14 coaches online • Server time: 07:11
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Are U Ready 2 Leave?...goto Post Fill the BOX grid !goto Post Dornbirn World Cup -...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Cyrus-Havoc



Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 19:32 Reply with quote Back to top

I think same again, seeding points seem fine & quite a few people are near or have completed 150 games.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!
fxiii



Joined: Oct 30, 2012

Post   Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 20:00 Reply with quote Back to top

i give my thoughts then:

imho, norses are too cheap, as slann are, ans some other teams are too expensive (nurgz, chaos pact for example, cause in 30 games you can hardly get a solid development) changing prices could do something interesting

extra points for playing 10 th games: i think there's no interest in that (make it hard to count where you are and nobody will win the trophy without playing all games- maybe nuffle could do!)

150 games or 200, as people like, but we saw that a player could deal it in one month Very Happy

i'd also like, for season 3, the possiblity to create another(s) squad(s) once 1st run is done, but with different teams and less points (9-8-7 maybe?), it would bring diversity and stunties

my 2 cents Smile
Strider84



Joined: Jun 03, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 22:15 Reply with quote Back to top

I feel bringing down the games more might enable more players to finish. a lot players started but then realized how much effort it would really take and had to drop. Maybe only 4 teams with budget for one of each tier (6) for 120 games might bring the total finishers from 25 up to 50?

then again 120 is still a lot so you need to be a freak anyways to finish.

points for 10 20 30 games are useless, don't think anyone really feels proud to be 67th instead of 75th because he plyed more games that the others...
Cyrus-Havoc



Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 22:28 Reply with quote Back to top

I disagree on the 10 20 30 points, it's about playing games anything that encourages people to play just one more game helps the original idea ie to get more games played with more diversity.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!
Sableheart



Joined: Jul 14, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 23, 2019 - 23:08 Reply with quote Back to top

150 games is a lot. It's not impossible as you have a whole year to finish it, but averaging three games a week is a heavy commitment.

The number should NOT be raised, IMO. If you want to lower it, you'll have to do that by lowering the number of games per team, not by lowering the number of teams. The goal, after all, is to increase diversity.

Similarly, when judging point costs of various teams, it's important to take into account popularity as well as team strength. If some of the less popular teams are actually a bit underpriced, that's a good thing, as it encourages coaches to play them.
ramchop



Joined: Oct 12, 2013

Post   Posted: Aug 23, 2019 - 23:59
FUMBBL Staff
Reply with quote Back to top

Strider84 wrote:
then again 120 is still a lot so you need to be a freak anyways to finish.


I disagree. 150 is indeed a lot, but it doesn't require being a freak.

I view this event like a marathon. When I entered I didn't think I'd have any chance of actually finishing it. Broke it down into goals (sprinting with each of the 5 teams) which got me halfway there. Then after that it seemed realistic to pace myself to the end.

2 to 3 games a weekend (I have very restricted hours to hit the primetime Euro box window) is about right.

It is a big commitment though, and a few weeks ago I was sure I'd not be entering next season's edition. But I'd miss it, and so I'll probably give it another go.

I'm not going to make the top 10, or even 100 points. However, even finishing a marathon is still an achievement.
MrCushtie



Joined: Aug 10, 2018

Post   Posted: Aug 24, 2019 - 01:15 Reply with quote Back to top

It took me 292 days to get through 150 games. That included playing every day in February, and then moving to the US and taking 100 days to do my last 40 matches. To ramchop's point, there was also a miserable hitting-the-wall experience (much like in a marathon) where every game was a duty and not a pleasure, but the end was nice.

Personally, I'd prefer to run 5x15 games than 5x30, but then the challenge wouldn't be the same. Right now it doesn't feel feasible for an American coach to complete 150 in a year without a lot of playing at antisocial hours, but I'm not sure how we would fix for that.

_________________
Image
The_Murker



Joined: Jan 30, 2011

Post   Posted: Aug 24, 2019 - 02:02 Reply with quote Back to top

I agree the 10,20,30 game bonus is important.

I sumbit a 'Sprinter' award for the best score after 100 games (20 with each team) and the more prestigious 'Endurance' award and the trophy, for the winner of the 150 game season.

_________________
Image
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia!
Cyrus-Havoc



Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 30, 2019 - 16:03 Reply with quote Back to top

As to race point values & going by the games I have played:
Orc & CD should be 4 points.
Norse & Khemri could be 3 points, Norse are my 7th most played against race.
Amazon should perhaps be 2 points since I have played 35 against them & High Elves but I expect that is too controversial.
Underworld could be 2 points & Elven Union 1 point since I have played 21 more games against Underworld than against Elven Union.

I am not talking strengths here just popularity of Races.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 30, 2019 - 17:38 Reply with quote Back to top

I think you'd be better off setting the meta cost for picks in the box trophy based on what people actually selected in the trophies/points gained with them rather than the overall variety of what you faced.

If you simply look at your opponents, you are, yes, going to see a LOT of orcs and cdorks in box. I would expect the vast majority of these teams had nothing to do with the box trophy meta event, and that penalizing their selection further is, in fact, just levying punitive terms on teams that already aren't being picked/played.

[edit] I checked the squads - for the top 200, orcs are roughly picked 1 in 10 or less on squads. They then get a large boost in selection in the last lot - these teams are mostly 0-5 games. And even in the first 200, most of the orc squads are not playing 30. The fact is, that race is barely being played inside the box trophy meta at 3pts.

_________________
Image
Chivite



Joined: Sep 04, 2017

Post   Posted: Aug 30, 2019 - 17:51 Reply with quote Back to top

is the trophy suposed to add variety to the box or to the trophy itself?
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Aug 30, 2019 - 17:55 Reply with quote Back to top

Fair question - but what I'm really arguing there is that penalizing orcs doesn't do either - people make orcs in box for other reasons, and they'll always be a popular team anyway (I mean seriously, there were loads in CRP even when using them was tantamount to handing out free wins every 3rd game above 1600tv).

_________________
Image
GAZZATROT



Joined: Apr 26, 2009

Post   Posted: Aug 30, 2019 - 17:59 Reply with quote Back to top

I think it would be very nice (and encouraging) to have a separate table for all the races.

For example, I've been playing Vamps and found it a grind at times.... However when I took the time to compare myself to other Vamp results I was encouraged that my record was above par.

Perhaps even re-jig the "Top Race" bonus to perhaps a top 3 award.

_________________
Forever fearless, sometimes stupid.
Cyrus-Havoc



Joined: Sep 15, 2006

Post   Posted: Aug 30, 2019 - 21:26 Reply with quote Back to top

I loved playing Vamps they are so good some games & so bad in others. What they are is fun.

_________________
Not Undead but perhaps the oldest living coach!
Sableheart



Joined: Jul 14, 2014

Post   Posted: Aug 31, 2019 - 08:17 Reply with quote Back to top

Chivite wrote:
is the trophy suposed to add variety to the box or to the trophy itself?
I believe it should add variety to the box. The reason we want variety is not for the player playing (if they want variety, they'll ensure they'll get it) but for the opponent (yay, I'll get to play orcs again [/sarcasm]) Adding variety to the trophy itself doesn't do much for the opponents, as you're never guaranteed to play a trophy team.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic