Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| sk8bcn wrote: |
What I generally hate with admins? It is like they take themselves for god. Man, they should learn communication.
-admins:"Now You will not send any news for tournaments"
-fumbblers"why"
-admins "If you don't like it, create your own tournaments outside fumbbl"
|
Ok, this is slightly off-topic, but I think this is quite a cheap shot and want a chance to respond.
I have always been able to stand for all rules and changes on the site. I am also always happy to discuss them and explain what made me decide to change, or agree to some proposed change. I very rarely tell people to buzz off and play elsewhere and would absolutely not do that without first trying to explain my point of view.
Now.. This particular change came to be because we - me and Grumbledook - felt that FUMBBL had lost its identity from being a single online league and was more like a "league hosting" site for everyone else to use as they wished. This is something that I do not want FUMBBL to turn into and consequently, we are trying to bring back focus to the "official" divisions and reduce the immediate visibility of player run tourneys and groups. While I'm sure there are a lot of people who only play in [U] tourneys, this is not the main purpose of FUMBBL. I do realize that player run tournaments are quite popular in the community and we will not remove the possibility for you to run and/or participate in them. But again, we wanted to shift focus from them and improve the experience people have in the "main" divisions.
Now, these changes are not trivial to do and the effects of what we are working on won't be immediately visible. As you may have noticed, I have been trying to increase popularity of the faction division lately and we are also working on getting more tournaments to run in [R], with the Uluthuan Invitational being the first one in line. This is taking a while as we are trying to "think before we act" as opposed to how past official tournaments have been run. The main goal is to create a system where the main tournament organizers can get feedback from the participants in order to prevent problems in future tournaments. Also, it's being a bit delayed by the fact that we're reaching a rather major holiday and a break in the tournament would be a bit bad. We are hoping to be able to get it running in January next year, which feels like a good time to start a major tournament.
So, to take this post on topic... I personally have no opinion on the issue at hand (G access or not) but want to give my thoughts on the current "argument".
Disclaimer: I will be stating some personal opinions and observations below. Be aware that I do not claim to know how anyone really felt and I will also admit that I haven't really read all the comments in detail, so I might be way off in my observations.
The way I see it, peikko reverted Stunty Leeg into how it was right before I implemented the rules review changes. I feel that this was more a "gut reaction" than anything else, as the alternative of leaving big guys without G access has a major impact on the feel of the division. I would very likely have done just what peikko did myself.
The immediate effect was that a few people started screaming, whining and moaning about how he's abusing his powers and not listening to the community, which seems rather unfair to me as all he did was to change things back the way they were. All this shouting and whining tends to put you on the defense (trust me, I've got alot of experience with whining  ) and I think peikko is pretty much reacting the only way you can - by defending himself. When you get to this position, you really don't have alot of time to think, nor do you tend to be "open minded" about what others write. I know I've been defensive like this at times.
What I suggest is that all of you simply calm down a notch and give it some time. If the Stunty Leeg coaches truly feel that it would be better to make a particular change, I am certain that peikko will listen if it's brought to him in a calm and mature fashion.
To finish this post off, I want to reiterate that I do not really know what peikko thinks about all this as I haven't had an opportunity to talk to him about it, and all the above assumptions are made from how I think I, myself, would react to a storm like this. If I have misinterpreted or misjudged peikko, I apologize about this and I am certain that he can explain the reasoning behind his decisions. Maybe he already did that in some other thread that I missed - Like I said, I haven't really read everything. |
|
|
mutescreamer
Joined: Apr 09, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 10:26 |
 
|
to be honest I think Peiko is getting the sharper end of the stick here.
on more than one occasion he has stated that he is willing to listen to suggestions so long as you have playtested the ideas exhaustively first.
If people seriously feel that removing gen access on big guys in stunty will benefit the greater good then rather than spending time spiralling opinions into arguments spend your time play testing stunty teams. I am generally under the impression that playing fumbbl is more fun than arguing. |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 10:41 |
|
Hey Christer,
Thanks for taking the time to lay out the argument. I still disagree with you in point as regards to General access, but this kind of reasoned arguments is what we would have needed more of to start with.
There already seems to be an (albeit not huge) majority wanting to get rid of General skill access. I don't think we're being listened to seriously at this point.
/johan |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 10:53 |
|
| Christer wrote: | | people started screaming, whining and moaning |
Well, except for this part. Hardly constructive, and not very true, either.
/johan |
|
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 12:43 |
|
But sadly that is what people do, Johan.
Step back and take a critical look at all those threads here. Very few posts (from any side) are even close to the level of Christer's above.
/Edit:
I can see both ends of the problem really. With no G access at all on some teames dodge/side step and diving tackle will be hughely more powerful, and stunty will play very very differently - especially at high trs. As Peikko suggested I think the best thing to do is for someone to set up a group and just play that way. There are 45 coaches that want to see that change - that's a big enough amount to pool from to get some qualified test results. Do something with the tools available, other then just argueing.
-Mnemon |
|
|
nazerdemus
Joined: Nov 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 13:13 |
|
| johan wrote: |
There already seems to be an (albeit not huge) majority wanting to get rid of General skill access. I don't think we're being listened to seriously at this point.
