Renegade
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 10:40 |
 
|
I've been browsing the coach ranking page and asking a few questions in the chat resently and i've made a shocking discovery. The coach ranking has only ever been reset once.
I think fumbbl would benefit as a whole if the ranking system was reset back to 150 every 6 months and the leading coaches awarded some form of prize. What this may be is debatable and besides the point.
This would give a fair chance to the accomplished, less experienced coaches and also be exciting for the veterans as they race for the winning spot in the closing months and the top spot in the beginnig few months.
It'll be interesting to find out people views in relation to the ranking they carry.
What are your thoughts?
Ren |
|
|
Clementus
Joined: Oct 01, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 10:58 |
|
Fraid to say this but I strongly disagree with the prizes bit. There are a few people out there who even now care only about their ranking and even some who have been caught cheating in order to gain ranking "points". I like the ideas, but cant imagine prizes, possibly a hall of fame or something similar might be better. |
_________________
Warlord Clementus (of the Black Hand Tribe)
Monkey of the Moot!
Flings Rule! |
|
poi66
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 11:31 |
|
Personally I don´t give a dime wether to my ranking nor to my opponents on these reasons:
1) I am an average skilled coach with a win rating wobbling around the 55% mark. There are many coaches with a win rating under 50% but in ranking they are way before me. And these are not the brave fling coaches!
2) There are a few coaches so biased to the ranking that they are refusing to play low ranked guys - afraid they could have a lucky win and drop them bad in the ranking. Once a coach turned me down for having too much wins with my team but my coach ranking was too low for him...
I played a 150+ matches when I first realised there is a ranking system anyway...
Since that I only create unranked teams. |
Last edited by poi66 on %b %24, %2004 - %11:%Feb; edited 2 times in total |
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 11:32 |
|
You are aware there is already a monthly championship which is reset well, every month, right? |
|
|
Renegade
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 11:44 |
|
Of course, i'm also aware that it is won by coaches that have played 10-15 games and won them all nearly every month. The greatest coaches on the site ie Malthor and Jahira rarely come in the top 10 because of the volume of games they play. The championship table is a useless statis tbh. |
|
|
dinaturz
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 11:57 |
|
Sorry to hi-jack the thread, but a question is wandering my head in these days and this poll riased it again.
Since the handicap system is now implemented (or at least a part of it), the games between not even tr teams *should* be more balanced.
This should also be reflected in the formula to calc the rank variations. In theory, the changes in rank should be minimal now, because the chance to win a game against a stronger team are now better.
Does anyone know if the formula was changed too?
marco |
_________________
Not only am I redundant and superfluous, but I also tend to use more words than necessary. |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Renegade wrote: | | Of course, i'm also aware that it is won by coaches that have played 10-15 games and won them all nearly every month. The greatest coaches on the site ie Malthor and Jahira rarely come in the top 10 because of the volume of games they play. The championship table is a useless statis tbh. |
This is exactly the point. The coaches who play alot get coach ranking and the ones who don't have a shot at the championship. |
|
|
Renegade
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 12:05 |
|
I personally don't play enough to get anywhere near the top 30 spot, however, many of the coaches out there play enough and have the ability to reach such an honourable position. Continually playing past 220 pts to reach the King is pointless tbh. I say give Malthor his dues as the reigning champion, note it in fumbbls history and start over. Resetting will give each and every coach a chance at glory! It'll also liven things up.
"Will supreme champion Malthor retain the title he so rightly deserves? Or will some shady upstart surprise all and pip him to the post aided by the fuse of a goblins explosive?"
Liven things up guys! Lets get in character and rock the bloodbowling nation!!
-Renegade wanders of in search of an Exorcet missle and a long piece of string... |
|
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 24, 2004 - 22:21 |
|
| dinaturz wrote: |
Since the handicap system is now implemented (or at least a part of it), the games between not even tr teams *should* be more balanced.
|
Each h-roll is counted as +5 sr by the site, IIRC.
So if a 190/190 team plays a 205/195 team, their strength ratings should be counted as equal for stat purposes.
EDIT: Fixed the second tr |
Last edited by swilhelm73 on %b %25, %2004 - %00:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
RandomOracle
Joined: Jan 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 00:01 |
|
| swilhelm73 wrote: |
So if a 190/190 team plays a 200/195 team, their strength ratings should be counted as equal for stat purposes. |
[nitpicking]
Except that you don't get a handicap for ten or less points of TR difference.
[/nitpicking] |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 02:31 |
|
Renegade - good thought - poor solution. I play in a PBEM league (REBBL Challenge latter) and the commish of that league had a great idea. He basically "ages" your points on the ladder. For example, games played over 90 days ago are worth 75%, games over 180 days old are worth 50%, etc.
Now although the ranking system is fine the way it is, I wouldnt mind seeing something such as a "rolling" ranking system that drops all game played over 2 years ago. So the ranking wouldn't be a lifetime ranking, but a continuous 2 year ranking. (if you get my meaning)
So there is no full reset, but games that were played a LONG LONG time ago wouldn't be a part of the calculation either)
Because, in the year 2010, who really cares how many games you won in 2002.
Mully |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
AcheronStyx
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 02:57 |
|
Mully has a good idea there, i say roll out all matches played over 1 year ago, as that is a better timeline based on the life of the website. |
|
|
Gameon
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 14:18 |
|
I would have to agree with Mully and Acheron. A more dynamic ranking as suggested would really make it generally more interesting. This would be nice for relatively new coaches who got a lot of defeats in the beginning and slowly learned to play. |
|
|
bonefaith
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 14:38 |
|
just to know , why retired team .counts on a coach ranking ?and most of all why one should care about a ranking while the most important thing is top have fun , not to win ? |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2004 - 15:08 |
|
| Quote: |
why retired team .counts on a coach ranking
|
Just becaue you retired a team that went 0-12 doesn't mean you should have those 12 losses wiped off your coaching slate.
| Quote: |
while the most important thing is top have fun , not to win ?
|
True in theory, but many coaches choose winning over fun. That's why the abundance of cherry pickers.
From Gameon
"This would be nice for relatively new coaches who got a lot of defeats in the beginning and slowly learned to play."
Another good point that I hadn't considered. Plus it's a good way to weed out high TR coaches who leave FUMBBL. |
|
|
|
|
BB2020 - Kick team m...
Search
