the game Is there a one quit rule in IP? I haven't come across this yet
|
|
|
Post by jounisii on Aug 25, 2015 17:23:04 GMT
It's an interesting discussion and comes down to how you approach the game. I have no issue with a team being fouled if on the floor and equally if they are left alone. I simply wonder if making an agreement in-game is the way to go. I'd rather leave that decision to an individual coach and bear this in mind with future encounters. On multiple occasions I have been in both positions and if I am in control of the game I make a decision not to keep sticking the boot in and therefore weakening my opponent for future matches(on most occasions). I wouldn't suggest this as a deal though, but consider this a better way to approach the game. Some people take a different more ruthless approach in their play and that's ok too Pffft. I know you would (will) murderize some poor little OFL elfies if given chance...
|
|
|
Post by cerumol on Aug 25, 2015 18:04:24 GMT
It's an interesting discussion and comes down to how you approach the game. I have no issue with a team being fouled if on the floor and equally if they are left alone. I simply wonder if making an agreement in-game is the way to go. I'd rather leave that decision to an individual coach and bear this in mind with future encounters. On multiple occasions I have been in both positions and if I am in control of the game I make a decision not to keep sticking the boot in and therefore weakening my opponent for future matches(on most occasions). I wouldn't suggest this as a deal though, but consider this a better way to approach the game. Some people take a different more ruthless approach in their play and that's ok too Pffft. I know you would (will) murderize some poor little OFL elfies if given chance... When its key to controlling the game. Once it's past that point I would and do stop fouling. Check out my match last week v angry birds and you will see. I could have kept booting but there was no need to risk losing players off the pitch and weakening that team for their other matches
|
|