| Poll |
| How about Black box with total Race diversity ? |
| I'm the master of all races, YES bring it on. |
|
35% |
[ 33 ] |
| I'm a bit of a scaredy cat.... MAYBE. |
|
19% |
[ 18 ] |
| I play Khemri so NO way. |
|
45% |
[ 43 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 94 |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 11:55 |
 
|
| BigBother wrote: | What kind of poll is this supposed to be?
Why am I reacting to this anyway. This whole discusion is *censored*.
You don´t like [B] the way it is, you don´t play. End of it... |
Nice one.. never improve ANYTHING. If you don`t like something, then don`t use it - but NEVER try to improve it so that you might like it. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 11:55 |
|
|
peikko
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 12:00 |
|
Actually I did start making team for every race in black box before this thread, so it must be brilliant idea...  |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 12:39 |
|
If the racial breakdown of the box turns out to be bad enough that something needs to be done (i.e. bad enough that the free choice drives away more people than it welcomes) then this is not the way to fix it. Also there are much better ways of enforcing or encouraging diversity than this. Listing just a few problems with your proposed system:
- it splits the division into two divisions, this is bad, especially since its totally avoidable
- it forces people to commit 21  team slots to a single division, a division that people (initially) wont even be sure will be a success... why should I retire some of my much loved teams only to participate in a division why subsequently fails?
- it forces people to use all 21 teams, why not be content with them using their favourite 2 teams and whichever rubbish team they prefer?
- it will lead to people creating non-teams like goblins with full secret weapons and 3 trolls and a wizard and then retiring and remaking once the goblins get a game
- it means people will be unlikely to feel too much involvement in any one team - often that involvement is what makes things fun |
_________________
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." |
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 14:51 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | Yes, with that line of thinking I might suppose you'd say you are free to rob a bank, or not - you have the choice.
At which point you could follow that through to a chinese protester who has the choice to say something and get rolled by a tank or not. After which you might wonder that china must be a wonderful country with lots of freedoms too...huzzah!
The key point is consequence. To be truly free, you must be allowed to make a choice one way or the other without such unbalanced consequences. |
If you don't think you are good enough to win with the team of your choice, what difference would another division make? Wouldn't you still feel you need to pick the team, which gives you the best odds of winning rather than the one you want to play?
| Snorri wrote: | | The other key point is that there are some of us who would really like a division like this? Who are you to deny us that freedom? |
Nobody is stopping you from making a group in [U] or a website with a division like that, who is denying you that freedom? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:07 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | The bias towards damage inflicting races that is seen for whatever reason (it really doesn`t matter), discourages many coaches from playing races with a low armor value. Which in turn leads to more teams that are tough which - by accident - are teams that tend to inflict damage... and so on. |
What is the correct mix of rosters? Where do we find it? And if it does not exist already, who can define the target that we should be heading towards?
When you are satisfied that there are enough elves in [B], I may think that there are too many.
Every league, group or division structure will encourage a certain roster mix. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the mix we may be accustomed to from Ranked (for example) is normal or default. It is not. It is the product of rules of Ranked.
The rules of Blackbox will undoubtedly produce a different roster mix from those of Ranked. However, this by itself does not constitute a flaw in the division. That would only be suggested if there was a corresponding drop in popularity and - oh, what a surprise - there is, as usual and as yet, no evidence to indicate that. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:27 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | If the racial breakdown of the box turns out to be bad enough that something needs to be done (i.e. bad enough that the free choice drives away more people than it welcomes) then this is not the way to fix it. Also there are much better ways of enforcing or encouraging diversity than this. |
On that thought, I would like to share an idea on how racial diversity might be encouraged should it become an issue.
Disclaimer: I do not think this is sufficient data in [B] yet to conclude there is a racial diversity problem. This is just brainstorming in the event.
Some type of "Racial diversity incentive" to significantly underrepresented teams, adjusted weekly/monthly 1TS at a time.
