| Poll |
| Whaddya think? |
| Good Idea but I won't be playing in the Box anyway |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| Good Idea but I would play in the Box anyway |
|
14% |
[ 11 ] |
| Good Idea and will significantly increase the chance/frequency of my playing in the Box |
|
10% |
[ 8 ] |
| Bad Idea but I don't like the Box anyway |
|
5% |
[ 4 ] |
| Bad Idea but I'd play anyway |
|
29% |
[ 22 ] |
| This would put me off from playing in the Box |
|
25% |
[ 19 ] |
| Banoffee Pie -there's fruit so it's health food! |
|
12% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 75 |
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
  Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 22:11 |
 
|
One of the things Ranked coaches complain about for the Box is the chance of playing against coaches they don't like (for whatever reason).
Here's my proposed new feature:
1) You can 'blackball' a coach you didn't enjoy playing against for X (3?) months from the date of a game against that coach. Your teams will not be scheduled against that coach's teams for that period.
2) You can 'blackball' any Race for three games after playing against that Race. Your team will not be scheduled against that Race for its next 3 games.
Notes:
- If necessary a requirement that you beat the coach in question could be implemented in order to stop people just skipping coaches who are better than them.
[you could activate the balckball at any time after beating the coach and it will run for the time period from the match in which you beat them in (so it works if you have a good game you win and then lose a bad one -or three- later but expires from the date of your win)]
- you could not avoid someone for ever but I'd hope one could make a serious dent in the proportion of unpleasant matches you face while still giving every coach a chance to redeem themselves (we all have off days and some of use get 'better' over time).
- I think 3 months would be a good starting point...
- obviously excessive use of this feature would result in not getting matches but this isn't designed for tactical use so that just means that there's no one you're willing play against (and you'd probably be better off in R or L).
- (2) is on a per team basis for those people who get fed up with facing ogres/chaos/dwarves three times in a row: now they get to face them in succession instead  [5 games might be a viable alternative but any more would allow too much selection imo]
- implementation could be through a couple of buttons on the past matches or match report page. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 22:15 |
|
[x] poll needs an I don't care I'll play anyone option |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 22:20 |
|
I'm in favour of a limited blacklist.
Give people between 1 and 5 slots that they can use to blacklist a certain coach, they never get drawn against a coach on their blacklist. Your idea of a time limit is a good one... maybe a coach can only be taken off of a blacklist after they have been there for three months. That way it cant be used too tactically. |
_________________
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." |
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 22:26 |
|
I don't like it because i know that people wouldn't blacklist coaches because they don't like them, but because they don't like the teams they use. For example if you know a coach plays at the same times as you, but uses Khemri mostly you could blacklist them just to avoid playing a game vs Khemri. Now if you did this to 4 other coaches, and a lot of the other coaches that play at the same times as you do it too, these bashier coaches will be punished, not for being bad people, but just due to the choice of race they like to use. Now combine this with banning races and we turn the box into a borderline 'I only want to be scheduled against my friends' division.
Maybe if the Box started getting draws of 10 teams or more per draw it would work, but whilst it is only getting 40-60 games per day it would be to easy to abuse this system. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 22:31 |
|
Agree with Silly here. This would be a good idea, if there was a limited amount of slots. Say 3, and once you blacklisted, it would last for a fixed period of time, not more or less. 1 month?
I don't see a way to stop tactical abuse, but then again, I don't think it would be a big deal, since the actual chance of playing the same coach over and over, is relatively small.
It should only concern coaches though, not races! That would only incite cowardice and could be tactically abused (e.g. an amazon team reserving itself from playing CD, dwarf and chaos). |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
justagigolo
Joined: Sep 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 28, 2010 - 22:32 |
|
Afraid I don't agree at all. The most likely reason I would want to avoid playing a coach would be something along the lines of the coach purposely trying to kill my team long after the match is decided. Those joyous matches where you are playing 4 vs 11, and your opponent is focused on gang fouling every turn. In these cases, you probably are not winning the match, thus breaking one of your rules that you would have to win in order to black list him. With that case in mind, it would serve me no good, and add tons of complications and possible exploits. |
|
|
Timlagor
Joined: Feb 13, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 04:11 |
|
justagigolo: I may not have been clear but I didn't mean the requirement to win to be implemented unless if proved necessary to stop peole banning tactically. (I changed my mind mid-post on that one)
Balle2000: for races the only way to dodge a roster (under my proposal) is to have played against them in the last three games for that team. Limiting your opposition to not being from one race for more than one game in four cannot reasonably be seen as abuse imo. In your example the amazons have just had a nightmare run against those three rosters and deserve a break -probably against Ogres ..after which they can play CD again.
freak-in-a-frock: interesting point. I'm not convinced it would actually happen but definitely something to consider. Of course if the pool of coaches is so small and most of the coaches don't want to face the Khemri-only guy there is something to be said for a system that makes the Khemri-only guy do something about it. Limitting the period of banning and/or the number of coaches you can ban seems a reasonable measure.
NB: the race ban would only last THREE *GAMES* -this could correct a preponderence of one race but would in no way make you play that race less than reasonable: there are far more than four rosters!
E.G.:
1) you play Chaos and ban them.
2) you play orcs (and maybe ban them too)
3) you play elves
4) you get dwarves
5) chaos are eligible again.
6) orcs are eligible again
Substitute Khemri in (3) and it looks like a nightmare series but at least you get variety to your nightmare
...something similar could be achieved by just biasing the bot against rosters you have faced recently.
Ah well I'm going to be playing in the Box anyway.. perhaps I should have put this in General to attract the attention of more non-box coaches.
