Why fouling and crowd cas should be given spps again

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon May 12, 2003 8:20 pm

more spp for hitting just isn't needed, have you read all the counter arguements in this thread?

Toby · Post by **Toby** » Mon May 12, 2003 9:23 pm

i have followed the debate.
I like wesleytj's first post. Way better to see players suffer CAS on the field then arificialy killing them by Ageing.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon May 12, 2003 9:32 pm

We are never going to bridge the gap between those who do and don't want SPP's for fouling, so how about this?

"It will never be official, but it's a fine house rule for you to play if you want to."

Could we all agree to this?

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon May 12, 2003 9:33 pm

not really. it was official before, i don't see why it can't be again. I'm certainly not going to concede that it could/should be.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:16 pm

Oni wrote:Zombie in the 3rd Ed games with IGMEOY did both players foul? Seems to me not fouling back and not using rerolls to make sure of the foul goes a long ways to making sure the DP is not effective like in 3rd Ed.

Yes, i've fouled quite a few times with the ref watching me, when the player would get thrown out on anything but a double. I still had 42% chance of not being ejected when accounting for arguying the call and rerolling the argument. If the opponent was a big enough threat, it was well worth it.

And my dirty players still got quite a few SPPs even against opponents who didn't foul.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:18 pm

littlemute wrote:We're being a bit hasty with judging the new rules, it took a few years to realized that DP and fouling were overpowered, so let's give the LRB a good run before messing with it.

It took many years for JJ to realize it, even though people from all over the planet were bombarding him with complaints, but it only took a couple months for most of us.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:24 pm

wesleytj wrote:not really. it was official before, i don't see why it can't be again. I'm certainly not going to concede that it could/should be.

And back when it was official, fouling was so overpowered that almost every league had a house rule or two to bring it down.

Right now, most people are happy with the level of fouling, and most leagues don't house rule it. This should tell you that something was done right.

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:39 pm

well said zombie

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:51 pm

Zombie wrote:
wesleytj wrote:not really. it was official before, i don't see why it can't be again. I'm certainly not going to concede that it could/should be.
And back when it was official, fouling was so overpowered that almost every league had a house rule or two to bring it down.

Right now, most people are happy with the level of fouling, and most leagues don't house rule it. This should tell you that something was done right.

yes but as i've said many times, we have that covered now with things like igmeoy and reduced skill effectiveness (dp and mb i mean, and you can't pro it like i always did)

i think the current system is better then plain 3rd ed, but i think adding the spps back in would make it better still. i know there are plenty of people who disagree with that, but i know there are plenty who don't too. it's obviously a hotly debated topic, this thread is huge and won't die.

plus tbh i think i've presented my case better than anyone who is arguing with me. everybody always complains about how 3rd ed sucked and how they don't want to go back there. but the thing is i'm not remotely advocating that.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:53 pm

Darkson wrote:We are never going to bridge the gap between those who do and don't want SPP's for fouling, so how about this?

"It will never be official, but it's a fine house rule for you to play if you want to."

Could we all agree to this?

Al right then, howabout:-

"It will never again be official, but it's a fine house rule for you to play if you want to."

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:30 pm

wesleytj wrote:i think the current system is better then plain 3rd ed, but i think adding the spps back in would make it better still. i know there are plenty of people who disagree with that, but i know there are plenty who don't too. it's obviously a hotly debated topic, this thread is huge and won't die.

This thread won't die because you won't stop arguying even when backed against the wall by 10 grizzly bears. The poll someone made some time ago clearly showed that the vast majority of people here are against SPPs for fouling. The arguments given in this thread have been much stronger from one side than the other. Yet you keep going at it.

People wouldn't like it, and worse than than, it would totally anihilate the fragile balance the game has right now. Give it up already.

wesleytj wrote:plus tbh i think i've presented my case better than anyone who is arguing with me. everybody always complains about how 3rd ed sucked and how they don't want to go back there. but the thing is i'm not remotely advocating that.

You're advocating a system that is more lenient on fouling than the 3rd ed i was playing, with the IGMEOY i was using. That system, with those house rules, was still gross. How could something more lenient not be gross as well? You've never really addressed this point of mine, and many others.

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:37 pm

hehe it's a lot more than just me and you know it.

the 'fragile balance' is what i'm working to protect actually...orc teams, for starters, are screwed because black orcs can't get skills. they're good at hitting, but hitting doesn't pay off in spps very much.

the 'fragile balance' being upset is why we need hated crap rules like ageing to restore a player turnover that is disrupted when nobody fouls much. And those that do don't hurt much, becuase mb and dp are weaker, and because you can't pro it anymore.

and yes, the arguments from one side are clearly stronger than the other...only problem is i think we disagree on which side that is.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:55 pm

At least, you can't disagree which side the majority is on, because that's just basic numbers, and you can't disagree with numbers (although Pariah would).

wesleytj · Post by **wesleytj** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:57 pm

no i remember the poll...i know that more ppl were against spp for cas than for. but not by THAT much.

however, i still stand by my original post. nobody has really said anything that has successfully altered my view on any of the 3 main points i made. until they do, i don't see how i could change my mind.

Zombie · Post by **Zombie** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:58 pm

If memory serves, it was something like 66% or 75% against.

We've answered your 3 original points so many times that i can't be bothered to do it anymore.