Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:07 |
|
Hey,
Now I know that Acadamy is designed to be a general place of learning. But from what I understand, it's specifically aimed at new players. So I think it would help if coaches could mark their teams in certain ways, so that people knew what they were going up against. I'd suggest three markings: new player, coach, and tactical. New Players could go against coaches to learn about the game, and could go against each other to practice. Tacticals could go against coaches to practice/learn new advanced stratigies, and then could go against each other to put them into action. It might be unnessicary, but I think it could help...
Woodpecker |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:14 |
|
Not 100% with your definitions, but some type of learning/learner distinction would be great. |
_________________ When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:16 |
|
Not the worse idea around. |
_________________
|
|
DreadsMistress
Joined: Mar 08, 2006
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:21 |
|
I agree |
_________________ *My English sucks... But okay, I do too! |
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:23 |
|
Um, m'lady? You don't actually have teams, do you?
EDIT: NM, should have checked first! Congrats on getting sucked in! |
_________________ When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:29 |
|
may be a good idea, looks fine indeed
Untill then, I've put as much info in my new [A] team as I could... checking your opponent's team info is a good idea, new coaches would benefit a great deal from learning that early. |
|
|
DreadsMistress
Joined: Mar 08, 2006
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 18:31 |
|
Haven't played yet, really need to make time for that...
When I'm really really really bored or something! |
_________________ *My English sucks... But okay, I do too! |
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 19:13 |
|
Okay, fair enough, but what would you suggest for the types then, mac? |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 19:14 |
|
If you specifically want to identify people or teams as either students or teachers, there are three primary options that I can think of...
One is a voluntary naming scheme in which people who specifically know that they want to make a "coach" team consistently name their teams with an identifier. For example "[C] FUMBBL Academics" would denote that the team is specifically intended to be a an invitation to someone looking for a more experience opponent. Meanwhile "[N] Kill Me and Show Me How You Did It" would be a team which is specifically looking for a more experienced coach (ie: looking for a [C] team). People who don't opt into the scheme can be considered "tactical" by default, unless they say otherwise.
Ideally, the division description would include a legend so that (assuming people actually read it) coaches will be informed enough to properly follow the standard.
The problems are that you'll have to find a way to get people to understand and properly use the naming convention, which seems a bit unlikely. Additionally, the system really works best on gamefinder, since there's no distinction between players in chat. Finally, if you later wish to move your team to U, people might be a bit hesitant to have an DivA-marked team as well. I can easily see some stigma attached to a team which got its easy initial games in against newbies, for example.
The second option is a variation of the above but with some more coding by Christer to add a flag to the database. A team can be "marked" as being either a coach team, a newbie team or a tactical team with a drop-down menu on the team page - somewhat akin to the way the non-progression flag works.
Like the above, this doesn't help people establish matches in chat unless there's an extra command added to bowlbot and/or gamefinder for "lfg-vs.coach" and "lfg-vs.new" or something like that. Not sure if this is actually feasible, just a thought.
The third option revolves around identifying coaches, rather than teams. With adequate moderation, you could simply voice anyone who wants to be added to the list of potential teachers and not voice anyone who wishes to be (by default) marked as a student.
The upshot is that it's dirt easy to find appropriate matches in IRC, whether you're specifically looking for a student vs. teacher or student vs. student. The downside is that it requires a lot of moderation by the ops. Fortunately, there's already a core group of reliable coaches commited to the goals of the division and experienced in running it which you could easily draw upon. For exactly this reason, I think that the existing faculty of FUMBBL Academy should be given Ops in the new division channel.
... of course, all this is assuming that you want to identify people as specifically falling into one of the three categories woodpecker offered up. That's up for debate as well. 1 and 3 are, by default, optional and you can do the same thing with 2 easily enough (by having a "no designation" option).
Thanks again to Christer and the various administrative primates who made this happen and, especially, to the folks who have kept the original Academy running smoothly for the past two years or so. |
_________________ Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 19:43 |
|
Well, my Scholars work for option one. But I'm all for option two! |
_________________
|
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2006 - 20:25 |
|
Hmmm. Well, I like options 2 and 3. 1 seems like it's unlikely to be that effective, because a lot of people are either not going to read that or are going to ignore it. 2 seems like it's the best, because it's very easy and most people will do it. I think most people look at each other's teams before playing, so people would have a chance to check out the opposing coach's mark. 3 also works, because, as you said, there is already an established base of coaches from which to draw. |
|
|
Mithrilpoint
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 28, 2006 - 06:51 |
|
I don´t really view either of the options as even partially neccesary tbh.
It´s not that hard to ask a potential opponent whether they are experienced or there to learn or with which purpose they are playing the match, actually i´d think that it´s easier to communicate directly between coaches then via a flagging system of some sort. It would also require less coding from the big C. (Which is a good thing).
As long as coaches (new as well as "teachers") make up their mind about what they are doing there there should be no problem in getting the games flowing and the hard lessons of Bloodbowl taught.
-o0o-
My suggestion for the new academy would be to get some kind of tournament/certificate/dedicated schooling going. I would like to have famous (and infamous) coaches to review and comment their own (and other) matches and maybe make a section in the user guide for this to be stored.
I think that the new division [A] might lose it´s lure to the new people after some time if nothing "unique" happens there. So learning tournaments, New people only (max 30/50/75/whatever games only) tournaments, themed tournaments (elfbowl/bashbowl/stunty/something else), RRR-style tourneys etc. etc. etc.
Those things are, to me, more important than defining who are there to learn and who are there to teach, and what people can learn/teach.
And as BadMrMojo so kindly thanks a lot of people for doing this and that, i´d like to congratulate BMM for making a true legacy here on Fumbbl. The Academy was your idea and your project from the start, and now it´s gone official. Grats BMM, good job. (And get your ass back in there, we miss you!)
M |
_________________ Stop the Whining! |
|
Jinxed
Joined: Jul 04, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 28, 2006 - 21:31 |
|
The true Royal Rookie Rumble!
The Academy Award goes this month to...
(plucked random name out of my hat) |
_________________ Nuffle sucks |
|
LordSnotball
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
|
  Posted:
Apr 13, 2006 - 23:32 |
|
i think a more practical approach would be to just use the tags in IRC. when u put ur team in gamefinder, the coaches can add a tag to their coachname, making 'identifying' each other easier.
however, i would recommend against complicated codes. just [H] would suffice, being h for Helper, or [T] for trainer. this will signify that these coaches are looking for someone to coach. the team names can't change, and we don't have flags for the teams, so this would be a more practical approach and avoids any coding whatsoever... |
_________________ -Snottie
The Congregation - Always Recruiting
[url=http://igolocal.net/badge.php?user_id=1949] [/url] |
|
HasniM
Joined: Dec 30, 2006
|
  Posted:
Mar 04, 2007 - 19:44 |
|
I was thinking that it might be nice to change the 'observer' settings for Academy games so spectators can give advise to coaches midgame. Sure, it's kibitzing, but then they can ask questions rather than try random things. |
|
|
|
| |