44 coaches online • Server time: 16:15
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
How about Black box with total Race diversity ?
I'm the master of all races, YES bring it on.
35%
 35%  [ 33 ]
I'm a bit of a scaredy cat.... MAYBE.
19%
 19%  [ 18 ]
I play Khemri so NO way.
45%
 45%  [ 43 ]
Total Votes : 94


JanMattys



Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 17:36 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
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?


The guy makes sense.

_________________
Image
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 17:40 Reply with quote Back to top

nin wrote:
(and the fact that those that seem to be more concerned about race diversity in BBox coach Dwarves thenselves doesn't help... )


So nin.. what would he have to coach for you to be helpful? If he would only coach woodies/skaven, he`d be a whiner that is just upset because he can`t elfbowl in [B]. He would be a pixelhugger. If he has a variety of races, that includes orcs/dorf/khemri and voila - he is part of the problem again. Like me btw..
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 17:51 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
nin wrote:
(and the fact that those that seem to be more concerned about race diversity in BBox coach Dwarves thenselves doesn't help... )


So nin.. what would he have to coach for you to be helpful? If he would only coach woodies/skaven, he`d be a whiner that is just upset because he can`t elfbowl in [B]. He would be a pixelhugger. If he has a variety of races, that includes orcs/dorf/khemri and voila - he is part of the problem again. Like me btw..

QFT

Suggested improvements should be discussed on their merits.

_________________
\x/es
kn00b



Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 18:38 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
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.


I return to the point that I've voiced many times before. 21 teams in bbowl - 2 are stunty (halfers, gobs), 5 are 'score' (elves/skaven), 3ish are 'mix' (humies, lizzies, zons(spit), that means 11 are bash. It also means I'm crazy, because zons are a crappy mix team, far more bash than score.

An even split would be interesting but probably awful. Imagine a league of 100 where 25 were elves and skaven, vs. only 10 orcs and dwarves? I see elves dominating completely. Thankfully, no such league exists.

Your 8% model is more practical not only in terms of balance but because it allows space for natural preference. Fringe teams like vamps and gobs would be low as they should be, but there still could be a whopping 40% elves and skaven who would undoubtedly dominate.

A 1/3 model based on category would be the worst yet. If you allow the categories I've stated above for a first example, you'd break down thus:

100 teams - 1/3 score, 1/3 bash, 1/3 mix

6 each of each elf and skaven
11(!) each of human, zon and lizard
3 each of orc, dwarf, CD, chaos, ogre, undead, khem, etc.

I would never play in a league with so much zon. I'd rather watch paint dry (and once dry, stomp on my junk).

The fine folks at ELF and their racial spread is the closest we might come, however you can bet dwarves and orcs will be at the maximum allowed. And given that Elves have their own category, if they constitute a full 25% of the league, with skaven and humans high as well, we'd see a very high trend towards Elf dominance especially if a large number of good coaches took Elves.

This post is long-winded already but the point I'm trying to make is simple - the rules of the game do not encourage racial parity between score and bash. Take a look at the number of players who have S access vs. the number with AG access for another bit of evidence.

People will play what they want to play. There are a lot of grand ideas in this thread but they belong to a group or league, not a division. I won't tell you not to talk about it, but please keep the 'OMG DORFS AGAIN' to a minimum.
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 18:44 Reply with quote Back to top

Quote:
21 teams in bbowl - 2 are stunty (halfers, gobs), 5 are 'score' (elves/skaven), 3ish are 'mix' (humies, lizzies, zons(spit), that means 11 are bash. It also means I'm crazy, because zons are a crappy mix team, far more bash than score.


So vampires are bash? Very Happy

I do like the 8% model... that would be about right IMO (forget the ELF categories and whatnot though).

_________________
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."
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 18:55 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
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.

They're certainly without basis at the moment, as the data hasn't had the chance to settle down.

Quote:
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?

It's more popular than Ranked. What more do you want as a yardstick?

But, no, I don't think that any situation will arise such that the roster mix becomes so intolerable that, most likely intrusive, measures to 'fix' it would be justified.


Edit: Thank you, by the way, for giving us specific figures that can be discussed, as nin has above. I agree with his criticisms entirely. Smile

Edit2: And with kn00b's below. Especially the zons part.


