| Poll |
| Do you think the "Minimum Coach-Limit" should be lowered. |
| Yes, i think 5 would do it. |
|
11% |
[ 24 ] |
| Yes, i think 4 would be best. |
|
25% |
[ 52 ] |
| Yes, something even lower than 4 is good. |
|
9% |
[ 19 ] |
| No, the current limit (6) should be kept. |
|
35% |
[ 73 ] |
| I have no clue or I don't play in Box. |
|
19% |
[ 40 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 208 |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
 Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:06 |
 
|
| JanMattys wrote: | Treborius, the thing you fail to understand (or acknowledge) is that all those off-topic replies ARE on topic.
You have a lot of teams in other divisions, none of them with 0 rrs... so it's safe to assume you don't consider the 0 rrs thing the optimal approach to a bb game. You (among others, I'm using the general "you" here) a're metagaming the system. THAT drives people away. THAT lowers the chances of games in a random pairings matchup system. So all the replies addressing the issue are *not* off topic.
It's the "let's lower the minimum coaches number" issue that should come AFTER the right measures to assure some sort of appeal to DivB have been taken... addressing these problems simultaneously (and accusing all those who point out potential roots of the problems of trying to derail this thread) is a logically flawed approach. |
Jan, i simply disagree.
yes, these topics are related, but there already exist appropriate threads for each and every one of those topics.
and i wouldn't accuse anyone of derailing, if they'd simply state something like 'not signed, because i think we should 1st resolve the root of low interest and i think people playig 0RR like you're doing is one of those roots' or something like that (similar like you are doing, here).
But really, it's mostly a few people who just seem eager to point out a team guilty of this-or-that exploit in yet another posting, like they've already done a few times with the same teams in other threads 
it's just getting too boring, at least for me  |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:12 |
|
When there is only one [B] coach left, will he start a thread suggesting lowering the limit to 1?
(A variant on the sound of one hand clapping?) |
|
|
Hogshine
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:18 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | maznaz wrote: | | Just remove handis and fix leader TS and the low reroll rebate and let's see where we are then for a few weeks. |
I think your suggestion is worth a shot. |
Wasn't there originally a decision by Christer that all handicaps would be removed from the Blackbox division? Either way, this solution seems to be the best in my eyes. As the 0rr issue seems to have been fixed, only removing handicaps remains.
More on the original topic of the thread, I don't think the minimum coach limit needs to be changed. It's never been a big issue for me, but perhaps that's just because I happen to play at the right times (if ever...) I'm confident that with more coaches attracted (some returning) the problem would be even smaller. |
|
|
Lithuran
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:33 |
|
| Hogshine wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | maznaz wrote: | | Just remove handis and fix leader TS and the low reroll rebate and let's see where we are then for a few weeks. |
I think your suggestion is worth a shot. |
Wasn't there originally a decision by Christer that all handicaps would be removed from the Blackbox division? Either way, this solution seems to be the best in my eyes. As the 0rr issue seems to have been fixed, only removing handicaps remains.
More on the original topic of the thread, I don't think the minimum coach limit needs to be changed. It's never been a big issue for me, but perhaps that's just because I happen to play at the right times (if ever...) I'm confident that with more coaches attracted (some returning) the problem would be even smaller. |
Great, you are not effected by it. Waiting hours with only 4 or 5. So you think nothing should be done.
SMART. Real SMART. Why speak if you don't understand the problem? |
|
|
Hogshine
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:36 |
|
| Lithuran wrote: | | Hogshine wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | maznaz wrote: | | Just remove handis and fix leader TS and the low reroll rebate and let's see where we are then for a few weeks. |
I think your suggestion is worth a shot. |
Wasn't there originally a decision by Christer that all handicaps would be removed from the Blackbox division? Either way, this solution seems to be the best in my eyes. As the 0rr issue seems to have been fixed, only removing handicaps remains.
