harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
 Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 09:35 |
 
|
| PainState wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | Interesting, would you mine showing me where it says this?
Your opinion of what is fun, and what box is all about, is what keeps others away and those that don't to possibly leave the site, congratulations on that. |
Christers intentions when he created the Box
Why play in the box talk
More what is box about talk
A nice thread on the grievances against the box
Page 7 of Black Box lets us see what it was like all the way back at its founding.
My opinion's of FUMBBL from my own personeal perspective has that much "weight" as to cause a massive opinion change about FUMBBL as to cause them to leave? really? Iam that improtant?
I would think that my opinion of what is fun about FUMBBL the vast majority would agree with. I dont see how my view is so radical that coaches think I have fallen off the "rocker" so to speak. |
You've misunderstood my post Painstate. I have no issue with your views, and I thought your summary of why box was created was spot on.
My comments were directed at Kondor 'facts' and what he considers 'fun' and the direction the division should go, not at you in the slightest.
Peace. |
|
|
Eldred
Joined: Aug 31, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 09:53 |
|
This is a fruitless argument. People play how they do in the Box because of how it is designed. If you don't like that play style, redesign the Box or start a new division that encourages the play style you want.
It's similar to gaming the tax code... I don't blame people for doing it, I blame the tax code for being gameable. To ask people to behave otherwise is naive foolishness at best, and spiteful whining otherwise. All of it is profoundly unproductive. |
|
|
BlizzBirne
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 09:59 |
|
hm, "right" or "good" doesn't necessarily mean "productive". you think making a system more complicated so it can't be "gamed" is the right way to go? punishing all people complying to the "spirit" of a solution just to get control over some disturbing forces?
well, fruitless it might be, you are right. but all the same i think simply stating that this would be how things are is resignation at its best. and i personally am not that far ... yet. |
|
|
SvenS
Joined: Jul 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:15 |
|
*OT rant on*
Even though I might disagree with some of the most extremely min maxed teams I dont think its a huge issue to be honest.
Im more worried at the lack of curtesy/politeness some B games have atm and even more the no chat games.
I can have great fun losing as long as there is some friendly banter. Likewise while we all get annoyed at nuffle at times (Im in a bad luck streak atm, we all have them!) there is no reason to get rude.
This kind of behavior has always been around, but Ive noticed it seems more common in the box.
*end rant* |
_________________
IL-S
SL |
|
BlizzBirne
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:18 |
|
| SvenS wrote: | *OT rant on*
Even though I might disagree with some of the most extremely min maxed teams I dont think its a huge issue to be honest.
Im more worried at the lack of curtesy/politeness some B games have atm and even more the no chat games.
I can have great fun losing as long as there is some friendly banter. Likewise while we all get annoyed at nuffle at times (Im in a bad luck streak atm, we all have them!) there is no reason to get rude.
This kind of behavior has always been around, but Ive noticed it seems more common in the box.
*end rant* |
+1 |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:20 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | Interesting, would you mine showing me where it says this?
Your opinion of what is fun, and what box is all about, is what keeps others away and those that don't to possibly leave the site, congratulations on that. |
Christers intentions when he created the Box
Why play in the box talk
More what is box about talk
A nice thread on the grievances against the box
Page 7 of Black Box lets us see what it was like all the way back at its founding.
My opinion's of FUMBBL from my own personeal perspective has that much "weight" as to cause a massive opinion change about FUMBBL as to cause them to leave? really? Iam that improtant?
I would think that my opinion of what is fun about FUMBBL the vast majority would agree with. I dont see how my view is so radical that coaches think I have fallen off the "rocker" so to speak. |
Am I the only one that read Christer's intentions for the box and started laughing when they read this:
| Christer wrote: | | The coaches who come here to play easy matches with their killer chaos teams should probably look elsewhere. |
I know it was written back when the scheduler worked different, and we had LRB4... but still... Gotta love it  |
Last edited by Woodstock on %b %16, %2012 - %11:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:36 |
|
| plasmoid wrote: | | Quote: |
Look what lrb 6 has lead to - in a sad TV-matched environment
And bewail the state of woe.
|
There. Fixed |
if you are going to quote me, at least quote my name, otherwise it is plagiarism. |
|
|
Hitonagashi
Joined: Apr 09, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:36 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
What I'd like to see, is coaches showing respect to the site, opponents and division and stop trying to game the system. Instead of leaching whatever they can get, until theres nothing left, aka old box. |
If you do, get some admins together and banhammer constantly.
