FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

treborius

Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 01:44

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

As for how to get around getting your team in at optimized TR, that does present a problem. One which doesn't have an easy solution. But violating the integrity of the whole division, and turning it in to Ranked 2.0 isn't really the solution I think we want.

I don't think allowing coaches to put teams to hibernation at a state of optimised development in order to get a good start at a tourney would "violate the integrity of the whole division".
In fact, I think that would be an outrageous overstatement Wink

Snappy_Dresser

Joined: Feb 11, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 02:25

Here's the difference. I do.

there are plenty of Tournaments for babied, optimized teams (see Ranked). How about we don't create a bunch more.

Eddy had some interesting comments in chat which have made me reconsider my stance somewhat. But if the price of tourneys in [B] is adding a way to "save" teams the dangers of competition, then we should do without tourneys in [B] altogether.

_________________
<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 08, 2009 - 03:29

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

Here's the difference. I do.

there are plenty of Tournaments for babied, optimized teams (see Ranked). How about we don't create a bunch more.

i do see problems with "babied" teams in R and also with having such teams entering tourneys in R - the "babying" i see mainly has to do with cherry-picking, though - coaches build and protect their teams by having them play only lame competition to finally be able to submit an artificially cockered up team for a tourney.
This, however, is not possible in DivB - you can't choose your oppo and if you build a team that's perfectly suited for marching straight to the top in some highly-ranked tourney then that's due to a lot of hard games and good coaching.

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

Eddy had some interesting comments in chat which have made me reconsider my stance somewhat. But if the price of tourneys in [B] is adding a way to "save" teams the dangers of competition, then we should do without tourneys in [B] altogether.

Teams that have been built to be tough competitors in a tourney are not being "saved" from competition - if their coach should choose to put it into hibernation their first match they'll be playing in a tourney will most likely be a tough opponent since the competition ain't sleeping - Moving to next round should give even tougher match-ups on avg. as well - and as soon as that tourney is finished it's going to have to deal with similarly tough competition vs. which it's being matched by the scheduler.
If the coach doesn't want to have the team play vs. regular opponents in DivB, but instead wishes to save it (in its current state) for the next tourney: fine, so be it!

I just fail to see any reason why you would have to rule that out.

EDIT: grammar

funnyfingers

Joined: Nov 13, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 03:51

So instead of offseason to baby a team you don't play at all...no difference.

oryx

Joined: Jun 08, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 04:21

What if you could join tournaments at any time, and after you applied or... whatever... your team would be hibernated until the tournament organizers unfroze them? Then you could hibernate at any time, with no cost! And no abuse here, I don't think.

Question is, can it be coded with reasonable ease.

Paragon

Joined: Jun 12, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 05:09

Personally, I think that there's not a need for any kind of TR-capped tournaments in [B]. Why not just have a system where you apply to enter a tournament, and the scheduler looks at the collection of coaches that have applied, and partitions them into relatively fair brackets similar to the way it schedules normal games.

TR capped tournaments exist because (1) it would be a lot of work for a human to group team into different tournaments automatically; (2) people like to push their teams to the imposed limits of the tournament format to gain as much advantage as possible.

The [B] schedular solves (1) automatically. And I don't feel that the mentality of (2) belongs in [B] at all -- if the tournament TR/TS divisions are decided automatically by the schedular, you'll have no idea a priori whether your team will be near the top end or the bottom end of your bracket. To me, that feels like a [B] tournament.

With that kind of tournament, there would be no need for a hibernation feature.

gregory_n_white

Joined: Jan 05, 2006

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 05:13

I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No [B] tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that [B] is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of [B] is face all comers and beat all comers.

Deatheart

Joined: Sep 18, 2007

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 05:29

I am for the off season, I like to play lots of differnt teams and styles but get board of certain play style, there is only so much dwarfball i can handle and i retiered my team so I didnt wind up playing them any more over my woodies. But playing woodies to 9 niggling players lost its charm too. Its not like i wouldnt like to play them again, i just got board with them and wanted to try other teams. Off season sounds like a great idea. Also having a light at the end of the black box something to play for besides just playing sounds good too.

treborius

Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 05:41

Deatheart wrote:

I am for the off season, I like to play lots of differnt teams and styles but get board of certain play style, there is only so much dwarfball i can handle and i retiered my team so I didnt wind up playing them any more over my woodies. But playing woodies to 9 niggling players lost its charm too. Its not like i wouldnt like to play them again, i just got board with them and wanted to try other teams. Off season sounds like a great idea. Also having a light at the end of the black box something to play for besides just playing sounds good too.

i agree: to me, this is the main point of having an option for hibernation-state.

being able to put a team into hibernate and thus preserve its state for a tourney is an additional profit from that feature, but not the original request and comes in second.

