Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
 Posted:
Dec 01, 2008 - 22:24 |
 
|
I, perhaps pesimistically, have this feeling that some of the hype of "Blackbox" is the fact that it has the coolest name.
If it was just called "weighted automatic scheduler" I think there would be less hype. |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2008 - 22:29 |
|
| Pro511 wrote: | I, perhaps pesimistically, have this feeling that some of the hype of "Blackbox" is the fact that it has the coolest name.
If it was just called "weighted automatic scheduler" I think there would be less hype. |
Aye. I play [B] for the fluff. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Reisender
Joined: Sep 29, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2008 - 22:59 |
|
becoz majors r teh kewl. pie. |
|
|
PTGMach
Joined: Oct 12, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2008 - 06:17 |
|
| Pro511 wrote: | Just so that I will shut up...
Will someone explain how smacks don't satisfy this urge?
Is it:
a) Smacks that aren't Rookie can use [R] teams that can cherrypick to maximize goodness.
b) Smacks don't use my [B] team that I'm now in love with because it's the flavor of the month.
c) Smacks make me play two games in a row and I don't really like BB that much. 
d) Smacks didn't just come out last month and I only wear what's hot at the moment.
e) Smacks don't have that kickass "good coach penalty" when pairing up.
f) None of the above.
What if we renamed Rookie Smacks into "Rookie Blackbox that spit out a Ranked team when it's done and you have to play two games in a row and there's not handicaped for coaches that suck Tournaments"? Would that make it cooler?
Smacks are blackbox tournaments even if they're not Blackbox Tournaments. Why isn't there the same love? |
my own position on this particular question is that a) is the primary factor, with perhaps a bit of b) included. i can see how some people might argue for c) and e).
a big part of the draw for [B] is the inability to dodge and pick. being able to play a non-rookie team and know that your opponents have been just as unable to prime themselves as you have strikes me as widely appealing.
the fact that everyone loves their shiny new [B] teams would support the argument that they'd like to play these teams in something grander than a 1-off. |
|
|
Oko
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2008 - 13:58 |
|
I'd like to see tournaments to give B teams something to work towards, besides one's own arbitrary goals. (Reach 200TR, get a 200+ SPP player, Beat coach X's team to a puddle and gloat, or whatever). Competition.
Playing just to get a game of BB is cool too, I have no objection against that. But I'd like there to be a goal to strive towards, say a major tournament for instance. Yeah, I suppose I could go and play R for that, too. I've never participated there, nor do I have huge knowledge of what goes on there, but I can read. And by what I read, it sounds cheeseheaven for the pickers and minmaxers united, whereas the B-division has a feel of a real BB-enviroment, where you play who's set against you in the scheduler, whether or not you've got 6 MNG's and your opponent has 16 DP's ready to rip you a new one.
Deal with it.
If the dead flesh peels away from the tournaments, so much for the better. Shitty players shouldn't play with the big boys anyhow, unless they mean to improve and one day join the big boys & gals.
There's a reason I like to play Season-mode in games where one is offered, as opposed to endless oneoff games. I love to win. And you don't win enough when your goal isn't behind a long and possibly rocky road. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 02, 2008 - 14:09 |
|
| Pro511 wrote: | Just so that I will shut up...
Will someone explain how smacks don't satisfy this urge?
Is it:
a) Smacks that aren't Rookie can use [R] teams that can cherrypick to maximize goodness.
b) Smacks don't use my [B] team that I'm now in love with because it's the flavor of the month.
c) Smacks make me play two games in a row and I don't really like BB that much.
d) Smacks didn't just come out last month and I only wear what's hot at the moment.
e) Smacks don't have that kickass "good coach penalty" when pairing up.
f) None of the above.
What if we renamed Rookie Smacks into "Rookie Blackbox that spit out a Ranked team when it's done and you have to play two games in a row and there's not handicaped for coaches that suck Tournaments"? Would that make it cooler?
Smacks are blackbox tournaments even if they're not Blackbox Tournaments. Why isn't there the same love? |
A)
Smacks get dominated by Count-undead teams. Which can gather money to get thrice a star while maximiizing their rosters for a particular TR-bracket.
