CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 16:41 |
 
|
| spubbbba wrote: | Well it depends on how much work it would be to bring this in.
I doubt enough people care about [B] rankings for it to be a high priority. I'd certainly prefer the LRB5 client to be the top priority and the issues with the [L]eague pages be corrected before this came in. |
Seeing as the code is already in use for the [R] tables, I don`t think it`s too much work to transfer it to [B]. |
|
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 16:59 |
|
It's probably too much work, but what about decaying rating. Like for each week (or each week beyond the first month), you don't play, you lose 1 (or more) rating point to a minimum of 150. That way a coach can't just come back, play 1 game, and be back on top, he constantly have to play to keep it up (no pun intended). |
_________________
 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 17:26 |
|
| Shraaaag wrote: | | It's probably too much work, but what about decaying rating. Like for each week (or each week beyond the first month), you don't play, you lose 1 (or more) rating point to a minimum of 150. That way a coach can't just come back, play 1 game, and be back on top, he constantly have to play to keep it up (no pun intended). |
Yuck. That would make the whole ranking system feel like a constant grind rather than something that figures itself out and you can look at every once in a while. Also if someone takes a break for six months and then comes back they might need some warmup games but they are going to be playing at their top standard pretty quickly. Giving PeteW a CR/BR of 150 every time he sees the virgin Mary in his porridge would make the system relatively meaningless fairly quickly... its supposed to be an ability ranking rather than an activity and ability ranking. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 17:32 |
|
|
Shraaaag
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 12, 2009 - 17:34 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Shraaaag wrote: | | It's probably too much work, but what about decaying rating. Like for each week (or each week beyond the first month), you don't play, you lose 1 (or more) rating point to a minimum of 150. That way a coach can't just come back, play 1 game, and be back on top, he constantly have to play to keep it up (no pun intended). |
Yuck. That would make the whole ranking system feel like a constant grind rather than something that figures itself out and you can look at every once in a while. Also if someone takes a break for six months and then comes back they might need some warmup games but they are going to be playing at their top standard pretty quickly. Giving PeteW a CR/BR of 150 every time he sees the virgin Mary in his porridge would make the system relatively meaningless fairly quickly... its supposed to be an ability ranking rather than an activity and ability ranking. |
Yeah, it's probably meant to be an ability ranking, just sounded like some saw it as being a ladder. But if it's only to show ability, why are we discussing hiding the inactive players from the list? |
|
|
Igvy
Joined: Apr 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 14, 2009 - 14:35 |
|
| Shraaaag wrote: | | SillySod wrote: | | Shraaaag wrote: | | It's probably too much work, but what about decaying rating. Like for each week (or each week beyond the first month), you don't play, you lose 1 (or more) rating point to a minimum of 150. That way a coach can't just come back, play 1 game, and be back on top, he constantly have to play to keep it up (no pun intended). |
Yuck. That would make the whole ranking system feel like a constant grind rather than something that figures itself out and you can look at every once in a while. Also if someone takes a break for six months and then comes back they might need some warmup games but they are going to be playing at their top standard pretty quickly. Giving PeteW a CR/BR of 150 every time he sees the virgin Mary in his porridge would make the system relatively meaningless fairly quickly... its supposed to be an ability ranking rather than an activity and ability ranking. |
Yeah, it's probably meant to be an ability ranking, just sounded like some saw it as being a ladder. But if it's only to show ability, why are we discussing hiding the inactive players from the list? |
Because we don't want an all time top 10 list.
We want an active top 10 list. As the vote states, this means more to people. |
|
|
MattDFan
Joined: Sep 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 14, 2009 - 15:23 |
|
a month is fair, it keeps the division active. If they come back after a month they have the challenge of winning their way back. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2010 - 03:05 |
|
i think the addition to the number of teams list in blackbox is good
it says:
| Quote: | Showing teams that played within the last 30 days
and at least 5 matches total. |
I think the same should apply to the Top Coaches rank, and judging from this poll, this is what most coaches would like as well
(ps: instead of starting a new thread, i rejuvenated this one that had a poll) |
|
|
jarvis_pants
Joined: Oct 30, 2008
|
Someone always gotta be a hater.
Id play with him more but ive moved on from that point in my life where i need to KILL everything i see. I dont like destroying teams anymore.
Thats why i play vamps and other av7 so people can beat me up instead.
Plus you had your chance to take him out.
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=82753 |
_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2010 - 11:40 |
|
| jarvis_pants wrote: |
Someone always gotta be a hater.
Id play with him more but ive moved on from that point in my life where i need to KILL everything i see. I dont like destroying teams anymore.
Thats why i play vamps and other av7 so people can beat me up instead.
Plus you had your chance to take him out.
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=82753 |
So that justifies him being on top of the Active Blackbox Top Stars when he hasn't played a game this year? |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2010 - 11:44 |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2010 - 12:21 |
|
One month is fine, i don't think a coach should ever lose rating though.. They should just not be visible on the list. |
|
|
jarvis_pants
Joined: Oct 30, 2008
|
| Rijssiej wrote: | | jarvis_pants wrote: |
Someone always gotta be a hater.
Id play with him more but ive moved on from that point in my life where i need to KILL everything i see. I dont like destroying teams anymore.
Thats why i play vamps and other av7 so people can beat me up instead.
Plus you had your chance to take him out.
http://www.fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blog&coach=82753 |
So that justifies him being on top of the Active Blackbox Top Stars when he hasn't played a game this year? |
I think theres a big difference between a coach that dosent play and a team that dosent get sheduled. |
_________________
"May Nuffle have mercy on your rolls." - St.Basher |
|
T_Witch
Joined: Sep 01, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2010 - 12:30 |
|
At first i also thought 3 months...1 seemed too short... but if youonly have to play 1 game every three months to maintain a rating than 3 months is probably too long. So I'm going with split the difference and go 2 months. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 09, 2010 - 12:34 |
|
5 games a month; 10 games every quarter -- one is almost as good as the other...
the most important thing, imo, is adding more dynamism to blackbox (and indeed fumbbl) by only showing active coaches |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
|
|
Designer's Comm...
Search
