| 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 |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
 Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 17:49 |
 
|
| BiggieB wrote: | | 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? |
That was my first thought as well. I think such an abuse of the system would be pretty easy to spot for the admins, assuming blackbox has logs... |
_________________
 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 17:55 |
|
| BiggieB wrote: | | 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? |
No I'm not planning on doing this on any kind of a regular basis. Heck, I'm not planning on doing it at all although having a few attempts at it could be an interesting experiment.
Also that block better be pretty justified, I'd have to end up playing the same person more frequently than every other game or something.... otherwise its a fair argument that the scheduler just threw that up anyway. Remember that its not like you're getting games unscheduled - just fixing things so you never (or rarely) get scheduled "wrong" in the first place. |
_________________
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." |
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 18:01 |
|
Well you go with the assumption that it works with 6 coaches, so would work with 4 coaches with a minimum of 2 teams. But those six coaches probably already average 10 teams between them. That is just a guess of course. If me and you alone are in the drawing that puts in 9 teams. I think minimum of 8 teams would be too little.
How about instead of a coach limit alone a coach limit mixed with a team limit for the drawing. This would not impose any limit for an individual coach. Say coach limit of 4 with a combined team limit of 12-16? Though may be best to do an idividual limit of 2... Multiply by 2 carry the 1 and then multiple by .501 and drop the 1.
| 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. |
|
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 18:04 |
|
Your cheating protection mechanisms should always assume a worst case scenario. Besides... if you scale it up from a two player thing to a cartel thing then the ability to activate only one team makes abuse easier to manage (and reduces the number of 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." |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 18:17 |
|
i`d be up for the cartel testing thing, so I can take Silly`s precious BB-rank  |
|
|
Lithuran
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 22:53 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | 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. |
I used to think that moving the draw to every 60min would be a solution, till i spent 1 day in the box for 3 hours with 5 coaches. The SAME 5 coaches.
So all I realised is that would give less games.
But people have a point. Perhaps 4 is too low, but can we make the limit 5?
Would it really be able to be abused? |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 23:16 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Your cheating protection mechanisms should always assume a worst case scenario. Besides... if you scale it up from a two player thing to a cartel thing then the ability to activate only one team makes abuse easier to manage (and reduces the number of teams). |
lol, you sound like the security-guys in my last contractors it-dept. - surely there are competing goals
like maximizing the amount of match-ups that compete with just being protected from cheating, otherwise we
could just put the minimum coach-limit to 100 - pretty sure, that no cheating is going on, then  |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 23, 2009 - 23:29 |
|
Of course there are competing goals. However, the goal for reducing abuse of the system should always consider the worst case scenario. That dosent mean you have to make it 100% safe ... it just means that you know the worst case scenario and consider it to be acceptable. |
_________________
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." |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 04:33 |
|
The last 2,5 hours in #fumbblblackbox
<@BowlBot> Processing round.
<@BowlBot> Found 5 coaches.
<@BowlBot> Not enough coaches to start.
<@BowlBot> Processing round.
<@BowlBot> Found 4 coaches.
<@BowlBot> Not enough coaches to start.
<@BowlBot> Processing round.
<@BowlBot> Found 5 coaches.
<@BowlBot> Not enough coaches to start.
<@BowlBot> Processing round.
<@BowlBot> Found 4 coaches.
<@BowlBot> Not enough coaches to start.
<@BowlBot> Processing round.
<@BowlBot> Found 5 coaches.
<@BowlBot> Not enough coaches to start.
Please lower the limit to 5 and see how it works out! |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 04:42 |
|
Skipped ahead, because reading is for nerds,
But a 4 team minimum, PLUS a minimum number of teams per coach, is probably the optimal. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 04:54 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | Skipped ahead, because reading is for nerds,
But a 4 team minimum, PLUS a minimum number of teams per coach, is probably the optimal. |
Fully agree! |
|
|
stboub
Joined: Jul 31, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 06:33 |
|
I'm a big fan of blackbox. I missed a lot of game seeing 4 or 5 coach. I think if u are from America u will have to deal more with it also. I'm definetly for briging box to 4 coach minimum at least 5. Keep in mind this only make a difference if he have less than 6 coah.... I'm also for making 12 instead of 15 as TS cap, i think this can help for having fair matchup. i experienced couple of insane game, even at more than 6 players... but it can be for or against ya so it less important. I ratter gettin an hard matchup than no matchup at all. We are playing for fun, i winned some theoric lost on paper and i lost some winned one also, all can happen! IT'S BB!
sry for my poor english |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 17:29 |
|
is this still going on?
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 17:39 |
|
Yeah Shadow, ppl are still playing Box even if you aren't one of them...
I think the limit could be lowered to 4 provided each coach entered at least 2 teams. That's actually a larger pool than 6 coaches x 1 team. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2009 - 21:04 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Your cheating protection mechanisms should always assume a worst case scenario. |
I'm not targeting you SillySod, I'm just using your quote.
I was wondering:
Given the opportunity, how is this cheating everyone is talking about supposed to take place? |
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
