| 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 |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
 Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 13:24 |
 
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | For those of you just joining us:
It sounds like we all have a pretty good command of the main issue (most of us, anyway). My inclination is that a balance between the desire of a coach to play a specific race must be balanced against the fact that if everyone play only one team, the Box is going to suck.
A few thoughts:
1) there definitely needs to be more emphasis by the box bot put on getting the activated team a game. I've generally had 3 or so teams in the box, and there have been long stretches where my activated team got way less than a third of my matches. While I'm aware there's reasons for this, this is a concern that is probably the second most popular complaint about Blackbox, and should be addressed. Guaraunteeing the selected team shouldn't be the goal, but if it were weighted more heavily, my feeling is that this would go a ways to molifying this particular segment.
2)Which brings me to the #1 complaint. Having to deal with idiotic team builds and teams build around silly TS exploits. We need some rules to address this, just like you throw the weird guy out of your house party because he's creeping out the women, regardless of whether he actually did something. Because if you don't, the party's going to suck.
I see several measures to address this, and some combination of them will have to be used.
A) Team quotas: some kind of system wherein you can build one team from column A only if you have one team from column B or 2 from column C (or whatever). Before you hit the ceiling with "how dare you force me to play nice with people", remember, this would ideally be combined with increased weighting of the preferred team, meaning that while you would have to have more teams in the mix, no one is forcing you to activate any other team than your 14 DP Khemri. Failing quotas, Circ had a good suggestion about a TS "penalty" for one team coaches.
B) Get rid of the 0 rr discount. Come on now. We're all aware of it. And I appreciate that these teams generally suck, and that their TS is probably in the ballpark of their effectiveness. Continuing this just drive away sensible players for the eddification of a few jerks. One again, you chase off the weird guys before they scare of the girls, not when they actually do something wrong. |
lol, just stumbled across this, so trying to comprehend...
guys playing with 0-rr-teams = jerks
nice guys playing soft teams and / or teams with more than 0 rr = girls
...now who did you say were the weird guys, again? 
...but more seriously: i don't see a point in forcing anyone to play a specific taste of team
whether that's "not-so-bashy" or with more rr than 0 or whatever it is.
...rather: make the rules such, that everyone has maximum freedom and ideally equal probability of
winning any given match-up as their opponent, maybe favoring "soft" teams a little to compensate for
their lower durability and ensure their persistence at higher TR-levels.
...i believe that making people play teams they don't want to play (e.g. "soft" teams) or forcing
them to have teams out of every category / bracket or anything like this will lower acceptance of the
Box.
...i further suspect, that giving people the freedom to activate only a number of teams out of all their
Box-teams would actually lead to more teams being created.
...having people activate at least 2 teams at any given time (thus enabling them to choose among teams
only when they had at least 3) would also ensure, that match-ups wouldn't get screwed.
(edit: grammar) |
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 21:05 |
|
treborius - I agree with the last statement. I have 4 teams and would create more if I could just have say 75% of teams activated. Not sure how the numbers should go though. |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2009 - 22:09 |
|
Frankly, I have human nature on my side. A certain percentage of people will be as big a bastard as they are permitted to be, ruining the experience of the whole. This is true in Ranked (although being an open environment, less of an issue) or any other group where some basic rules are not established.
And don't you dare make this a hard team/soft team issue. That has very little to do with it, so you can just climb down from that horse. the 0 reroll abuse is an exploit that makes an otherwise garbage team build playable. And the racial quota system (although if you'd bother to keep up, Circ's idea may be more to your liking) is merely to stop the garbage of playing 14 ogres in a row. It has nothing to do with bash vs agility, or whatever. That's one of the marks in TV's favour, it would at least tend to create a more even mix of opponents.
As for Treb's silly characterization:
Hmmm, using an obvious exploit to waste the time of an opponent looking for a decent game? Yeah, that qualifies as "jerk"
But I don't get the rest of your comments. Not what I said, so I'm not going to address them. Treborius obviously wants Ranked with a game matching service, so there's little to talk about. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2009 - 00:47 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | But I don't get the rest of your comments. Not what I said, so I'm not going to address them. Treborius obviously wants Ranked with a game matching service, so there's little to talk about. |
the "rest" of my comments were not supposed to be 'what you said'  and i'd be glad to explain
if i only knew which part you don't understand...
...and i certainly don't want ranked with a game-matching-service (and i believe you know that )
...as for the 14 ogres in the row: i don't think that has happened at all and if it did - i'd still
rather have that than forcing all the ogre-lovers to play other teams (did i mention ogres are my favorite
race atm? ) |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2009 - 02:04 |
|
| treborius wrote: | (did i mention ogres are my favorite
race atm? ) |
shocking revelation. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2009 - 10:39 |
|
I suppose most of the issues have allready been discussed in this thread so I'm not gonna go into the TR/TS or 0RR debate anymore. Let's just play and have fun. Even having your team squished by a 0RR dwarf team can be fun, in a sad and twisted way. I've had plenty of fun games vs those coaches. I enjoy the game most, when both coaches are having fun time and laughing at their own failures, while celebrating their own success while chatting away. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2009 - 12:12 |
|
Well, the issues have been debated well in this thread I think, which shows how much everyone wants Blackbox to work.
However, unless we hear from Christer and discussions and suggested improvements will remain unchanged. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 20, 2009 - 12:15 |
|
I want my RL back so that I can play more B games  |
_________________
 |
|
Flix
Joined: Oct 26, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 10:04 |
|
when Blackbox is tested and working fine, i would love if Blackbox will be integrated into Ranked.
But how should that work?
i would say every coach get a specific number fo games he is allowed to play each month. that matchups are free to choose like is is normal in Ranked, the rest of the games you can made have 2 posibilites, you take part in Tournaments or you apply Blackbox. |
|
|
NNNChef
Joined: Dec 09, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 10:45 |
|
Is the 0-RR really a problem? I have played 18 games in [B] untill now. I haven't yet encountered any 0-RR team. By the way look at the Black box win rating: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blackbox
I checked the first 4 coaches. Only one has some 0-RR teams. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 11:54 |
|
| NNNChef wrote: | Is the 0-RR really a problem? I have played 18 games in [B] untill now. I haven't yet encountered any 0-RR team. By the way look at the Black box win rating: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blackbox
I checked the first 4 coaches. Only one has some 0-RR teams. |
The issue is highly exaggerated, as is the perceived uneven racial distribution (which was a factor in the beginning). |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 22, 2009 - 01:32 |
|
| NNNChef wrote: | Is the 0-RR really a problem? I have played 18 games in [B] untill now. I haven't yet encountered any 0-RR team. By the way look at the Black box win rating: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=blackbox
I checked the first 4 coaches. Only one has some 0-RR teams. |
I agree 0RR teams aren't all that common, and the effectiveness of the tactic isn't so clear. However, for a significant number of coaches (20 atm) it's the single largest factor keeping them from playing more [B] games. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
|
|
| |
All Star Bowl!
Search
