Jester1
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jan 12, 2004 - 20:52 |
 
|
I'm no IRC wizard, but i think that the idea of keeping a list of names can possibly be done via MIRC, and thus not cause any more work for the fumbbl crew.
Personally, I keep a txt file in my bbowl directory. I share my machine with my BBL playing housemate. When either of plays - um, how shall I put this - a coach who favours a different kind of game to the one we want to play, then they go down on the "do not play" list. Sometimes we remeber to check the list before agreeing to the game; not exactly hard to have notepad up while in channel. |
|
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 06:33 |
|
| Primarch wrote: |
Sure its not fun to play all bashy teams, but the av7 teams CANNOT stay alive long term by playing nothing but bashy teams.
|
To follow up on Klipp's point, WE and the like score more TDs and win a higher percentage of their games then most bashy types and thereby earn more money, spp, and FF per game - so they *should* also have a higher player turnover.
Further, the aging rolls make sure that no matter how much armor you may have, you will have to turn over players eventually.
However, the new handicap table really hurts elves and the like much more. With their more expensive linemen that they cannot replace as quickly, and the higher possibility of taking many SI and RIP at once I'd say the odds of being faced with a forced team retirement for agility types has just greatly increased on FUMBBL... |
|
|
pabloex
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 08:15 |
|
| Mr-Klipp wrote: |
Oh I'm quite aware that a wood elf team that never plays anything but stunties and other elves will have a much easier time having a long career. Open allows you to pick your games, so of course some people will only play easy games. Just don't try to justify such behavior by saying it's because of balance. |
Sorry if it came across as trying to justify anything, I wasn't. Open allows people to player whatever style of game they want. No one needs to justify how they choose to play. But balance was designed across all the races. So anyone that chooses to play matches against just a small subset of race types cannot use balance as a complaint, which in essence is the same thing you are saying, I believe.
And yes BadMrMojo, server load would concern me as well. But perhaps a canned set of queries could be added so that they are not dynamically generating for each user request. Or even better, maybe a once a week dump of the data in XML so that people in the community could make use of it and create some tools elsewhere. A share the bandwidth type of arrangement. A coach's profile isn't going to change that radically over the course of the week and unlike some of the other data, it doesn't need to be updated on a real time basis.
Data is very powerful. The more you can use, the more satisfying the experience becomes. Again, just tossing out ideas. |
|
|
poi66
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 11:48 |
|
I don´t pick an opponent so much on the team, my concerns are more about the coach himself. Because the fun goes not with the opposing team, IMO it goes with the guy who is in charge of the team.
There are many great guys out there, but also a lot of jerks.
As I understand, reading all the posts in this thread, there are already several coaches doing a "do and don´t play" list. Why not share the experience, positive and negative?
Alas, i will be shredded to pieces for it, here comes my suggestion: what about a "personal rating" system like they have on ebay?
After the match report you can put a little rant or flame about your opponent (80 signs will do it) and everyone can see this on the infobox of the coach.
There would be one or another coach thinking twice of acting like a jackass on the pitch, if everybody would know about it, because of a rating system. If you don´t like last turn foulers - look at the coach infobox of the possible next opponent... |
|
|
dinaturz
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 13:20 |
|
| poi66 wrote: |
As I understand, reading all the posts in this thread, there are already several coaches doing a "do and don´t play" list. Why not share the experience, positive and negative?
Alas, i will be shredded to pieces for it, here comes my suggestion: what about a "personal rating" system like they have on ebay?
After the match report you can put a little rant or flame about your opponent (80 signs will do it) and everyone can see this on the infobox of the coach.
There would be one or another coach thinking twice of acting like a jackass on the pitch, if everybody would know about it, because of a rating system. If you don´t like last turn foulers - look at the coach infobox of the possible next opponent... |
Even if I am one of the coaches keeping a white/black list and being positive in sharing experiences, I don't like this idea for several reasons:
 There are lots of coaches moaning and whining just for the pleasure of it for each roll different from 6 (or POW) for them and 1 (or Skull) when tossed by opponent. Such a system could generate tons of negative ratings just because of frustration.
