| 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 21, 2009 - 10:28 |
 
|
I'm aware there's already a thread with this suggestion, but it has been started in times where the problem
wasn't as imminent as it has become today as there are a lot of cases now, when no match-ups are created for activated Black-Box teams.
Pros and Cons that I'm aware of:
Pros:
-> Much fewer occasions where no match-ups are created for Black-Box.
-> Less frustration by coaches waiting for a game in the Box.
-> Probably increasing popularity of the Box (again), since it'd become a place to find instant games every half hour.
Cons:
-> Quality of match-ups when there are only 4 or 5 coaches will be a bit lower on average.
-> Possibility of abusing Black-Box by activating with your buddies in times of low activity increases.
My personal evaluation of Pros vs. Cons is, that the Pros heavily outweigh the Cons.
Specifically:
-> Being able to get an instant game once you activate shortly before the 30min interval is essential for popularity and fun in the Box.
-> The threat / possibilities of coaches abusing the Box are low imho (because of max. difference in TS cap and penalty for successive match-ups with the same teams)
(In fact, i think, it's much easier to abuse any open league with your buddies if you really wanted to and i'm not aware of this being a major concern in the Box or any league, so far)
In this thread:
-> Please feel free to discuss and state (further) Pros and Cons.
-> People not playing (planning on playing) in the Box: Please don't vote or spam this thread, since it's really only a concern to those playing in the Box. |
Last edited by treborius on %b %21, %2009 - %10:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 10:32 |
|
Some evidence: 
[Friday, 21:30] <BowlBot> Processing round.
Found 5 coaches.
Not enough coaches to start.
<gobogen> arg...
<avien|vet|eli> pfft
<Skolopender> meh
<gobogen> twice I sign up tonight, twice 5 coaches
[Friday, 21:31] that's it for me then 
|<-- gobogen has left fumbbl.com (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- s0 d4Mn l33t |t'z 5c4rY!)
<wolfmoon> Sorry, forgot to activate.
<Sttucker13> wow
thats super gay.
[Saturday, 08:30] <BowlBot> Processing round.
Found 4 coaches.
Not enough coaches to start.
<Sttucker13> ....
Thats incredibly annoying.
<Patrician> twice in a row
-->| Paragon (~no@c-24-1-31-38.hsd1.il.comcast.net) has joined #fumbblblackbox
[Saturday, 08:31] <Sttucker13> I wish the bot would give a notice when it reaches the minimum
or something
this is getting annoying
<Patrician> mmm
[Saturday, 09:30] <BowlBot> Processing round.
Found 5 coaches.
Not enough coaches to start.
<James_Probert> gah
<treborius> gah
<Sttucker13> Awesome.
<treborius> ?
<Sttucker13> Again.
<James_Probert> sarcasm detector
<treborius>
-->| Sandsack (~Sandsack@byrt-4dbf19d6.pool.einsundeins.de) has joined #fumbblblackbox
<Sttucker13> I've queued like 10 times in the last 24 hours
[Saturday, 09:31] and I've played 2 games.
<treborius>
<ultwe> oops
should have joined :-/
<Sttucker13> Don't say oops.
Omfg.
Are you serious?
<treborius> lol
<Sttucker13> we only needed 1 more.
Are you high?
Please note, that it's even happening at 21:30 Friday night, which should really be about prime-time for BB? (times are all in tune with bb-time) |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 10:48 |
|
Another request:
If you vote(d) in favor of the Petition, would you please reply with a posting saying "/signed" or
something similar - that way it might get more attention / impact when the Petition gets alot of replies 
Thank you. |
|
|
ultwe
Joined: Dec 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 11:03 |
|
just to add to it:
[edit:
<Ultwe> bbtime
<BowlBot> Ultwe: Sat Feb 21 11:04:48 CET 2009
/]
r-ip.net) has joined #FumbblBlackbox
<BowlBot> Processing round.
<BowlBot> Found 6 coaches.
<BowlBot> - Benedicition vs shusaku (Dwarf 129/137 vs 141/138 Wood Elf) @863
<BowlBot> - Baki vs jarvis_pants (Wood Elf 100/96 vs 106/99 Chaos) @881
<BowlBot> Scheduled 2 matches
<BowlBot> Not scheduled: Nicolazafante, mymLaban
* Plorg has quit (Quit)
<mymLaban> pffft
* mymLaban slaps BowlBot around a bit with a large trout
<Nicolazafante> just
the Scheduler seems quite happy to go forwards with only 4 coaches being matched up. so lowering the min number of coaches could make sense in that light. |
_________________
Yeah, Nuffle sucks... That's because I play crap
π is aproximately 3.142 times better than any other food
Last edited by ultwe on %b %21, %2009 - %11:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 11:04 |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 11:16 |
|
i almost couldn't read your msg, there 
my eyesight is getting so weak, these days  |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 11:39 |
|
| treborius wrote: |
-> Quality of match-ups when there are only 4 or 5 coaches will be a bit lower on average. |
This is the major disadvantage of lowering the limit. You claim it`s 'abit', while I would claim it`s actually alot. Especially, when there are coaches invovled that bring only one team to the box.
