Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
 Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 11:49 |
 
|
The Blackbox is propably of a lower priority now but anyway.
We have now tested the current setup to some extent and i suggest that we now try:
-Giving all people the choice of which teams to activate, not just those that have only 1 team. We should only encourage activating many teams.
-Lowering the coach limit of the scheduler to 5
(And some not that important things that could be tried:
-Another thing that could be tested would be ts-difference of 10%( maybe with a minimum of 10 ts?)
-A monthly minor to name the champion of the month)
I suppose all this has been discussed in many places many times. I don't know how many times this has been polled etc. but I'm bored and wanted to start a thread and use this 
Miiro |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:14 |
|
why 5? wouldn't 4 be a more sensible option, if the big C were to change his mind on the 6? |
_________________
 |
|
Ullakkomorko
Joined: Aug 10, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:14 |
|
I'd like to try the 5 or even 4 coach limit, but I'm fine with the current activation. So I voted No. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:21 |
|
I think the 6 coach limit is fine. In most cases, if there are not 6 coaches it's because the last activation was very popular. Even if you get 50 coaches in an activation, the games last an hour, so the activation 30 minutes later is likely to be quiet.
As for activating all teams, I would like an option to 'sleep' one team, so that you can remove it from the activation list. Even if the 'sleep' was for a fixed amount of time, whether it be 1 day, 3 days, or even 10 games.
Blackbox is currently as popular as [L]eague, so it is certainly a success. The two main issues which seem to come up are lack of tournaments (which I don't see changing) and people being forced to play teams they are tired of (which can only currently be solved by retiring the team). |
|
|
Koigokoro
Joined: Sep 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:28 |
|
That sleep of 1 team would certainly be a smaller step towards more freedom of choice. I like that too.
The Box isn't a success at all times of day and I would like to see lower coach limit tested for what it does to the number of games and also the equality of matches. My bet is on increased amount of games and on more avarage ts difference, but the question is:
Would it be worth it?
We are still in beta so why not test it? |
|
|
fly
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:31 |
|
i would like to see an option of either putting one / several teams to sleep or just activate 1-3 (as i have 4 teams) teams, i don't like to retire teams just in order not to play with them. |
_________________
I play for fun. I play to win.
Do you play CPOMB 'cause you can't win otherwise?
No, that's a rhetorical question. |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:45 |
|
I`d be in favor for activating only 3 teams, if you have more than 3. I could be persuaded, that you can activate only 2 teams, if you have more than 1. The rest is probably detrimental for the scheduling, just as the reduction of the coach limit is. |
|
|
clarkin
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 12:51 |
|
Activating 3 teams only if you have more than 3 is a good idea. I've retired lots of nice B teams just cos I was tired of playing them and wanted a break. |
|
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 13:08 |
|
If i understood correctly, the reason for the 6 coaches rule is to get decent match-ups. But wouldn't a round with 4 coaches activating 20 teams in total produce even better pairings than a round of 6 coaches with only 1 team each?
So maybe the limit could be changed to take the total number of teams into account rather than the number of coaches. |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 14:30 |
|
| Rawlf wrote: | If i understood correctly, the reason for the 6 coaches rule is to get decent match-ups. But wouldn't a round with 4 coaches activating 20 teams in total produce even better pairings than a round of 6 coaches with only 1 team each?
So maybe the limit could be changed to take the total number of teams into account rather than the number of coaches. |
Maybe, effectively, it should be a matter of number of teams activated.
maybe something like
6 coaches
Or 4-5 coaches and X teams.
However I voted no for the freedom of choice in the team. A minimum amount of teams should be offered per coach, if he has more than one.
I'd be rather annoyed to be unscheduled because many players did only feel like playing a single team. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 27, 2009 - 17:18 |
|
|
|
|
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
