Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jan 26, 2006 - 15:51 |
 
|
actually, if the basic 'lfg' command ignored teams that are in tournaments, that would be quite a help.
Perhaps, if you could mark particular teams as "unavailable" or something. A flag that is visible on the coach page (listing the teams), and that stops the team being listed in gamefinder (i.e. so you can't add it by accident). I think that would be a big help in the unranked division.
________________
On a side note, although I don't really "care" about CR, it is a nice thing to have purely from the point of view of being able to find more even matches to play, and also to find good matches to spectate. |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
ruoste
Joined: Jun 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 26, 2006 - 16:43 |
|
I really like the idea of restricting CR changes to official tournaments, someone here said that they dont have time to spend in huge tournaments, wrong. There are still quick start official tournaments, fumbbl smack for instance.
This would hinder the metagaming and actually test the skills of the players, the ability to win, even if the opponent team is not what is easisest. Of course this could lead to a situation in which games would be dodged all the same, player's only goal to get high powered and non injured teams ready for tournaments.
I really like tournaments and try to play every time its possible, though i have to admit thats partly because i have a killer teams with small chances to get games other ways. CR has still its use though and i still like ranked more than unranked because of the competitive nature, the system is just screwed.
my two cents |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 26, 2006 - 16:48 |
|
| ruoste wrote: | I really like the idea of restricting CR changes to official tournaments, someone here said that they dont have time to spend in huge tournaments, wrong. There are still quick start official tournaments, fumbbl smack for instance.
This would hinder the metagaming and actually test the skills of the players, the ability to win, even if the opponent team is not what is easisest. Of course this could lead to a situation in which games would be dodged all the same, player's only goal to get high powered and non injured teams ready for tournaments.
|
The problem with Smack tournaments (not really a problem - just something that means that unless timed really well I won't have the option of participating) is that you have to play two consequtive games. That IS a factor in the whole "I don't have time." scenario. I've yet to participate in a FUMBBL tourney and since I've used up all my ranked slots I won't have the option of participating in a RRR. I'm just waiting for some of the other majors and a Smack tourney timed perfectly for me and one of my teams. |
|
|
Smess
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 26, 2006 - 16:59 |
|
| NezMaster wrote: | I wish there were more games in unranked. If there were, I'd never play ranked.
I've considered dumping my ranked teams altogether, but again, I like to play to often at wierd hours for that. |
I've played over 200 unraked games, I find it not hard at all to find a game there. It is true however, that on certain hours it can take you over half an hour to find a game, which is the max I want to wait. On regular times, I think you will certainly find a game in unranked within half an hour, most of the time within 15 mins, and at times even faster than in ranked because most of the time nobody says no. (with teams above 200 it's harder to find games also)
More people playing in unranked could only be a good thingh still. |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 26, 2006 - 18:09 |
|
yeah, if there was a "T" symbol beside a soecific unranked team, that would show that the team is unavailable as its in a tournament!
and as I was ignored (again!) in the other post! what about adding opponents ave CR below your own in your coach overview! |
|
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 26, 2006 - 23:43 |
|
| Laviak wrote: | | Perhaps, if you could mark particular teams as "unavailable" or something. A flag that is visible on the coach page (listing the teams), and that stops the team being listed in gamefinder (i.e. so you can't add it by accident). I think that would be a big help in the unranked division. |
This is a great idea IMO. I support the idea from the bottom of my heart. |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 27, 2006 - 17:34 |
|
I don´t understand the problem with U teams in tourneys.
The gamefinder really is great. You should use it, and add those teams that are free to play (that is not too hard for teams, come on, you know which team is in a tournament...)
But the suggestions made are sensible and I would support them. |
|
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2006 - 00:20 |
|
oh boy im not sure pie will help here anymore, but ill give it a go!
pie ... pie... pie ... PIE!....... PIIIIEEEE!!!!
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes. |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2006 - 02:09 |
|
I edited the team bios of my 15 unranked teams so that at the bottom of the bios their unranked status is visible.
