| 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 - 15:01 |
 
|
| westerner wrote: | | 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. |
dang, must've been on vacation too long, i missed that  |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:03 |
|
| Hogshine wrote: | | 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. |
Hogshine, not sure what times you play, but what I notice is US evening hours tend to be slow lately, often with multiple rounds of 3-5 coaches.
I do agree that the first solution should be to increase overall interest in [B], then the minimum coach issue becomes moot. But if [B] steady state interest is below the threshold of 6 coaches/30 minute round, then perhaps this could be tweaked. Personally, I'd prefer keeping the 6 coaches limit and moving to 60 minute rounds. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:12 |
|
| johan wrote: | | 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. |
i agree, it would be terrible if coaches managed to arrange matches in B, but is it just the thought that scares you or do you really believe people would try and succeed to do so? (just curious).
i can't really envision anyone even trying, because it doesn't seem easy at all (chances to manage are still small even with a 4-coach-minimum) and payoff (1 arranged match vs. a team of similar TS) is pretty small and chances to play the same team next game again is even smaller after having played it once... |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:15 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | (...)But if [B] steady state interest is below the threshold of 6 coaches/30 minute round, then perhaps this could be tweaked. Personally, I'd prefer keeping the 6 coaches limit and moving to 60 minute rounds. |
'been thinking about something along those lines as well, but it seems that when 2 successive 30min-rounds passed with only 4 or 5 coaches activating it's often the same coaches, so it's not like 60min-rounds gives you twice as many coaches  |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:36 |
|
| Unstoffe wrote: | | 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. |
Personally I enjoy the game more if it`s close. Yes, there is a hardcap of 15TS, but that`s already really wide. So the more coaches there are, the closer the matches will be - simple a matter of how many teams are available.
So with 4 coaches, chances are significantly increased, that the difference in teams is so large that it reduces my fun. I also have no chance to limit my participation to rounds with 6 or more coaches (as noone knows how many coaches are in the box). Thus lowering the limit will hurt my gaming experience in the box. |
|
|
Hogshine
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:39 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | (...)But if [B] steady state interest is below the threshold of 6 coaches/30 minute round, then perhaps this could be tweaked. Personally, I'd prefer keeping the 6 coaches limit and moving to 60 minute rounds. |
'been thinking about something along those lines as well, but it seems that when 2 successive 30min-rounds passed with only 4 or 5 coaches activating it's often the same coaches, so it's not like 60min-rounds gives you twice as many coaches |
This was my reaction to the suggestion. How often do consecutive rounds pass by without any games being scheduled?
I normally play GMT afternoon or evening time, however I tend to put whichever teams I want to play on gamefinder and accept any reasonable/fun-looking offer so don't normally have much problem finding games there. If it gets to **28 or **58 then I'll enter the box. I've never encountered a situation where there's been insufficient interest, though I equally haven't played enough recently to imagine that my experience is in any way representative of what's going on 
If you look at my last matches, 2 of the last 10 games I've played outside Leagues have been in the box, and that's been over the last week and a half, I think. So I haven't been particularly active.
| Archevol wrote: | Hogshine! Looking forward to our league matchup. 
[...]
Am interested to see if anyone can come up with an argument that could convince me that B is preferable to R or leagues[...] |
In all my B games, I don't think I've really encountered anyone abusing TS. The problem is, while real, very small it would seem. Pulling random matches is fun, but the most important part of the box is the speed at which you can find a game. I don't think any rules are needed to govern B any differently to how TS is implemented elsewhere on fumbbl, it's just that the TS calculation itself has become far more important with B. I personally find Leagues more fun/interesting than either R or B still, but mostly because I chat to other coaches within those leagues in IRC, and get to know them better than I get to know most R/B coaches. However, when playing one-off games, I'm as happy to play in R as in B most of the time, so will switch between whichever one gets me a game quickest.
Hope this helps  |
|
|
MonkyTonky
Joined: Nov 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:46 |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 15:55 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | i agree, it would be terrible if coaches managed to arrange matches in B, but is it just the thought that scares you or do you really believe people would try and succeed to do so? |
I believe - no, strike that, I'm absolutely certain - that if it became possible, some people would do it.
I'm not sure how possible it would be. I guess that would depend on where the limit was set. |
_________________
”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 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 16:29 |
|
Personally I dont think this limit can be reasonably reduced without some sort of change which requires people to activate more than one team. The issue is that it is potentially very easy to generate a fixed matchup - just wait until the box is near empty and then both join, chances are that the other two teams in there wont be a legal (or better) fit for either of your teams. Having more teams per coach or simply having more coaches makes this much harder and significantly less reliable. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 16:40 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Personally I dont think this limit can be reasonably reduced without some sort of change which requires people to activate more than one team. The issue is that it is potentially very easy to generate a fixed matchup - just wait until the box is near empty and then both join, chances are that the other two teams in there wont be a legal (or better) fit for either of your teams. Having more teams per coach or simply having more coaches makes this much harder and significantly less reliable. |
Indeed |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 16:45 |
|
| Archevol wrote: | 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.
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.
R is friendler simply because both players go into a mutually agreed matchup.
|
Archevol, I think you've bought the anti-[B] propaganda. I've played 170 games in [B], and have encountered only 1 multi-DP "killer" team. Claw/RSC loaded teams are rare too, most Chaos teams just don't survive long enough to get really powerful. Chaos BBR in [B], a measure of bashiness, is 150.38, close to average.
I've also encountered *zero* folks bitching about fouling, whereas in [R] I've run into a few.
Give it a try and see for yourself, maybe? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 16:52 |
|
Playing random people isn't as fun as it sounded at first.
And I think SillySod is right. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 16:55 |
|
I vote keep at 6. Of course if each coach had a minimum of 4 or more teams, then a lower coach limit would work. The idea is to set up a fair match and with out lots of teams to choose from, that is hard. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 17:04 |
|
| funnyfingers wrote: | | I vote keep at 6. Of course if each coach had a minimum of 4 or more teams, then a lower coach limit would work. |
Each coach having two or more teams and a limit of four would be more cheat-resistant than the current system.
Interestingly no one has suggested the possibility of a cartel of four coaches abusing the system. Personally I dont think this would be an issue if the number of teams were to be raised... they would somehow have to arrange it such that all eight teams would manage to dodge at least two suprise teams. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 17:46 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | funnyfingers wrote: | | I vote keep at 6. Of course if each coach had a minimum of 4 or more teams, then a lower coach limit would work. |
Each coach having two or more teams and a limit of four would be more cheat-resistant than the current system.
Interestingly no one has suggested the possibility of a cartel of four coaches abusing the system. Personally I dont think this would be an issue if the number of teams were to be raised... they would somehow have to arrange it such that all eight teams would manage to dodge at least two suprise teams. |
you cannot get unsheduled on whim anymore silly. But feel free to try out your idea. How long do you think your block will be silly? |
|
|
|
|
| |
killing by fun?
Search
