FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

soren72

Joined: Nov 29, 2004

Posted: Jan 25, 2006 - 22:38

Karhumies wrote:

torsoboy wrote:

-- If you want a pure skill test division, it will devolve into everyone picking the same few teams and skills.

I don't want one. The ones struggling to raise their CR to the max do. Why not let them have one and see for themselves if it's good or not? Currently, most of them are angry 'cause they don't have one for the time being.

It's funny... Most (all?) of the replies I've read from the high CR coaches haven't had many complaints about ranked. All the complaints are from coaches assumiing to know what these coaches think. I have just joined the top 50 ranking - very much to my suprise I might add - after wiining a SMACK. This was won due to some very unfortunate dice rolls from my opponents more than my skill. Gave my CR 8 or 9 points. I can't claim I don't care about CR, but I certainly don't play to make it high. I try to avoid coaches with low CR and bad W/L/T percentages for two reasons. I don't want to be accused of cherry picking and I want my matches
to against reasonably good coaches. I play 2 or 3 games a week so I try pick my games. Not for winning but for challenge.

Rolling Eyes

What a rant!

_________________
Cheers,

Soren - Back Judge, The Reformed Church of Nuffle

soren72

Joined: Nov 29, 2004

Posted: Jan 25, 2006 - 22:40

Ohh.. forgot to comment on your proposal. I think ranked works nicely but has it flaws. What you suggest I think will give less games.

_________________
Cheers,

Soren - Back Judge, The Reformed Church of Nuffle

Arcon

Joined: Mar 01, 2004

Posted: Jan 25, 2006 - 22:45

I am absolutely on Smess side. I do not see why this diversity is causing YOU so much trouble.

Quote:

You will most likely notice that casual players' and ranking-oriented players' aims have a huge mismatch between each other. The current situation does not really satisfy either group of players, although the casual players are generally far less likely to complain about anything - they just log in, put their team(s) in gamefinder, play a match, log out and couldn't care less about the existence of this debate.

Well...As far as I can see, it is the casual players that are complaining and opening these topics and your group (if I classified you wrong, sorry about that). I didn´t see any high CR coach complaining about casual players lately.

I always (rare exceptions) LFG and take the first challenge if the teams are same strengh but also try not to loose my CR. I believe that having a good CR by taking all challenges (from high and low CR coaches, all races...) is the real challenge here. But from your description I am right in between the groups. To care for CR does not mean you are cherry picking, and to LFG does not mean you are a very casual player!

Drud

Joined: Jan 27, 2005

Posted: Jan 25, 2006 - 23:56

The problem with having CR in the same division as casual play, is that CR looses it's value.
If you had a single division, only for CR- interested people, every team here would be serious and competitive. (There'd probably be a lot less teams too, and they might become a lot more similar than it is now).

BUT: As long as there are fun-teams in ranked as well, it screws over the entire ranking. I'm not saying anything about the top CR coaches. I'm just saying that CR doesn't say a lot beacuse it's possible to play stupid/weak/fun teams of all zombies or something similar. It's also possible to play people who don't give a damn about CR, and therefore aren't as seriously competitive (yes, I just generalized! :p).
This makes the basis which CR is built upon (in lack of better words), different for different coaches. If you're lucky/bored/picky enough to get to play all those underpowered zombie-teams, you have an advantage over other CR-caring coaches who might not want to play these 'fun-teams'.

Take Arcon for example:

Quote:

I believe that having a good CR by taking all challenges (from high and low CR coaches, all races...) is the real challenge here.

I agree. 100%. That is the real challenge. For you. But others might only see the challenge as "get more CR", which can be done more effectively than the way you go about it.

I feel I'm beginning to rant and repeat myself, so I'll stop now. Hope it all makes sense...

Buur

Joined: Apr 29, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:03

Dejavu.... or wasnt therer a thread with the exactly the same theme..... well if you can do it all again so can i:
pie.... pie.... PIE!!! PIIIEEE!!!!...... PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
-Buur

_________________

For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes.

Last edited by Buur on %b %26, %2006 - %00:%Jan; edited 1 time in total

soren72

Joined: Nov 29, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:04

Drud wrote:

The problem with having CR in the same division as casual play, is that CR looses it's value.

Isn't that a problem for the coaches interested in CR? So those who don't care about CR really have no problem?

_________________
Cheers,

Soren - Back Judge, The Reformed Church of Nuffle

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:10

Buur wrote:

Dejavu.... or wasnt therer a thread with the exactly the same theme..... well if you can do it all again so can i:
pie.... pie.... PIE!!! PIIIEEE!!!!...... PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

You're making me hungry ... we don't all have pies lying around!

As to the topic: I like both the idea of having a division with ranking which is actually and always competitive by nature; and the idea of the main (default) division being LRB, and non-competitive.

The question, imo, is: is any of that worth over-turning the existing (successful) system for?