"Significantly underrepresented" = race played more than twice as often or less than half of the average.
Publish these incentives so that coaches can take them into account when choosing teams. The adjustment periods should be spaced far enough apart so that coaches can adapt. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:29 |
|
| pac wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | | The bias towards damage inflicting races that is seen for whatever reason (it really doesn`t matter), discourages many coaches from playing races with a low armor value. Which in turn leads to more teams that are tough which - by accident - are teams that tend to inflict damage... and so on. |
What is the correct mix of rosters? Where do we find it? And if it does not exist already, who can define the target that we should be heading towards?
When you are satisfied that there are enough elves in [B], I may think that there are too many.
Every league, group or division structure will encourage a certain roster mix. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the mix we may be accustomed to from Ranked (for example) is normal or default. It is not. It is the product of rules of Ranked.
The rules of Blackbox will undoubtedly produce a different roster mix from those of Ranked. However, this by itself does not constitute a flaw in the division. That would only be suggested if there was a corresponding drop in popularity and - oh, what a surprise - there is, as usual and as yet, no evidence to indicate that. |
I just reexplained Snorri`s point as I understood it. I for myself would prefer a less prounounced emphasis on the bashers. If I don`t like the current mix, I have the right to voice my opinion in order to try and change it. If I have success - fine. If not - it`s also OK. Why is it so bad that I try to influence the system? Or have you now adopted the very sophisicated point of Mr. BigBrother?
Everyone has a vision how a racial spread should look like. Some want 90% bashers, some elves only, some something inbetween. Why is it so wrong for a group to ralley for measures, that shift the spread more towards their ideal? |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:36 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | | The other key point is that there are some of us who would really like a division like this? Who are you to deny us that freedom? |
Failure to provide a service is not a denial of a freedom.
There is no top-level rugby played where I live (in Vienna). But I am not being denied the freedom to watch live rugby by the Viennese authorities. There is virtually no decent ale here either, but I am not being denied the freedom to drink it. They are just services that are not available.
To confuse these two things is to denigrate real infringements on freedoms (such as the Chinese examples you mention), which I'm sure was not your intention. |
|
|
Sneakypete
Joined: May 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:38 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | Yes, with that line of thinking I might suppose you'd say you are free to rob a bank, or not - you have the choice. At which point you could follow that through to a chinese protester who has the choice to say something and get rolled by a tank or not. After which you might wonder that china must be a wonderful country with lots of freedoms too...huzzah!
The key point is consequence. To be truly free, you must be allowed to make a choice one way or the other without such unbalanced consequences.
The other key point is that there are some of us who would really like a division like this? Who are you to deny us that freedom? |
Lol Snorri why not just go extremist? ... Oh you have allready.
First of all I have never denied you or anyone anything. What you actually do indirectly is to deny me my right to have an opinion. I just voiced my opinion about the idea and the box. No where did I tell anyone how to think or how not to thin as you claim I did. I have never denied you the freedom of playing the game like this thread suggest. Its not me making the leagues or anything on fumbble 
If this kind of Box actually was made you should feel free to play it I would or could never stop you.
On the whole freedom issue. You are walking a thin line. Freedom is many things or actually nothing. We all have freedom with consequences I could commit murder but would have to face the consequences, I could try to stop a tank in china with my protest and would have to face the consequences (or at least have my face smooshed to the ground. Every choice you make has a consequence, some are btter than others. If I choose to play skavens against a khemri team, its my choice but also my consequence. So yes you have the freedom but you also have consequences. But since this is a game and the consequences are just a bunch of data being transferred. I actually think the dead chinese protester would feel Insulted by being compared to in this manner. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:39 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Everyone has a vision how a racial spread should look like. Some want 90% bashers, some elves only, some something inbetween. Why is it so wrong for a group to ralley for measures, that shift the spread more towards their ideal? |
My vision is for a division where all bashers gear up to face other bashers, and leave skill like tackle at home.
