FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Skolopender

Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 10:22

JanMattys wrote:

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

Sixthed

We should look at the pro tennis rankings for inspiration.

_________________
Lobbying for a Troll team. If Bonehead Ogres can have one, why not one for Trolls? Power to the Trolls!

Last edited by Skolopender on %b %08, %2009 - %10:%Jan; edited 1 time in total

maznaz

Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 10:41

I suggested a while ago and I'll suggest again that B could benefit from racial ladder rankings with monthly or quarterly prizes (cosmetic only). A team based version would meet with my approval too. It would make all games meaningful rather than the ranked format of a load of prep games and very few competitive ones.

morraywolfymax

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 11:02

Skolopender wrote:

JanMattys wrote:

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

Sixthed

We should look at the pro tennis rankings for inspiration.

Sevethed...ed That's an awsome idea!

_________________
Anyone named Vampy is ace!

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 12:07

Chingis wrote:

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?

IMO, there's a part about A too. You need a fair amount of teams to schedule good matchups.

So the point of the thread is about equilibrating point A and point B. Hence my proposal of 5 teams active minimum.

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

treborius

Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 12:43

koadah wrote:

(...)
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.

while i see your point, that currently DivB is just about winning every game and not preparing for the big day in some tourney - i think that winning one of the major KO-tourneys in a DivB-environment (with open TR-limits) would yield the winner even more respect than winning the same kind of tourney in the current R-environment, where everyone knows that you've been able to pick your way through soft games until you reached that TR/TS-level which noone else could beat. (This is, what i'd call "babying", really Wink

)

treborius

Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 12:55

Skolopender wrote:

(...)
We should look at the pro tennis rankings for inspiration.

I know that the ATP-tennis-rankings are about gaining points depending on how far you advanced in a number of predefined tournaments, also depending on the level of the tournament.

Since a lot of people voted to not have tourneys in DivB (including yourself): Please elaborate what you mean Wink

Just having the best W/T/L - record over the past few weeks wouldn't really work well, i think, 'cause of the way match-ups are produced (high BR gives harder games).

So wouldn't any meaningful measure for someone's performance in DivB just *be* BR?
(Or maybe BR depending only on the last so-and-so many games or something like that?)

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 14:09

About "babying":

I fail to see how I could work on team building without selecting my opponents. The only thing I can do is not to play if I'm satisfied with my current roster.

And this roster, I got it by a fair mean (no cherrypicking) so what's the point anyway?

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

Eddy

Joined: Aug 04, 2004

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 14:49

sk8bcn wrote:

About "babying":

I fail to see how I could work on team building without selecting my opponents. The only thing I can do is not to play if I'm satisfied with my current roster.

And this roster, I got it by a fair mean (no cherrypicking) so what's the point anyway?

That's more or less the point I was trying to make in chat yesterday, in the argument I had with Snappy_Dresser.

I just think it's a shame that one has to either be forced to play a team one's becoming increasingly bored to play (for now), or to retire the team entirely. I don't care about my players, but I try to refrain from making throw-away teams (even if i do retire some teams and am much less brave than some expert rebuilders out there).
I think it's important for the division to have longish-established teams competing (note this does not mean high TR), with meaningful W/T/L records AND as a proof of team management.
I believe team management is an important part of BB in a league. The problem with Open is that picking means it's relatively easy to build a good team if you are patient enough to find enough gullible opponents. In B, it simply is not possible, so team management IS a skill.

_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou

Unstoffe

Joined: Aug 22, 2004

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 15:00

You can of course make it less likely for a given team to play by not selecting it as your preferred team on activation
I'd certainly like to see more control over that feature, so if you have several teams you could select more than one, or none, of them as 'preferred'.
Being able to not play a team at all seems somewhat against the spirit of [B] though.

/Offtopic - sad to see people voting against [B] tourneys here. I can certainly see the argument of, it would make [B] more like [R]... but there must be ways around this. I'm sure a discussion thread will turn up at some point Smile

_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League

treborius

Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 15:02

Eddy wrote:

sk8bcn wrote:

About "babying":

I fail to see how I could work on team building without selecting my opponents. The only thing I can do is not to play if I'm satisfied with my current roster.

