Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
  Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 06:21 |
 
|
Yesterday I played my 100th BlackBox game.
And I absolutely love it! \o/
Although my opponent marred the occasion with a turn 4 concession, the two dead and niggled Chaos Warriors helped a little towards the post match celebrations of the Black Lagoon Biological.
But let's talk shop. We who dislike it, are finally free of all the pickety business going on in [R]anked. My teams in that division have all been retired, and I think all of us in the Box are more or less looking forward to the improvement of an already impressive - though yet far from flawless - system.
So after 100 games under my blood stained belt, I have a suggestion for the next level of Box. One that will make more games possible, especially for us who enjoy our touchdowns and casualties in less crowded time-zones.
Replacing/modifying the "Minimum Coach limit".
The Minimum Coach limit is now 6. If there are 5 or less activated coaches, it's not possible to play BlackBox. Consequently there are often favorable match-ups disallowed and coaches needlessly disgruntled, just because BowlBot didn't reach the 6-count.
The limit is there to protect against abuse. Against coaches making intentional match-ups, subsequently making it possible to rig games. Fair. We benefit from such protection. But I think that with a change, we can see more games, and still have a more than adequate cheat protection.
My suggestion is modifying how the limit works. Let me give an example:
When there's less than 6 coaches, instead of the overly strict no-games-allowed limitation, how about a coach vs coach and team vs team specific limit? For safety, the minimum limit could be reset to 3 coaches for example.
When configured properly (let's not get into the numerical specifics this time, please) this will allow for more games, and still protect against possible abuse and any repeatedly played match-ups between teams and/or coaches.
This limit would only kick in when there's less than 6 coaches activated, so it doesn't affect any of the match-ups procedures in the current system (ie. when there's 6 or more coaches).
I've aired this statement frequently in the #fumbblblackbox channel, and I've found that we can all enjoy our Bowl more with such an implementation (especially us time-zonedly challenged).
Thank you for reading through. I've taken up too much of your time already. Get back to the Box! |
|
|
Fallen00
Joined: Oct 16, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 06:36 |
|
The divisions is still in Alpha, I believe Christer is working on a new scheduler that may or may not take care of this issue.
I also believe this might get fixed all by itself whenever that new scheduler is out, as you'll have more poeple(hopefully) playing in the "box". |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 07:09 |
|
| Fallen00 wrote: | | The divisions is still in Alpha |
Obviously. And Christer has specifically requested trial and feedback.
And that's exactly what this thread is about  |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 12, 2009 - 08:31 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Fallen00 wrote: | | The divisions is still in Alpha |
Obviously. And Christer has specifically requested trial and feedback.
And that's exactly what this thread is about |
congrats to 100 games in B (i'm close, as well)
it's happened to me quite a few times, that i didn't get scheduled (i'd estimate about 1 in 10 times).
I didn't mind too much, since i just had to spend those few moments from activation till draws are anounced to find out and could then spend my time for the next 30mins elsewhere, but i'd probably get frustrated as you have, when i'd realize it's "only" because of the min-coach-limit and not because there're an uneven # of coaches activating, etc.
i absolutely don't see any problem with your suggestion and if it's actually happening at least once every few days (nights  ), i'd think it's worth it |
|
|
Islington_66_81
Joined: Nov 20, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:18 |
|
It happens several times every night as in my experience so it is kinda a problem. |
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2009 - 19:46 |
|
I don't think it would be difficult, but I already see repeat matches going on. Who wants to deal with that. Even if you coded around that I think a 6 coach minimum is very minimal already. |
|
|
MichN18
Joined: May 14, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2009 - 05:22 |
|
Its especially bad in the pre-midnight hours in the US. Frequently the box will spit out no games and its definitely a drag when there are four or five coaches around. |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2009 - 07:37 |
|
if you're going to allow coach repeats then yes, 6 coaches is likely the minimum.
But I think a better solution is 4 coach minimum with no coach repeats. That would make a world of difference for coaches in NA in the evening, where there is generally between 2 and 5 coaches for a stretch of 3 or so hours. It would mean a lot more rounds going off. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
halivaraith
Joined: Jan 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 22, 2009 - 07:57 |
|
Personally I don't think I've ever seen two rounds in a row go without match ups though. Sure a lot of the time at night there will be a failed one but usually if a couple of those coaches stick around the next round will go though as games finish up or more people come online. Getting a match every hour isn't too bad, still seems to be a lot faster than gamefinder. Changing the minimum coach requirements seems to me it would just mean 2 matches every half hour instead of 0 matches on the 30 min mark and 4 matches on the hour mark. In the end there's not a whole lot of difference but I'd support this change as long as the matchups aren't too out of whack. |
|
|
Lithuran
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2009 - 09:32 |
|
The popularity of the box is dropping, mainly because you can't get a game anymore.
In the last 2 days i've waited hours watching 4 or 5 coaches arrive and no game.
The limit needs to be dropped to 4, before the box is totally empty. Not next week, TODAY. |
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2009 - 11:48 |
|
| Lithuran wrote: | | The popularity of the box is dropping, mainly because you can't get a game anymore. |
I doubt that is the main reason. Sounds more like a result of the dropping popularity. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2009 - 12:20 |
|
I think the popularity is dropping because coaches have no targets.
Ranked has (easier) teambuilding, Majors, Minors & Coach Ranking.
Blackbox has the ability to create fast match-ups.
Many of the coaches that wanted Blackbox wanted it so we could find a coaches true ranking, rather than the CR in Ranked which can be skewed somewhat. Since we have no access to Blackbox Ranking, what target does that leave them? |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2009 - 14:50 |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2009 - 15:35 |
|
Due to the 6-coach threshold, [B] needs to maintain a critical mass of coaches else you won't be able to get a game. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Dragons
Joined: May 31, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2009 - 16:15 |
|
Good points.
Give us Ranking and give us Mayors.
Is it wrong with both ranked and Black box?
Ranked for the one that want to chose to play against what they want and Blackbox for no chosing what so ever.
I know that i should play both if there was ranking and Mayors in blackbox.
But I dont want to lose ranked. |
|
|
|
|
Gnome Box ranking pa...
Search
