69 coaches online • Server time: 18:41
Index Search Usergroups Profile
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Match ...goto Post Gamefindergoto Post Crowd funded teams &...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Cloggy



Joined: Sep 23, 2004

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 08:29 Reply with quote Back to top

It doesn't seem to, and how can you expect it to?

The discussion is about a problem that is inherent in the matchmaking system of the Blackbox. We are playing an online game where there in one of the main divisions you HAVE to play the other guy even if you don't want to.

Despite the commendable efforts of the guys behind ARR and the fact that most of the coaches who prefer box do so because of the picking in Ranked, the simple fact that people are not able to say NO THANK YOU will always keep the douchebags of the community flocking to the Box. There is no conceivable change in the way the scheduler is designed that will send them elsewhere.

_________________
mmmmmmmmmmm... Bloodbowl.........
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 08:59 Reply with quote Back to top

JellyBelly wrote:
Yes, it's all well and good saying: 'get more players and all the problems will be solved', but how do we do that?

That's a difficult question. Which is why it's important to keep in mind. And no, it's not "all well and good" at all.
Balle2000



Joined: Sep 25, 2008

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 09:04 Reply with quote Back to top

Espionage wrote:
I've always liked compulsory diversity, can somebody remind me why it's a bad idea?

Hi Espionage. Christer has previously stated he doesn't want any restraints laid on what people are playing.

That being said, your idea isn't a very intrusive one. However, say you set the limit at 1700, then I promise you people will minmax like crazy to get their teams to 1690 and a whole pseudo-science of "How to cpomb below 1700" will be spawned. Smile
Espionage



Joined: Jun 08, 2005

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 16:47 Reply with quote Back to top

Quote:
Christer has previously stated he doesn't want any restraints laid on what people are playing.


Right, that makes more sense. And it's not something that can really be argued with. That said, if it's got to a stage where people aren't playing that division, us making suggestions might not just be academic. And if no coach dislikes the idea (as in guys say "if nobody else can mono activate a killer team, I'm happy to play by those rules too) then Christer is only enacting the groups will, rather than forcing anybody. Right? That's not to big of a stretch?

Quote:
However, say you set the limit at 1700, then I promise you people will minmax like crazy to get their teams to 1690 and a whole pseudo-science of "How to cpomb below 1700" will be spawned. Smile


You are right, but is the problem Cpomb, or mono activation of high TV teams. If Cpomb is the problem, then fix that, if Mono activation is the issue, then suggest fixes to that. [/quote]
MattDakka



Joined: Oct 09, 2007

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 17:00 Reply with quote Back to top

Balle2000 wrote:
Espionage wrote:
I've always liked compulsory diversity, can somebody remind me why it's a bad idea?

Hi Espionage. Christer has previously stated he doesn't want any restraints laid on what people are playing.

Allowing people the freedom to play cpomb spam teams and be paired with way lower TV teams restrains the freedom of playing not silly games for the people who don't like to abuse the killstack.
The secondary effect is that people is encouraged to play cpomb teams to fight fire with fire, thus narrowing down the racial variety.
This is clearly a negative aspect.
bghandras



Joined: Feb 06, 2011

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 17:06 Reply with quote Back to top

Balle2000 wrote:
However, say you set the limit at 1700, then I promise you people will minmax like crazy to get their teams to 1690 and a whole pseudo-science of "How to cpomb below 1700" will be spawned. Smile

I assure you that you could cpomb at almost ANY tv level. I am not saying it will be competitive, but time to time will be lucky to dish cash at every hit. So i think this is a pointless argument, whether you like or hate killstack.

_________________
Image
"This is turning into the best thing on FUMBBL" - Seventyone
"THIS LEAGUE IS AWESOME!!!!" - Kummo
"Last league i would leave." - SpecialOne
ArrestedDevelopment



Joined: Sep 14, 2015

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 17:57 Reply with quote Back to top

bghandras wrote:

I assure you that you could cpomb at almost ANY tv level. I am not saying it will be competitive, but time to time will be lucky to dish cash at every hit. So i think this is a pointless argument, whether you like or hate killstack.



For sure you can. In fact, even with rosters that require doubles for cpomb anyone can think of some ways to make a very competitive team at (even under depending on FF) 1000k TV in the right hands after a few games.

But I believe that the same invalidity of this slippery slope is equally applicable to the argument of "Minmaxing or managing/sweetspotting TV to avoid cpomb" - if it's unavoidable, well, that is not the reason to manage TV. I think, although I might be wrong, that if it is simply accepted that TV-based decisions are for reasons other than "avoiding cpomb", it is less frustrating when drawn against it.

If we will accept that we can encounter it any near any tv, then it is best to just accept its existence and then consider our team in "fugue" when not activated and "dead" on activation if playing purely to win. (Bghandras, I believe this agrees pretty much with previous statements of yours in the past?).

And if playing to build a team as well or for other meta reasons, then is it not arguable that we should simply accept that this is part of that team's story?
After all, to introduce metagoals (whatever they may be) to a game already can dilute in some ways the sole objective of "play to win".

I understand that this is all old stuff (and all we really do is rehash old stuff), but I think the issue here is less the cpomb, and more the monoactivation in downtimes, simply because anything that reduces the opacity of the box also reduces its (supposed) competitiveness - by simplifying avoidance/picking of teams, producing mismatches etc. But of course, the real answer here is expanded population, and to that there is simply no recourse.

_________________
Image
PainState



Joined: Apr 04, 2007

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 18:14 Reply with quote Back to top

Any new Updates to report?

_________________
Comish of the: Image
koadah



Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 19:58 Reply with quote Back to top

PainState wrote:
Any new Updates to report?


Nah. Check back again same time next year.

_________________
Image
Secret League - SLUMBBL Shield - 16th November!
Cavetroll



Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Post   Posted: Sep 21, 2016 - 20:07 Reply with quote Back to top

pythrr wrote:
so ... is this thread actually going anywhere? i last checked in around p, 39.


It's going in circles. Does that count?

PainState wrote:
Any new Updates to report?


The two biggest issues, mono-activation and kill-stack, are still taboo and thus all suggested solutions are DOA.

_________________
Image
nerf indigo 2016
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
Powered by PNphpBB2 1.2 © 2003 PNphpBB Group
Credits