_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi Very Happy

Karhumies

Joined: Oct 17, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:13

Drud wrote:

The problem with having CR in the same division as casual play, is that CR looses it's value.
If you had a single division, only for CR- interested people, every team here would be serious and competitive. (There'd probably be a lot less teams too, and they might become a lot more similar than it is now).

BUT: As long as there are fun-teams in ranked as well, it screws over the entire ranking. I'm not saying anything about the top CR coaches. I'm just saying that CR doesn't say a lot beacuse it's possible to play stupid/weak/fun teams of all zombies or something similar. It's also possible to play people who don't give a damn about CR, and therefore aren't as seriously competitive (yes, I just generalized! :p).
This makes the basis which CR is built upon (in lack of better words), different for different coaches. If you're lucky/bored/picky enough to get to play all those underpowered zombie-teams, you have an advantage over other CR-caring coaches who might not want to play these 'fun-teams'.

If all teams and coaches of a ranking-oriented division were serious about what they are doing, then winning each match would be a struggle and CR would indeed show up correctly. As it is, some of the matches are practically predetermined, and although the coaches involved in the match might not see anything wrong with all zombies versus zons at low TR, that is what screws up the whole ranking system.

Thus, if people are playing casually in Ranked division, we don't need a ranking system in [R]. On the other hand, if we really want to have a working ranking system for serious play (exactly like Ranked was supposed to turn out in the first place), then let's remove casual play from [R] to somewhere where it doesn't screw up the allmighty ranking system. Simple as that.

Why should we have a mixture of two different things in the same div, when the existence of one fundamentally screws up the other? I'm just asking.

RC

Joined: Sep 22, 2005

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:20

I just realised somthing good about CR that I feel the need to share Smile

It is much more interresting to specc games from coaches with high skill level!
And finding those under games without looking at the CR would be a royal pain in the ass.

_________________
"Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar."

Karhumies

Joined: Oct 17, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:20

soren72 wrote:

Drud wrote:

The problem with having CR in the same division as casual play, is that CR looses it's value.

Isn't that a problem for the coaches interested in CR? So those who don't care about CR really have no problem?

It's practically the same as some pathetic country like Armenia getting into the football world championships (or Mexico to ice hockey world championships for a winter sports equivalent) for some really odd reason: the ones who get to play versus Armenia will more easily advance higher. If the world rankings would be made based on world championship match results only (regardless of opponent skill level - everyone begins at CR 150), the ones who played with Armenia would get much higher in the rank than they deserve skill-wise, screwing up the accuracy of the ranking system.

There is a good reason why only the teams which can be taken seriously are eligible for the world championships. Otherwise they'd screw up the statistics as well as ranking development.

..then why are there casual teams in ranked, a ranking-oriented division originally meant for serious coaches only? I see no big difference between these two situations.

Karhumies

Joined: Oct 17, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:26

Arcon wrote:

I am absolutely on Smess side. I do not see why this diversity is causing YOU so much trouble.

My main intention is to point out a flaw in the system. Even if it doesn't affect me or my life in any way, it's a flaw regardless. A big one at that.

Personally, I play Unranked and Stunty only. I am not a serious coach and would not like to play in an extremely competitive environment and therefore the concept of Ranked is not for me. I don't care, how well (poorly) the ranking idea has been implemented in practise but as long as the idea behind ranked is to have an awfully competitive environment for sorting out the best coaches from the worst, I wouldn't be bothered to join.

This is mainly about my principles and in things like this, I am strict about them.

Uber

Joined: Mar 22, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:36

What's with the outburst on coach rating? Can't you guys smoke a joint or something and forget about it?

FUMBBL is fine as it is, go protest for the environment or something! Razz

_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict.

Karhumies

Joined: Oct 17, 2004

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 00:39

Uber wrote:

What's with the outburst on coach rating? Can't you guys smoke a joint or something and forget about it?

That could easily get me a prison sentence where I live. A bottle of vodka sounds great (as well as legal), though.

Wraith

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 01:44

Interesting discussion so far. I find myself seeing both sides of the arguement at times.

I believe the folly isn't indicitive of the [R] system, but more likely linked to the ambiguity of the internet combined with a fundemental flaw of too much bloodbowl. I don't think bloodbowl was meant to be played as much as it is on-line. The game was designed for tabletop play, so the flaws seem to stem from it being played in a way that it wasn't designed for.

This will never be fixed, until the people updating the LRB make changes according to play testing in the FUMBBL enviroment. Currently the play test in a league system of around 20 people (IIRC), not thousands.

Besides, this is something the FUMBBL crew would have to decide...not for those of us who use their awesome site. I do believe that they strict mostly to the LRB.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Adar

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Jan 26, 2006 - 02:15

I find the chat quite telling, some people got a problem with CR. The rest doesn't and just enjoys the darn game...

_________________

For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage.