FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Narky

Joined: Jul 15, 2008

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 13:25

hmm i can see both sides of this argument seem true in certain cases. i would prefer something like you have to activate at least 75% of their teams. so if they dont wanna play with a specific team because they don't feel like it they can avoid that but it still makes lots of teams in the box. the only thing that might happen with this is people creating teams so that they could avoid more teams, however as long as they didn't retire the teams and kept training them it would have a good effect on the box

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 13:55

koadah wrote:

IMO it is better to get more coaches involved than to keep it as a cosy little club. Even if the match up quality does fall a little.

Falling matchup quality won`t bring in coaches longterm and I don`t want to exclude - on the contrary. I want the highest possible matchup quality and therefore I want the most teams per scheduling round. More coaches is a step to more teams, but not if more coaches are bought with a lowered team-per-coach ratio.

So I don`t see the problem, why coaches contributing to the matchup quality should be rewarded over coaches that take away from it. And if you hate that, why not allow me to refrain from joining rounds with low number of teams and therefore lower expected team quality?

Oh.. and this has nothing to do with my record - it just seems good because I have retired my fail-dorfs and the dice were kind to my elves.

Rijssiej

Joined: Jan 04, 2005

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:23

CircularLogic wrote:

I want the highest possible matchup quality and therefore I want the most teams per scheduling round.

If you want better matchup quality you should go for lowering the maximum TS difference not for excluding coaches that like to choose what team they want to play with. I think the effect on matchup quality of allowing those coaches to participate is relatively small.

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:27

One post ago CircularLogic wrote:

Falling matchup quality won`t bring in coaches longterm and I don`t want to exclude - on the contrary. I want the highest possible matchup quality and therefore I want the most teams per scheduling round. More coaches is a step to more teams, but not if more coaches are bought with a lowered team-per-coach ratio.

Rijssiej

Joined: Jan 04, 2005

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:34

CircularLogic wrote:

One post ago CircularLogic wrote:

Falling matchup quality won`t bring in coaches longterm and I don`t want to exclude - on the contrary. I want the highest possible matchup quality and therefore I want the most teams per scheduling round. More coaches is a step to more teams, but not if more coaches are bought with a lowered team-per-coach ratio.

You say: "I don't want to exclude but I don't want coaches that want to choose the teams to play with". That makes no sense. Either you want to exclude those coaches or you allow them to choose their teams.

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:37

No I never said that.

I say I want an incentive for activating more teams. If you look at my post on page 2, I make 4 suggestions and only one of those suggestion removes total control over which team you play and replaces it with pick at least 3 teams out of your [B] teams. And even I know, that this isn`t the best option, but presented it just because it has been brought up before.

Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %19, %2009 - %14:%Jun; edited 1 time in total

Astarael

Joined: Aug 14, 2005

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:37

Rijssiej wrote:

CircularLogic wrote:

One post ago CircularLogic wrote:

Falling matchup quality won`t bring in coaches longterm and I don`t want to exclude - on the contrary. I want the highest possible matchup quality and therefore I want the most teams per scheduling round. More coaches is a step to more teams, but not if more coaches are bought with a lowered team-per-coach ratio.

You say: "I don't want to exclude but I don't want coaches that want to choose the teams to play with". That makes no sense. Either you want to exclude those coaches or you allow them to choose their teams.

Technically it does make sense... In the sense that he doesn't WANT to, but he has the URGE to. It's basically a form of Tourette's that forces him to exclude people.

_________________
Oh my.

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:40

Astarael wrote:

Technically it does make sense... In the sense that he doesn't WANT to, but he has the URGE to. It's basically a form of Tourette's that forces him to exclude people.

Nice try for trolling. Next time maybe read before posting. Thank you for your cooperation.

Rijssiej

Joined: Jan 04, 2005

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:49

CircularLogic wrote:

I say I want an incentive for activating more teams.

Ok, so I want the advantage I get for activating more teams too and make 10 more teams retire all those teams players and activate those together with the team I want to play with. Does that make you happy?

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:52

Good point - simple solution: 15TS rule is negated, if the higher team has a TS below 95. So you`ll get matched with your empty teams.

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 14:53

On a first thought, I'd say not that good move (like Circ says) but I however do think that it's really worth a trial.

You can't predict the behavior of the majority of the coaches. If I check a ranked gamefinder, you find a part of players that send only a few teams in it and some send every teams.

It might decrease the game quality. It might not. It's an alpha phase after all.

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

hellvis

Joined: Apr 23, 2009

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 15:39

I have stopped playing in [B] a few days ago because a goblin team I created was never drawn.

I t was never drawn because the gobbo's initial TS is 76 and the system always chose one of my other teams.

This new system will bring me back (and my teams) to [B].

Sure I wil enter exclusively the gobbo team the next few days, but afterwards I will enter them all as I did before.

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 16:02

Another option:
Rounds get only scheduled, if there are more than 15 teams in them. The number of coaches is irrelevant or could be set to 4 to avoid abuse.

Fela

Joined: Dec 27, 2004

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 16:19

If I understood the way the scheduler runs right now correctly (3 runs, best overall matchup statistic wins) a higher number of coaches should have WAY more impact on good matchups than more teams per coach.

Pls correct me if i' wrong, if you have evidence to the contrary.

I will be very glad about that change. Not long ago i retired a perfectly fine orc team, because it got in the way of playing my chaos at that time. Admittedly retiring doesn't mean much in my case, but afterwards i made a point of never having more than one [B] team.

Now I will probably create more teams and there WILL be times when i'm not hyped up about a certain team and only want to play that one - in which case i WILL activate more than one team. That's an option I did not have before.

From what I read here so far I might still be in a minority position, but I doubt the minority is totally negligible.

EDIT: I totally agree about lowering the TS threshold for fair matchups though.

Last edited by Fela on %b %19, %2009 - %16:%Jun; edited 2 times in total

DukeTyrion

Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 16:19

I like the current option, just 6 coaches.

If 4 of then only activate 1 team each and only 1 match gets scheduled, then the 4 coaches that missed the game will soon get used to scheduling more games.

Circ, I am not sure why you feel the need to make things more difficult by always adding certain criteria, seriously how would the minimum 15 teams thing help anyone if there were 3 perfect matches from 6 teams?