| Poll |
| What is the single biggest factor that would encourage you to play more [B] Games? |
| 1) A competitive goal beyond the single match |
|
34% |
[ 79 ] |
| 2) More racial diversity |
|
24% |
[ 57 ] |
| 3) Greater ease in getting a [B] game |
|
5% |
[ 12 ] |
| 4) Reducing TS exploits |
|
9% |
[ 21 ] |
| 5) Integration of the blackbox concept with other divisions |
|
7% |
[ 18 ] |
| 6) None - I'm happy playing in other divisions. |
|
19% |
[ 45 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 232 |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 13, 2009 - 22:07 |
 
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: |
And to all those coaches who want to play with the teams they want, you do realize that will result in considerably less games for everyone, right? That a big problem IS all those one team coaches (generally Khemri or Ogre coaches, but even if they're playing flings, it is still a problem). Frankly, a minimum number of teams would be a better solution for injecting new life in to Blackbox |
Frankly, the fact that you can't choose which teams to play when and which not, has driven me out of the division. There might be other reasons as well, but that is the primary one. This is simply unacceptable for me. |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 13, 2009 - 22:55 |
|
What is driving most coaches away, and keeping those that aren't trying it away, is that it has a (somewhat unfair, but not entirely unfair) reputation as being this cesspool of khemri and ogre coaches only interested in bashing away. If every coach had to field say, 3 teams, each from a different "category" (you can look in the other threads for some discussion about this), it would increase both the variety and quality of the games everyone got.
I understand there is a very vocal group who want to play their one team. I can empathize with this sentiment, but you can't have it both ways. Most of the coaches baying for the right to play their one team are the same ones bitching about the poor quality of match ups. It's a social contract. You get it one way or the other. I know which sacrifice I'll more gladly make.
And Frank, frankly ( ), if you can't see the basic problem with your course of action universally applied, then maybe you SHOULD go back to the land of the 45 minute begging for games. One less one team dwarf coach is no great loss to [B]. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
spelledaren
Joined: Mar 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 13, 2009 - 23:02 |
|
Nothing on the site, I will play 90% of my games in the box, I'm just busy nowadays. Apart from that: independent wealth. |
_________________
FUMBBL! |
|
Grin
Joined: Mar 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 13, 2009 - 23:06 |
|
I would like the "prefered team" option as mentioned in the other thread. Then it will end, that some coaches have only one [B]-Team (as myself), to avoid that you have to play with a team, you don't want to play in that specific moment. |
|
|
arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 13, 2009 - 23:57 |
|
Hello? For the third time:
YOU guys wanting to activate a specific team: Would it help choosing more than one team- yet choosing (minimum 3 to 5) teamsS and hence not "being forced" to play a team you don't want to play?
Works only if you got more teams of course- won't ever force you to play your zons (or whatever) right now...
And YOU other guys: Does that really seem such a huge change? "Breaking BBox", is it?
However- CIAO! |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 00:02 |
|
To answer your question Arw, the problem with activating a minimum number of teams is that you know as well as I do 90% of the problem coaches will make 3 khemri teams (or orc teams, or whatever) and we will be right back where we started. It isn't a bad idea, and it could work. But it would need a lot of development. I think it's safe to say that the 'honour system' hasn't worked. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
wackyone
Joined: Dec 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 00:22 |
|
| arw wrote: | Hello? For the third time:
YOU guys wanting to activate a specific team: Would it help choosing more than one team- yet choosing (minimum 3 to 5) teamsS and hence not "being forced" to play a team you don't want to play?
Works only if you got more teams of course- won't ever force you to play your zons (or whatever) right now...
|
That would be a bad compromise, imho.
It wouldn't stop those that now play with just 1 team from having just that one.
Now, if you add a rule forcing you to have at least 3 or 4 teams, your proposal makes a lot more sense... but I think FORCING players to do anything would just alienate them. I know it would alienate me. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 00:22 |
|
i didn't vote since i'm already almost exclusively playing in B (apart from occasional L-games).
i do think, that B-acceptance would rise a lot by moving it out of beta-stage and disclosing BR...
...also some nice statistics / coach-rankings / awards would help - any kind of fluff would be
appreciated, i think 
...the "activate only some teams" - option is one thing that's been called for often (also by myself)
i don't think it would be a complicated thing to implement and making it obligatory to have at least
3 or 4 teams activated if you had so many wouldn't hurt the quantity/quality of match-ups, i believe.
(EDIT: to make this clear - i don't mean to force people to have more than 1 team, but to make it
an option which 3 or 4 teams to activate only ifyou had more than those 3 or 4 teams
this would also be an additional incentive to have a few B-teams)
...i don't believe many people would create 3 khemri teams to be able to only play khemri - and if they
did i fail to see the problem - afterall they could only have 1 khemri team in the first place if that's
what they'd always like to play. |
|
|
Naboimp
Joined: Dec 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 01:06 |
|
I understand that the proposals Snappy Dresser and others are making are intended to improve the quality of Blackbox matchups (though I'm still unconvinced they would increase the number of such matchups). In an ideal situation, we'd have large numbers of coaches with three to four varied teams apiece activating for each start time and willing to play whatever match popped up. Of course, in an ideal situation, we'd have unlimited free time to spend playing Blood Bowl too.
