JackDaniels
Joined: May 03, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 02, 2010 - 21:02 |
 
|
i don´t care. you can remove me from top10 lists if those lists are important to you. i pretty much stopped playing ranked and blackbox because i achieved everything i was aiming for. knowing that is good enough for me even if you delete all my teams and drop me to 150 for being inactive. havn´t looked on the blackbox list since my last boxgame if i am still up there until a few mins ago. right now i prefer to play poker for your info because its more challenging and you can win money...
i lose respect of someone who seems too be 100% sure about other peoples intentions
i think jimbeam has other intentions then you think
maybe the top10 list is how christer has it intended to be. not only reflecting active coaches
if you think there would be more games going on if the ranking system is changed, you can discuss that without creating fictional coaches. using obvious fictional names is even more rude because it feels like you think i am stupid |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Well from what you have said JackDaniels, I dont see why you are upset. Seems i was pretty spot on, and any changes wouldn't bother you anyway.
| Quote: | | i pretty much stopped playing ranked and blackbox because i achieved everything i was aiming for |
Which is pretty much exactly as i thought. And thats fine with me. If topping a list of names was your intention, job done. Congratulations.
Me too by the way. also job done, several times. Yay me. Only difference being it was a sub-intention of mine, and my main aim was to have fun playing a game i enjoy. Still is.
The reason i used an obvious reference to you, and not your actual name, is that i wanted it clear you were an example of the problem, not the direct target of the post. But it is also a fact that you have done this in both R and B and that has created a visibility to your actions that you cannot simply eschew. It's been highly visisble, so people have noticed. Sadly i think this is also why when asked about 'top BB coaches on fumbbl' i have never heard your name mentioned (when i have heard 30-40 others), when it probably deserves to be.
To be clear though, the problem here is not you, it is a system that allows such historical data to seem current when it isnt. If you read my post i DO advocate a list that shows such achievements in perpetuity. Allowing your very impressive highpoint to stand for all time.
But it seems odd to me to mix such data with people currently playing. over the last few months since you stopped playing B several people have been higher than you, indeed i'm pretty sure you've been as low as 4th ranked at times, but while the rest of the list has stayed fluid there are several ratings that have not.
I believe this dissincentivises people from attempting to get onto the list, to play well and succeed, as the 'available slots' are few, and as several of the top ten places are now permanently reserved for coaches who achieved their place a long time ago and hence will never have to worry about a bad game losing them BWR. As i said, the worst example last played B 10 months ago. when the diviison was VERY different.
As to poker, drop me a Pm and let me know what site you use, as i am also no stranger to the game. Oddly i have won several online poker tournaments, at several sites, and yet i still play. I also wonder if you would have found maintaining a high rating 'more challenging' had you ever tried, but cannot deny the appeal and constant challenge of poker for real money. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Gran
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2010 - 22:58 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | Point 6: I would wholeheartedly agree to a system where my BWR would 'decay' up to 150  |
QFT 
Edit: I would like to add my vote to what maznaz suggested. Racial-BWR would be a great incentive for greater diversity, as would some sort of race-related awards. |
_________________
The trouble is that things *never* get better, they just stay the same, only more so.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)
Today Is A Good Day For Someone Else To Die!
-- (Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay) |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
To be quite honest, the blackbox division is mostly in a "proof of concept" state at the moment. Not because I don't like the division, but simply beacuse I've been distracted by other things on (and off) the site lately.
The blackbox central page is very trivial in what it shows, and it totally needs to be fleshed out a bit. I'm not opposed to setting up a "rubber banding" effect towards 150. It'd add some unique flavour to the ranking system in B, which seems like fun. Thinking about the issue for a while, and considering ways to make it more worthwhile to strive for the top spots I came up with an idea which might be worth exploring. You remember the Faction division? People really liked the medals there... I'm sure you're seeing where I'm going here..
Let's say that BWR and BBR were set up to rubber-band towards 150.. Let's say you move 50% towards 150 each "round", so a ranking 175 coach would go to 162.5 (losing 12.5 points), and a 125 ranked player would go to 137.5 (gaining 12.5 points). Rounds could be set up as bi-weekly, or monthly or whatever seems reasonable. At the end of each round, the top three ranked coaches would get a medal much like the old faction division did. Maybe even one set for BWR and one set for BBR (although that might give people incentive to bash more than necessary).
In the end, this would be strictly be a meta-game where people who aren't interested in medals can simply ignore it while those who enjoy those kinds of games would have something to strive for. The rubber-banding effect would also effectively make successes in earlier rounds matter, with the percentage chosen being a way to tweak the rate.
Something like that, in combination with a bit more fleshed out blackbox central page seems like a fairly good idea to give more love to the division.
However, I have to state up-front that something like this isn't something I'll be working on right away. My two top priorities right now are getting the fantasy football client up and running, and improving the L division. After that, I may put some time into blackbox.
Meanwhile, feel free to discuss my proposed system, or come up with something else you might want to see happen. I'm following these ideas closely and with interest, as I'm keen on improving the blackbox division if possible. |
|
|
Irgy
Joined: Feb 21, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2010 - 23:39 |
|
I think a system of decay makes most sense. I strongly dislike the whole rating completely resetting, it just seems too unstable for me. Resetting just seems like a very ugly approximation of a good decay system.
I'd really like a system that at least accounted for the needs of the very infrequent players (such as myself). So completely resetting would be quite annoying, while decaying would be a slight nuisance but ok really. It should decay proportionally to how high it is, so that ratings near 150 are mostly left alone and infrequent players can still at least keep track of whether or not they're above average.
