Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jun 18, 2003 - 19:02 |
 
|
| Mr-Klipp wrote: | | Part of the idea of having specific numbers of slots in different areas is to encourage the coaches to try the other divisions. |
Yeah, and it's a very very bad idea IMHO.
I'm completely uninterested in playing a ladder game and will probably never do that. To me, stunty is dead boring as well (that's only my personal opinion, I just don't like that format personally, as I don't like playing Dwarves for example). Another 2 entirely wasted slots.
divX? It's just the open league with the addition of some really broken rosters, primarily bashy ones. You don't need an extra division for that.
This "encouragement" does not encourage me at all, it does the opposite. It forces me to play less. And it does that very successfully indeed. |
|
|
Aequitas
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2003 - 20:56 |
|
I agree with Mirascael. I primarily use DivX so that I can transfer Open teams to it instead of having to delete them. I hate stunty, and I'm not into the Ladder thing either. And after they're in DivX I barely play with these teams anymore. 
And if I want to play in a tourney/league I have to sacrifice an open slot to do it. Nonetheless, I'm still thankful for the open slots I have and the fact that it's free to use this wonderful service. So don't get me wrong there, but it would be nice if we had a tournament slot option, even just a single slot would be great. |
_________________
The goggles, they do nothing! o_0 |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2003 - 21:17 |
|
I'd really suggest to let the coaches choose themselves how many teams they want to coach in which division.
1) Freedom of choice. Always a good thing.
2) Currently, the BBRC doesn't take the fumbbl-results into account anyhow as far as I know.
3) Even with an implemented handycap-system, open leagues would still be unable to create an environment from which conclusions with regard to team-balance could be drawn from.
4) Once the handycap system will be implemented, only closed leagues can produce results from which you could draw serious conclusions with regard to team-balance.
5) Personally, I would like most of my teams to participate in well-managed leagues. Perhaps groups should be able to provide or facilitate that. I could even think of automized leagues, managed by the Bowl Bot. Should not be too difficult to code, and should also not require too much CPU-time.
Instead of the rather artificial open league/divX split, I'd suggest an option button for groups: Standard, Experimental, Stunty or Ladder. That would make much more sense IMHO. |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2003 - 21:56 |
|
I disagree to a certain degree Mirascael. The division between open and divx does have it's sense. Yes the BBRC might not take the results here in account - but still it gives one the opportunity to try out the new teams and form one ownes oppinion about them. From what I gather they do read the TBB forum, and at least having played a roster should enhance discussions there.
I don't think an automized league system would work that well either - a lot of the tourneys offered are differing in quite a number of points - making an automized system flexible enough to encompass all those would probably take way too much time.
But just having Tourney Slots at all would be wonderful  .
-Mnemon |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 18, 2003 - 23:49 |
|
| Mnemon wrote: | | I disagree to a certain degree Mirascael. The division between open and divx does have it's sense. Yes the BBRC might not take the results here in account - but still it gives one the opportunity to try out the new teams and form one ownes oppinion about them. From what I gather they do read the TBB forum, and at least having played a roster should enhance discussions there. |
By no means did I mean to get rid off the experimental rosters. I just don't see the need for different open leagues. I really would suggest to merge open and divX.
| Quote: | | I don't think an automized league system would work that well either - a lot of the tourneys offered are differing in quite a number of points - making an automized system flexible enough to encompass all those would probably take way too much time. |
Well, some default choices wouldn't hurt. If your league doesn't want them - fine. But it would be nice if groups would support basic schedules and table calculations. As I said: just optional!
| Quote: | | But just having Tourney Slots at all would be wonderful . |
Well, actually there are 9 tourney slots already. The enforced limitations currently deter coaches from joining more leagues. I don't see the need for an extra tournament league.  |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2003 - 00:51 |
|
But that's the point - open should be lrb rules only and divx with experimental rules. I like that division, makes sense to me and should stay that way . |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2003 - 04:07 |
|
Alternatively, I could think of a different solution which rewards frequent game play.
For example:
1) Teams with, let's say, 100+ games (4 in open, 1 in divX right now, the divX team only due to the shortage of open slots) do not count against you team limit.
2) Coaches get one extra-slot for, let's say, every 100 games played.
3) Once TR reaches a specific number (for example 200 or 250), that team becomes free, i.e. does not count against your team limit any longer.
However, I really think that an extra group league would not make any sense at all, since you want to compete with teams which are either in the open league or in the divX league. There's simply a shortage of slots for coaches who play very often. |
|
|
cjohnsto
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2003 - 04:39 |
|
I have always wanted the teams with TR over 250 to be "free" but these tournament slots will be very helpful in reducing the number of complaints about limited open slots. Also please allow tournament slots to be transfered at least into Divx. |
|
|
gophur
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2003 - 05:03 |
|
| Mirascael wrote: | Alternatively, I could think of a different solution which rewards frequent game play.
For example:
1) Teams with, let's say, 100+ games (4 in open, 1 in divX right now, the divX team only due to the shortage of open slots) do not count against you team limit.
2) Coaches get one extra-slot for, let's say, every 100 games played.
|
yes rewrite the code for 5 teams  |
|
|
Zhluhur
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2003 - 12:38 |
|
my vampire team retires now due to low slots |
_________________
*-* Let the games begin! *-* |
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2003 - 13:47 |
|
We are looking at setting up a leauge division for teams in leagues and tournaments. Look for more to come on this once we get some details sorted out. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
gorritakid
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 26, 2003 - 13:49 |
|
Weeeeee! The joy! The happiness! Good things come sometimes to those who wait
Tournament slots are here!
I just want to say thank you for this (and the other things you make) to Christer, Mr. Klipp and the rest of admins.
THANK YOU
And now, beware, 'cause there is The tournament coming soon... and I want the top guns there along with everybody else. Huge prize involved
Gorritakid |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