Last edited by pac on Nov 27, 2008 - 19:08; edited 1 time in total
kn00b



Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 19:05 Reply with quote Back to top

If anything I'd put vamps in stunty and rename it to odds. Maybe include ogre there as well, though ideally you'd take all the joke teams out of the equation entirely. You certainly see more DP than sprint, if you know what I mean. The point stands - bash>score as far as numbers go in any league anywhere at any time, get used to it.

Your 8% model would be terribly unbalanced(taken to it's logical conclusion of course) - having four elf teams for every Orc team not only isn't natural, it isn't healthy. More people play orcs than anything else, which means two things in my mind - more crappy coaches play orcs, and orcs lose more games than any other team. Very Happy

It's all well and good to speak about racial parity in your own league, which has a comissioner who will listen to the demands of the group in a sort of parliamentary democratic nonsense model. In the largest league in the world, run according to the rules in an open format, with no desire to limit an individual's choice, people need to understand that they won't always get what they want. I want zons to be banned and everyone who says something against it thrown into the Chasm of Infinite Fire Ants and Other Crawly Things That Have Envenomed Stingers. But Christer won't do that for me. More's the pity. (People who bring zons to rookie smacks would be rolled in sugar beforehand)
HolyG



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 19:19 Reply with quote Back to top

Shocked...

For heaven's sake, Why take 'Ranked' As a yard stick ? It isn' t by any means perfect, And has proved most popular mainly due to the fact you can get more games in ranked than the other division, Christer rightly so gives us a brand new tool and so far we are all blinded by its beauty, That doesn't mean however that it's what everybody wants ? Or that it should be the only division that people play.

I have always been under the impression that Christer to some extent does listen to people on here and that new ideas / divisions can be entertained rather than shot down prematurely, certainly we already have several dwindling divisions maybe actually letting one or 2 die gracefully in the light of our new tool, and encouring some new divisions with different aims may actually improve the site.

I for one would certainly vote in favour...
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 19:29 Reply with quote Back to top

HolyG wrote:
It isn' t by any means perfect

Nothing is.

What would be particularly imperfect would be a division with a cumbersome and irritating system requiring them to use teams they would rather not.

You want this thing and think other people do too? Then make an [L] group and watch the crowds gather …

Quote:
And has proved most popular mainly due to the fact you can get more games in ranked than the other division

BTW, you seem to have it the wrong way round. The fact that you could find more games there than anywhere else was the result of Ranked's popularity, not the cause.

At a certain stage, the two become mutually reinforcing, but the factor that originally attracted people to Ranked cannot have been its popularity.
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 21:26 Reply with quote Back to top

pac wrote:
CircularLogic wrote:
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.

They're certainly without basis at the moment, as the data hasn't had the chance to settle down.

Data doesn`t need to settle down. Data might need to accumulate to exclude random fluctuation. But I have no clue why you attack my data base if I haven`t presented any data - mainly because we are argueing over theoretical models while data mounts up. You don`t need data to find consensus on what might be a desireable spread and what might be appropriate measures.

pac wrote:
Quote:
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?

It's more popular than Ranked. What more do you want as a yardstick?

But, no, I don't think that any situation will arise such that the roster mix becomes so intolerable that, most likely intrusive, measures to 'fix' it would be justified.

So what does it prove that it`s more popular than ranked? Right... it proves nothing. There are so many factors influencing it`s popularity and you cannot say that given a different racial spread there wouldn`t be more people playing in the blackbox.

pac wrote:

Edit: Thank you, by the way, for giving us specific figures that can be discussed, as nin has above. I agree with his criticisms entirely. Smile

Edit2: And with kn00b's below. Especially the zons part.


So you agree entirely with nin`s arguements? Here as a reminder:
nin wrote:
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.


Great criticism... of his 4 points 3 have no relevance to the proposal and the 4th is just caused by the wording of the proposal, because it`s calling for a new division. I argue for a change of THIS still formable [B] division.

As for kn00b, he makes a show of applying math, but is just picking horrible wording. Sure.. if you look at it that way, then for every orc team you have 4 elves. But for every woodelf team you have 6 teams of orcs/khemri/dorfs/chaos/orgre/undead! OMG! Bash overload!
Seriously.. same as his comparison of the races into score/mixed/bash. I can do the same calculation the otherway round. 21 races minus 2 stunties means 19 competitive races. 4 elves as scoring team, orcs/dorfs/chaos/khemri as bashers, means 11 mixed teams! Yay!

