Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
 Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 23:14 |
 
|
| Medon wrote: | | The other solution: play ranked and cherry pick your TV difference |
What if I'm too lazy to do that? |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Desultory
Joined: Jun 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 23:26 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Desultory wrote: |
I'm all for TV cap as suggested if for whatever reason, only small change(s) is allowed.
Other potential blackbox fixes?:
2: 15 completed game teams or xx game teams can't be drawn against 60 completed game or yy game teams of the same TV value. I.e. There is a completed game restriction where teams between 1-15, 16-30, 30-50, 50+ games, can only play each other etc.
|
I have a 310 game old Wood Elf team who's oldest player on the roster has played 12 games, why should I not be able to get matched against a team that has played less than 15 games? What advantage has those other 298 games given me, except experience in making up names for new Wood Elves?  |
I see. Very true that quantity of team games played doesn't reflect quantity of games players have played!
- Instead;(2) Average quantity of games between all of your players. Making that team equivalent to a 7 game team. (though I can see an 10 man rookie team with one legend CPOMB player exploiting that.)
- So; average quantity of games between the top 2,3,4 or x SPP players on a team. That would make that specific team equivalent to playing 23.55, 19 or 16 games respectively. Jiggle the number but seems fairer to me, and overall solves the problem.
- Or maybe AV7 teams should be an exception?  |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 23:41 |
|
I think the problems in both [R] and [B] stem from the same thing: so many coaches seem to want a guaranteed win, before the game has even started. It's human psychology. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 30, 2016 - 23:59 |
|
Why not let people choose a plus/minus percentage they are happy with when they activate? A bit like the Ranked gamefinder? And why not merge box and ranked while we are at it， and make bix activation optional? |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 00:25 |
|
| Grod wrote: | | Why not let people choose a plus/minus percentage they are happy with when they activate |
That would probably provide less match-ups overall, so that's the kind of change Christer categorically won't implement. I tend to agree with that policy. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 00:27 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | I think the problems in both [R] and [B] stem from the same thing: so many coaches seem to want a guaranteed win, before the game has even started. It's human psychology. |
Yeah, it's also called gamesmanship (often poor). So what really needs changing is the ruleset. Because the current one was made in an attempt to make Blood Bowl play more like Chess in TT tourneys, and not the perpetual team builds the large majority engage in here on Fumbbl. |
|
|
Khor_Varik
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 00:50 |
|
|
Critical_Code
Joined: May 06, 2016
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 00:52 |
|
| xnoelx wrote: | | You say "waste of time", I say "opportunity for glory". You want to deprive people of opportunity? |
Ooof, now that's a replay I'm gonna sit and watch!
*Gets popcorn* |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 01:54 |
|
| Grod wrote: | | ..And why not merge box and ranked while we are at it? |
I've been thinking along similar lines. Something I think would be very interesting to try would be to do away with [R] entirely and make Blackbox the only competitive division (with ratings, official tourneys, etc.). BUT, at the same time, bring in significant incentives to encourage racial diversity, e.g.:
1. Monthly racial medals/belts for best performing team of a particular race.
2. Monthly overall gold, silver, bronze medals for coach performance averaged across a range of racial categories (maybe similar to the ELF categories).
3. Perhaps even have the overall coach ranking be an average across similar racial 'style' categories, with coaches effectively being penalized if they stick too much to one particular category (e.g. heavy bash).
Basically, you can do a lot to change people's behavior if you change their reward system. Plus, I think making coaches who want to play agile/'between' teams play in [B] would act to improve the diversity anyway. Also, you'd have the benefit of de-fragmenting the site, which might make it easier to get games in regions outside Europe.
I know it'll never happen though |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 01:59 |
|
ban [R] 2016! |
_________________
 |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 04:10 |
|
Thanks everyone for ignoring my superior suggestion. I'm guessing you're just here for an argument. :p |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Thanks everyone for ignoring my superior suggestion. I'm guessing you're just here for an argument. :p |
I've told you once. |
|
|
Suppurax
Joined: Jun 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 06:14 |
|
Rather than TV, I think the issue is the number of games each team played. Imagine you get to chose between these 2 options :
1. a team with the same number of games, with more TV because it has all positional players and you lost one.
2. a minimaxed team with 200 games, with the same TV, consisting of 3-4 legendary players surrounded by rookie canon-fodder.
Well, for the sake of having a good time, I chose 1 without an afterthought. |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 07:09 |
|
| Suppurax wrote: | Rather than TV, I think the issue is the number of games each team played. Imagine you get to chose between these 2 options :
1. a team with the same number of games, with more TV because it has all positional players and you lost one.
2. a minimaxed team with 200 games, with the same TV, consisting of 3-4 legendary players surrounded by rookie canon-fodder.
Well, for the sake of having a good time, I chose 1 without an afterthought. |
My suggestion is better than yours too. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Aug 31, 2016 - 07:56 |
|
| Kryten wrote: | | On the flip side, one change that I feel should really be in there already is "All TV below 1000 are treated as equal to 1000." |
I don't think anyone can argue with this. Unnerf Flings and teams that have a really bad early game! |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