Everyone can already express his/her opinion about opponent fairness by adding a comment to a match, so everyone have the chance to show to the community what an ass the coach XYZ is.
This place could become a less friendly place where to meet other people because of free flames allowed in infoboxes. It is already forbidden to post personal attacks in forums and so on. I don't see any reason to allow it on personal pages.
A different version of rating could be invisible to the users and referring to the admins and gorillas only.
It could work like this: after the match the coach can give a positive, neutral or negative opinion about opponent behaviour.
This information are visible to the admins only who receive an alarm email (or such) when, for instance, a coach get more negative than positive votes. Then he/she (the admin) can investigate and decide what to do.
marco |
_________________
Not only am I redundant and superfluous, but I also tend to use more words than necessary. |
|
Beater
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 14:07 |
|
The admin-only-feedback idea has its flaws. Anything that goes against the rulebook is already handled by the support ticket system and anything else is between you and the bad guy.
People are idiots. The sooner that knowledge sinks in, the sooner you can you float above your lessers on a cloud of arrogance.
From experience I know my opponents separate evenly into three categories, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. My categorization is an impression from an one hour session with a guy I've never met before and I wouldn't dream of sharing my book of grudges publicly. |
|
|
Rusk
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 14:25 |
|
I don't see the use for rating-other-coachers system, since people have different standards and opinions about how other coaches should behave. Some might think that excessive fouling is in order, even in turn 8, and others are oversensitive and think that fouling shouldn't be in the game at all. I bet some would even give a bad review if they loose the game. So why should I care what other coaches rate coach X, unless I know their preferences too? I have to try to play him/her myself and see what it is like.
Therefore, keep the not-to-play lists personal, or exchange them on a private level. But Fumbbl should be the open forum where coaches can meet and play. Don't forget, it is only a game ;o)
And BTW, noone said anything about elfs "only playing bashy teams", but once in a while would be so bad ;o) |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 17:06 |
|
| pabloex wrote: | | And yes BadMrMojo, server load would concern me as well. But perhaps a canned set of queries could be added so that they are not dynamically generating for each user request. Or even better, maybe a once a week dump of the data in XML so that people in the community could make use of it and create some tools elsewhere. A share the bandwidth type of arrangement. A coach's profile isn't going to change that radically over the course of the week and unlike some of the other data, it doesn't need to be updated on a real time basis. |
Ah, ok. We're definitely on the same page here. I was just stepping in to make sure that no one was asking for the real-time, instantaneous, "Show me all teams in Open who have beat Chaos teams with a Q in their name on a Tuesday" kind of thing. It's just not worth the effort and server load. What I'd thought would be cool would be combining your weekly (or whatever) report and the ribbon/medal idea. A weekly report is run (adding a XML export of this is a great idea) and it's used to calculate various canned searches. Top 10 or 20 teams in various categories, which teams have played every other race at least once per 20 or so matches and whatever else. People then get their awards based upon the results. Get a badge if you've played all the top ranked teams. Get a badge if you've beaten all the 'bashiest' teams (#of CAS). Get a badge if you've played the Top Scoring team. Get a badge if you've bumped off a Top Ten Star, etc...
| poi66 wrote: | | As I understand, reading all the posts in this thread, there are already several coaches doing a "do and don´t play" list. Why not share the experience, positive and negative? |
Just FYI, I wasn't advocating a literal notepad that you write stuff down in. I know someone else was, and hey... whatever works for you.
As far as the coach feedback, it's come up before and generally been considered a bad idea. There are just too many negatives, not the least of which is the lack of a common means of judging a 'good' coach vs a 'bad' coach. With eBay, it works because if you pay your money and you get your Limited Platinum Edition Hello Kitty Electric Toothbrush®™, you know that it was a positive experience. There aren't as many opinions that could be drawn from that transaction as there could be from a game. Also, Christer is (or was in the past) pretty opposed to the idea on principle, IIRC. Just not the way he wants to do things. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 13, 2004 - 23:02 |
|
I think a rating system of any sort is probably a bad idea.
