| 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 |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 16:43 |
 
|
| westerner wrote: | 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. |
you do realize....
if you put this effort towards fixing *real* problems in the blackbox....it will result in increasing the population of the box, and in essence, fixing the coach limit issue, not by lowering it, but by having more coaches in each pool....
but i guess feeding your "i need a game now!" fix, is way more important than fixing the overall product, right?
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 17:43 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | if you put this effort towards fixing *real* problems in the blackbox....it will result in increasing the population of the box, and in essence, fixing the coach limit issue, not by lowering it, but by having more coaches in each pool.... |
Possible. If the overall interest in [B] rises sufficiently, then this issue goes away. But it is useful to discuss what the lowest threshold to start a round should be. The issue being that if interest dips below the threshold, people start losing interest just because they can't get a game... which affects other divisions too.
But I guess peeing on B threads is more fun? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
JockMcRowdy
Joined: Jul 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 17:45 |
|
sshhhhh dont make him mad, shadow holds a grudge until the end of time.
Also, he has a point.....i think |
_________________
The White Isle League is by far the best Blood Bowl league in the world. FACT!
If you are interested in joining please get in touch. |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 17:49 |
|
| westerner wrote: | Possible. If the overall interest in [B] rises sufficiently, then this issue goes away. But it is useful to discuss what the lowest threshold to start a round should be. The issue being that if interest dips below the threshold, people start losing interest just because they can't get a game... which affects other divisions too.
But I guess peeing on B threads is more fun? |
how exactly does lower support for blackbox affect ranked or league?
i'd say stats may be a little different, don't you think?...unless of course you mean it affects other divisions positively....
as blackbox games decline, ranked climbs back to the original levels....
blackbox is not the center of the fumbbl universe....ranked or league is....if blackbox collapses completely, the other divisions will continue to thrive as they always have...
and lastly, this has nothing to do with pissing on B threads....
it has everything to do with focusing energy on fixing the real issues, instead of bandaiding things so that blackbox can continue to limp along like a wounded dog....
fix the real issues....the coach limit problem will fix itself...the division will thrive...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 17:49 |
|
| westerner wrote: | Yeah Shadow, ppl are still playing Box even if you aren't one of them...
|
Judging by the threads..... that actually may not be true.
__Synn |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 18:02 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | westerner wrote: | The issue being that if interest dips below the threshold, people start losing interest just because they can't get a game... which affects other divisions too.
|
how exactly does lower support for blackbox affect ranked or league? |
That's not what I meant. I was pointing out that other divisions also suffer from the "cant get a game" factor. e.g. [A]. When I first joined fumbbl, I tried to get a game in Academy on 3 different occasions over 3 days. I couldn't, so I jumped into R.
The concept applies even more to B due to the nature of the scheduler. While I agree with the importance of raising long term interest, if coaches dip below the scheduler's threshold, even core support will dry up. Hence the relevance of a short term fix and this thread. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 18:05 |
|
| JockMcRowdy wrote: | sshhhhh dont make him mad, shadow holds a grudge until the end of time.
Also, he has a point.....i think |
Shadow carrying a grudge? I don't think so, though some of the people he flames do..
Yes he has a point, but so does this thread. And that's my point. |
_________________
\x/es
Last edited by westerner on %b %06, %2009 - %18:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 18:06 |
|
lowering the coach threshold is not going to "fix" anything, aside from giving the 5 coaches who still play blackbox a chance to powergame their teams to massive levels between themselves....
it's not going to increase the "core" support....
there are plenty of coaches who do not play blackbox currently, who are still very supportive of the division...myself being one of them...
fixing the much more glaring problems of the division will drum up your "core" support much more than allowing you and balle to powergame between each other...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 18:19 |
|
It'll prevent core support from decreasing further... below which there'll be no games at all
Cmon shadow, there's more than 5 coaches playing B actively. And I don't remember playing a match against Balle2000, so that powergaming theory is just another B myth. Which some folks seem to enjoy propagating.
Curious as to what you think the "much more glaring problems" are.. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2009 - 20:44 |
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say a lack of enforced variety of teams is the big one Shadow is aluding to.
the major difference between [B] and every other division is [B] isn't an open league. Much like a private league, it needs a strong admin who is willing to lay down the law and run the league for the good of all. But as you all know, this will never happen on Fumbbl because of the high white noise of Internet Libertarians, who generally are willing to concede that a given behavior or coach is a problem, but not that anyone has the right to do anything about it.
Shadow knows this, so really, he's just moaning. |
_________________
<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 07, 2009 - 10:29 |
|
| 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... |
Last edited by Balle2000 on %b %07, %2009 - %10:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2009 - 10:34 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: |
if you put this effort towards fixing *real* problems in the blackbox....
[...]
but i guess feeding your "i need a game now!" fix, is way more important than fixing the overall product, right? |
Can you stop with this non-sense already?
It's NOT one or the other.
Just because another change for the better is made before your favorite change, doesn't mean that the issues you yourself want fixed are left untouched.
And this coach limit can be changed in a matter of minutes, unless it's been coded extremely complex. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2009 - 10:37 |
|
Reducing the coach limit is not a change for the better. Lowering the average matchup quality to get more games is not a good thing. I rather have fewer games that are well matched than mass games that are uneven most of the time. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2009 - 10:40 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Reducing the coach limit is not a change for the better. Lowering the average matchup quality to get more games is not a good thing. I rather have fewer games that are well matched than mass games that are uneven most of the time. |
The coach limit mainly affects people in the US and Australian time zones, and it's natural that people in Europe would hold an opinion such as yourself, because you have a point.
How about having a 4 coach minimum at certain hours oft he day?
Besides, it's also in the nature of TS and racial differences, that even certain same TS match-ups can be more uneven than say certain TS diff 10 match-ups. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 07, 2009 - 12:14 |
|
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".) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
