88 coaches online • Server time: 21:54
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Gloomy Gus, Legendar...goto Post dodging against oppo...goto Post Slann Blitzer too ex...
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
Massive teams - massive matches - open play
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
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits