mdd31
Joined: Oct 23, 2014
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 02:06 |
|
Is it possible that the required minimum number of teams for a Blackbox draw could be lowered from 4 to 3? Yes this would leave 1 team out but if there are 3 then at least there is a decent chance 2 of them might be in the same TV range.
It is so hard to find a BB game and it seems like every time there are 3 coaches in the draw so nothing happens. Getting that 4th coach is tough especially for players in the NA time zone. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 08:31 |
|
|
mdd31
Joined: Oct 23, 2014
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 18:46 |
|
Good thread but it is still talking about 4 person draws. I am purposing a 3 person draw and if the 3 teams do not match up then of course there would be no game but at least give the teams a chance to match up. Just had my 6th attempted draw this week and it was 3 coaches so no team had a chance to match up. All 6 of those match ups had just 3 coaches, its like getting a 4th coach is impossible or something. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 19:21 |
|
+1, it's better to give 2 coaches a match than give 3 coaches no match. |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 19:26 |
|
It was still 4 coaches required for a draw yea.
This is to prevent collusion |
|
|
Augustine
Joined: Jul 17, 2017
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 20:52 |
|
3 team activations, no. I dont think this will create more matches overall, often same 3 coaches activate repeatedly for a few rounds (imo) until a 4th joins then all 4 get a game , if 2 pair off straight away because of 3 activations required rule , 1 will be left unmatched awaiting 2 more for a chance at a game and potentially have a longer wait then previously.
Or more likely give up altogether as they know a match is unlikely for a while. Leaving only one match played out. = Less matches in the box during quiet periods.
I would rather during the quiet periods activations spread out more - ie every 30mins or hour.(But that has potential negative effects as well.) |
|
|
ArrestedDevelopment
Joined: Sep 14, 2015
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 21:20 |
|
One of the problems with the NA period is that there are known single-team activators (at high tv) in a very small pool. This complicates matters in that you frequently have (out of the other potential matches) only low tv teams to pair them with, or coaches who avoid draws while said coaches are online.
A 3 coach draw would probably leave a certain coach without a game for months on end. |
_________________
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 23:20 |
|
ArrestedDevelopment wrote: | One of the problems with the NA period is that there are known single-team activators (at high tv) in a very small pool. This complicates matters in that you frequently have (out of the other potential matches) only low tv teams to pair them with, or coaches who avoid draws while said coaches are online.
A 3 coach draw would probably leave a certain coach without a game for months on end. |
So?
He's already not getting the games when there is no draw anyway.
The whole notion that you need to prevent collusion is based off of paranoia anyway, there is really no value to having that restriction, all it does is make NA a total wasteland for B activations. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
  Posted:
Oct 03, 2017 - 23:33 |
|
A system that prevents 2 coaches from playing more than 1 match in a row in Black Box would partially counter collusion.
The Black Box collusion paranoia is quite funny, considering that coaches can arrange matches in Ranked, if they really want to play collusion matches. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
  Posted:
Oct 04, 2017 - 00:40 |
|
Collusion is especially absurd in Box when the practical outcome of collusion already happens: I've had several back to back games against the same coaches with the same teams. In fact I had 4 in a row with a particularly unlucky Norse coach. If you can't distinguish collusion from normalcy in a normal situation then why worry about collusion at all? |
|
|
BillBrasky
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
|
  Posted:
Oct 04, 2017 - 01:06 |
|
My norse just got banged! |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
  Posted:
Oct 04, 2017 - 01:58 |
|
BillBrasky wrote: | My norse just got banged! |
bang all norses!
more seriously tho, if NA coaches stopped mono-activating, it would help matters quite a lot. |
_________________
|
|
smallman
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
|
  Posted:
Oct 04, 2017 - 02:50 |
|
15min activations are killing box. It will revitalize big time if was 30 mins peak and 1 hour in off peak |
|
|
BubbaDave
Joined: May 19, 2008
|
  Posted:
Oct 04, 2017 - 03:28 |
|
Speaking only for myself, if I realize I just missed an activation I might wait 14 minutes for the next draw, but if I know it's going to be 29 or 59 minutes I'll say the heck with it and go read a book or something. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
  Posted:
Oct 04, 2017 - 08:04 |
|
We need to get more of those NA tt players or Cyanide playing on FUMBBL somehow. Less activations wont help anyone and I can see the reason for 4 minimum. Augustine also points out that you may not get so many more draws even if 3 activators were allowed as minimum. Also TV gaps would be bigger with 3 minimum.
I think playing twice in a row isnt too bad either, if can be less interesting. Well, except I played WMDs with my Undead on the weekend and escaped with a win ,so would rather not have played them again next match when I lost and he killed my ag4 ghoul |
_________________ “A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
|