More on the original topic of the thread, I don't think the minimum coach limit needs to be changed. It's never been a big issue for me, but perhaps that's just because I happen to play at the right times (if ever...) I'm confident that with more coaches attracted (some returning) the problem would be even smaller. |
Great, you are not effected by it. Waiting hours with only 4 or 5. So you think nothing should be done.
SMART. Real SMART. Why speak if you don't understand the problem? |
It could be worse, I could post messages adding nothing to the thread... The actual point of my post was to address a different problem (the 0rr/handicap issue), I just felt I should add my thoughts on the original issue as well.
Edited for sarcasm  |
Last edited by Hogshine on %b %23, %2009 - %13:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Archevol
Joined: Dec 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:39 |
|
I appreciate the warm glow that victory provides. However, I'm one of those coaches that has avoided B because I just don't have any interest in being randomly drawn against a team (and a coach) that doesn't care about mutual fun; just they're own.
I actually like the concept of B. I would like to play B using a fluff team, with my enjoyment coming from team growth and the development of characters. I don't mind death or injuries at all - they're part of seeing a team through ups and downs.
However, I object to coming up against a chaos team with few skills outside claw/rsc, or an undead/orc team stacked full of MB and DP. Sure, I might luck a win. However, I just don't see the interest in starting a team that has the survivability of halflings against a de-boneheaded ogre team full of tackle. I would put that team on B full of dread that I might have to spend 90 minutes putting up with a beardy berk who derives enjoyment from indulging a social dysfunction, rather than someone who wants a fair, balanced and fun game (I appreciate that most B'ers are likely in the latter group).
Frankly, R works well without preferential picking (as much as possible), as it provides an opportunity to turn down such gaming ingrates (although it isn't perfect). There's plenty of opportunities to run hardcore teams in tournaments, and R is friendler simply because both players go into a mutually agreed matchup.
Would anyone who openly admits to trying to abuse loopholes in B actually like to comment? |
|
|
Hogshine
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:47 |
|
| Archevol wrote: | | Would anyone who openly admits to trying to abuse loopholes in B actually like to comment? |
I don't entirely see what you want them to comment on, is it just whether or not they want to have a game that both players enjoy? If that is the case, then I think I can answer on SillySod's behalf. He tried (very hard) to abuse as many loopholes in B as he could find, as far as I'm aware. However, he wasn't doing this to annoy other people. He was doing it to show what the loopholes were, and hoping to force a solution. (He's also been trying to come up with his own TS formula which gets rid of such loopholes) |
|
|
Lithuran
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 13:47 |
|
Sorry; I just get worked up every time you get mutiple, "Only 5 coaches, not enough to start." messages. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:19 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | Well, Treborius, I am not really debating your good faith.
Well, I am, but I can get over it.
I'll try to stay neutral in my following reasoning:
The thing is that your approach to the division you like the most seems to hurt the participation to the division you like the most. Which will end in hurting your gaming experience in that division as well.
I agree with Odi that there shouldn't be "rules" to get rid of powergamers, because freedom is a very important art of the Fumbbl experience... but I am always amazed at how those who contribute to the problems claim the right for freedom WHILE at the same time asking for artificial fixes for the problems they themselves created.
Freedom comes at a cost, which is called responsability.
It reminds me of those R coaches who stacked claw/rsc players all over their chaos teams, then whined that they couldn't get a game... and asked for Ranked rules to prevent sissy elfballers from playing each others too much.
If you're part of the problem, you do not really have the right to propose solutions, do you? |
quicker than me, once again
...i understand what you're saying, whether that's neutral, i doubt, but it's your right to not be neutral as much as i'm not claiming to be neutral
actually, when you look at the thread What Would Make You Play More [B] Games?, i fail to see how people could get the impression many coaches quit playing B because of exploits, or that it is a major problem in B.
all i'm proposing is to lower the "Minimum Coach-Limit", i don't see why i shouldn't have the right to do so, even if people were keeping away from B because of me playing teams like i do.
also, as i've said here and on many other occasions, i don't consider playing 0 RR or teams generally giving HCs an exploit.
0 RR in combination with Leader, i do consider an exploit and i've already proposed to change evaluating Leader (in terms of TS), because of this.