/johan |
Im not sure if this is true , I think it seems to be a small noisy minority that are calling for the change from the polls ive seen on the topic . |
|
|
Kommando
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 14:38 |
|
no idea where you get the polls from but...
Yes, Big Guys should have General Access. 45% [ 38 ]
No, Big Guys should not have General Access. 54% [ 45 ]
I play Stunty Leeg to develop Big Guys with high carnage counts. It wouldn't be worth playing unless I could develop Slaughter Beasts with Block, Tackle, Multi-block that General access allows. 34% [ 37 ]
I don't want Stunty Leeg to be a Big Guy Leeg any longer. I'm intrigued by the option of removing General access from Big Guys. 34% [ 37 ] |
|
|
nazerdemus
Joined: Nov 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 14:42 |
|
Yeah theres been a bit off a swing in the polls since last i Looked , I have been thinking of setting something up yo accomadate people who want to give it a try , an alternative to stunty in unranked , |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 14:51 |
|
to christer:
well, I think that tournaments are getting more popular because of 2 facts.
1st: It equilibrates the game as it was supposed. You can't avoid bashers and cherrypick, but low AV teams also get more SPP.
But that's a minor fact.
The thruth is(IMO of course), Ranked is a big machine with lots of coach. Type bb lfg, put teams in gamefinder and let's go, play a go. But what more? The close format of tournaments leads guys to meat each other and to know each other. At least, playing Captain, or Arcon means something to me. They are not only a name and a coach ranking.
Well I see your point of view about Fumbbl changes and I think that it is the result of his succes. When less coaches were around, you started to know each other.
Running big tournaments makes me very happy but I do not think it will replace U tournaments fun. Because of their size. But well I don't know how you will run them. I have a lot of ideas to make them run properly so if you're intersested let me know.
Anyway, I think tournaments and Ranked complete each other but tournaments have not to be closed and I still think that running "my" tournament is running something for fumbbl community. That's why I want it open and easy to join. Maybe that's why I hated that much to be told "This is not what Fumbbl is for".
Well I did not critized the decisions but how their are given SOMETIMES. Anyway it's ok now and I appreciate that you did answer here.
At Peikko: Well I was critizing communication but had no idea on the topic. Now I have after thinking a lot on it. Well, they should keep G acces unless some major changes are made in stunty rosters. Well, even if it is said that stunty is a non-competitive area, it is. Not so much as R but it still is. No one play to loose. Well you maybe accept a loss easierer but you still try to win. And that's a major problem in removin G acces.
If some teams becomes too strong and wins all, I think that this would cut the fun of stunty. Results are biased then. Old team beeing stonger: that's not a problem, they will not be everlasting.
You could answer that "you like to play a team that looses ...etc..." but it's not the same. I play ogres for fun and lose and that's ok. But if there would be an ultimate team winning all games and see 50% of coaches playing them, that would annoy me.
So yes to cut off G acces IF stunty rosters are reviewed,
Else NO. |
|
|
Kommando
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 14:56 |
|
|
nazerdemus
Joined: Nov 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 15:12 |
|
I think that its important to remember that unranked tournement s are easy to organise really , and this is due to the forums and tournament organising group system that is implemented here , people should try not to forget that tournements and such are easy to organise because christer and co put the group system on the site with all the tournement running system , all they effectivly did by making the news admin only was to give the front page back to the makers of the site , if you like tournements you know were to go for new tournements , rembember who made the site , they should have some say in what goes on here
Back on topic , Peikko said that if you want to discuss Stunty without general skills do some playtesting , well Im looking for play testers for a stunty league with a difference , heres the link , sign up if your intrested in getting involved . Peikko I really dont want to take away from what you are doing in stunty league ,as to be honest im not sure what is the best option to go for and would be happy if you would enter a team in this group so that you can see from the inside what it is like without BGs having General Skills .
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=group&op=view&group=2005 |
Last edited by nazerdemus on %b %25, %2004 - %16:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
Kommando
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 15:15 |
|
ah, sometimes the time really seems right for certain ideas, lol |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 15:15 |
|
Nazerdemus, why do you think we need TWO groups? 
(Check what Kommando just wrote)
/johan |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess |
|
nazerdemus
Joined: Nov 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 15:20 |
|
| nazerdemus wrote: | | Yeah theres been a bit off a swing in the polls since last i Looked , I have been thinking of setting something up yo accomadate people who want to give it a try , an alternative to stunty in unranked , |
sorry I wrote it all up then posted it , if you check slightly higher up youll see i mentioned this earlier today and just took A little while getting it sorted , I hereby denounce my league as being just a bit too slow
Although making teams play with new teams so you get a better idea of development may be a good idea and also encouraging teams with bgs in them is a good idea
So now Im gonna help Kommando with his League and abandon mine . |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 25, 2004 - 18:51 |
|
| nazerdemus wrote: | I think that its important to remember that unranked tournement s are easy to organise really , and this is due to the forums and tournament organising group system that is implemented here , people should try not to forget that tournements and such are easy to organise because christer and co put the group system on the site with all the tournement running system , all they effectivly did by making the news admin only was to give the front page back to the makers of the site , if you like tournements you know were to go for new tournements , rembember who made the site , they should have some say in what goes on here
|
Don't know if you have understood what I meant. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Chaos Draft League R...
Search
