You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: INTERACTIVE BATTLE TOURNAMENT#4 - BOSS ROUND
Shouldn't the person challenged accept and then initiate the dice roll? Otherwise the challenger is at a huge disadvantage. The person challenged will accept the challenge if the roll is low and decline if the roll is high. What do you guys think?
For example if I am challenged and my opponent rolls a 6. I won't accept because the best I can do is tie and I have a 5/6 chance of losing.
Hmm... you do have a point. The current procedure is based on the PvP rules in the last IBT where an attacker (the player issuing a challenge) had to declare an item to go after from the defender's inventory, and if successful the attacker would loot that item. A couple of clauses making it more risky to issue a challenge had to be added to prevent probable spam from players who had no inventory (and originally, nothing to lose) repeatedly attacking those with items.
On the other hand, as the defender, you could stall and wait to see how the standings unfold. Suppose it's 5 minutes until post payout (the end of the tournament) and you're in a tie for 1st place, with one pending battle from an opponent near the bottom of the standings who has attacked you with that 6. In this case, you would want to accept that challenge because you have that 1/6 chance of winning the tournament outright should you tie.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that there exists a ruleset that would be 100% abuse-proof. I'm not going to say how right now, but I do know of a way that I could easily put challengers/attackers at an equal, if not bigger disadvantage under your proposal.
I'm going to defer to @lordnigel on this one and let him have the final say on this.
Notes/thoughts below - is this inline with the general principal of rules posted so far?
-not sure it improves over "Shouldn't the person challenged accept and then initiate the dice roll?". I think this is probably best suggestion...
but in typical IBT fashion, the proposal i put is possibly more inline with the rules posted to date.
For the moment, I'll accept either method, until our resident field judge responds :)
I think it's a great point and yeah I struggled to think of something that would be simple enough that people all understand how to play yet fair enough no one at disadvantage.
The only suggestion I can see to improve (without radical change), would be to say as you don't have to accept the challenge you may instead do a totally fresh reply and state " I counter challenge" and roll. It's then even & up to each defender to choose to accept and defend roll or not, against either if this makes sense.
We can't have spam going off though, so if you have challenged or counter-challenged a player once, you may not do so again. Remembering no one needs to accept, one would think eventually people will as they keep score of their points and others and eventually need to take risk and win to get some points. The clear benefit here, is to basically challenge as many people as you can...what do you think @doughtaker - you have much better vision of possibilities and permutations then I, should this do the trick and still be inline with the general principals I indicated at start (not too radical a change?) and if so I'll update it in the post rules above.
This is exactly why I think we should just keep things as they are. Because if people try to stall long enough, they should realize that they eventually have to take that risk or get left behind on the leaderboard. None of the proposals so far change the dynamic that someone could potentially be at a huge advantage or disadvantage, and makes more work for us and a higher chance that we mess up somewhere while tallying the results.
If you want me to rule on this, I say that there's no point in changing the rule right now, as some challenges have already been resolved. So we'll just keep things as they are. In the offseason I'll take a closer look and see if I can devise a better system.
That sounds good. I didn't necessarily expect changes immediately.