Those who are attracted to Blackbox primarily because of its equitable matchups are those pushing for the ideal. They see what Blackbox could be and want it to achieve that noble goal. Unfortunately, reality rears its head. Not every person who plays in Blackbox is playing there because of its equitable matchups, and apparently, there are not enough of the idealists to keep Blackbox going on their own.
Some Blackbox players are using it for the quick game start feature. (I'd put myself in this category.) Time for games is limited, and they don't want to waste it negotiating with Ranked players. They are not entering Blackbox for a varied coaching challenge, but for a quick game, most likely with a race that they are already somewhat familiar with. While team development is secondary, it is part of the fun of Blood Bowl so there's little incentive to spread their games among several teams in Blackbox (especially if they have teams in other divisions as well).
Other Blackbox players are using it for the chance to play bashy teams that sometimes have a hard time getting a game in Ranked. In Blackbox, no one can say no so they can wreak havoc on their opponents. Obviously, there's little incentive for these players to vary their team choices since their whole purpose in coming to Blackbox is to be able to play that specific team.
As a group, those who play Blood Bowl with an emphasis on team development are more likely to find Ranked or League play more to their liking, but there may be some who are intrigued by the challenge of building a team in an environment where matchups cannot be picked. There is a definite challenge to this that would be appealing to certain coaches. (The lack of any measurement is an obstacle for these type of coaches, but one that would seem simply fixed by revealing BR.) Again, though, since the team building aspect is important for these players, multiple teams just dilutes the focus, especially if they don't have unlimited time to play. I would guess this group is the most likely to want to play the team that they want to play at the time that they want to play them, which is something that is made more difficult by increasing the number of teams they must field.
The plan to force players to have more teams is likely to backfire because neither the quick gamers nor the bash lovers really want to have more teams, and the team builders will almost certainly stay away if they can't have some control over who they play. The quick gamers may relent and build other teams if forced to, but they'll limit play in Blackbox to the times when they just don't have time to play elsewhere as their attention is naturally drawn to teams in other divisions (whose playing time isn't split three to four ways). The bash lovers will likely respond with multiple bashy teams all similar to each other. If this is also prevented, then they'll just leave Blackbox - the last thing they want to do is play Elves.
While some would be pleased to have the hardcore bash players leave Blackbox (and it would tend to remove one objection of non-Blackbox players), the numbers would suggest that isn't feasible right now unless they can be replaced. (While the idealists would be more likely to play Blackbox as a result, most of the idealists are already playing in the division.) The most likely group to replace them is the team builders, but the same rules that would drive out the bash lovers would be even more likely to keep the team builders at bay.
So while there may be good reasons for the proposal to force Blackbox coaches to field more teams, it likely will prove counterproductive under reality if enforced. |
|
|
hardin0
Joined: May 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 02:26 |
|
None, I like my games to be fun! |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 02:28 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | What is driving most coaches away, and keeping those that aren't trying it away, is that it has a (somewhat unfair, but not entirely unfair) reputation as being this cesspool of khemri and ogre coaches only interested in bashing away. If every coach had to field say, 3 teams, each from a different "category" (you can look in the other threads for some discussion about this), it would increase both the variety and quality of the games everyone got.
|
This suggestion would probably see my poor Elves leaving the box. I just want one team in the box and being forced to make more teams just for the sake of it just doesn't feel like fun at all. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
mymLaban
Joined: Apr 20, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 02:48 |
|
More then one match would make me play more and make more teams. It could be something like the smacks small tourneys |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 02:51 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | And to all those coaches who want to play with the teams they want, you do realize that will result in considerably less games for everyone, right? That a big problem IS all those one team coaches (generally Khemri or Ogre coaches, but even if they're playing flings, it is still a problem). Frankly, a minimum number of teams would be a better solution for injecting new life in to Blackbox |
No. That's wrong. It wouldn't necessarily decrease the number of matchups for everyone. It would decrease the "Blackbox suitability ratings" of the matchups to some degree, at the benefit of playing the team you desire. To me, and doubtless others too, that is a price that is well worth paying.
The way that would work is that all preferred teams (and in an ideal world coaches would be able to select as many or as few preferred teams as they like) would be assessed for matchups. Then, after preferred matchups have been made, any coaches with unassigned games would have all of their teams, selected or unselected, entered into a new round of match selection. That way, having more BB teams rather than just one BB team would make it more likely to get a game (even if not with your chosen team), but crucially, creating team B would not make it any less likely to be able to play with team A, should you so choose. You'll just be able to play with team B instead if team A can't be matched, whereas before you might never have even created team B in the first place (so as not to squander team A's chances).
Of course a mid-way between this and the current system is to increase the preferred team weighting (ideally with an option to pick multiple preferred teams). |
|
|
Vol
Joined: Sep 19, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 03:57 |
|
I left [B] a while back. My reason for leaving was the third DP-heavy, bashy team that completely ignored the ball. I don't mind the DP-heavy, bashy team that tries to win.
Aside from fixing the broken fouling rules in the game, I would say force some sort of racial diversity or have some sort of karma system. |
|
|
Arktoris
Joined: Feb 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2009 - 04:18 |
|
I'd decided I'd play blackbox when the rules were ironed out. However, I'm just having too much fun right now in Ranked. |
_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz |
|
|
|
| |
Secret Stunty Cup IV
Search