Else, it won't happen.
I can guarantee it, because of two principles.
First, it's there, and if it's not illegal, some people will do it. It's not like R, where you can sneer at cherry pickers and ignore them...they do have a very real tactical advantage by doing it, and it's just frustrating to get beaten by an inferior coach minmaxing because all he knows how to do is hit PO.
Second, back to the original topic, TV minimisation (not necessarily minmaxing), is sadly an inherent property of a TV matched environment. The issue is, that the 'best' TV matching is to never take a double or a stat, with cheap or low RR's. It is a fact of LRB 6 that some teams do this naturally (chaos, amazons), being able to put together a *very* strong team without ever going near a double and selecting the optimum skill each time. If chaos make a team of just clawmbpo, or amazons/darkelves make teams of entirely blodge sidestep, they do very well indeed. This is because they are lower TV...which means if you want to play against them, you have to pay attention to what TV you are.
To stick your head in the sand and go "I'm losing because I'm getting minmaxed" is just being not willing to face up to the facts of the Blackbox, or adapt to a LRB 6. In a non-TV matched environment *none* of these things happen, and Bloodbowl is how you remember it in LRB4.
Finally, as an extra point, you and Shadow have repeatedly made allusions to the Box killing FUMBBL....it was worse before. Far worse. I don't know if you remember the Dwarf teams with -st troll slayers that TS valued the same price as a rookie goblin? Or the huge periods of inactivity? Maybe you forgot the low TV orc teams that had as their sole skill DP spread across all linos? The Box works now, while it didn't before, and somewhat unsurprisingly, people are coming to it because it is now a *feasible* way of finding a fair game. 7-8 out of every 10 games I play are fair, and about the same ratio are talkative if I start a conversation, and am the first to make comments on the game. That's not a bad ratio to not have to care about the hassle of working out if a game is fair. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:38 |
|
| SvenS wrote: | *OT rant on*
Even though I might disagree with some of the most extremely min maxed teams I dont think its a huge issue to be honest.
Im more worried at the lack of curtesy/politeness some B games have atm and even more the no chat games.
|
THIS |
|
|
Raughri
Joined: Oct 11, 2011
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 12:03 |
|
| SvenS wrote: | | Im more worried at the lack of curtesy/politeness some B games have atm and even more the no chat games. |
For me this is the most evil thing about the box. I have lost count of the number of times that I get an abusive coach in the box because
(genuine list of reasons)
- Their players are not breaking my armour
- I am scoring touch downs while they have filled up my casualty box
- The specs are booing them
- I am dodging on a 2+ (take two heads instead of claw and you can to!!!)
- I am passing the ball and they are not used to playing passers.
- I am not rolling enough 1s for their liking.
The most shocking thing is, I don't play that often in the box, but have had players being plain rude to me usually one in three games. If that was true in TT, you just wouldn't play those players.
Which leads onto the fact that the way people behave in the box is just not what I think JJ (never mind Christer) had in mind when he created Blood Bowl. You wouldn't act that way when across a table from someone, what makes it ok to do so when you can hide behind an avatar?
Sadly the worse culprits are not the type of people who would even bother to get involved in the Fumbbl community and so would never think to read these forum posts.
On an aside, thought I'd throw up something for the OP.
I would say what are the reasons for wanting to keep your TV low. Are you looking to keep your team competitive, or are you looking to beat up on new coaches?
If it is the former, then think what role the player who skills up is going to perform in the team and stick to it, even if they roll doubles or stat upgrades. This will help keep your TV down as you won't have any unnecessary bloat. (Example: I have never taken a ST+ upgrade on a thrower, preferring to have strong arm as it suits my style of play (even for Orcs and Humans) more than taking strength upgrade.)
If it is the latter, I would say I'm not helping you, but I have never done it so couldn't help you even if I had the inclination to do so, but I don't. So there!  |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 12:18 |
|
re turning down +STR on a thrower.. I never would. Makes him so much harder to sack! |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 12:28 |
|
[quote="Hitonagashi"] | harvestmouse wrote: |
What I'd like to see, is coaches showing respect to the site, opponents and division and stop trying to game the system. Instead of leaching whatever they can get, until theres nothing left, aka old box. |
If you do, get some admins together and banhammer constantly.
