| 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 |
|
PirateRob
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 07, 2009 - 12:36 |
 
|
Where's the increase the minimum requirement option?  |
|
|
Ehlers
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2009 - 13:48 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | shadow46x2 wrote: | | aside from giving the 5 coaches who still play blackbox a chance to powergame their teams to massive levels between themselves.... |
Do you really believe this statement yourself?
It sounds highly unlikely.
And should this crazy scenario develop, just change it back again! I thought the test period was for tesing out different things.
Besides, this "powergaming" fear you keep promoting, is not that different from what anyone can do in Ranked anyway... |
Then you have not seen the exploits in Ranked, why some of the inforced rules about 10games before playing the same coach.
Fewer people limit, easier to powergame between close friends.
And this has happened and yes fumbbl is a large community. Every new thing or even that comes, are being exploitet by some people. So the more you lower the coach-limit, the easier it is to exploit it. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 02:09 |
|
Hence my suggestion for a minimum of 2 teams per coach if the limit is lowered to 4 coaches. 4x2 > 6x1.
Then at least the testing of [B] can continue, part of which can be exploring what the minimum # coaches/round should be. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 02:16 |
|
| Chingis wrote: | I think this would be worth a shot, but only if it is done at the same time as changing the activation screen to a tick box system. Tick the three teams you want to go into the draw, then click activate. That's "three" and not "up to three," so if you don't have three, you'd better make some more teams.
(Although "three" could be "three or more," so long as it's not "three or less".) |
Not a bad idea, actually. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 04:12 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | I think this would be worth a shot, but only if it is done at the same time as changing the activation screen to a tick box system. Tick the three teams you want to go into the draw, then click activate. That's "three" and not "up to three," so if you don't have three, you'd better make some more teams.
(Although "three" could be "three or more," so long as it's not "three or less".) |
Not a bad idea, actually. |
sure....until the usual suspects just start ticking 3 dorf teams
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 05:36 |
|
/signed
Why do people mind exploits so much?
0RR+Leader exploit will be erased sooner or later.
In time we'll know more about a handis worth then ever before.
The good guys play a variation of teams just to not be cheesy.
Some people even play stunties, norse, self-limiting agendas etc...
Either you use exploits or you take pride in not using them.
If you are a good guy not wanting to be cheesy: Why do you mind exploits so much?
Still looking for advantages, ain't you? Face a disadvantage with pride and joy and life will be good again 
It isn't that common to meet "+15TS 0RR+Leader Dorf millionaires" after all. Am I just that much luckier than you all were?
The main problem is YOUR attitude, dear exploit-hater: Just play on and forget the long time you were trained to focus on advantageous matches in Ranked. Leave the advantage. Leave the cherry. Exploits aren't that much of a problem if you like a challenge every now and then. It's not orbital barrage nor Auto-Cas-Ability. All the exploits are of limited effect and almost meaningless in high TS teams. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 06:05 |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 06:37 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | I think this would be worth a shot, but only if it is done at the same time as changing the activation screen to a tick box system. Tick the three teams you want to go into the draw, then click activate. That's "three" and not "up to three," so if you don't have three, you'd better make some more teams.
(Although "three" could be "three or more," so long as it's not "three or less".) |
Not a bad idea, actually. |
sure....until the usual suspects just start ticking 3 dorf teams
--j |
Because none of us are smart enough to make sure that doesn't happen.
:rolleyes: |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 06:38 |
|
| arw wrote: | /signed
Why do people mind exploits so much?
0RR+Leader exploit will be erased sooner or later.
In time we'll know more about a handis worth then ever before.
The good guys play a variation of teams just to not be cheesy.
Some people even play stunties, norse, self-limiting agendas etc...
Either you use exploits or you take pride in not using them.
If you are a good guy not wanting to be cheesy: Why do you mind exploits so much?
Still looking for advantages, ain't you? Face a disadvantage with pride and joy and life will be good again
It isn't that common to meet "+15TS 0RR+Leader Dorf millionaires" after all. Am I just that much luckier than you all were?
The main problem is YOUR attitude, dear exploit-hater: Just play on and forget the long time you were trained to focus on advantageous matches in Ranked. Leave the advantage. Leave the cherry. Exploits aren't that much of a problem if you like a challenge every now and then. It's not orbital barrage nor Auto-Cas-Ability. All the exploits are of limited effect and almost meaningless in high TS teams. |
It's attitudes like this that ruin many a tt or online league.
I repeat. You throw the obnoxious guy out of the party not because he did anything wrong, but because the women don't like him, and you'd rather have the women. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 08, 2009 - 13:25 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | I think this would be worth a shot, but only if it is done at the same time as changing the activation screen to a tick box system. Tick the three teams you want to go into the draw, then click activate. That's "three" and not "up to three," so if you don't have three, you'd better make some more teams.
(Although "three" could be "three or more," so long as it's not "three or less".) |
Not a bad idea, actually. |
sure....until the usual suspects just start ticking 3 dorf teams
--j |
The idea would fulfil several purposes:
* Increase the number of matches picked.
* Increase the suitability of matches.
* Allow favourite teams to be chosen/teams you want a break from to be unselected.
* Give an incentive for having more teams in the box in terms of more choice over the teams you play with (currently the exact opposite).
* Make it more difficult for two players to engineer a match between two particular teams.
If you wanted to expand the racial mix as an extra goal, you could easily achieve this too. I'm not sure how necessary it would be though. If a player had to have three teams anyway, would they really choose three dwarf teams? Even if they chose dwarf, khemri and chaos dwarf, it would be something.
While I think there is some truth to the self-fulfilling nature of unscheduled rounds, hopefully the opposite is true too. In other words, if people know that most likely they will get a game on the half-hour, even at odd times of day, they will be more willing to activate. Then the lower limit will be needed less often with a bigger pool of players. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 09, 2009 - 21:33 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: |
It's attitudes like this that ruin many a tt or online league.
I repeat. You throw the obnoxious guy out of the party not because he did anything wrong, but because the women don't like him, and you'd rather have the women. |
nah - have you ever been to a good gaming-party with girls???
i say: it doesn't really get good until the girls have left and the whiners have shut up |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 09, 2009 - 21:35 |
|
| AxeMurder wrote: | | Where's the increase the minimum requirement option? |
it's a petition - if you want to achieve something different: start your own |
|
|
Plorg
Joined: May 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 09, 2009 - 21:49 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | nah - have you ever been to a good gaming-party with girls??? |
Yes.
| treborius wrote: | | i say: it doesn't really get good until the girls have left ... |
...OK, you are not invited to my parties. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 09, 2009 - 22:03 |
|
Women and gaming rarely go together... though there are exceptions
 |
_________________
\x/es
Last edited by westerner on %b %09, %2009 - %22:%Mar; edited 4 times in total |
|
avien
Joined: May 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 09, 2009 - 22:03 |
|
| Plorg wrote: | | treborius wrote: | | nah - have you ever been to a good gaming-party with girls??? |
Yes. |
x2.
Gamergirls rock  |
|
|
|
|
| |
anyone know how to c...
Search