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 06:13

gregory_n_white wrote:

I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No [B] tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that [B] is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of [B] is face all comers and beat all comers.

That is an interesting idea. I think [B] should have some competitive goals, but I can't think of a good way to hold a tournament with a fixed beginning and end. Maybe the best way is as you suggested, king of the hill with best performance for defined intervals (e.g., 1 month) being published and recognized.

_________________
\x/es

Snappy_Dresser

Joined: Feb 11, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 06:22

The more I think about it, the more I come around to the fact that TR capped tourneys have no place in [B], the sleeping team is a side issue. [B] is "king of the hill" and while I appreciate that one get bored of teams but doesn't want to retire them (I think it's of against what Black Box is, but whatever)

It really only becomes an issue with TR capped tourneys. My point, and it feels like the point of some others, is having more of the same kind of tourney in [B] that we have in others is pointless. I don't want tourneys in [B] to be exercises in team building. I want them to be exercises in coaching.

The common point is going to be "don't play them then". But this is being flip. I want tourneys in [B], but I want them to reflect [B], not be more of the same crap that exists in [R].

gregory_in_white may have the best suggestion to date though. If there's no tourneys, if [B] itself is the tourney (it does have many elements that make faction interesting, without all the crap that turns you off). the "off season" issue matters less. Heck, dole out some silverware periodically to compare imaginary penises.

_________________
<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 - 06:22

westerner wrote:

gregory_n_white wrote:

I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No [B] tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that [B] is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of [B] is face all comers and beat all comers.

That is an interesting idea. I think [B] should have some competitive goals, but I can't think of a good way to hold a tournament with a fixed beginning and end. Maybe the best way is as you suggested, king of the hill with best performance for defined intervals (e.g., 1 month) being published and recognized.

Thirded

_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited

"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm

Chingis

Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 10:06

To broaden the debate: should all teams be activated for Blackbox?

Yes its there to ensure better matchups, but what, as a group, is most important to Blackbox players?
a) To get the fairest possible matchups?
b) To play with the team you want?

If it's b) then why not activate only the team/teams you'd like to play with? The Blackbox could make draws with these teams, and then left over players outside of the proper team strength window for a match up with their chosen teams could be matched for their unactivated teams.

So kind of like the way it works at the minute (if I understand correctly), but with "preferred team/s" being the over-riding factor, rather than just one factor in picking matchups. In other words, pick in all cases less "fair" matchups between preferred teams in preference to "fair" matchups between unpreferred teams.

Of course, if you want the fairest possible match and don't care what team you play with, you'd simply activate all of your teams as preferred teams.

Does that make sense?

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 10:17

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

westerner wrote:

gregory_n_white wrote:

I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No [B] tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that [B] is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of [B] is face all comers and beat all comers.

That is an interesting idea. I think [B] should have some competitive goals, but I can't think of a good way to hold a tournament with a fixed beginning and end. Maybe the best way is as you suggested, king of the hill with best performance for defined intervals (e.g., 1 month) being published and recognized.

Thirded

Fourthed.

I really can't be bothered with KO tournaments in [B]. We already have plenty in [R] and [L].

[B] need something that is about trying to win every game not saving players for the big game.

_________________

O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed

JanMattys

Joined: Feb 29, 2004

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 10:18

koadah wrote:

Snappy_Dresser wrote:

westerner wrote:

gregory_n_white wrote:

I was thinking on this and want to toss in an alternative for discussion - No [B] tournaments. This deals with part of the issue being discussed which is babying teams for tournament prep purposes. I might suggest instead that [B] is an informal king of the hill type scenario with the top teams (based on win ratio's and/or TR) reported regularly. Thus the purpose of [B] is face all comers and beat all comers.

That is an interesting idea. I think [B] should have some competitive goals, but I can't think of a good way to hold a tournament with a fixed beginning and end. Maybe the best way is as you suggested, king of the hill with best performance for defined intervals (e.g., 1 month) being published and recognized.

Thirded

Fourthed.

I really can't be bothered with KO tournaments in [B]. We already have plenty in [R] and [L].

[B] need something that is about trying to win every game not saving players for the big game.

Fifthed

_________________