One new idea I'd like to suggest is a publicly visible "blackbox diversity rating", which increases when you play games with infrequently used races, and decreases when you use frequently used races. The goal should really be to keep it in the middle, but some people might take pride in increasing it. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the lack of diversity in the box, nor with people playing it just to get games with chaos, dwarves and khemri, but I'd consider this rating interesting anyway. |
|
|
maznaz
Joined: Jan 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2010 - 23:40 |
|
I love the idea of a repeating "finish line" with medals dished out periodically, but I think it's really important to do that on a per race basis as well as one overall title for the highest BWR. I know from my own experience that the more games I play orcs the higher in the rankings I sit, for example. Obviously some people won't care and will always play their preferred races, but I can at least speak for myself that if there were repeatedly reset rankings and an opportunity to earn medals with all the races, I'd love to have a go at getting those with races I currently have no interest in playing in B. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2010 - 23:42 |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 02, 2010 - 23:44 |
|
I wouldn`t want to see decay happening to active coaches. Those 'risk' their ranking in every match and a streak of 8-10 bad games can easily cost you 12+ BWR points.
When I thought about a decay (which I became convinced isn`t such a hot idea), the best way would be to check in regular intervalls (1st of each month?) for inactive coaches. Those coaches that are inactive and above BWR 150 lose 0.5 BWR. The sum of the BWR removed in such a way is then divided up onto the active population, so that you don`t have BWR points leaving the closed system. |
|
|
JackDaniels
Joined: May 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 00:01 |
|
my english isn´t the best and i dont know what E-Penni means but
| Quote: | | And that coaches like entirely fictional non-real coach 'JimBeam' who use the rankings as fodder to feed their E-Penii Ego |
and
| Quote: | and see coaches like entirely fictional non-existant coach 'jimBeam' on the rankings, i shake my head, and lose respect for what otherwise i might consider decent BB players.
|
didn´t sound nice to me.
| Quote: | | To be clear though, the problem here is not you, it is a system that allows such historical data to seem current when it isnt. |
that´s what i wanted to be clear about too.
i could start talking about the diffrent ways to have fun with bloodbowl, but since this is a thread about about a possible new ranking system, i wont go there.
i like christers idea |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
Reading it back, you are right JackDaniels, those comments were probably too personal. But meant more about that 'type' then about you specifically. Try also seeing iot from the outside though. IF the poker site you frequent had a player publicised as its best, but they didnt actually play anymore, wouldn't you find that frustrating? Might you not want to sit down and play the guy sometime?
Actually i do think you are a great coach. I just wish you found maintaining a ranking as exciting and challenging as getting one.
But that should remain your choice. This is not a crusade about you, but rather you are a highly visible symbol of what i percieve to be flaws in the few stats and ranking B does have.
It's only my opinion though. And at least it got people talking.
My appology is offered if offence was caused. And we should play poker sometime, or indeed bloodbowl. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 01:05 |
|
Even though I don't care particularly much for all this ranking stuff, I might want to mention that, with Magic the Gathering, they used to only list players with at least ten games during the last 12 months. Something similar could work for your box-ranking too(at least 10 games last 50 days, for instance).
You also could introduce racial rankings for coaches (or team-rankings for individual races even, that kind of ranking I would consider interesting, actually). |
|
|
adambomb
Joined: Jan 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 01:36 |
|
i will play B regardless of whatever ranking system is in place as I don't expect to rise to the top nor do I aspire to. instead I play for the fun of random opponents rather than going through the gamefinder slog in Ranked
having said that this is an interesting discussion and I hope you guys come up with something that makes everyone happy. Ok that might not be possible...so hopefully you can come up with something that makes most people happy. The rest, I'm sure, will be quite vociferous in their disapproval.  |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 09:41 |
|
I'm against a decay of the ranking (if there is only one ranking). It just hurts coaches with less time to play (and for those coaches with less time to play = less experience winning is more difficult anyway, I'd say).
I like the two suggestions that came up before: Hide the ranking of inactive coaches (but no decay) and/or create two rankings: One all-time and one active ranking. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 10:54 |
|
| Christer wrote: | You remember the Faction division? People really liked the medals there... I'm sure you're seeing where I'm going here..
Let's say that BWR and BBR were set up to rubber-band towards 150.. Let's say you move 50% towards 150 each "round", so a ranking 175 coach would go to 162.5 (losing 12.5 points), and a 125 ranked player would go to 137.5 (gaining 12.5 points). Rounds could be set up as bi-weekly, or monthly or whatever seems reasonable. At the end of each round, the top three ranked coaches would get a medal much like the old faction division did. |
Any chance of the medal awards (when they do arrive) being back-dated?  |
|
|
Gran
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 03, 2010 - 11:32 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | I wouldn`t want to see decay happening to active coaches. Those 'risk' their ranking in every match and a streak of 8-10 bad games can easily cost you 12+ BWR points.
When I thought about a decay (which I became convinced isn`t such a hot idea), the best way would be to check in regular intervalls (1st of each month?) for inactive coaches. Those coaches that are inactive and above BWR 150 lose 0.5 BWR. The sum of the BWR removed in such a way is then divided up onto the active population, so that you don`t have BWR points leaving the closed system. |
No, that's not a good idea. I understand that loosing that much BWR in one fell swoop will make some of the more competitive coaches nervous, but your alternative is just too open to exploitation. For one thing you only need one game a month to stay up there, and if you put that system into practise today JackDaniels could well be getting medals for almost half a year without a single game. The whole point - as I see it - of a decay on the scale Christer suggested is that medals are awarded for what you did this month, not on how great that streak you had during Christmas was. It also means that there is a larger group of players who can potentially get medals, which would be good for the division as a whole. |
_________________
The trouble is that things *never* get better, they just stay the same, only more so.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)
Today Is A Good Day For Someone Else To Die!
-- (Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay) |
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