Well it seemed like a good idea to me and now it's out there 
Have fun everyone. |
_________________
Time for a new .sig |
|
avien
Joined: May 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 04:35 |
|
I see the point, but I belive it eventually would only lead to less [B] played. As it is, the box havn't got the playerbase to implement such luxury. |
_________________
 |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 05:18 |
|
no. this is anti the spirit of B |
_________________
 |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 07:26 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | no. this is anti the spirit of B |
so are some of the mentalities that are brought to the [B] division...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 08:08 |
|
I think this is an interesting idea, but would probably require a larger user base to be realistic. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 08:22 |
|
I fail to see how Calcium would ever get a game? |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 08:44 |
|
| freak_in_a_frock wrote: |
Maybe if the Box started getting draws of 10 teams or more per draw it would work, but whilst it is only getting 40-60 games per day it would be to easy to abuse this system. |
I think that has a bunch of wrong assumptions.
1. The concept of one coach playing one race. I hardly know any coach where this applies. I for my part change my play race on a frequently basis and there would be nothing to gain to avoid me to avoid a race.
2. The propose was all along to avoid a race and what's wrong with that. In all likeyness it's gonna be an overrepresented race and to put restrictions on them to create balance is a good thing in my eyes. Some coaches seem to need strong and weak races, I for my part think they are just one step behind in game evolution.
3. The general lets not change anything it could be bad fear troubles my heart. Why not lets change it to a: If it's bad we will change it back fear? I have experienced this as an obstacle tho.
4. Anyhow, Box is not faction. it's the second biggest division on fumbbl. And even if you may have limited amounts of users in one round i'm pretty sure it's not possible to tell who they are.
5. If a guy is that skilled to make miraculus predictions about who he is going to play against and can avoid it: That's some skill that should be nurished.
6. I dunno for you but I would 100% ban people and not teams because there are really annoying people out there who just need a ban and are at least for me a serious obstacle for playing box. Where do you even get these ideas?
7. If you don't like the Number of 5 why not propose 3 or 2? ...Why being just against it all together from the start.... conservatives pfeh |
|
|
DatMonsta
Joined: May 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 09:15 |
|
Hey there Guys,
i think as most of the coaches said so far. There aren't enough users of the box to have such a system to IMPROVE the box schedules.
I like the idea in general, i hate it too to get destroyed by eg orcs 3 times in a row (wanted to say khems but thats kind of boring) and there are some coaches in the box who are not fun at all to play (games taking hours, gangfouling every turn and not caring about the ball...)! And it's a hobby, i like to have fun at it and maybe win sometimes.... if i would be into boxing for example i wouldnt go 2 times in the week to the training just to get beat up by a guy who is 30cm taller, strong as a bull and a mean idiot... that wouldnt be fun ^^
I think this system would make "soft" teams stronger, but if it means that more coaches play a higher variety of teams/races that would be a good thing.
@Wreckage: I know a coach who just plays one race in the box.... having 3 active and 4 retired teams of that race... BORING! (okay, he has 20 of his 22 active non stunty teams being from that race and 60 out of 73 from the retired teams). i would love to ban him for being boring, not for playing just one race^^ |
|
|
freak_in_a_frock
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 29, 2010 - 17:42 |
|
@Wreckage
1/ I never said coaches that exclusively play one race, just coaches that mainly use races another coach may not want to play (and actually i could name several coaches that only use one race in the box)
2/ Why would we want to encourage players to have any methos of choosing what races they play against in the box? I bet not many will complain if they hit pro elves 3 games running. And remember by limiting the teams available for your teams to be scheduled against you are increasing the likelihood that someone else will get those teams, is this fair? You also likely to make the draw a less fair one, especially when several coaches have lots of exclusions on their lists, all of a sudden that dwarf team that was going to be scheduled to play an equal TS game is now playing down 15 TS, i bet their opponent is happy with that.
3/ Change can be good, but that doesn't mean every idea for change is good. That is why we debate these idea and decide whether they warrant introduction into the box. If it did get introduced i wouldn't throw a tantrum, i'd use it and see how it worked out. But if someone say that all Khemri should be forced to play up by at least 20 TS do we introduce it because change is good?
4 / I only play at certain times, i pretty much know of around 20 coaches that regualarly play at the same times as i do in the box. We, as humans, are creatures of habit. We play at certain times. I could reliably pick which coaches will activate over the 3-4 hour period that i get. Sure there will be exceptions but the box just isn't big enough at the moment to make it a true surprise when i see the draw.
5/ see above
6/ I totally agree, i would be far more likely to ban people and not races, but in all honesty is it really that hard to avoid coaches you don't like at the moment? If they are online just activate when they already have a game. And as i said what if a group of friends got together and just banned people that played at similar times to them, increasing the chances that they get to play each other, victimizing a coach that has done nothing wrong? I am lucky that the times that i play are quite popular, the off peak times would be completely messed up if coaches started black listing each other in this way, the off peak times aren't exactly overflowing with matches as it is.
7/ I did offer a solution to how and when this could be implimented, and that was when we have regular and plentiful games. Then it would be far less easy to abuse. I wasn't just anti an idea, i just felt it needed proper discussion on how it could work.
In summary the idea is fine in a larger division, and maybe when we change to FBB the box will start increasing the number of games in it (i think a lot of Box coaches are testing the client, i know i am). I would want safe guards aginst abuse, and i would also like the scheduler to not punish the people who don't use the black-list by making sure that their game quality doesn't suffer. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blood Bowl 2024 Edit...
Search