Also you are screwing over people that bring multiple teams. This is because when there are less people, chances are significantly increased, that their prefered team cannot be matched.
So by lowering the coach-limit you are screwing over those, that work towards increasing the matchup quality. Not very good.
Now if you would lower the limit to four coaches, but also introduce a 12-team minimum for a box round... then I would sign this petition.
You could also average the siutability score of rounds with 6 coaches invovled and average the siutability score of rounds with 9 coaches... this way you would get an overview, how much a decrease of coachnumbers by one third impacts your matchups. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 14:43 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | treborius wrote: |
-> Quality of match-ups when there are only 4 or 5 coaches will be a bit lower on average. |
This is the major disadvantage of lowering the limit. You claim it`s 'abit', while I would claim it`s actually alot. Especially, when there are coaches invovled that bring only one team to the box.
Also you are screwing over people that bring multiple teams. This is because when there are less people, chances are significantly increased, that their prefered team cannot be matched.
So by lowering the coach-limit you are screwing over those, that work towards increasing the matchup quality. Not very good.
Now if you would lower the limit to four coaches, but also introduce a 12-team minimum for a box round... then I would sign this petition.
You could also average the siutability score of rounds with 6 coaches invovled and average the siutability score of rounds with 9 coaches... this way you would get an overview, how much a decrease of coachnumbers by one third impacts your matchups. |
whether it's abit or alot really is a relative statement and up to your judgement - i'd suspect
that when match-ups are off something like 5..8 TS on average with 6 players, it might be off something
like 6..10 TS on average with 4 or 7..12 TS with 4 players - but that's only a guess, of course.
of course, as always, you need to do some statistics to be sure how much it'd really be - although i
guess it should be pretty easy to calculate the expected rise in avg. TS when you assume some sort
of TS-distribution, avg. # teams per coach and so on, but i'm too lazy and to many assumptions ...
however, whatever the avg. TS difference would be - there still is the TS-cut-off of max. 15 TS difference
(same cut-off for 4,5, 6 or more players activating in the box - please also keep in mind that with a TS-
difference, you're still as likely to profit from it as you are to suffer from it )
i can't follow your "screwing"-argument at all, since afterall if the limit isn't lowered then they
might risk not playing their favorite team even more (i.e. not playing at all) - in case there are 6 or
more players there's no difference whether or not the cut-off would have been at 4,5 or 6 people
personally i'd always favor playing a game over not getting a match-up at all as long as the maximum
TS-difference is 15 TS (the current cut-off) and from what i see on irc i guess alot of other coaches
feel the same. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 14:49 |
|
today (Saturday!):
<BowlBot> Processing round.
[Saturday, 14:30] Found 5 coaches.
Not enough coaches to start.
<odi_> well, most serial killers look like the ordinary guy nex door 
<Wreckage> and here i thought they look like police chiefs
[Saturday, 14:31] <BattleChess> bbtime
<BowlBot> BattleChess: Sat Feb 21 14:31:27 CET 2009
[Saturday, 14:32] <BattleChess> so there were no matches organised?
<Zuul> nope
1 coach short
<BattleChess> shame |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 14:57 |
|
OK.. lets say I bring 3 teams, but prefer one. Then the prefered one only has a chance of getting scheduled, if there is a team of similar TS in the box. If not - one of my other teams is likely to be matchable and will get matched. If there are only 3 other coaches in the box, chances increase, that my prefered team gets no action. |
|
|
Lithuran
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 15:00 |
|
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 15:19 |
|
i don't sign, it's clear that one-team-only players and 0 RR abusers have driven -at first enthusiastic- blackbox players away from a good system to get quick matches. blame yourself on that one.
greetings from nelson: HA! HA! |
_________________
I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
maznaz
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 15:29 |
|
Personally I think it should be scrapped altogether. Either matches should be suitable according to the scheduler or not. If a match is below the hard limit for suitability then it won't be scheduled, but if it's above it it doesn't matter if there were 2 coaches, 4 or 100, it is suitable.
@CircularLogic, would you prefer to play with an unpreferred team or not to play at all? |
|
|
Aargh
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 15:30 |
|
I think Blackbox has some far more important problems than the minimum player limit. And, as flyor pointed out, if so many players hadn't given up on [B] already because of those other problems, the player limit would be far less of an issue. |
|
|
BiggieB
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 21, 2009 - 15:34 |
|
to me it sounds like the kid who broke his own toys wants others to fix it for him. The 6 coach minimum req is very good since it ensures much more possible matchups instead of 4 (a possible team min req would not be as effective since a coach can have more teams then one thus thinning the releveant density). |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
