Focus
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
 Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:03 |
 
|
Heard some chatter about people thinking that it could be a good thing since B has taken off and since teams can't cherry pick etc it will provide an equal ground and opportunity for everyone to qualify. This is all true, but I can see the downfall being that it will lead to people wanting to find ways to exploit B to get their teams a better chance.
For example, with a goal to actually aim for and build a team for people could then abuse the BR system and create joke teams and play like crap to give their good team a better chance of playing against weaker teams. There's nothing stopping them doing that now, but without a tangible reason to it's a lot of effort for no real return and hence no motivation. Give a major with a prize and watch the exploiters come crawling out of the woodwork to eat away at the foundation of what is an awesome system.
So here's my idea.
Faction. Yes, the much maligned Faction division. What if we were to create a Blackbox Faction division in addition to the regular Blackbox division. Each coach is only allowed a single [BF] team at a time. Keep the same promotion / relegation system in place, the only real change needed to be made to the [B] formula is that there no longer really needs to be a cap on how far apart teams are and that they only play teams in their division. I guess you wouldn't have to worry about BR and BBR (or is it BRR I keep forgetting. Maybe a small penalty in points if you play fewer than a certain amount of games for each month and hey presto, a pretty fair persistent league type format. If you retire a team then obviously you start again at scratch and have to qualify and blah blah blah.
Obviously this needs a lot of fleshing out and stuff but does anyone think it could work? |
_________________
Supporting dwarf and orc coaches in their struggle to be recognised as equals. Down with the prince of lies BillBrasky! 
Last edited by Focus on %b %25, %2008 - %17:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:06 |
|
Every thing that pushes DivB towards powergaming and minchkin-ness, is bad in my book. |
_________________
 |
|
Focus
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:14 |
|
Yeah, that's why I reckon that if there's going to be any sort of organised competitive goal oriented style [B] play then it needs to be segregated away from main [B] play. |
_________________
Supporting dwarf and orc coaches in their struggle to be recognised as equals. Down with the prince of lies BillBrasky! |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:33 |
|
OR.... you could just arrange teams by TS only and avoid all unneeded constructs and rather have straight tourneys  |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:46 |
|
[F]action is very very nearly dead, let it stay that way A key problem with this idea is that [B]lackbox thrives on large quantities of both coaches and teams. What this does is to split the coaches and teams up which upsets the scheduler and harms both divisions. |
_________________
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." |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:47 |
|
Creating joke teams to play against? I'm not sure I get this one. It seems to me a perfect opportunity to ban all those accounts involved. Everybody wins! |
_________________
The plural of anecdote isn't data. |
|
arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:48 |
|
pff...
does it make sense to play stupid on purpose?
More likely is playing Gobos (or other underdogs) to lower your BR/BBR-
If it is that important for you.
I appreciate coaches who play teams that aren't really good or teams they are no good with since [B] should be versatile.
If people are sick enough to play bad on purpose let me know. Could only be noobs usually- but they don't need tricks here: Their BR will be low anyway  |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 17:50 |
|
So torsoboy... you are the judge, who is playing to win and who not? Where the line between 'just intentionally crap' and 'fluff-wise challenged' is? Or are you just banning all bad coaches? Then you`ll probably have a ton of work...
@arw: Once there was a game, where a scheduler tried to estimate people`s skill and pair them accordingly. In the end, competitive people ended up making scripts that would join games and conceed immediatelly (losing nothing, as they had no points to lose yet), just to get paired against noobs when they started playing, racking up way more points than they would ahve normally. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 18:04 |
|
I think that any competitive goal for [B] should be BR-oriented. For example, Top X coaches are eligible to participate in a tournament.
If you incent people to raise their BR, they will be incented to try hard to win games. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 18:06 |
|
a way not to give peopl a chance to exploit it would be - forget about BlackboxRating (as proposed in other threads) and, if BlackBox BashRating is included somehow, make it for a team and not for a coach to avoid exploit (this would be good regardless if one wants to have majors or BR in the Box, imho) |
|
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 18:14 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | So torsoboy... you are the judge, who is playing to win and who not? Where the line between 'just intentionally crap' and 'fluff-wise challenged' is? Or are you just banning all bad coaches? Then you`ll probably have a ton of work...
|
Ah, I've read and reread the OP a few times and it has finally sunk in. The logic is as following, correct?
1. Teams are matched by the coach ranking and the team ranking.
2. If you intentionally play worse than you'd normally do, you'll get a lower coach ranking.
3. Therefore, you'll end up playing an easier game in the next match.
I was thinking of something else entirely when I wrote my previous post. As for the solution, I'm not quite sure what it would be. For this strategy to work, you'd have to play to lose and play to keep your team alive. The first is something easily achieved, I don't recall reading in the LRB anywhere that a coach has to play to win. The second is a bit harder to achieve, if you're not sure what you're paired up against. The days of elfballing to the tourney should be a bit harder. Maybe it balances out a little? |
_________________
The plural of anecdote isn't data. |
|
Zombie69
Joined: Jul 02, 2007
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 20:56 |
|
You still don't get it torsoboy. You make multiple teams. They all lose on purpose when scheduled, except for one that tries to win. It will be matched up against easier opponents because of your bad BR. Pretty straightforward really.
Three good solutions have been proposed:
1. Forget all about competitions, this division is not meant to be competitive.
2. Forget BR.
3. Tournaments require high BR to enter. |
|
|
DexC
Joined: May 20, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 21:04 |
|
What about 4: Different BR ratings for each team. Im sure someone mooted this at some point. |
|
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 21:04 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | [F]action is very very nearly dead, let it stay that way A key problem with this idea is that [B]lackbox thrives on large quantities of both coaches and teams. What this does is to split the coaches and teams up which upsets the scheduler and harms both divisions. |
That is not dead what can eternal play... |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
 |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 21:07 |
|
| DexC wrote: | | What about 4: Different BR ratings for each team. Im sure someone mooted this at some point. |
Once upon a time there was something called TeamRanking - a rank for every team someone had. It was abolished loong ago despite resistance and every attempt to get it back has failed.. So I reckon the this option can be neglected for the time being |
|
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
