|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:49 pm
Yes, a high post limit mind you, but I don't want to wait for the judges to judge a ten page fight. Epic? Maybe. Even so it's not like it couldn't be continued elsewhere.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:54 pm
If you're going to use a post limit, have it be up to 40 or 50 (that's 20-25 posts PER fighter). That's high enough to give them time to complete a fight, but low enough to discourage someone from spending ten posts running in circles or some bullshit.
(yay)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:29 pm
What would the actual limitation be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:33 pm
Dear Princess Molestia What would the actual limitation be? I think that will be decided if the yes's win. Somewhere between 20-100 posts. Prolly lower than a 100 but still
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:14 pm
I don't see how I could reasonably vote without really knowing what I'm voting for. I mean, I'd hope Vin is a bit smarter than to say "Well, yes vote won so 5 post limit for each fighter," but I'd rather not take that sort of risk.
I don't think it's asking for much to know exactly what we're getting into before giving a vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:26 pm
I say nay-no because in my opinion, if they set a short post limit.. It's all going to be a pansy a** tactic to stall out and try to force an edge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:28 pm
Well... Considering we're on the fourth day and some fights haven't seen their second post, it wouldn't speed things up much.
However, if we added a post limit on the grounds that if all fights finished early, we would grade early, that's fine by me.
Around 15 or so a fighter seems fair enough. But that may be a bit low.
Yay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Dear Princess Molestia I don't see how I could reasonably vote without really knowing what I'm voting for. I mean, I'd hope Vin is a bit smarter than to say "Well, yes vote won so 5 post limit for each fighter," but I'd rather not take that sort of risk. I don't think it's asking for much to know exactly what we're getting into before giving a vote. You're voting for either enacting or not enacting a post limit. Though people are responding with their opinion as exactly what post limit would be appropriate, the initial question was whether or not there should be one. My current count is:
5 in favor of having a post limit
[Zerogamer, BJW81_RawR,
5567_No_Okami, The Darth Vizzle, Sanctified by Dreams]
10 against having a post limit
[King Bug, Patcharoo, KytanaTheThief, Sigil Warden, Tresondros Ecstuffuan, Legion_of_Nazareth, Visionarium, Slash Zinrai, Aeronathe, Kizu Pantera]
And 8 discussion posts (including this one)
[Vintrict, Patcharoo, notmuch_23, Savoki Sanoci, Dear Princess Molestia, 5567_No_Okami, Haelstrom(voted but doesn't count) ] for a total of 24 replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:56 am
Hael is not in the tournament, his vote doesn't count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:42 am
Sigil Warden Hael is not in the tournament, his vote doesn't count. Nonsense. I'm right here. Plus as a past participant and a fellow tournament organizer, I'm merely giving my insight as to what tends to work, whether it's counted for a vote or not. Chill, he-who-lost-to-bears. IMO: this is an example of a policy that, left to popular opinion, will be voted against because it sounds restrictive -- and then people will suffer for it when they realize it's not as nice as it sounds. Similar to "should we ban people?" and other negative connotation policies, it's more typical for people to vote against it, even if it's healthier for the competition in the long run. But of course.. mere insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:48 am
Oh I know, Hael, I'm just saying its unfair to have an official tally that includes your vote (otherwise I'd invite random people to insert bullshit votes).
I respect your input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:32 pm
I'm not competing so I'm not voting, but a limit might dampen the fun for both the fighters and the spectators yet at the same time it might be necessary if a fight becomes slow or dull after a certain point. But there's not set point to when a fight becomes dull, it merely depends on who is fighting and how they are fighting, so personally I think a limit should be dependent on the situation. Again, I know my vote doesn't count, but I just thought I might throw that in there in case anyone else was thinking the same thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damien Scythe Morningstar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:37 am
Having both a post limit and a time limit would be redundant. If you chose to have one.. you should get rid of the other
Ex: You can get the same effect of having a post limit if you shorten the time limit.
Has for it effecting the fights itself? I think that's a misconception. Whether you have 10 or 20 post to work with is irrelevant. People will either fight aggressively or defensively based on their personally skill level/ confidence/experience.
Ex: HoH has a post limit and they still get dragged out and boring fights.
Post/Time limits are merely a judgement tool. It's the RP equivalent to the time people have in any professional sport. It acts as a ruler/guideline to make easier decisions. "How much did this competitor accomplish in this amount of time versus the other?"
So the question is really do want the fights to be 3 minutes ("X" post limit) or 30 minutes ( "Y" post limit) ?
Which I feel this tournament doesn't have and needs. A rubric of time. HoH did it and it's beautiful. They tell you how much time each post consist of. That helps cut down alot of shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