Saying that in an even spread there should be 5% of each race, then cutting each race at 8% seems reasonable.

kn00b wrote:

It's all well and good to speak about racial parity in your own league, which has a comissioner who will listen to the demands of the group in a sort of parliamentary democratic nonsense model. In the largest league in the world, run according to the rules in an open format, with no desire to limit an individual's choice, people need to understand that they won't always get what they want. I want zons to be banned and everyone who says something against it thrown into the Chasm of Infinite Fire Ants and Other Crawly Things That Have Envenomed Stingers. But Christer won't do that for me. More's the pity. (People who bring zons to rookie smacks would be rolled in sugar beforehand)

And here we have a different flavor of 'shut up and play something else if you don`t like it'. Really no need to repeat, that I have the right to discuss what I think would improve the gaming experience in [B]??

Oh.. and I think ranked is so popular because it`s the direct successor of the original FUMBBL before the various new divisions. Just the main place of FUMBBL.
DukeTyrion



Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 21:51 Reply with quote Back to top

If there was a limit on the race types, everyone would rush to make bashers and the new players joining the division may be forced to take squishy teams they would not enjoy.

Other might make 1 of each, then retire all except the bashy team, either way you are not giving more choice, you are just restricting people.
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 21:58 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
Saying that in an even spread there should be 5% of each race, then cutting each race at 8% seems reasonable.

8% feels too low... I would recommend 10% (double the average) to allow more leeway for personal preference.

Also, what is your position if the threshold is exceeded?

DukeTyrion wrote:
If there was a limit on the race types, everyone would rush to make bashers and the new players joining the division may be forced to take squishy teams they would not enjoy.

Other might make 1 of each, then retire all except the bashy team, either way you are not giving more choice, you are just restricting people.

I think DukeTyrion raises a good point. I don't think a hard cutoff is a good idea. Rather, some type of incentive if the threshold is exceeded, e.g. some TS handicap.

_________________
\x/es
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 22:02 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
Data doesn`t need to settle down. Data might need to accumulate to exclude random fluctuation.

You say potato …

Or, to put it another way, those are the same thing …

The fluctuations, by the way, are likely not just random. As I pointed out in a recent thread, people are working off the frustration of not being able to find games in a reasonable time with certain teams. Until that frustration is worked off, the stats won't be reliable.

Quote:
But I have no clue why you attack my data base if I haven`t presented any data - mainly because we are argueing over theoretical models while data mounts up. You don`t need data to find consensus on what might be a desireable spread and what might be appropriate measures.

The very phrase 'data mounts up' implies that it is gathering and will gather in support of your position!

Stop prejudging things! Wait and see.

In the meanwhile, yes, I already have thanked you for (finally) putting forward your idea of what an acceptable roster mix would be. And I (and others) don't agree with it.

Quote:
… you cannot say that given a different racial spread there wouldn`t be more people playing in the blackbox.

And you can't say that taking your measures to supposedly improve the roster mix would be worth the trouble. How many more people would be put off by those measures than might be by there being 9% Orcs rather than 8%?


Yes, I can confirm that I do agree with nin's points and kn00b's points - even the ones you've decided are irrelevant.

Quote:
Sure.. if you look at it that way, then for every orc team you have 4 elves. But for every woodelf team you have 6 teams of orcs/khemri/dorfs/chaos/orgre/undead! OMG! Bash overload!

That sounds fine to me.

What was the complaint again?

Quote:
Saying that in an even spread there should be 5% of each race, then cutting each race at 8% seems reasonable.

To you, perhaps. Not to everyone, clearly.

When exactly is it worth taking additional measures in support of these arbitrary measures? Would 9% Orcs be too much, and it's time to reach for your toolkit? 10%?

IMO, the problem is never going to be worse than the cure.

In the mean time - by banging on about this long before any problem can possibly be demonstrated - you're only weakening your own position.

Let's imagine that in 3 months time it really will be 50% Orcs and the rest Dwarves, Ogres and Khemri. Do you really think people are going to turn for answers to the person who's been muttering darkly about the doom of [B] since it started? No one listens to Cassandra. No one ever did.


Quote:
Really no need to repeat, that I have the right to discuss what I think would improve the gaming experience in [B]??

