odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jan 08, 2009 - 14:26 |
 
|
Just wondering if any dwarf coach would want to unschedule if they were getting a 3rd game in 7 games vs my av7 teams  |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 08, 2009 - 15:37 |
|
| morraywolfymax wrote: | | we need to stay as far away from [R] as possible. |
Why? [R] has some big issues but it does do quite a bit of stuff right too  |
_________________
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." |
|
Ash
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 08, 2009 - 16:37 |
|
I don t know... I don t remember [R] |
_________________
Ash |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 08, 2009 - 16:50 |
|
Once some way of deactivating an activated team before the draw is put in place, I'd be comfortable with a permanent ban on no shows.
If this is too harsh (and it is, that's the point), maybe First offence: Stern Warning, Second Offence: Ban would work better? Alternatively: Miss your match up: All Black Box teams are auto retired. Although I like this one less, as a lot of people are going to be cavalier about this one. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 08, 2009 - 16:56 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | morraywolfymax wrote: | | we need to stay as far away from [R] as possible. |
Why? [R] has some big issues but it does do quite a bit of stuff right too |
Yes it does, but handling discos isn't one of them. It relies too much on the honour system. The disco policy has no stick (no carrot either, really). BlackBox is going to have a lot more match ups that will be "scary" to an opponent, and sad as it is, [B] will need a correspondingly beefier disco/no show policy. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 08, 2009 - 17:07 |
|
You may want to check out this thread on [B] disco/noshow policy. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Damos
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 13:44 |
|
I wish i could dodge matchups. My gobbo team in the box has played choas, khemri, ogres and orcs in 4 of the first 6 games in the box. It makes me wish for a halfling team to come along so i dont need to keep running away from the bashy players. But its all part of fumbbl and there is nothing like your opponents reaction when he realises he can only injure one player a turn as they all keep dodging away then ganging up on one guy and kicking him till he stops moving. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 14:10 |
|
| Damos wrote: | | I wish i could dodge matchups. My gobbo team in the box has played choas, khemri, ogres and orcs in 4 of the first 6 games in the box. It makes me wish for a halfling team to come along so i dont need to keep running away from the bashy players. But its all part of fumbbl and there is nothing like your opponents reaction when he realises he can only injure one player a turn as they all keep dodging away then ganging up on one guy and kicking him till he stops moving. |
i have sympathy for your little ones (no irony, here), but i still think that this is rather about proper tweaking of the TS-formula, such that underdog-teams aren't at that much of a disadvantage anymore
i don't have any experience with Gobbos and i guess they'd still be dying like flies when they'd be evaluated at their true strength, but some teams are just going to be much more fragile than others...
...i also think, that giving (just a bit of) a low-AV-bonus to those teams in matching them up vs. other teams (not quite sure BBR does that, already) is ok
what i don't think would be ok, though, is: having coaches deliberately dodge games in Black-Box and getting away with it - that'd just be totally against the idea of that division 
i'd really hate to only see high-AV-teams around, as well (yes, i'm playing "them", also), but if it was to be either the one or the other i'd rather see lots of squishy teams die than games being dodged. |
|
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 14:28 |
|
| Damos wrote: | | I wish i could dodge matchups. My gobbo team in the box has...[ |
This is the wrong approach, you have to make other people feel that they would want to dodge your gobbos! Make them fear gobbos! |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 14:31 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | i'd really hate to only see high-AV-teams around, as well (yes, i'm playing "them", also exclusively), but if it was to be either the one or the other i'd rather see lots of squishy teams die than games being dodged. |
Yep.. I also rather see my opponents team trashed instead of games being dodged. But hey.. whatever brings more people back into ranked...  |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:09 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | treborius wrote: | | i'd really hate to only see high-AV-teams around, as well (yes, i'm playing "them", also exclusively), but if it was to be either the one or the other i'd rather see lots of squishy teams die than games being dodged. |
Yep.. I also rather see my opponents team trashed instead of games being dodged. But hey.. whatever brings more people back into ranked... |
well, i'd rather work on a solution to improve B and make underdog-teams like Gobbos more playable in B (as well), than hunt for cheap votes for R in a rather demagogic way 
more serious (and back on topic) though - how about coming up with some ways to remedy the problem or discussing these proposals:
| treborius wrote: | | (...) proper tweaking of the TS-formula, such that underdog-teams aren't at that much of a disadvantage anymore |
| treborius wrote: | | ...i also think, that giving (just a bit of) a low-AV-bonus to those teams in matching them up vs. other teams (not quite sure BBR does that, already) is ok |
|
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:11 |
|
First off:
The true underdog teams (flings, gobbos, vamps and ogre) are DESIGNED to be worse than the rest. To pick them is knowing that you will have a tougher time than the rest. The TS formula already takes away quite abit from that, which is also a reason why a game doesn`t count in ranked, if your opponent hasn`t got 4+ games. The time smart flings/gobbos reach TS100, they are dangerous opponents to other TS100 teams. So TS already blunts what is meant to be a tough challenge.