In addition to flames, sore loser whining, and such, there is a far more fundamental point here. I may enjoy playing against someone you don't and vice versa. Aside from explict cheating - dropping to get better results, hacking the save, etc, which is already handled, most of the things that make a "bad" coach are very subjective.
Some people won't like playing foulaholics, other people won't like playing people who whine about fouls. Some people don't like slow players, others don't like people who swear. Etc.
I certainly have a personal do not play list and a personal preferably play list and I'm not sharing that info with anyone. It works very well for me. So I would suggest the following. Start a text file. Call it "Do Not Play List". Everytime you have a really bad experience enter that coaches name and don't play them again. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2004 - 00:48 |
|
Some people don't like people who swear !!!!! <b>DOH!</b> |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2004 - 03:48 |
|
Lets face it.. the only people who should be on DNP lists are mid-game droppers and the verbally abusive... and possibly the 5+ minute per turn coaches...
Two of which, the important two, FUMBBL has systems in place to deal with.
Excessive Fouling, Blocking, Push Outs etc., I just scream at my monitor and try to get pay back 
The only other peeps I would consider adding to my list is those who have "coincidental ISP failures" every time one of their players dies or fails apoth. But I havnt run into that in 6 months.
Cheers. |
_________________
 |
|
yenlowan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2004 - 04:19 |
|
there are many ways to make the open league more competitive
in my opinion setting mandatory retirement for teams in excess of 3 seasons worth of games and having players inflicted with mandatory retirement after 2 seasons worth of games (to reflect them cashing out and living on product endorsements etc) to ensure that teams do atleast 1 player rotation in its lifetime will probably keep it in check.
This should in theory reduce the impact of 'overtrained' teams / individual players thus making the league slightly more competitive as the top teams are inevitably retired leaving a power vacuum that will be filled by up and coming teams.
this would also help keep star-players as stars and not just expensive training wheels.
How many of us are tired of facing bull centaurs with statlines that would make morg'ntorg cry? |
Last edited by yenlowan on %b %14, %2004 - %04:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
yenlowan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2004 - 04:27 |
|
Cont. from above
I think most ppl are sore when playing bashing teams is because they get attached to their players. From what I have seen very few players are able to grin and bear it whenever their 100+ spp monstrosity gets smushed by RandomChaosWarriorwithRSC_01.
having mandatory retirements in the open league will help people understand that their players will eventually 'die' and thus everyone is expendable, allowing them to concentrate more on playing their game and building their skills as a coach rather than just building the 'Ultimate BloodBowl Team Of Inevitable Doom' which is quite honestly just an excercise in accounting.
PS. before anyone posts it i will address it here ... the aging mechanism does not make sense and is more than a little stupid |
|
|
Traitor
Joined: Nov 18, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2004 - 06:44 |
|
I think its time we ask ourselves if any of these suggested modifications are really needed?
In my experience, its not that hard to find a good game. It may take a little effort, and you may need to keep more than one team around, but its not a major investment in time and energy. If you want to improve your chances to get more games, take some interest in the comunity: chat in the IRC channel every now and then, and make a few posts here. People are more likely to play someone they 'know', even if all they know about you is that they like the opinions you voice in the comunity. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 14, 2004 - 06:46 |
|
Ageing already handles player turnover, and it does a very good job of it on average, there is really no need to do anything else there. Ageing works very well, because the players that have the most impact on the game (scoring, causing casualties, passing, etc) are the ones that are the most effected, meaning that the super stars are automatically the hardest hit. I see no reason why a team shouldn't be able to go on and on, most sports teams exist for years and years, all the players are different but the "team" still exists. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
