38 coaches online • Server time: 13:01
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Old Wo...goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
How many teams should a coach have to activate?
All
9%
 9%  [ 7 ]
1
58%
 58%  [ 42 ]
2
4%
 4%  [ 3 ]
3
19%
 19%  [ 14 ]
A percentage of total teams.
8%
 8%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 72


funnyfingers



Joined: Nov 13, 2005

Post   Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 17:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Some are not too happy with the new activation.

Do you think it should be all or none, or would it be good to force the coach to at least choose a minimum number of teams?
BillBrasky



Joined: Feb 15, 2005

Post   Posted: Jun 19, 2009 - 17:19 Reply with quote Back to top

Personally I like 3 or more(better chance to get a game). But I understand wanting to play a specific team. This is not an issue for me.
VampyrSlayer



Joined: Apr 09, 2009

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 03:39 Reply with quote Back to top

I think a better choice initially would be 1 or more than 1 - as the votes for the non-1 side are diluted amongst the other options.
Mr_Foulscumm



Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 04:14 Reply with quote Back to top

I never play [B] but seeing as I only have 1 team... I voted all Smile

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL
arw



Joined: Jan 07, 2007

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 05:35 Reply with quote Back to top

It makes no sense to have a minimum >1.
If anything it favors those having only one team.

Each and every one of us should activate multiple teams to have more balanced games.
Because it makes sense to have balanced games.
It would also be nice not to bring only Khem or Dwarfs persistently.

Both however is for each coach to decide by him/her self.
The system is great- only the way we use it may be problematic.
That's for us to solve.
Snappy_Dresser



Joined: Feb 11, 2005

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 06:12 Reply with quote Back to top

I voted 3, but that is with the thought that 3 would be the minimum number of teams allowed per coach in [B]. Arw: Your idea is great, but history does not bear out people being able to self-police their behavior for the greater good. That's why societies have rules. Because most peope are selfish, and will try for whatever gets them the greatest short term gain, damn the long term repercussions.

Having said that, the pick your team approach has improved the number of games in [B] (at least as much as simply removing the 6 coach limit would). It remains to be seen if 200 1 chaos team coaches is better than 20 1 team chaos coaches though.

_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited

"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm
Igvy



Joined: Apr 29, 2007

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 07:08 Reply with quote Back to top

/begin{complain}
You only want to inforce 1! How many times did I think of a neat idea on how to play a team, make it then never get selected in the box? Tooo many!

Then my enthusiam over my idea wandered, as i didn't get enought game to follow through.

The bottom line is the bottom line, you can force people to play a game they don't really want to play, but will they stick around? NO!

People leave the box because of this. If people want to activate only 1 team, knowing they risk not being matched and that will probably get a worse matchup. Then that is their choice.

Don't ruin the fun for everyone, just because you want somthing done a perticular way.

Not everyone will share your ideas or thoughts. F@#$ing Cope. Stop complaining. Which is exactly what this thread is.

/end{complain}
Snappy_Dresser



Joined: Feb 11, 2005

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 07:43 Reply with quote Back to top

okay then.

I'll refrain from making fun of your english, it obviously isn't your first language, and instead stick to your asinine ideas.

You can enforce behaviors, people do it all the time. More to the point, if they removed the somewhat arbitrary 6 coach minimum, then 100 good coaches with a variety of teams would be preferable to 1000 coaches with your bad attitude.

If you want to make a funny concept team, go to ranked.

Blackbox is supposed to be a test of the coach.

_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited

"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 11:54 Reply with quote Back to top

The problem is not, that people bringing only 1 team get worse matchups for themselves, but reduce the matchup quality of all coaches in the round. I guess it`s like the 'tragedy of the commons'....
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 11:56 Reply with quote Back to top

Two or three teams would be a good minimum. The main reason to have choice over activation is to allow you not to play certain teams rather than to enable you to choose a specific team. Hopefully this wont matter too much though.

Snappy_Dresser wrote:
I'll refrain from making fun of your english, it obviously isn't your first language


If you were going to refrain then perhaps you should have actually refrained? Wink

_________________
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."
sk8bcn



Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 14:37 Reply with quote Back to top

I think it's stupid to start to complain, take opinions, and so on, for something that haven't been tested yet.

No matter what everyone believes, the outcome for the box depends on the psychologie of FUMBBL coaches.

It might be worse if the majority of the coaches activate only a few teams.

It might be better if most sends a good bunch of teams+some new coaches in as they can unactivate the teams they don't feel like playing.


Who knows?

(so what's the point in overreacting. Wait and see IMO)

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes
DukeTyrion



Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 14:42 Reply with quote Back to top

People seem to think that the point of the Blackbox is to get a random match up for the coach, I do not agree.

I think the point of Blackbox is to get a random matchup for whichever 'Team' or teams a coach wishes to play.

They are not the same thing. If i want to get a random game for my rats, then I want a random game for my rats.

Blackbox may give those that want 2 unknown races to play each other, but that is not where this idea sprung from.
DukeTyrion



Joined: Feb 18, 2004

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 14:45 Reply with quote Back to top

Snappy_Dresser wrote:
Blackbox is supposed to be a test of the coach.


No, Blackbox is supposed to be a method of getting a random match for a coaches team, regardless of your wishes for it.
SillySod



Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 15:23 Reply with quote Back to top

Duke, I appreciate what you're saying but forcing coaches to enter multiple teams (while allowing them to select the teams) might be a necessary evil required to improve scheduling.

_________________
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."
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Jun 20, 2009 - 15:23 Reply with quote Back to top

CircularLogic wrote:
The problem is not, that people bringing only 1 team get worse matchups for themselves, but reduce the matchup quality of all coaches in the round. I guess it`s like the 'tragedy of the commons'....


Me bringing one team improves the quality of the match ups as that is one more team than you would have had otherwise.

Playing TR200 elves is totally different game to playing TR100 dwarves. On any given night a person just might no fancy a certain kind of match. How many of those people who are happy activating all their teams are really going to drop down to activating only one?

The more teams you activate the better you chances of a good matchup or getting matched at all. That should be a good enough incentive.

You could go further. Have a Championship and only award points if the user activated a team from each of the rock/paper/scissors categories.

More teams, more diverisity, competitive incentive, no one forced to activate teams they don't want to.

I don't think that freezing coaches out is for the long term good of the division.

_________________
Image
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Stars - Anniversary Bowl - Teams of Stars - 13th March
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