Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:23 |
 
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
Giving R a scheduler is just needless complexity. |
Um, it really isn't that complicated? |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:23 |
|
The ridiculous thing is, the scheduler in R is mainly opposed by Box only coaches who fear that it would be TOO popular. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:25 |
|
Anyways, the difference between the two groups would be one of philosophy:
Box restricts you to ALWAYS play against unknown opponents, while Ranked allows you to choose how to find your opponent (within certain competitive guidelines). |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:25 |
|
Sure it's not.
But any added complexity (however minor) to an open-select-your-own-game division is, in my opinion, needless.
But hey ho - no doubt this strand will grind on until the switch. |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:27 |
|
For what its worth, I think the 25% TV range is the best suggestion for FF[B] so far. I'm against being able to set your own range, as it seems to go against the principle of the box, but agree that I don't want to enter a rookie team only to be drawn against a TV250 nightmare, even with superstars on my team, I'll be ripped apart.
+/- 25%, like the "half your age plus seven" rule, seems to produce the right range.
I also think 15 minutes is, for me, the optimal time. Any more, and you wait too long - any less, and you run the risk of not having enough people activate. |
_________________
  |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:30 |
|
| Purplegoo wrote: |
But any added complexity (however minor) to an open-select-your-own-game division is, in my opinion, needless.
|
Seems like a crappy argument to me. Of course EVERY new feature introduced to Fumbbl is "more complexity". So we shouldn't introduce any new features to FUMBBL any more?
I mean, if you want things to be simple, lets do away with BOX altogether, after all, what could be simpler than just having one competitive division?
The reality is that we should consider it a trade-off. Is the added complexity worth the extra feature? The reality is that the added complexity is VERY trivial, since Christer already knows how to set up a scheduler. The added features are desired by lots of coaches. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:45 |
|
| Grod wrote: | | Purplegoo wrote: |
But any added complexity (however minor) to an open-select-your-own-game division is, in my opinion, needless.
|
Seems like a crappy argument to me. Of course EVERY new feature introduced to Fumbbl is "more complexity". So we shouldn't introduce any new features to FUMBBL any more?
I mean, if you want things to be simple, lets do away with BOX altogether, after all, what could be simpler than just having one competitive division?
The reality is that we should consider it a trade-off. Is the added complexity worth the extra feature? The reality is that the added complexity is VERY trivial, since Christer already knows how to set up a scheduler. The added features are desired by lots of coaches. |
But what I don't understand is that if people want their match to be scheduled for them, why don't they just play in the box?
If sometimes they want to pick and choose opponents, and sometimes want them picked for them, why don't they make a Ranked team and a Box team, and go for the one they feel like at the time?
Its not that I oppose putting a scheduler in Ranked - the more schedulers the better! - I just don't see the point of it when we have the Box already. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:48 |
|
| Grod wrote: | | I mean, if you want things to be simple, lets do away with BOX altogether, after all, what could be simpler than just having one competitive division? |
Works for me! 
Tbh, I think you overextend your point a fair old bit there (in an acceptable, interweb forum esq way, don't get me wrong). Of course, newness isn't always badness, but you're trying in this instance to fix a problem that doesn't exist. When you start doing that, the complexity is needless.
FUMBBL has a BlackBox division. That's where the scheduler lives. |
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 11:57 |
|
| gjopie wrote: | | But what I don't understand is that if people want their match to be scheduled for them, why don't they just play in the box? |
I would like my regular matches scheduled for me but I don't play in box very much because:
1. I can't bring my old existing ranked teams.
2. There are no scheduled SMACKs or similar weekly starting tournaments in the box. |
|
|
Flix
Joined: Oct 26, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 12:10 |
|
| Rijssiej wrote: | | gjopie wrote: | | But what I don't understand is that if people want their match to be scheduled for them, why don't they just play in the box? |
I would like my regular matches scheduled for me but I don't play in box very much because:
1. I can't bring my old existing ranked teams.
2. There are no scheduled SMACKs or similar weekly starting tournaments in the box. |
Me, too. I would play 95% scheduled by box or in tournaments |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 12:12 |
|
| Rijssiej wrote: | | gjopie wrote: | | But what I don't understand is that if people want their match to be scheduled for them, why don't they just play in the box? |
I would like my regular matches scheduled for me but I don't play in box very much because:
1. I can't bring my old existing ranked teams.
2. There are no scheduled SMACKs or similar weekly starting tournaments in the box. |
Thats fair enough I suppose, and I suspected that your first point might be the issue here. There isn't anything that can be done about that one, I suppose.
On the second point, are SMACKs (or something similar) not something that could be imported to the Box? They don't go against the principle of the division, and could be an interesting diversion from regular play? This has probably already been discussed, I guess. |
|
|
Jester_Spirit
Joined: Sep 19, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 12:19 |
|
I'm almost sure someone suggested this before...
I would even be fine with merging the divisions, if:
Let all B teams migrate to R and make R scheduler only.
Coaches who want to customize(since when do we say customize instead of picking?) their teams could migrate to L. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 12:33 |
|
| Jester_Spirit wrote: | Let all B teams migrate to R and make R scheduler only.
|
hahaha because Box was so popular and Ranked was not? |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 12:34 |
|
I would like a system where blackbox both can be actiavted through the Fumbbl main channel. Right now coaches are too split up to be able to get decent conversations. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
Bobs
Joined: Feb 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 16, 2010 - 12:36 |
|
R and B weren't broken before FFB.
Box has died down because of FFB testing.
Make both divisions FFB and things will return to normal only more so with the influx of new players.
I liked both divisions the way they were and look forward to when box goes FFB so I dont have to waste time lfg on ranked when I want a quick fix.
6 months after it all goes FFB is the time to decide if anything needs fixing/merging not before. |
_________________
si non modo numquam pragmaticam
 |
|
|
|
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
