| Poll |
| Do you like it that you can now choose which teams are activated? |
| Yes |
|
76% |
[ 99 ] |
| No |
|
23% |
[ 31 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 130 |
|
Josito_RIP
Joined: Apr 27, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 16:27 |
 
|
The voting says everything |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 16:30 |
|
| Fela wrote: | | 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. |
As the number of teams are the important thing, which is number of coaches times number of teams, both values are equally important. WIth the change, one is raised at the cost of the other. I just want to make sure that the other stays high, too.
@DukeTyrion:
Most of the things I suggest would be unnoticed by most coaches or it is really easy to understand. So I`m not making things more complicated - you can still go, activate and play. |
|
|
Rawlf
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 16:42 |
|
| Christer wrote: |
Sure, people might avoid to play the agile teams but from my perspective it's better to allow people to play with the teams they like. If that means Blackbox is a harsh environment then so be it. The game is designed the way it is.
|
It isn't the coaches behavior or the game design that determines what kind of environment the Blackbox is, it is the rules you chose to give to the division that does.
If you were to give some kind of meaningful reward for achieving a good win%, people would play their agile teams all the time.
Lacking such a mechanism, the Blackbox as it is now attracts especially those coaches who fail to get games in ranked, where they are disliked either as a coach or because of their team.
I don't mean to be rude, I'm agitated because i love the division and its potential to be great. But i view this change, minor as it may be, as one step towards making Blackbox the trash bin of ranked.
I'm convinced, that if the division was developped into something unique in itself (much like what you want to happen to Faction), there would be more than enough coaches playing in it. The potential for that is certainly there. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 16:55 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: |
@DukeTyrion:
Most of the things I suggest would be unnoticed by most coaches or it is really easy to understand. So I`m not making things more complicated - you can still go, activate and play. |
But, if your changes that complicate the calculation come in, and 5 other coaches all activate 2 teams like myself, then under your new plan, I would not be able to play and nor would the others. How exactly would this help Blackbox? |
|
|
funnyfingers
Joined: Nov 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 17:02 |
|
Christer - Can you show the average, median, or peak number of teams in the draw prior to this and then after about a month or whatever show a comparison to see the effect of your change?
I do agree and know first hand that since I have 5 or so team I was better off not playing as to risk playing my sucky dwarves. Though I don't want to play them right now, I don't want to reture them either.
Very good call. Other possibility is maybe a 2 team minimum if you have 5+ teams. Personally I will probably always choose 2 teams. |
|
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
I was thinking of a similar restriction to ensure sufficient teams, without forcing people to play a particular team they want to exclude:
1-2 teams: activate at least 1
3-4 teams: activate at least 2
5+ teams: activate at least 3 |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 17:10 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Fela wrote: | | 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. |
As the number of teams are the important thing, which is number of coaches times number of teams, both values are equally important. WIth the change, one is raised at the cost of the other. I just want to make sure that the other stays high, too.
|
I think you missed the most important aspect of what i wrote. Up to three random teams are chose per activating coach in each draw, if I got the process right.
That means a coach activating 4 teams instead of 3 _might_ improve the draw. He might actually also make it worse, depending on the random picks.
An additional coach will always increase the sample size and should thus improve it (I assume there is some sorting mechanism involved after the random teams are chosen).
A coach increasing his number of teams from 1 to 2 will most likely improve the sample - especially if the other coaches also only activate 1 (then definitely) or 2 (still probably) teams.
So - no, teams per coach and number of coaches do NOT have similar impacts on matchup quality, It's totally biased towards number of coaches. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 17:41 |
|
| Fela wrote: | | CircularLogic wrote: | | Fela wrote: | | 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. |
As the number of teams are the important thing, which is number of coaches times number of teams, both values are equally important. WIth the change, one is raised at the cost of the other. I just want to make sure that the other stays high, too.
|
I think you missed the most important aspect of what i wrote. Up to three random teams are chose per activating coach in each draw, if I got the process right.
That means a coach activating 4 teams instead of 3 _might_ improve the draw. He might actually also make it worse, depending on the random picks.
An additional coach will always increase the sample size and should thus improve it (I assume there is some sorting mechanism involved after the random teams are chosen).
