Zero1BB
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
|
 Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:08 |
 
|
Another good idea would be for the bowlbot to do a room notice that its time to activate. Not what its doing now with just a text announcement in the room but an actual notice like it sends when you get a PM but for the whole room. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:21 |
|
|
Zero1BB
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:24 |
|
it sends the message in the room but the point of the room notice is that it makes a noise to remind them and they can come look and see, ive noticed many people missing simple cause they didnt remember to activate in time and a room notice would remind them of that |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:28 |
|
| koadah wrote: |
How many of the coaches who favour a minimum 3 teams already have 3 teams? i.e. You don't get many new teams just lose a number of coaches.
The more narrow you make the goals of the box the fewer coaches you are going to get. |
Agree, it's a bad idea. Being forced to make three teams just to play your first match? Not good. |
_________________
”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:
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:34 |
|
| koadah wrote: | How many of the coaches who favour a minimum 3 teams already have 3 teams? i.e. You don't get many new teams just lose a number of coaches.
The more narrow you make the goals of the box the fewer coaches you are going to get. |
I agree with that to an extent. However... what if you had a minimum of 3 teams per activation but could have and/or activate more if you wish? That would give you an effective choice of team, obviously not quite as good as Ranked does but still better than the current system surely?
Also I dont think we should be saying "put up with no team selection or get out" because not being able to choose your own team is nothing to do with the mission statement of the blackbox. Its simply a choice which was made to attempt to make it run more practically. |
_________________
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." |
|
arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 11:14 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | Why can't the Box be for that Snappy?
There's no fundamental reason why you shouldn't be able to activate with one team because you want to (especially while it is possible to activate with one team because you only have one). The idea doesn't break any fundamental essence of Blackbox, does it? |
The Box was supposed to be the ultimate test of coaches.
((...was it?))
Random team (of yours) vs random opponent. If it were up to me, you would HAVE to play at least 3 (very) different teams.
((...but it is neither up to you nor me.)))
But most people just seem to want it so they don't have to work to get a game ...
((guess that's the only sure thing as to what BBox is for: being an auto scheduler))
...for their Dwarfs, so no, in that spirit, I guess it is black box. |
(...) You don't get many new teams just lose a number of coaches.
The more narrow you make the goals of the box the fewer coaches you are going to get. |
There is no obvious goal for B. It is an Auto-Scheduler Division happening to have the rather cool name "Blackbox". The rest is up to us.
To me the name seems to suggest a challenging element- kind of hardcore.
Nonetheless I am in favor of choosing (~4) teams to activate.
Not to drag anyone into BBox but for personal gain. It would allow me to create more (than 4) teams without loosing ALL focus on my teams of choice.
I focus anyway- by sticking to four teams. |
Last edited by arw on %b %18, %2009 - %11:%Mar; edited 2 times in total |
|
arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 11:27 |
|
| Cloggy wrote: | I'm not sure if this has been suggested before....
It just occurred to me that a solution may be possible by combining 2 things:
[F]action has been suffering from a severe lack of coaches because through te times it had become the major cherrypicking division and it was horribly hard to get coaches to play the opponents they were supposed to play.
[B]lackbox as a division is said to suffer from a lack of purpose, where a lot of coaches don't play because they find the thrill of the 1-off match to lack something.
I guess you can all see where this is going.....
(...) |
/seconded
Although I don't want to add to the question whether or not Faction is dead (since i don't play F) the idea sounds great to me!
B claiming the title to be the most challenging division...
profile-medals...
would be awesome!
Question is though:
How to satisfy F players to accept merging F into B?
What would be their adds to BBox?
We can't just ignore them by playing the old "F is dead" tune.
Just the contrary: the "spirit of F" must be alive in B to ever make F players accept.
If both B and F players like the idea it's almost likely to really happen.
Otherwise B intern "problems" won't be solved by "F sacrifice" I am afraid. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 13:11 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | Why can't the Box be for that Snappy?
There's no fundamental reason why you shouldn't be able to activate with one team because you want to (especially while it is possible to activate with one team because you only have one). The idea doesn't break any fundamental essence of Blackbox, does it? |
The Box was supposed to be the ultimate test of coaches. Random team (of yours) vs random opponent. If it were up to me, you would HAVE to play at least 3 (very) different teams. But most people just seem to want it so they don't have to work to get a game for their Dwarfs, so no, in that spirit, I guess it is black box. |
How many of the coaches who favour a minimum 3 teams already have 3 teams? i.e. You don't get many new teams just lose a number of coaches.