Boring. |
_________________
 |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 03:55 |
|
60%-40% FOR black box major/minor tourneys, nice! I too want something MORE to shoot for in [B] besides getting fast paired games! |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley |
|
Espionage
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 04:17 |
|
I would like to see a major or two. Maybe if the top 16 teams in [b] by tr or br or any other method people wanted played in a tournament every 6 months, that would be enough. It would give teams somthing to aim for (either winning or qualifying) while not taking away from the core values of [b].
I don't see a need for for regular tournaments at every tr level, the box provides pretty good games for regular play. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 05:04 |
|
I'd also like to see some competitive goals for [B]. But I don't think it's well suited to traditional tournaments. I think it might be better to have an ongoing "king-of-the-hill" format with monthly trophies for best performance. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Shrap
Joined: Sep 18, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 07:27 |
|
the 0 RR exploint needs to be taken care of beforehand otherwise I think itll bve great fun! |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 07:54 |
|
Of course Blackbox should have a tournament element like all the other competitive divisions past and present.
Introducing a everyday championship factor would also be great! It might even eliminate some of the teams only in it for the kill. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Nightbird
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 08:00 |
|
I don't think I'm the only one, but I'm looking for something unique to [B], but NOT something that just rewards the top teams.
To me, allowing everyone within a community the ablility to participate & be involved in the major events of such community is a KEY to keeping everyone happy.
Personally I would like to see something done that restricts participants to a point, but also allows everyone who properly prepares to be able to compete.
It doesn't make any sense to me that we can't have a complete division such as [R] in [B]. I mean it's a much more balanced division as far as team building goes so the majors would be earned... |
_________________
"If most of us remain ignorant of ourselves, it's because self-knowledge is painful
& we prefer the pleasures of illusion." ~Aldous Huxley
Last edited by Nightbird on %b %12, %2009 - %08:%Jan; edited 2 times in total |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 08:07 |
|
| Espionage wrote: | I would like to see a major or two. Maybe if the top 16 teams in [b] by tr or br or any other method people wanted played in a tournament every 6 months, that would be enough. It would give teams somthing to aim for (either winning or qualifying) while not taking away from the core values of [b].
I don't see a need for for regular tournaments at every tr level, the box provides pretty good games for regular play. |
Now this is interesting.
Blackbox tourney every 4 months, 6, months, 1 year-ish. where the top 32 coaches get invited (we can figure out a system for getting alternates). Personally, I'd go by some measure of BR (factoring number of games played as well).
And award some cool graphic that the participating coaches and winning coach gets to keep in their team Bios.
Figure a way to make it so coaches have to play (and win) to get in. This is very doable.
Edit: as for [R] tourneys, Ranked does them very well, but I don't think that format is suited to [B]. Just imagine the race to get in to the "playoffs" before the cutoff date. We have plenty of big tourneys where a third of the teams have no business being in there. Let's make something for the best of the best (coaches, not builders).
Second Edit: While we're dreaming, why not have coaches go through, not specific teams, then have Bowl Bot match up the two best team matches at each level. So you could have to win 140 tr Wood elves vs 150 tr orcs first game, your 250 tr chaos vs some 243 tr Chaos Dwarfs second game, and some rookie Khemri vs Rookie Dwarfs in the third game in the tourney. That strike me as a true test of a coach's mettle. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 08:33 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | Of course Blackbox should have a tournament element like all the other competitive divisions past and present.
Introducing a everyday championship factor would also be great! It might even eliminate some of the teams only in it for the kill. |
/me agrees |
|
|
ftjust
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 08:52 |
|
I think a few Majors each year is good just to se whos the best  or allow people to use their Box team in R tourneys
but i dont want minors or any kind of smack in box.
for me atleast the number of games i can play per day on fumbbl has increased to maybe 10 per day if i wanto from previous spending 4-5 hours being able to only play 2 games.
ive tried a few R but ive gotten tons of NO sometimes the most silly reasons.. for example i got one "no thanks" because i didnt say hi to him in irc before i asked if he wanted to play.........
and the best reason. no you foul average more then 1 per game.. i cant understand how even teams and coaches are allowed to participate in the major tournaments without being fouled a single time on their way up to 300+ raiting. |
|
|
|
|
Cindy is back?
Search
