DISCUSSION FOR EVERYONE!!!

A

Alicia Barker

Founder
Messages
2,510
(((Okay, this can be done OOC or IC, it's up to you guys! There have been some issues with Quidditch lately (which I'm sure you all have noticed); and I think that we all need to get together and discuss this. Obviously this is for those who are involved with Quidditch. I would be happy to hear other people's opinions, but only those who are either on a team, an alternate for a team, and Professors should be posting here for the time being. If you aren't one of those people, please feel free to PM me with any concerns and/or ideas; I'm happy to hear them!

So, I don't care who starts, this, but I'm sure that there are quite a few of you with concerns, suggestions, and questions; so let's get started!)))
 
I like keeping it OOC.

Some teams hardly have enough for a full team. I know Ravenclaw has lost members, and some of our team members simply don't pay attention. Some people are in very different time zones, so setting a time is really hard. They want everyone on the team there at the start of the game, so that means that we have to have every team member there at a time that is universally good, which is near impossible.

I like the slowed down version. When it went fast, it was scary and bad. People were posting so fast it was hard to keep track of what was going on and people's posts weren't making sense.

That's all I got for now. I have to work on exams, but I'll come back to this later!
 
I will agree with OOC.

Speaking as a ref, it was hard to enforce some rules because of the time differences. I do like the idea of having a set number of people post within a timeframe, but maybe only 3 would be better than the 5 that are now requested. Or if we keep it with 5 people posting before the game can officially start, make the timeframe longer, say 3 hours.

The other thing I noticed was that once the game had been going on for a while, people stopped posting. The last game sat from 145pm til around 5 or 6pm without anyone posting or doing anything because they couldn't. A rule stating if you are leaving for an extended period of time you may not be left holding the quaffle might be a good addition so others can continue to play without having to seek permission to godmod the ball away from a player.

Just a few thoughts. I hope not to step on any toes.
 
I'd like to say that with the house teams, although it does make it more like the series it also makes it very limited when someone can't be around. As Bruin has said before when I asked who was on the team: Basically if you have a pulse and are in Gryffindor you are on the team.... Though at the beggining of the year it did seem that we had enough people for house teams, we have been losing people and now it's so hard especially from a smaller house trying to get a team's worth of people to all post during a practice that takes a week so to try and get 7 people from 5 timezones together all at once is almost impossible... for some it's like 3 in the morning?? Which is slightly ridiculous.

Though there is now, I believe, a longer game policy still having the "5 members must post in the first hour" rule slightly removes our purpose for needing a longer game...
 
True, about people holding the quaffle and such if they leave. That can be agreeable, and easily remedied.

I like the idea of having everyone not anonymous. That way you can see the online list and see "oh, hey my teammate is posting," and then go check it out.
 
I agree with everything stated so far. It is a role-playing site and slowing the game down improves the quality of the posted actions. A fast game can be exciting, but the time zone thing makes it virtually untenable (if that's the right word, I'm trying to say impossible). The only part that needs to be fast is the snitch capture and perhaps a set window of time can be negotiated prior to each game for the two Seekers to be on simultaneously, if one doesn't show then the one team has the advantage and the other team can simply do their best to block the seeker.

I really like the suggestion about how you can't leave the game without giving up the quaffle by either passing it or shooting it. If this happens, then a god-mod rule could come into effect when someone (either teammate or opponent) could RP taking/stealing it from them.

Similarly, if a quaffle was to be shot at the hoops and the keeper wasn't online, the game could be held up indefinitely until the keeper determines whether they save it or not. Perhaps we could put a time limit on those types of situations (i.e. if the keeper doesn't post within as set time of a shot being taken then a goal is consider to have been scored and any chaser on the team that was scored on could RP taking possession of the Quaffle and mounting a counter attack).

On a more specific note, I am not satisfied with the way the most recent game ended. I don't feel it was fair and am struggling with what a fair outcome to the game should be. I think that both teams did their absolute best under the circumstances to reasonably do what they could to participate and meet the currently posted rules. I could see a clear case being made for why Gryffindor should have forfeited (i.e. we didn't have the right number of players post within the first hour of the game, I didn't post our starting line-up on time, Caysi and I didn't clearly indicate an exact start time for the game to Alicia several days before the game despite our best efforts).

