CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 07:51 |
 
|
This is for future reference - I`m aware, that at the moment getting basic functionality of [B] working has priority.
The concept of a regular SMACK is that 8 coaches take 1 team and play KO-tourney.
A Black SMACK would be 8 coaches playing againts each other in a KO-style tourney. Each coach would be required to specify a team of his below a certain TR cap (just as in regular SMACKs now). This team would be set aside as a diciding team. Then all 8 coaches enter the box and get paired against each other. The Box takes all teams in account BUT the diciding team. Only if coaches cannot reasonably be paired this way, they are paired using their diciding team.
Play the games given by the box, drop the losers and repeat twice.
I`m thinking about a requirement of having at least 3 [B] teams before entering a SMACK... just so that the diciding team isn`t needed that much. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 08:18 |
|
It seems somewhat easy to abuse... suppose I have a tooled out veteran team and two identical min-maxed rookie teams. Thats going to be easy to creat and I can be pretty confident I'll like the games I get given.
Either way I dont see this as a smack, just a collection of strung together for the sake of a title. Ordinary smacks are different because they have continuity, the team you play in one game must be capable of playing in the next one too and you can plan ahead for your potential opponents. I dont think that this format would be any different to regular [B]... except it is likely to end up with more uneven matchups and it comes with a title if you can win three games in a row.
Personally I dont want to see smacks in blackbox. Tournaments would be great but I just cant see any point in blackbox smacks. What I'd rather see is a major style tournament or (even better) a 200TR or 250TR capped tournament in blackbox. It would be very interesting to see how coaches approached something like this since creating a perfect team for a TR200 minor is tough enough in [R]anked, and you can predict your games there. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 08:27 |
|
I too am somewhat unconvinced by SMACKs in [B].
It's tricky to figure out what sort of tourney is going to suit the division best actually, but I think they will certianly hold plenty of bragging rights. Since the box uses TS currently (I think?), wouldn't caps be TS based, for starters?
There's certianly room (imo) for big open KOs down the road, which will trump the [R]anked ones, but as for the rest, I'm not sure. Perhaps something of a Swiss nature would work? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 09:00 |
|
To me, the dowside of tournaments in [B] is that it invites more of the [R] spirit in.
Some coaches will see them as more important than regular games so sometihing to 'save your team' for, to pimp your team for, to whine about fouling for.
Now I am sure that the l33t ( ) coaches are above all that but some of us lightweights may think that it is a waste of time without a decent team.
[R] is already full of tournaments. Do we really need more? |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
PirateRob
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 09:35 |
|
Smacks don't make any sense in B.
You're already playing random opponents, all they would do is force unbalanced match ups between winning teams that were fortunate enough not to lose players and winning teams that were not so fortunate. |
|
|
Wotfudboy
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 09:37 |
|
I'm in agreement with Koadah... Ranked already has all that. I like the Blackbox idea, and I would prefer to see it untainted by anything else. It's just pure fun. Let's keep it that way. |
_________________
See my blog: https://wotfudboy.blogspot.com/.
WIL. |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 09:49 |
|
| koadah wrote: | To me, the dowside of tournaments in [B] is that it invites more of the [R] spirit in.
[R] is already full of tournaments. Do we really need more? |
Well we might eventually since [R] has been a bit of a dustbowl since [B] rode into town. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 12, 2008 - 13:09 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | Well we might eventually since [R] has been a bit of a dustbowl since [B] rode into town. |
Wow, you're right, take a look here. The line for [B] isn't labelled, but it's the one that's only just appeared and made a huge leap yesterday, falling fractionally short of surpassing [R] in terms of division with the most games played (something that has never happened (at least, never over a monthly period) since records began!).
Is this a passing fad or a historic shift ...? |
|
|
|
|
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