That way my Rats and soon to follow elves can dodge around teams at will
And soon my master plan will be complete, when I save enough to buy a wizard most games 
Until 'the game' comes along, and they all die in a horrible squishy mess  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:41 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | I just reexplained Snorri`s point as I understood it. I for myself would prefer a less prounounced emphasis on the bashers. If I don`t like the current mix, I have the right to voice my opinion in order to try and change it. If I have success - fine. If not - it`s also OK. Why is it so bad that I try to influence the system? Or have you now adopted the very sophisicated point of Mr. BigBrother?
Everyone has a vision how a racial spread should look like. Some want 90% bashers, some elves only, some something inbetween. Why is it so wrong for a group to ralley for measures, that shift the spread more towards their ideal? |
You still aren't answering the questions I posed. What is your ideal roster mix? If you're arguing for something, define it first. Then when you've done that, why should anyone else agree with it? And why would the imposition of the measures required to achieve that mix be worth it?
Oh, and again I hear the refrain of 'I have the right to ...'. Let me know the first time someone disputes that right, okay? In the mean time, you can save yourself some typing by not repeating it ad nauseam in every single post. |
|
|
nin
Joined: May 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 15:58 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | The key point is consequence. To be truly free, you must be allowed to make a choice one way or the other without such unbalanced consequences.
The other key point is that there are some of us who would really like a division like this? Who are you to deny us that freedom? |
Snorri, you are playing Dwarves in the BBox.
On the other hand, you are not suposed to be truly free, just free to make Dwarves in BBox (or the race you want, or to choose not to play in it).
And you are obviously free to think that you would like a division like the one proposed here (and you could actually like it if it starts running)
...the key point there is that (unless you have some servers and free time to do a lot of work) it's up to Christer to start new divisions here (you are not free to do that yourshelf).
So there is a debate (because Christer is not unreasonable and can be moved with good arguments).
And I've read some interesting arguments against this proposal so may be you should read the thread again (Duke Tyrion has good arguments for example)
You can make teams of any race.
You can already create 21 teams of different races.
You can make groups in this division.
Many divisions of this BBox tipe could damage one another because of lack of coaches.
(and the fact that those that seem to be more concerned about race diversity in BBox coach Dwarves thenselves doesn't help... I've Skavens and Ogres now and I'm happy with racial diversity, I'm tempted to make Khemri and Wood Elves... may be Vampires too) |
|
|
HolyG
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 17:27 |
|
I honestly beleive that the demand for this or similar will rise subsequently as time goes on....
I appreciatte any slatings I receive for suggesting, and also appreciatte the support for the idea of such a division, I would also suggest that Christer has allowed us a play test entirely for some of the reasons already given, Play testing aside it is entirely Play testing, and with that in mind I don' t see why any of us can be so blinkered as to say thats it like or lump it, discussion and ideas is the way forward,And is probably what brought about Fumbbl in the beginning, at the end of the day we don' t know how good or bad it would be until we test it !! |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 27, 2008 - 17:33 |
|
OK pac.. for you:
Ideally, no race would constitute more than 8% of the total active teams (which is over 50% more than the average of 5% of the teams). There would be a roughly 1/3 of each dodgy/scoring, bashy and mixed teams. Other good fine racial spread which is less restricting: Take the ELF categories moving rotters to cat B and undead to cat A - ideally no category would be more than 25% of the teams.
And for the 'I have the right to speak up' thing... your arguementation (at least the way I understand it) runs along the chain of logic, that there is no 'one and only mix', therefore the [B] racial mix is fine however it develops and therefore all pushes for changing the spread are without basis. You only grant an exception, should the racial spread result in reduced popularity (and therefore reduced number of games). But this is impossible to prove without a [B] like division that mirrors everything but the racial spread as a drop of popularity could be attributed to a variety of other factors. This mirror division doesn`t exist and so I cannot deliver the proof you want to see before you acknowledge that discussion might make sense. But can you proof, that [B] isn`t already taking a hit because of the racial spread currently prevalent? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