(Edit: meaning was messed up) |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:33 |
|
[quote="Hogshine"]| westerner wrote: | | maznaz wrote: | | Just remove handis and fix leader TS and the low reroll rebate and let's see where we are then for a few weeks. |
I think your suggestion is worth a shot. |
i agree.
| Hogshine wrote: | | Wasn't there originally a decision by Christer that all handicaps would be removed from the Blackbox division? Either way, this solution seems to be the best in my eyes. As the 0rr issue seems to have been fixed, only removing handicaps remains. |
although i don't think it's an exploit to produce as many HCs as possible (i.e. it doesn't give you an advantage on avg.), i am strongly in favor of removing HCs from B and i remember reading Christer's idea to do so as well, but i think that quite a few people were disfavoring that approach.
i suspect, that many of those think differently, today. ('not blaming them for changing their minds since i wasn't even aware of most plans for the Box at that point of time )
i guess the Box just needed / needs some real playing before good fixes / better design became / becomes obvious.
(Edit: grammar) |
|
|
Unstoffe
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:40 |
|
On topic - lower away, where's the harm. Worst case people would use it to arrange matches... oh noes. Particularly silly is that currently the bot will start a round with six coaches but only schedule 2 games.
Away from topic a bit.. .I was going to say to people still worried about racial diversity in [B], stop worrying and at least give it a try, it ain't as bad as you've heard. But then I looked at my last ten games, they were against :skaven (2), nurgle, high elf, vampire (2), chaos, dark elf, wood elf, elf.
Where are the orcs, the dwarves, the khemri? It's turning into elfball, no wonder people are leaving |
_________________
British or thereabouts? Check out the White Isle League |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:50 |
|
Just in case anyone's not seen it, the TS formula has been changed to address 0RR+Leader, as well as increasing the cost of DP. |
_________________
\x/es
Last edited by westerner on %b %23, %2009 - %14:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Archevol
Joined: Dec 14, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:52 |
|
Hogshine! Looking forward to our league matchup. 
It seems to me that the argument to reduce the number of coaches would act to treat a symptom. As such, surely any such fix is short term.
Am interested to see if anyone can come up with an argument that could convince me that B is preferable to R or leagues. One more coach could mean the difference between some games and no games, after all. I don't pick matchups in R. I rarely say no unless it's a pointless game. So why would B be preferable when I rarely have uncompetitive games already?
I like the idea of randomly pulling a (roughly) even matchup out of a hat. It's fun; should be great. Why isn't it? It's because players are abusing B, right? Or, at least, perception is that players are abusing B and others are avoiding the Box just to avoid them?
So how do you go about preventing that abuse? Would a set of 'honour' rules be preferable? A voluntary code of conduct, or something similar? Or do you limit the number of skills? Or rather make TS influence on skills exponential when chosen more than once? e.g. +2TS for 1MB, +6TS for two, +12TS for three, etc? And likewise for blodgers, etc. After all, if I were to build a dwarf team with 16 guard/MB, then I'd do it, if it means adding only 64TS, rather than 128TS.
Surely options like that would be preferable to applying a plaster to help those who do actively (and stoically) participate in B? |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:53 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | | On topic - lower away, where's the harm. Worst case people would use it to arrange matches... oh noes. |
lol, i couldn't agree more. 
| Unstoffe wrote: | | Particularly silly is that currently the bot will start a round with six coaches but only schedule 2 games. |
this is a different issue - it really depends, whether or not there would've been reasonable matchups between the remaining 4 coaches...
...if not (i.e. the TS-difference is >15) then it doesn't schedule and i think that's good |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 14:59 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | | On topic - lower away, where's the harm. Worst case people would use it to arrange matches... oh noes. |
Apart from the fact that this would invalidate the entire concept of Black Box, no problems, no.
| Unstoffe wrote: | | Particularly silly is that currently the bot will start a round with six coaches but only schedule 2 games. |
It does this when it can't get sufficiently balanced matches otherwise. I think it should be even more restrictive. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
