mstrchef13
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 16:31 |
 
|
Had a thought as I was responding to another thread about CR. One of the answers people always give to any CR/cherrypicking thread is "if you don't like it, go play unranked". My response to that is always "I'd like to, but it's so hard to get a game there".
I was wondering what the community thought of requiring all new coaches to play 10 unranked games before they were allowed to play in ranked. Much of the cherrypicking comes from snapping up games against unsuspecting newbies who always seem to start playing in ranked. I admit I started playing ranked right away, because I thought "I'm pretty good on the tabletop, it can't be much different". Unfortunately, it is, because the coaches here are so much better than what I played against in my local league.
I think that everyone needs a "breaking in" period. Spend 10 games learning the interface, learning team creation (don't make a FF1 team, etc.), learning just how bad you really are, learning that the dice never roll your way when you want them to, stuff like that. *Then*, you can go into ranked more prepared. Plus, it makes more teams available in unranked for the rest of us who are tired of the nonsense that goes on in ranked to play.
Just a thought or two while I'm at work. And... IMHO as always. |
|
|
ViQtor
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 16:55 |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:00 |
|
|
Jinxed
Joined: Jul 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:04 |
|
(doh; double post) |
_________________
Nuffle sucks
Last edited by Jinxed on %b %23, %2005 - %17:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Jinxed
Joined: Jul 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:04 |
|
Me too. Sound idea. Might improve U popularity a bit too. Added bonus I say. |
_________________
Nuffle sucks |
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:07 |
|
Hmmmm. Well, I started in Unranked, as I didn't feel like it was a good idea to plunge into ranked. Make it 5-6 games, and I like it. I don't know if it could be programed though. |
|
|
Lazerus101
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:48 |
|
This is ACTAULLY a pretty decent idea and it would have the knock on effect of having more people play unranked. |
|
|
DreadClaw
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:51 |
|
Good idea... just don't expect me to play unranked. unless it's for tournaments i don't care about Unranked...lol  |
_________________
Death be not proud. Though Some have called thee Mighty and Dreadful Thou art not so. |
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:53 |
|
a great idea.
As an added bonus, the first 10 games for each newbie coach will not affect his coach rating negatively.  |
_________________
Main Organiser of
Grudge [L]eague, #GrudgeLeague @ irc.fumbbl.com
and Stunty Spinoff Series, #GrudgeLeague |
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 17:58 |
|
Bad idea. I didn't have any desire to play unranked initially - I started doing that much later - and adding chores so that I can play ranked is not something that's appealing to me, if I were to newly arrive here. |
|
|
DonKosak
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 18:07 |
|
I like the idea of "forcing" noobs to play some learning games, but I don't think that it will make U more popular of you demand ten U-games from beginners before letting them play R.
U will then become "the place where you can play games in tourneys or against noobs", and I think that'll lead to an actual decrease in the number of U-games played by experienced coaches. Then the beginners will only have each other to play against in U, and they will hence be as vulnerable to cherrypicking when they move to R as they are now.
So... instead of forcing beginners to play U I think we should all try to advertise a bit more for things like Fumbbl Academy and the like. Here the noobs can get advice from players who really want to give advice, instead of being forced to play in a deserted division where only other noobs roam.
Maybe the introductory text to Fumbbl could contain something like:
"We strongly suggest, that you join the xxxx-group [ie Fumbbl Academy or other "schools"] where experienced coaches are ready to help you with nearly anything from creating your first team to beating dwarves with halflings." |
|
|
Lord_Splutticus
Joined: Aug 03, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 18:19 |
|
Though I only play unranked and have never experienced any problem getting games, I think it is a good idea.
Only thing I would do is drop the amount of games to 3 (or to amaximum 5). If an incredibly experienced tabletop BB coach starts playing here and REALLY isnists on playing Ranked, he will still need at least 3 games to get to learn the client, fumbbl, connecting, etc.
The effect you have of advertising Unranked remains largely the same and you don't pester the rare coach that insists on playing Ranked immediately.
Another addition could be that you can't enter Ranked before you have won at least 1 game in Unranked. |
_________________
Recordopedia Spluttanica
Larson Hall of Fame |
|
thesquig
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 18:27 |
|
Good idea. I dont mind unranked, but I rarely put my teams out because funnily enough people wanna play even crazier games in unranked |
_________________
Nuffle Sucks!!!
 |
|
mstrchef13
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 18:50 |
|
* 10 games, 5, 3... the number is movable depending upon what seems reasonable.
* I don't expect experienced coaches to go back and play unranked games (unless they want to, of course).
* Cherrypicking exists in U too, but some people will be more than happy being cherrypicked in unranked because (1) there is no negative effect on coach rating, because there is none, and (2) it's good to play those types of games once in a while, and I believe people are more likely to play those games in U than in R.
* There are already "forces" in the system now. You can't make a third, fourth, or fifth ranked team until your other ranked teams play 5 games. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask newbies to spend some time in unranked, at least to learn the client and interface.
* Thanks to those who agreed and disagreed. All comments are taken in the spirit of helpfulness, even if they weren't meant to be. |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 23, 2005 - 18:57 |
|
Let me preface this by saying that I wholly agree that people should start off with a few games in Unranked before potentially tanking their CR or ladder points or sinking time into a F team that will never, ever be offered a fair matchup. I think it's in their own best interests to give it a go in a less competitive environment. Please note that I don't mean throwing games - that's just insulting - but simply without any long-term repurcussions other than the team itself and its match record.
I'm against the idea of forcing people to behave in their own best interests, however. Encouraging? Sure. Forcing? Nope.
Now, just playing as devil's advocate for a moment, there are a few drawbacks to consider regarding forced U games:
- Public Perception. We're already suffering from this. People think that U is just for tourneys (yeah, you, Dread!). U is also for open play. Now imagine that public perception shifts towards the view that U is only for tourneys and newbie games. Does anyone think that will bring the people who take themselves too seriously back to the spirit of the old Open division? I doubt it. People will just see U as the Romper Room.
- Glorifying R. If, like me, you think that people place way too much emphasis on racking up coach rating, then the last thing you want to do is glorify it further. That's exactly what would be accomplished by making R a privilege which has to be earned. Suddenly, everyone plays U for 3 games and then they get to graduate up to the "big leagues." That just makes R a prize, rather than the default, which would probably result in even more people shunning other divisions.
- Administrative hassles. This is a pretty trivial thing but right now it's easy to see when someone creates a new account and starts acting as a feeder for R teams. It's just painfully obvious that they are cheating. With the proposed change, we'd have a short delay in that which could potentially muddle that issue a bit. I'm not sure that it would, but just a random thought. If someone's match record shows the first several games against one or two other opponents in U, it could easily be a matter of a friend properly teaching a buddy the ropes, a closed group of RL pals or what not. It might be marginally harder to pick out and cut off the cheaters right at the very start.
- Hoops. No one likes to jump through them. It could just turn some new members off altogether, if they feel as though the "play as you want" league is railroading them into limited choices.
As I said, I agree with the idea behind it, but I think that enforcing it is a bad idea. Just encourage any new folks you run into to give it a go and, perhaps, take some time out to make an open U team so that those newbies have someone to play after a couple of games. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
|
|
| |
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