I can also see why we maybe shouldn't have to in that the official game start time was never posted and in the absence of an agreed upon time, the game could have been opened at noon instead of 8 or 9 or whatever it was, in which case Gryffindor may have been able to meet the required number of players. I have suggested to Alicia that perhaps a poll could be established to get a consensus as to what would be the fairest outcome to the match, but in fairness to her she has not had an opportunity to consider this and reply.

WOW! Sorry this was so long, but I have a lot of passion for Quidditch and a lot of time already invested in it that I would like to see it work for everyone.
 
Bruin Dumbledez said:
I agree with everything stated so far. It is a role-playing site and slowing the game down improves the quality of the posted actions. A fast game can be exciting, but the time zone thing makes it virtually untenable (if that's the right word, I'm trying to say impossible). The only part that needs to be fast is the snitch capture and perhaps a set window of time can be negotiated prior to each game for the two Seekers to be on simultaneously, if one doesn't show then the one team has the advantage and the other team can simply do their best to block the seeker.

I really like the suggestion about how you can't leave the game without giving up the quaffle by either passing it or shooting it. If this happens, then a god-mod rule could come into effect when someone (either teammate or opponent) could RP taking/stealing it from them.

Similarly, if a quaffle was to be shot at the hoops and the keeper wasn't online, the game could be held up indefinitely until the keeper determines whether they save it or not. Perhaps we could put a time limit on those types of situations (i.e. if the keeper doesn't post within as set time of a shot being taken then a goal is consider to have been scored and any chaser on the team that was scored on could RP taking possession of the Quaffle and mounting a counter attack.
Click to expand...
I'd have to say I am in agreement with everything said here and would like a vote on whether or not everyone would like to see these (above) things being 'official'. In addition, I would like to say that a new 'rule' for forfeiting (if we extend the hours of the game-which I agree with) should be in effect. Something that doesn't make the teammates reply within 1 hour. Maybe make it that at least 5 members HAVE to be active for the majority of the game. This way, if there isn't anyone one for a couple hours, that's okay. As long as there has been activity by at least 5 of the teammembers. This way there won't be a deadline for attendance.

I'm also in agreement with a start time of possibly 12-1 PM EST. This would be a general time to start.

So, in terms of polls, we'll have Proposition 1:
To set a window of time that can be negotiated prior to each game for the two Seekers to be on simultaneously, if one doesn't show then the one team has the advantage and the other team can simply do their best to block the seeker.

Proposition 2:
You can't leave the game without giving up the quaffle by either passing it or shooting it. If this happens, then a god-mod rule could come into effect when someone (either teammate or opponent) could RP taking/stealing it from them.

Proposition :cry:
If a quaffle was to be shot at the hoops and the keeper wasn't online, the game could be held up indefinitely until the keeper determines whether they save it or not. Perhaps we could put a time limit on those types of situations (i.e. if the keeper doesn't post within as set time of a shot being taken then a goal is consider to have been scored and any chaser on the team that was scored on could RP taking possession of the Quaffle and mounting a counter attack.

Proposition 4:
New rule for forfeiting.

Proposition 5:
General start time of 12-1 PM EST

If everyone agrees to these Propositions being up for vote, then I will begin making the polls.
 
Nah, whoever gave you those ideas is an idiot!!! JK...they look good to me....

Perhaps we could also have a courtesy post, meaning that when you decide you are going offline during the game play, you could post OOC that you are leaving and if and when you hope to return.
 
I think options 1, 2 and 3 could actually work in conjunction with each other :unsure:

unless each one will be up for vote seperatly? I am confused a bit
 
I agree, with those propositions, and I also liked the idea of signing in, un-anonymously, so we can tell. Maybe that should be another one, or part of one?
 
The anonymous thing is already in the rules.

A 12 noon EST start time would make it evening for those team members of mine who are GMT +3 and +5 which is much better than starting at 9 EST and having them get up on Sunday morning at 5 am.

I don't see how 1 and 3 could be combined :blink:


Ahhh, you edited .... 2 and 3 yes....
 