As I said before, I am sick of the refrain of 'I have the right!!111'.

No one is denying you any rights. We just think your arguments are rubbish. We also have the right to say as much.
kn00b



Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 22:23 Reply with quote Back to top

Well put, Pac. One problem though - everyone is entitled to Circ's opinion but nobody is allowed to disagree. Sorry. Your post is now irrelevant. Very Happy
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Nov 27, 2008 - 22:54 Reply with quote Back to top

pac wrote:

Quote:
But I have no clue why you attack my data base if I haven`t presented any data - mainly because we are argueing over theoretical models while data mounts up. You don`t need data to find consensus on what might be a desireable spread and what might be appropriate measures.

The very phrase 'data mounts up' implies that it is gathering and will gather in support of your position!

Stop prejudging things! Wait and see.

In the meanwhile, yes, I already have thanked you for (finally) putting forward your idea of what an acceptable roster mix would be. And I (and others) don't agree with it.

I have no prejudgement. The data mounts up. How that data looks like.. I have no clue and I have never claimed it would support only my view. You are twisting words here.

Also I have never talked about 'acceptable' race mix - which implies that others are inacceptable. I have said what more ideal mixes look like. You disagree - which I respect, even though you haven`t stated, what you consider an ideal spread.


pac wrote:
Quote:
… you cannot say that given a different racial spread there wouldn`t be more people playing in the blackbox.

And you can't say that taking your measures to supposedly improve the roster mix would be worth the trouble. How many more people would be put off by those measures than might be by there being 9% Orcs rather than 8%?

That`s another thing. That would have to be discussed or experimentally determined.


pac wrote:
Yes, I can confirm that I do agree with nin's points and kn00b's points - even the ones you've decided are irrelevant.

So you say, that the fact that you can make 21 team of different races is a relevant point against pushing players into playing more different races? Interesting.. could you please explain me how this is relevant?

Of course I agree, that you can make teams of any race as well as that you can create 21 teams of different races. Why should I disgree? These are facts. Just like the 'critisism' (your word) that you can make groups in this division. That is true, too. But... how does that imply that measures pushing for another racial spread are bad or unneeded?

And - even more of an mystery to me - what points does kn00b actually make? That zons are evil?

pac wrote:
Quote:
Sure.. if you look at it that way, then for every orc team you have 4 elves. But for every woodelf team you have 6 teams of orcs/khemri/dorfs/chaos/orgre/undead! OMG! Bash overload!

That sounds fine to me.

What was the complaint again?

Kn00b was complaining, that elves would rule the world, because there are 4 elven teams per orc team... implying that scoring teams outnumber the bashy ones 4 to 1.

pac wrote:
Quote:
Saying that in an even spread there should be 5% of each race, then cutting each race at 8% seems reasonable.

To you, perhaps. Not to everyone, clearly.

When exactly is it worth taking additional measures in support of these arbitrary measures? Would 9% Orcs be too much, and it's time to reach for your toolkit? 10%?

IMO, the problem is never going to be worse than the cure.

In the mean time - by banging on about this long before any problem can possibly be demonstrated - you're only weakening your own position.

Let's imagine that in 3 months time it really will be 50% Orcs and the rest Dwarves, Ogres and Khemri. Do you really think people are going to turn for answers to the person who's been muttering darkly about the doom of [B] since it started? No one listens to Cassandra. No one ever did.


That`s why I stopped posting in my own thread. Yet this topic has come up again, so I`m refreshing my position. Maybe they won`t turn to me, but I`m sure some people will remember, that this has been discussed before and turn to these threads for ideas.

pac wrote:

Quote:
Really no need to repeat, that I have the right to discuss what I think would improve the gaming experience in [B]??

As I said before, I am sick of the refrain of 'I have the right!!111'.

No one is denying you any rights. We just think your arguments are rubbish. We also have the right to say as much.


Well.. let me just adopt the style of comments, that promt the 'I have the right!!111' refrain that you poor little pac are so sick about:
If you don`t like what you read, cry and stop reading.

But if it means so much for you and soothes your mind, I`ll stop posting and caring about [B]. Since apparently talking about it weakens my position, makes people twist my words and does nothing. Because we should all wait, until the system is settled in and set in stone, before futile attempts for change are made.

Have fun.
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