A coach increasing his number of teams from 1 to 2 will most likely improve the sample - especially if the other coaches also only activate 1 (then definitely) or 2 (still probably) teams.
So - no, teams per coach and number of coaches do NOT have similar impacts on matchup quality, It's totally biased towards number of coaches. |
Sorry, you seem to have missunderstood the matchmaking process. Scheduling involves ALL teams a coach submits to the box. The more teams a coach submits, the better. An exact explanation can be found here on the blackbox forum.
@Kryten:
So you want to punish people for making more than 2 teams?
@DukeTyrion:
If 5 coaches activate 2 teams, then even under current rules they don`t get to play. Yes, there might be situations, where coaches could play under current rules but not with 'Number of teams' as a criteria, though they are likely to be missmatched. On the other hand, there could be 4 coaches each submitting 4 teams playing, that couldn`t under current rules.
So this would help blackbox, as it would enable coaches from non-euro timezones to get more games, just by submitting more teams. In total, the number of games would stay constant while the quality of matchups increased. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 17:52 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | @DukeTyrion:
If 5 coaches activate 2 teams, then even under current rules they don`t get to play. Yes, there might be situations, where coaches could play under current rules but not with 'Number of teams' as a criteria, though they are likely to be missmatched. On the other hand, there could be 4 coaches each submitting 4 teams playing, that couldn`t under current rules.
So this would help blackbox, as it would enable coaches from non-euro timezones to get more games, just by submitting more teams. In total, the number of games would stay constant while the quality of matchups increased. |
You complain when others do not read something, then do not read it yourself. If 5 other coaches and myself all activate 2 teams, it would be 6 coaches and 12 teams.
To further restrict the Blackbox in any way is not a good route forward, when we are trying to get more coaches involved. Coaches need to feel they have the freedom to decide, that lack of freedom is why many left Blackbox in the first place. |
|
|
Arlecchino
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 17:53 |
|
As a past player of BB i dislike about this change. One of the best of play BB is that you don't know wich of your team you're going to play!
But i'm sure that i'll got a game with a team that i create (of course) and an even match because the scheduling process....
I really don't undestand why someone don't want to play a team in his BB division that he had created... but... if many people have of this problem... and the change will increase the number of "problematic" coach in B division... it's ok. 
P.s: And the quality of matchup go down.... |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 17:59 |
|
Sorry Duke.. now that I reread it, it can be read as 'you and 5 other', though you never explicitly state, that you activate, too. Anyhow.. it was just one more thing to suggest, to further improve the choice of options. I personally prefer something else, too. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 18:13 |
|
| Arlecchino wrote: | | As a past player of BB i dislike about this change. One of the best of play BB is that you don't know wich of your team you're going to play! |
The good thing is that you can still do this by picking all of your teams. But someone else who doesn't like to do this doesn't have to. Everyone's a winner!  |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 19:22 |
|
i love it
seems like the mighty Christer does read our forum-threads every once in a while 
CON: i agree with some, that this might reduce the # of possible match-ups (hence matching-quality), but i think, that this is outweighed by the choice we get.
PRO: when you're more interested in matching-quality, you can still create 10 teams, activate all of them and be pretty certain, that you'll get 1 decent match-up
PRO: i'm thinking, that reducing # of possible match-ups is rather short-term and that we'll get more coaches playing Box long-term (because of this and other changes to come) |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 19, 2009 - 20:16 |
|
Well, this is a solution. Not the best one, but it will probably work well enough. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
spathii
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 20, 2009 - 08:39 |
|
Not sure yet if I like it, but initial reaction was not the best. Feel like only activating just a few teams out of your many goes against the principles of blackbox and the chance of getting the best matchup of teams. Maybe some cap on the possible deactivations? Guess one have to see how things play out first though
On another note. Just activated now, and realised that it is possible to have several matches scheduled/activated(had a previous unfinished one which got connection/fumbbl problems)which is imensly positive for those seldom no-show-matches and not getting them unscheduled in time for next activation. Guess it will relieve the admins of some unscheduleing work aswell since some of them matches actually will get played now
And haven't seen anyone mentioning it, but isnt anyone scared by the fact that the last minute activations now gets harder since you have to push activate and load the page two times =D |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