Proposition 6:
No player can be anonymous during gameplay


Proposition 5 is the fairest timeframe that I could think of. Some people are upwards of 12 hours difference from EST. Their latest would be midnight; everyone else somewhere in between or earlier. It's better than always having a start time of 9PM when some people are still asleep and it's the middle of the night. Am I wrong in thinking that noon EST is a fair time?
 
Alicia Barker said:
Proposition 6:
No player can be anonymous during gameplay


Proposition 5 is the fairest timeframe that I could think of. Some people are upwards of 12 hours difference from EST. Their latest would be midnight; everyone else somewhere in between or earlier. It's better than always having a start time of 9PM when some people are still asleep and it's the middle of the night. Am I wrong in thinking that noon EST is a fair time?
Click to expand...
Ya, I edited, because I am dumb and stupid etc. and read things incorrectly :D Sorry <_<
 
(((It's unfortunate (and this is in response to 1,2, and 3 being the same thing), but unless this is very specific, someone won't adhere to the rules.)))
 
Bruin Dumbledez said:
The anonymous thing is already in the rules.

A 12 noon EST start time would make it evening for those team members of mine who are GMT +3 and +5 which is much better than starting at 9 EST and having them get up on Sunday morning at 5 am.

I don't see how 1 and 3 could be combined :blink:


Ahhh, you edited .... 2 and 3 yes....
Click to expand...
Yes I did Edit :p :D 1 sorta contradicts 3 a bit doesnt it?

Well I like it being a ranged event and I like the time frame for the keeper to stop it...
 
Professor Nicolas King said:
Alicia Barker said:
Proposition 6:
No player can be anonymous during gameplay


Proposition 5 is the fairest timeframe that I could think of. Some people are upwards of 12 hours difference from EST. Their latest would be midnight; everyone else somewhere in between or earlier. It's better than always having a start time of 9PM when some people are still asleep and it's the middle of the night. Am I wrong in thinking that noon EST is a fair time?
Click to expand...
Ya, I edited, because I am dumb and stupid etc. and read things incorrectly :D Sorry <_<
Click to expand...
No you're not...quite the contrary....
 
Zoe-Hope Weasley said:
Wait, I'm lost. :blink:

What contradicted what?
Click to expand...
I thin Bruin was just trying to say that Nick isn't stupid.

So, are we voting on the propositions? I vote yea on all. Sounds good to me.
 
Okay, thanks Kaela.

I agree, I like them all, it helps alot now that everything is written in stone.
 
What about the issues surrounding number of players? People have been quitting the Ravenclaw team, and it doesn't look like anyone else wants to join. :( As of now we don't even have a seeker.

And I have a question. If the quidditch games are going to be made longer, how do we know if an alternate will need to step in?
 
Okay, I tried to chime in a little while ago but my desktop decided to be dumb. lol.

I like the rules as set up. Great ideas!

Noon est works pretty well as long as games are always on Saturday.

The only question I have is about the keeper timeframe. What happens when it is overnight hours for the keeper and a goal is shot then? I just figure that it may be something to be addressed in the rules so there is no issues for the keeper going to sleep.

Okay, otherwise these are really great ideas. :D
 
I didnt know this thing was going on.I think the post is old now but i decided to post.I agree with all the rules but i think the duration of the keeper posting to save or not to save the goal should be a 2hour time at least.I posted yes on all.
 
I'd actually like to see way more goals scored. Goals are only worth 10 points and a team is going to have to work really hard to win by anything other than a snitch capture (worth 50 points) unless we increase scoring somehow. Having a game potentially held up for two hours waiting for a keeper to RP making a save could string out the games forever.

The goal is ultimately to have everyone (or, at least as many people as possible) playing at the same time. The proposed rules are merely to prevent the game from getting stuck indefinitely as far as I can tell.
 
Bruin Dumbledez said:
I'd actually like to see way more goals scored. Goals are only worth 10 points and a team is going to have to work really hard to win by anything other than a snitch capture (worth 50 points) unless we increase scoring somehow.
Click to expand...
I agree, maybe we should increase the goals to be worth 15, or even 20 points, so that way the game will be more intense, to catch the snitch, and even to score more goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top