And this roster, I got it by a fair mean (no cherrypicking) so what's the point anyway?

That's more or less the point I was trying to make in chat yesterday, in the argument I had with Snappy_Dresser.

I just think it's a shame that one has to either be forced to play a team one's becoming increasingly bored to play (for now), or to retire the team entirely. I don't care about my players, but I try to refrain from making throw-away teams (even if i do retire some teams and am much less brave than some expert rebuilders out there).
I think it's important for the division to have longish-established teams competing (note this does not mean high TR), with meaningful W/T/L records AND as a proof of team management.
I believe team management is an important part of BB in a league. The problem with Open is that picking means it's relatively easy to build a good team if you are patient enough to find enough gullible opponents. In B, it simply is not possible, so team management IS a skill.

you said it Smile

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 16:00

Chingis wrote:

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.

Chingis, you pose a good question. I think a decent balance might be free choice of teams with a minimum activation of 3 teams. So you could only be selective if you had 4 or more teams (and if you want to play a single team, you can still do that).

I picked 3 because it's small enough to ensure a fairly tight focus on teams you're in the mood for(objective B), yet still raise the average number of teams being played currently, per helpful data gathered by Astarael. And with more teams available, the better a job the scheduler can do in setting up fair matches (objective A).

_________________
\x/es

Skolopender

Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 16:11

treborius wrote:

Skolopender wrote:

(...)
We should look at the pro tennis rankings for inspiration.

I know that the ATP-tennis-rankings are about gaining points depending on how far you advanced in a number of predefined tournaments, also depending on the level of the tournament.

Since a lot of people voted to not have tourneys in DivB (including yourself): Please elaborate what you mean Wink

Just having the best W/T/L - record over the past few weeks wouldn't really work well, i think, 'cause of the way match-ups are produced (high BR gives harder games).

So wouldn't any meaningful measure for someone's performance in DivB just *be* BR?
(Or maybe BR depending only on the last so-and-so many games or something like that?)

was thinking that we would have a ranking similar to the one in [R] either Championship or CR. This would last a period. Winner would be chosen. (Like no.1 on the ATP Tour list) The reset of the rating, and start up again. This coul be weekly, monthly or however it would fit best. We could use the BR allready existing for this. Though I don't know if it is possible to reset like that.

And yes they score the pts. in tourneys here you score them by playing random games...

_________________
Lobbying for a Troll team. If Bonehead Ogres can have one, why not one for Trolls? Power to the Trolls!

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 16:23

Skolopender wrote:

was thinking that we would have a ranking similar to the one in [R] either Championship or CR. This would last a period. Winner would be chosen. (Like no.1 on the ATP Tour list) The reset of the rating, and start up again. This coul be weekly, monthly or however it would fit best. We could use the BR allready existing for this. Though I don't know if it is possible to reset like that.

Idea just flashed into my mind..

Resetting BR periodically might have the beneficial effect of addressing some of the concerns raised about excessive TS bias against strong coaches, since this would only become a significant factor towards the end of the competitive period.

EDIT: Others have previously suggested this.

_________________
\x/es

Last edited by westerner on %b %08, %2009 - %16:%Jan; edited 2 times in total

Snappy_Dresser

Joined: Feb 11, 2005

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 16:43

Skolopender wrote:

[

We should look at the pro tennis rankings for inspiration.

Ohhhhh, can I wear a sassy tennis dress?

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

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

Skolopender

Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 - 16:47

westerner wrote:

Skolopender wrote:

was thinking that we would have a ranking similar to the one in [R] either Championship or CR. This would last a period. Winner would be chosen. (Like no.1 on the ATP Tour list) The reset of the rating, and start up again. This coul be weekly, monthly or however it would fit best. We could use the BR allready existing for this. Though I don't know if it is possible to reset like that.

Idea just flashed into my mind..

Resetting BR periodically might have the beneficial effect of addressing some of the concerns raised about excessive TS bias against strong coaches, since this would only become a significant factor towards the end of the competitive period.

Nice if this could work...

_________________
Lobbying for a Troll team. If Bonehead Ogres can have one, why not one for Trolls? Power to the Trolls!