For example the proclamation for my chaos dwarves says: "unranked status = member of King KO II group: not available for casual matches"
while for my khemri team it says:"unranked status = vagabond: therefore available for casual matches" |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
Borgen
Joined: Sep 06, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2006 - 02:16 |
|
This seems kind of silly to me. It seems to me this stems from worrying about others, instead of worrying about yourself. Right now, you can play any type of game you want in Ranked, as long as within the TS +/- 40. And you can play ANY game you want in Unranked. If there are other like-minded people who want to do so, then you can do whatever you want. If there are not other like-minded people, then you won't find them by fabricating new divisions. You have unlimited freedom to do as you please right now. I see your new coach-ranking rules, restrictions on divisions, etc. as an impingement on this freedom and as an artificial means of trying to control the behavior of others to fit the style of play you would like to see. |
_________________
British or British-based? Join the White Isle League! |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2006 - 18:53 |
|
| Karhumies wrote: | Do you mean that the fact I dislike the fundamental idea behind ranked (=rankings) means I am not entitled to have an opinion of my own?
|
well to have a good idea about how the system works, you'd better have a good experience with it. I actually don't have that much, but I wouldn't like it to be restricted to tournaments.
I mean, if a tournament starts everymonth, you have your team and loose to coach X uber team. First, you starts getting rated low + you can wait for a new long time to play again. IMO, this would lead to new problems and an unused system. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
tautology
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 28, 2006 - 19:22 |
|
Perhaps each coach should have the option to make CR invisible to their browser.
Then if you REALLY don't care about CR, you will never see it.
The current CR system is about as "fair" as you are likely to get, as any defined system will have "loopholes" that can be exploited if that is the intention of the coach.
In my experience, the current CR is a pretty good rough approximation of the quality of coaching that you are likley to find from an opponent with over 100 games.
I'd say that 15% of the time I am surprised by a coach whose level of play is either much better or much worse than their CR would suggest.
All things considered, I'd say that is a pretty successful ranking system. |
|
|
IRSWalker
Joined: Jan 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 01, 2006 - 16:30 |
|
I apologise for butting in, given my newbieness.
Firstly, it's not really a black and white issue, is it? For instance, while I don't care about my CR in itself, it's rather fun to see how I compare to other players.
Secondly, it's a GAME, people. It's meant to be fun. If you change the rules, you're likely to have a lot less diversity - you'll end up with one serious league of all the same teams/skills, and one fun league that becomes less fun because you don't get to pitch your esoteric lineup against a 'serious' team once in a while. I've played 12 games with my all-rushing amazons so far, and I've lost......12. But most of the people I've played have said how much they enjoyed the games - no-one complained (well, one, sort of) about how much my suckiness dampened their enjoyment.
If you restricted CR games to tourney-only, then you'd have to create a lot more tourney's to give everyone a chance. And if you create a system of automated, regular tourneys between players of similar skill......well, that's Factions isn't it?
The only change I'd like to see in my short time here is the introduction of tournaments for sucky players - perhaps the Crummy Coach Cup for coaches with a CR less than 140/130 or something. But that's only because I know I'd be toast in a regular tourney.
So, in short - the system isn't broken, and the different divisions already cater for different levels of interest/expectation. The only deficiency is that there is an oversubscription to Ranked, and a shortage of players in the others. This is mainly because people don't want to wait around for games. You could remedy this with a "marketing push", for instance run a "Factions Promotion Week" where all new Factions teams get 2,000,000 to start or something. Big swell in the numbers of players, and the momentum should keep going if you've got the product right.
Anyway, I'll go back to lurking and losing games...... |
|
|
Outlaws79
Joined: Jan 28, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 02, 2006 - 13:29 |
|
OK, here's the fact, with CR, are the best players at the very top.........yes
are the worst players at the very bottom..........yes
are the rest somewhere in the middle.......yes
Lets be honest, this is hardly an Olympic sport we're playing here is it. And if you're really that tragic to care about whether you're ranked 1253 instead of 1254 because of someone playing silly fun games, shouldn't you be a lot more concerned with being number1? I mean, lets face it, if you're playing serious competitive games (and don't get me wrong, I'd like to win all mine, something that seems to be a privaledge I don't get!  ) then to you second is the first loser? |
|
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
