Ullakkomorko
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
|
 Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 12:43 |
 
|
I do enjoy winning more than losing, although I must say that recently I've been enjoying games I've lost too. My win % is close to 50 and I don't mind keeping it that way.
I get the feeling that the expectation is that Black Box would replace Ranked. I don't know why that should happen, but especially Ranked does allow coaches to play against other coaches based on respective abilities, as CR is visible and is an indication of a coach's ability.
I've never had any problems in finding opponents in Ranked. The only few times I remember have been when I've felt really picky after some devastating losses, but that was my own fault. Now that could be due to the fact that I've played less than a hundred games or that I mostly enjoy playing soft teams with Skaven and Pro Elves being my favourites. That said, if I really want to find an opponent, it usually does not take me less than ten minutes to find one. Finding a game on Black Box takes between 1-30 minutes, so it really isn't that quick (at least not for me).
Right now Black Box allows people to put in those Dwarfs, Khemris and Orcs (plus those killer halflings) and get matches with them. That's good. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 12:45 |
|
So.. Jan.. are you leading the mob that is demanding a TS-only matching division? If so, how about creating a new thread - maybe in general chat? |
|
|
Uberskiller
Joined: Dec 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 13:10 |
|
Why would a seperate division be needed?
I'd love to see a ts-only-instant-game-matchmaker for ranked. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 13:41 |
|
| Uberskiller wrote: | Why would a seperate division be needed?
I'd love to see a ts-only-instant-game-matchmaker for ranked. |
Because in the ranked enviroment, unless TS matching was forced for all games, you would get some using the TS match system and others not using it.
You would then end up with teams that had fought hard to build up via the TS matching route being beaten in majors by teams that had picked their games in preperation. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 13:54 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | On topic please?
(God, never thought I would come up with such words...) |
I cry for you.  |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 14:21 |
|
| DukeTyrion wrote: | | Uberskiller wrote: | Why would a seperate division be needed?
I'd love to see a ts-only-instant-game-matchmaker for ranked. |
Because in the ranked enviroment, unless TS matching was forced for all games, you would get some using the TS match system and others not using it.
You would then end up with teams that had fought hard to build up via the TS matching route being beaten in majors by teams that had picked their games in preperation. |
How many people are really bothered by that? If it is a separate division those BB/Squickstart teams couldn't play in Majors anyway.
Two black boxes splits the market and you may not get a decent match up in either.
QuickStart for [R] sounds good except for that reason. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 14:34 |
|
I can't make predictions but I do really prefer the idea of a pure blackbox division than the idea of Ranked+instant games thing (which doesn't mean I mind about any instant system in R tough).
Because, in a pure blackbox environment, I have the feeling beeing treated equally while in R, I would hate facing that big team maxed by cherrypicking, the uberelves made ready to use the last cherrypicking system or whatever last mode thing.
It's kinda fun that for the first time, R is threatend by another division  |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 14:44 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | I can't make predictions but I do really prefer the idea of a pure blackbox division than the idea of Ranked+instant games thing (which doesn't mean I mind about any instant system in R tough).
Because, in a pure blackbox environment, I have the feeling beeing treated equally while in R, I would hate facing that big team maxed by cherrypicking, the uberelves made ready to use the last cherrypicking system or whatever last mode thing.
It's kinda fun that for the first time, R is threatend by another division |
If they are ranked equal to you why does it matter so much how they got there? |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:03 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | DukeTyrion wrote: | | Uberskiller wrote: | Why would a seperate division be needed?
I'd love to see a ts-only-instant-game-matchmaker for ranked. |
Because in the ranked enviroment, unless TS matching was forced for all games, you would get some using the TS match system and others not using it.
You would then end up with teams that had fought hard to build up via the TS matching route being beaten in majors by teams that had picked their games in preperation. |
How many people are really bothered by that? If it is a separate division those BB/Squickstart teams couldn't play in Majors anyway.
Two black boxes splits the market and you may not get a decent match up in either.
QuickStart for [R] sounds good except for that reason. |
A big reason:
Being blindly matched and managing a team successful is a hard task. A reason why [B] is so successful (in my opinion) is because there is no 'easy way' to build up ones team. People can be proud of their teams. Other coaches can instantly see that TS200 elves are indeed tough bastards coached by someone who knows his stuff. [R] Quickstart wouldn`t have this feeling of accomplishment, because you know, that others automatically think that you sneaked in easy games from the finder.
I think there are a few coaches (I count me in there), that would love to see a meaningful measure of skill that is not easily manipulated through metagaming. I think a big part of the excitement around [B] was the there was a really competitive division that would produce such a meaningful measure. Some people therefore are disappointed, that the edge of competition was blunted by BR adjustment in terms of TS.
If [B] was split with one box having the current system and one only matches by TS, then the more popular system would take over the other. And I belive that the TS-only box would be the more popular system.
The CR-TS-adjusted box is something that resembles [R] more closely, for exmple with BBR accounting for coaches with killing-preferences. Therefore it would be only the logical step to keep the TS-scheduled box a separate division and the CR-adjusted matchmaking as the [R] quickfind feature (should it ever happen). Though I doubt that many [R] coaches would make use of it.. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:13 |
|
I agree with Circ |
_________________
 |
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:25 |
|
What was the maximum TS advantage to the underdog the system was giving for lower BR again? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:25 |
|
OK, here's one. Cos we know that Christer really has nothing else to do.
All in [B]
Each coach has options.
1. Default [B] scheduling
2. TS only
3. Hardest with in the max TS difference (handy if you are going for a Championship or pimping your BR)
4. Really easy. (You can't be bothered with any of that thinking nonsense and know that your BR is unlikely to change if you win)
The truely awesome scheduler tries it's best to give you what you want. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:29 |
|
| Koigokoro wrote: | | What was the maximum TS advantage to the underdog the system was giving for lower BR again? |
There is no maximum. The TS advantage depends on the distance in BR/BBR. |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:31 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Koigokoro wrote: | | What was the maximum TS advantage to the underdog the system was giving for lower BR again? |
There is no maximum. The TS advantage depends on the distance in BR/BBR. |
Ok, what is the typical advantage it's giving away now then? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 19, 2008 - 15:35 |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes FTW! (Replays...
Search
