58 coaches online • Server time: 17:34
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post New rosters in R&...goto Post SWL Season LXXIIIgoto Post DIBBL Awards
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
KhorneliusPraxx



Joined: Jul 28, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 18:09 Reply with quote Back to top

I stand by my opinion and can't be convinced otherwise. Razz

_________________
Hopefully my pulsating avatar will remind you to always take +1 Strength...ALWAYS!
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 18:10 Reply with quote Back to top

Stand Firm, eh? Smile

Off topic... is there any way to surf a SF player?

_________________
\x/es
Reisender



Joined: Sep 29, 2007

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 18:19 Reply with quote Back to top

TOURNAMENTS: please add Reisender !
Rijssiej



Joined: Jan 04, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 18:28 Reply with quote Back to top

westerner wrote:
Stand Firm, eh? Smile

Off topic... is there any way to surf a SF player?


Yes, when you push a player without SF and there are only SF players on the spots you can push to you can push and thus surf a SF player.
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 18:40 Reply with quote Back to top

Allow the transfer of a team from [B] to [R]. - i.e. My teams have a chance to play in [R] tournaments. Otherwise there seems no point creating more [B] teams.

Possibility to select a number of your teams for the draw - Ideally allow selecting just 1 team. Wink

_________________
Image
Secret League - SLUMBBL Cup - September
TheCetusProject



Joined: May 25, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 20:03 Reply with quote Back to top

Rather than transfer from B to R, why not just make R tournaments open to B teams as well?
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 20:11 Reply with quote Back to top

That's an interesting idea. B teams would probably be at a disadvantage but it'd be fun to try anyway.

_________________
\x/es
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 20:19 Reply with quote Back to top

Transfer from [R] to [B] makes very little sense in terms of [B] being a seperate division.

_________________
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."
westerner



Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 20:28 Reply with quote Back to top

The idea is opening R tournaments to B teams, which is not the same as a transfer between divisions.

Under that scenario, by keeping B as a separate division, you allow B teams to easily compare vs. their peer group.

_________________
\x/es
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Mar 10, 2009 - 21:17 Reply with quote Back to top

Sorry, misread that.... I guess it could work but its not ideal.

_________________
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."
treborius



Joined: Apr 05, 2008

Post   Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 00:52 Reply with quote Back to top

TheCetusProject wrote:
Rather than transfer from B to R, why not just make R tournaments open to B teams as well?

SillySod wrote:
(...)I guess it could work but its not ideal.


i agree - why would i want to enter a tourney with a B-team when i could build a competitive team in R, well-suited for the tournament-conditions, much easier?
the option wouldn't hurt, but would hardly be attractive for coaches playing in B Sad
InkRose



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 01:11 Reply with quote Back to top

I may be in the minority here, but I'm actually quite happy with what little experience I have of B. Of the ones listed in the first post, the only one I personally would very much wish to be realized is the option to choose which teams to activate. For now I only have the one, mind you, but I've put off creating another one because I know some days I'd just like to play that one particular team, or to focus on building up a new one over a weekend. But then, I'm only in B for the quick thrills and the fact that it forces me to play whoever is around with whatever team is calculated fitting, thus efficiently bypassing my cherry-picking impulses.

_________________
The best throw of the dice is to throw them away.
- English proverb
soultoken



Joined: Dec 03, 2004

Post   Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 01:32 Reply with quote Back to top

I love the box to bits, although all 3 main sugguestions in the intial post i agree with. I think some sort of Torny would be great as trying to build for a sucessful one would be a nightmare Very Happy Although i am semi happy the way things are atm
Mnemon



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 01:41 Reply with quote Back to top

I like [B] because it is in line with my playing style and actually fairer on me. I've been taking the first offer made to me in [R] since a few years now, without looking at the opponent team or checking TR/TS difference. The amount of utterly one sided games games that happened once in a while is reduced a good bit. As such the division doesn't really need anything "more" from my side. I'd love to be able to take my 100+ games teams over from [r], of course, but can understand why it is not a widely loved suggestion.

I'd guess the division could learn some from meta-groups like E.L.F. that promote indirect competition. Introduce seasons, season winners (for each race), a few challenges to achieve - much like the awards that exist in ranked or the medals in faction - meta goals like these. Tourneys may be an option on top of that, but I am not really sure there's room for another tourney division between the official ones in [r] and inofficial ones in [l]. It's great for me as it comes closest to playing in tournaments - not knowing who or what is next and not being picked either; I can't commit to tournament deadlines as the time I have for playing varies from week to week, so this is the closest I can come.

Tourney wise some smack like automated mini-tournaments might work. Where you activate not for a single match, but three back to back ones. Again recognition of people's efforts should happen somewhere. And I'd guess finding a bit more of an identity for the division. The roles of [r], [l], [s] and [f] are all quite clearly defined. [b] still has an air of vagueness to it, with the only thing that provides character to the division being the automatic match making.

-Mnemon
J_K_B



Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Post   Posted: Mar 11, 2009 - 02:21 Reply with quote Back to top

Mnemon wrote:
I like [B] because it is in line with my playing style and actually fairer on me. I've been taking the first offer made to me in [R] since a few years now, without looking at the opponent team or checking TR/TS difference. The amount of utterly one sided games games that happened once in a while is reduced a good bit.

QFT.

As soon as my [R] teams start creeping up on 200, NOBODY will accect a match request from me. I'm not really that good of a player, and my teams aren't that impressive...they're buff races (Liz, CD) but definitely not bashy (1 DP each, and I'm negative on casualties).

It's retardedly lame to send out 4 or 5 match requests and get just as many refusals, then spend the next 15 minutes waiting for some new LFG'rs (rinse, repeat).


Another thing that hasn't been mentioned - [B]lackBox coaches, at least most of them, know how to finish a daggone game! 50 minutes on the nose, skill up, buy up, and ready to activate for the next round. When in Ranked, I usually have to play two games at a time to stay entertained.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic