Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 12:46 |
 
|
About the cherry picking issue, if you only play down in str, and only play low-ranked coaches, your coach-ranking will rise very slowly. And if you do lose it costs you a lot of points. Also, this has nothing at all to do with, for example, certain wood-elf teams who play only other elfs.
A ribbon system sounds nice to me, if it didn't add more clutter to the LFGs and whatnot. Maybe if two thirds of your Open and DivX teams with more than 5 matches played have a ribbon, you could get a ribbon as a coach.
Personally I wouldn't play in a blind challenge system unless I had to (or unless it was an extra option and nothing to do with the Open league, most likely with a dwarf team) as this would end up being dominated by bashy teams who like to bash and destroy and do nothing else and finally manage to get a lot of games this way. No thanks. |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
DoubleSkulls
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 13:12 |
|
What you need is a double-blind system - i.e. neither coach gets to choose who to play - that would stop cherry picking.
How about:
Use the BowlBot to be able to match up lfg requests (or some similar function on the website).
You go bblfg xxxxx and it puts your teams into a collection.
Then someone else comes along and does a bblfg yyyyy and the BowlBot that looks for a close match (primarily TS, but TR too, and maybe some other factors like Barash posted) and gives you a game. If there is no match up with 5/10/15 mins then you have to resubmit or maybe it starts to get less fussy about matching you up.
Personnally I'd favour not being able to restrict your choices much - TS & TR together ought to do enough to provide balanced games. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Eucalyptus Bowl |
|
Mezir
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 13:41 |
|
Against team's like Deathgerbil's Revenge - killer teams will only become more and more prolific as the ability to turn down matches disappears. |
_________________
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 14:04 |
|
Simple: A web interface, where you can expend coach-rating-points in order to exclude certain races. |
|
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 14:05 |
|
Those (pure killer) are the only teams my lizards won't play. If you come up with a team close to my tr/str that will actually try to win instead of just destroying my team I'll play the game. And don't be saying that's just because lizards are a strong well armoured team, I'm at 0 cs difference after 14 games having been out bashed by wood elf, skaven, and human teams. |
|
|
orgak
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 14:36 |
|
From my experience, it is generally a fear of bashing that keeps teams from playing others rather than the fear of being beaten. The only teams I can get to play my rotters are other bashers - and frankly, they don't generally matchup nearly as well against that group. The problem is that some coaches just design their teams for destroying other teams.
With a handicap table now in place, why not create a grid and award teams bonus points toward determining the handicap depending on who they play.
Or better yet, offer bonuses to the winnings roll based on the matchups. If the matchups were tracked in a grid, then you could look at the least common matchups and offer a bounty (in the form of a + to their winnings roll) if coaches arrange that matchup. Review the grid once every month or two and make appropriate adjustments to the bonus levels |
|
|
Tinkywinky
Joined: Aug 25, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 15:09 |
|
In some ways it isn't just the open format that causes these problems. Although some teams are made up entirely to kill instead of win (more claws then guard) some teams will always end up this way if you don't create a worse team then you could have. A good develeoped dwarf team has guard and mighty blow on more or less the whole team. This doesn't mean that the dwarf coach is especially bloodthirsty, just that he has built a team as good as he can instead of making a worse team to convince other coaches of his kindness. In an everlasting open format the elf team will sooner or later meet an early demise if he plays these team but the orc team will always survive and grow better. The only way around this is to play shorter tournaments. They don't have to be five games long but they can't be everlasting as eventually the low AV teams will be killed off and the high AV teams will stay on top.
The best solution I can come up with is a blind challenge format where the the teams get reset every month or so. Some people that really don't like building über teams will of course not like this format at all but it will be competitive and fair. Like ladder with some development you could say. That's what I like about ladder, you play 100% to win without taking other considerations. With this format you will still sometimes get smashed for playing boldly but then you will be able to recoup the next season instead of being forced to restart so it will be an alternative.
Think of it as a junior league where the player base change every year because of aging  |
_________________
Do you play ranked and wonder where all the good coaches are? Are you also from Sweden? Then join the Swedish league! |
|
pabloex
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 15:45 |
|
Perhaps another answer is to provide more detail about coaches. Every reported match is saved. That means it should be possible to generate a report showing how often a coach plays a team that is off an 'opposite' style. Of course this would take a little work to determine what style a team falls into and there are some teams that aren't so easy to categorize as either 'bashy' or 'dodgy'.
This would allow for coaches to be more selective about the coaches they play against. You could do it now if you want to sit and sift through match records of coaches but that is a royal pain. Make that data more usable and you quickly have a good method for choosing opponents.
The other by-product of cherry picking is that does have some effect on the shape of teams. A bshy team that can only get games against other bashy teams is more likely than not to forgo adding ball handling skills in favor of skills that will help them against their bashy opponents. Thus when they do get a chance to play a non-bashy team, they are left with a single tactic 'clear the pitch then try to score'. And thus the cycle of division is continued.
The only way you will see more balanced teams is if coaches get selective about the coaches they play rather than the teams they play. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
JoeKano
Joined: Aug 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 17:27 |
|
Well, when looking for games i always look for an opponent that is less than ten away in TR/STR, this being the only consideration. I will check a team out before agreeing to a game or making an offer of a game, but mainly to just see that there are no hidden surprises...like PRO Ogres, gosh i hate those things. I will still play it if its meeting the ten point rule i have for myself, but i will know what style of play to expect...
I would love too know wheher a coach fouls a lot to get his casualties, as i don't like fouling personally but thats not something you can anticipate and it is part of the game when it comes down to it. With CD's, ORC's and Skaven as my three open teams i reckon i have a good balance....
My biggest problem is i never can seem to get the ball, my own darn goblins keep greasing it....... |
_________________
"Take the Strength, crush the opposing linemen, drive them broken before you and hear the lamentation of their Cheerleaders!!!"
 |
|
DoubleSkulls
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 17:30 |
|
| Tinkywinky wrote: | | In an everlasting open format the elf team will sooner or later meet an early demise if he plays these team but the orc team will always survive and grow better. |
But isn't this supposed to be a large part of chosing a team in the 1st place? Elves are supposed to have to deal with the likelihood of getting trashed. Orcs aren't.
I don't believe that the system ought to help coaches to avoid games against an opponent who might damage the team. A normal structured league wouldn't give you that luxury. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Eucalyptus Bowl |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 17:54 |
|
| DoubleSkulls wrote: | | ...A normal structured league wouldn't give you that luxury. |
That's true, but Open division isn't a normal structured league. That is not the aim of Open. If you want to have a normal, structured league, create one. How is this so hard to understand?
<rant>Please forgive me going off on a soap box for a moment but I just can't resist. This isn't remotely aimed at Ian but he gave me a great lead in.
Open does exactly what it was designed to do and it does it very well. I am incredibly sick of watching people complain about it when they can easily establish their own group/tourney/league to do exactly what they wish to. It's some sort of laziness combined with an annoying sense of self-righteousness that just makes me physically ill. The powers that be have done all this for the enjoyment of everyone here with no aim, hope, or even mechanism for rewarding themselves.
If anyone dares bring up the PayPal button as an argument, they'd better include their real world address so I can go and personally kick their ass. Everyone here should understand that that is to recover the monetary costs fronted by Christer for the sake of your own entertainment.
If someone does an immense favor for you, show some gratitude. Even if it is not exactly what you would have done, it's no need to endlessly whine about how you could have done it better. If you really think you could, then do it yourself and quict complaining about all the wonderful things people have done for you.
</rant>
Ok, that being said, if you want to make a tourney or a group or a league in which people play according to a more formalized league format, then make it yourself. The design goal of Open was to allow people to play whomever, whenever, for whatever reason and with whatever team they wish (so long as it doesn't violate the Rules that you agreed to when creating your account).
On the other topic discussed here, I really like the medals idea. I envision it as a weekly (to minimize server load and make it a little more meaningful than real-time changes would) report of the top 20 (or whatever number) teams as rated by TR, TS, Ranking, Number of Games Played, Number of Casualties, Number of TDs, etc... Teams which have played all the teams in the top 20 TR, for example, get a badge. Teams that have beaten all those teams get a really cool badge. Then apply for all the other categories.
An ongoing poll of "coaches' choice" teams would be great as well. Everyone could then nominate a team that they feel is particularly noteworthy and we could use the top 20 of those picks to make yet another category.
If I may also say so, the idea of dividing teams into 'bashy' and 'agile' and then forcing quotas is just plain daft and open to at least as much abuse as the current system (or lack thereof, God bless it). Will you make blanket decisions on which race is 'bashy' and which is 'agile'? How could this possibly not lead to more people exploiting more rules? This is why I vote Libertarian, it works great with about 10,000 people or less.
If you have a great idea, do it yourself. Open (and divX for that matter) is Christer's own way of running a league and while suggestions to improve it have always been received, suggestions to change it have generally been (wisely) ignored and are really just plain insulting if you really think about it.
{ edit: erased a few choice obscenities and re-emphasized a few points that got lost in my rant. } |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies
Last edited by BadMrMojo on %b %09, %2004 - %18:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
Renegade
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 18:08 |
|
Woah, is this the big reply thread or what? |
|
|
pabloex
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 18:13 |
|
| Quote: | | If I may also say so, the idea of dividing teams into 'bashy' and 'agile' and then forcing quotas is just plain daft and open to at least as much abuse as the current system (or lack thereof, God bless it). |
Not sure if you were referencing my suggestion but at no time did I mention forcing any quotas. In fact, the medal system is more a tool for forcing quotas because it has a set of criteria that must be met in order to gain the medal.
My suggestion is simply to implement tools that allow coaches to assess other coaches in the manner that best suits them. Presently you have two methods of evaluating a potential opponent: A. Coach Rating or B. Examing the match records of their current teams.
Creating some additional queries on past matches does not change how Open works. It simply allows people to make a judgement call of who they want to play. If you have an agile team and only want to play other agile teams, you could just as easily do a search for like minded coaches as someone that is looking for coaches that enjoy playing a wide variety of teams.
If there is any downside to my suggestion, I think it would come on the performance end, for once you allow more DB querying, you are using much more processing time on the server side. Rather than looking for ways to change the way things work, I feel that some concerns may be satisfied with more options in how one goes about selecting their matches. Of course this will never satisfy everyone but my experience in application development has taught me that you can never go wrong by allowing the users more options on how they use the service. The data is already there, it is just a matter of structuring some queries to be able to make use of it. |
|
|
caileanhawk
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 18:25 |
|
I like the medal/award idea...
What about a coach assigned or even random SPP reward for doing certain things...
ex.
Team playing all race types,
Team playing X number of Games,
Team winning X number of games,
Team achieving X ranking,
Team reaching X number of retired players,
Team playing opposite "style" team X number of times,
Team playing a TR difference of X,
Team playing Deathgerbil
There is a great deal of things that could be awarded and make this game more fun.
Maybe have a reward system of 5 SPP for small achievements and slightly larger rewards for more significant achievements.
This may give more people incentive to play those games they normally wouldn't. |
_________________
Thx
Caileanhawk
"Hospitality to the better sort, and charity to the poor; two virtues that are never exercised so well as when they accompany each other. " - Francis Atterbury |
|
DoubleSkulls
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2004 - 18:37 |
|
| BadMrMojo wrote: | | DoubleSkulls wrote: | | ...A normal structured league wouldn't give you that luxury. |
That's true, but Open division isn't a normal structured league. That is not the aim of Open. If you want to have a normal, structured league, create one. |
 Fair enough - as a relative newbie to fumbbl I haven't been over these arguments before and obviously you have. I am appreciative of the effort that goes into running something like this and certainly didn't intend to cause any offence. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
Eucalyptus Bowl |
|
|
|
| |
Pact/Renegades meta
Search