Else, it won't happen.[/qoute]
Agreed, this isn't a fumbbl thing. You'll see it in any faceless environment. However I'm still entitled to my opinion on these types of leaching internet gaming gamers who care little for the environment they play in though, aren't I? I also completely agree with your reasoning.
[quote="Hitonagashi"]To stick your head in the sand and go "I'm losing because I'm getting minmaxed" is just being not willing to face up to the facts of the Blackbox, or adapt to a LRB 6. In a non-TV matched environment *none* of these things happen, and Bloodbowl is how you remember it in LRB4.[/qoute]
This simply isn't the case. I'm not losing to minmaxers in box, because simply I'm not playing in that environment. That is the problem. I have no interest in playing people who play that way, and I'm not alone.
| Hitonagashi wrote: | | Finally, as an extra point, you and Shadow have repeatedly made allusions to the Box killing FUMBBL....it was worse before. Far worse. . |
I think I made that point as well. Calculating box matches by TS is no better than TV. As for allusions that box is killing FUMBBL? Sorry let me make myself clear. FUMBBL is pretty healthy at the moment, and not dying. However minmaxing leachers, do nothing to help that, and in a weaker position would seriously hurt FUMBBL. Plus turning people off, who would play without the minmaxing, is very bad. Losing good fair coaches and keeping those gaming the system.
No, I don't blame box at all for killing FUMBBL. |
|
|
gpope
Joined: Jun 04, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 16:50 |
|
| clarkin wrote: | | re turning down +STR on a thrower.. I never would. Makes him so much harder to sack! |
+ST is probably the only stat up that can generally pull its weight TV-wise, although if you're minmaxing for a specific TV range it could easily push you over. But having a ballcarrier that can withstand most sacks and push opponents out of his way without an assist is great, and on a lean team you're going to be frequently fielding your thrower on defense too and the extra strength is a huge help.
As for the topic at hand, LRB4 box had to invent its own strength formula to try to generate fairer matches; if people feel like LRB6's TV formula is generating mismatches, wouldn't the logical course be to create a new team strength formula that accounts for the biggest minmaxing exploits?
Sure, even with a new formula people will still try to game the system, but that's the nature of a strategy game. Every time you decide to take Block instead of Pass Block, you are "minmaxing"--you are deliberately making a decision to try to make your team more effective for its TV. It's just a matter of how far you're willing to go. A more accurate measure of a team's strength could at least stop the worst abuses. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 17:03 |
|
| RandomOracle wrote: | | I guess the box was also responsible for Christer's motherboard dying recently. |
'
That is one theory...My theory of the mother board death is that "we" are not playing enough games in total and the mother boared got bored and commited suicide from boredom.
Just a theory, I cant prove it. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Tarabaralla
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 - 17:21 |
|
I cant agree with all this hate of minmaxing. It's not a way to game the system, it's just a way to behave in a TV-based matchmaking that looks for efficiency.
As an example: I dont like to find clawmbpo teams (minmaxed or not: at 1500 tv is easy to get a match against a 1700 tv one, and if it's chaos, pact or CDs you'll have to rebuild a lot) on my way and see my team being deleted. So I'm currently playing at a TV (1200 or less) where I'm sure that my team's strengths (st4 players, ag4 runners, blodgers or something else) will be far more useful for the final result than a pair of clawmb players. This involves my teams facing other "low TV shaped" ones and some almost rookie team. Matches are often even, fought to the last turn and enjoyable, especially because if my team works fine FF grows and forces me to fire players and leave some positionals on the way, balancing things. But this allows me to go on with my team always in a competitive shape, and never in need to rebuild.
This just to epxlain that B is a particular environment to play in, where managing carefully your TV goes together with managing carefully your skills/players choices. Probably not for the newcomer, who needs to practise about gameplay only, and will easily have a too high TV, giving him many mismatches. But for the seasoned BB player it's quite nice: just a pity that growing something different than a clawmbpo team is so difficult at high tv.
Ofc this doesnt mean B is somewhat better or worse than R. Just different. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Designer's Comm...
Search