The more narrow you make the goals of the box the fewer coaches you are going to get. |
I would like to highlight that, if there are majors + no selection on the team list you activate, it would be detrimental to the box as you'd better keep your team count very low. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 15:00 |
|
| arw wrote: | | Cloggy wrote: | I'm not sure if this has been suggested before....
It just occurred to me that a solution may be possible by combining 2 things:
[F]action has been suffering from a severe lack of coaches because through te times it had become the major cherrypicking division and it was horribly hard to get coaches to play the opponents they were supposed to play.
[B]lackbox as a division is said to suffer from a lack of purpose, where a lot of coaches don't play because they find the thrill of the 1-off match to lack something.
I guess you can all see where this is going.....
(...) |
/seconded
Although I don't want to add to the question whether or not Faction is dead (since i don't play F) the idea sounds great to me!
B claiming the title to be the most challenging division...
profile-medals...
would be awesome! |
The profile medals are sure nice to use, why not include another at the moment pointless feature of the site: the championship.
The way I see this is that only the B games count for championship (so the current standings can be seen at any time) and at the end of each month the top 3 coaches in championship receive a medal. (ofc the difficulty in championship should be changed from CR to BWR) |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 15:11 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | Chingis wrote: | Why can't the Box be for that Snappy?
There's no fundamental reason why you shouldn't be able to activate with one team because you want to (especially while it is possible to activate with one team because you only have one). The idea doesn't break any fundamental essence of Blackbox, does it? |
The Box was supposed to be the ultimate test of coaches. Random team (of yours) vs random opponent. If it were up to me, you would HAVE to play at least 3 (very) different teams. But most people just seem to want it so they don't have to work to get a game for their Dwarfs, so no, in that spirit, I guess it is black box. |
How many of the coaches who favour a minimum 3 teams already have 3 teams? i.e. You don't get many new teams just lose a number of coaches.
The more narrow you make the goals of the box the fewer coaches you are going to get. |
I would like to highlight that, if there are majors + no selection on the team list you activate, it would be detrimental to the box as you'd better keep your team count very low. |
Once you add Majors team building start to gain more importance as opposed to "just winning". I would only be interested in a Championship. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 15:34 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | Once you add Majors team building start to gain more importance as opposed to "just winning". I would only be interested in a Championship. |
This is an important question.
The minute you add in tournaments, you introduce team building into Blackbox.
Coaches would thus be incented to compete harder in tournament games, and prioritize team building in non-tournament games.
Is that something we want? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 15:57 |
|
It would be very easy (I assume) to implement Championship into BlackBox and give people the appropriate pixel-bling for winning it monthly.
I'd like some kind of capped tournies, more like SMACKs. Unfortunately, TS cap won't work, so it would have to be TR capped. |
_________________
”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 |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 16:27 |
|
| arw wrote: | Question is though:
How to satisfy F players to accept merging F into B? |
You cannot. F has evolved into a playground for a small group of coaches so they can have a competition without the big ones. I actually gave it a try for multiple seasons but as the people I would have to play never had time when I saw them online...
| arw wrote: |
What would be their adds to BBox? |
They would increase the bodycount in [B].
| arw wrote: |
We can't just ignore them by playing the old "F is dead" tune.
Just the contrary: the "spirit of F" must be alive in B to ever make F players accept.
If both B and F players like the idea it's almost likely to really happen.
Otherwise B intern "problems" won't be solved by "F sacrifice" I am afraid. |
Yes we can. The question is if the faction system is better than a championship system for [B].
Faction would probably work on a coach level and not on a team level. That would solve MANY of the dodging problems apparent in faction. Coaches would just have more even matches and if their elves get trashed - who cares, next game is played by another team.
So whenever coaches from the same faction activate, they get match preferentially with other coaches from the same faction, if one is present that they haven`t played in the round yet. |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 19:09 |
|
All of the problems presented with a major in [B] only apply if a team enters the major (as opposed to a coach with all his teams). I'm inclined to implement majors with, say, a 5 team minimum (from all different "categories") for entry, and let the one team coaches continue to play in the basic box.
As for championships (only the best coaches get in to the majors), I like that idea too, but it proved very unpopular the last time it was presented. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 18, 2009 - 19:18 |
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | All of the problems presented with a major in [B] only apply if a team enters the major (as opposed to a coach with all his teams). I'm inclined to implement majors with, say, a 5 team minimum (from all different "categories") for entry, and let the one team coaches continue to play in the basic box.
As for championships (only the best coaches get in to the majors), I like that idea too, but it proved very unpopular the last time it was presented. |
People who don't like Majors don't have to play in them.
People who don't like the Championship don't have to take any notice of it.
It pretty much works already just needs an option to filter out [R] results. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
|
|
| |
Getting diced 3 game...
Search