And if one guy is whining, because his notroll gobbos get trashed while taking the worst star out there TS/impact wise (the fanatic), then it`s for sure no reason to tweak the TS formula.
Secondly:
BBR is giving coaches a harder matchup, that are causing alot of casualties. I`m not sure how cas take play into it, as I haven`t seen a formula how BBR is adjusted. So I`m not sure if it`s the mechanism you want. I have the feeling you want incentive for OTHERS to take squishy things you can bash without giving them such an advantage that it`s worthwhile.
If you want more diversity, add 3 points of BR while scheduling for each % that the race makes up. So if orcs make up 8% and skaven 2%, then the orcs of a BR150 coach are matched as if he was BR174 and his skaven would be matched as if he was BR158. Suddenly rare races translate into TS advantage and people will play them more often. Then again, good coaches will still play bashers because they hit the TS cutoff even with proelves vs khemri. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:23 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | If you want more diversity, add 3 points of BR while scheduling for each % that the race makes up. So if orcs make up 8% and skaven 2%, then the orcs of a BR150 coach are matched as if he was BR174 and his skaven would be matched as if he was BR158. Suddenly rare races translate into TS advantage and people will play them more often. |
I think the idea of using empirical data determine what boost, if any, to give agility teams has potential. But the question is, what would be the baseline? Should we we expect all races to be equally represented in the Box? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Qaz
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:50 |
|
Black box is not the main compettitive devision as people think. It is a division being testet out that is now in Alpha stage. It might once be official and be the main compettitive devision who knows. But amt it is tested out and the rules that will be in pace once it is an official devision are not.
Dont forget that B is not official yet |
_________________
Superstition brings bad luck.
"he who has relied least on fortune is established
the strongest"
Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 17:58 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | First off:
The true underdog teams (flings, gobbos, vamps and ogre) are DESIGNED to be worse than the rest. To pick them is knowing that you will have a tougher time than the rest. The TS formula already takes away quite abit from that, which is also a reason why a game doesn`t count in ranked, if your opponent hasn`t got 4+ games. The time smart flings/gobbos reach TS100, they are dangerous opponents to other TS100 teams. So TS already blunts what is meant to be a tough challenge.
And if one guy is whining, because his notroll gobbos get trashed while taking the worst star out there TS/impact wise (the fanatic), then it`s for sure no reason to tweak the TS formula. |
while you're probably right, that certain races weren't designed to be competitive (in terms of winning and bashing) i would love a TS-formula that would manage to put them all on equal terms - i think that would be the most effective and fairest way to encourage maximum diversity of races in a competitive environment like B with random match-ups and no way to dodge games.
| CircularLogic wrote: | Secondly:
BBR is giving coaches a harder matchup, that are causing alot of casualties. I`m not sure how cas take play into it, as I haven`t seen a formula how BBR is adjusted. So I`m not sure if it`s the mechanism you want. I have the feeling you want incentive for OTHERS to take squishy things you can bash without giving them such an advantage that it`s worthwhile. |
if you aimed that one in my direction, then: no, *my* intentions are not to have something squishy to just bash, but to encourage the development of an environment where lots of people of different coaching-abilities feel they can play the race they enjoy most w/o being at a great disadvantage (in terms of winning / bashing / surviving) - of course certain teams will always have an edge in one of those areas, but i'd like to balance out at least those a little more, that have advantages / disadvantages in two or possibly even all 3 of those areas.
'hope i made myself clear, this time |
|
|
|
|
| |
[L] OBBA Smack Talk ...
Search
