LordSnotball
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 16:43 |
 
|
nods, i know his is more precise, which is why i prefer it, but I was proposing some additional modifiers to his existing formula... imo though, getting a negative value for playing ppl under 140 when ur CR is 150+ would allow more educational matches and potentially reduce cherry picking... |
_________________
-Snottie
The Congregation - Always Recruiting
[url=http://igolocal.net/badge.php?user_id=1949] [/url] |
|
hunter
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 17:01 |
|
| Quote: |
Funso wrote:
However, a web page listing all the channels would be a good idea.
You mean this one?
|
I think he might have meant that it would be nice to put links to the channels on the main chat page. As it stands, the direct connect to chat link takes you to the ranked chat, with no mention of the other channels.
I feel the rationale for this is sound- since very very few use the other channels. Personally, I liked the idea to have [R] chat and [U,S,L,F,X] chat. It might help make the other divisions more popular, which I feel is part of the solution to the current dilemma.
~hunter |
_________________
Stunty Leeg Central - For ALL your Stunty needs!  |
|
Freshmetal_
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 18:02 |
|
Hi,
Personally, I don't see big problems with Ranked as it is. Sure there are "cherry pickers" and "CR chasers" and lots of other people with different views on what FUMBBL should be, but the system on a whole works well for people like me who play for a laugh and don't really mind what my rating is, which probably make up 90% of the group. If you don't like the way certain people play, or certain people's attitude to cherry picking, then there's no one forcing you to play them, that's what leagues and tourneys (and Ladder kind of) are for.
As others always point out, whatever system you implement, there are always going to be those who feel the need to exploit it for all it's worth in order to be number 1 or have the "best" team. Changing Ranked and implementing some form of punishment or reward scheme into it will simply encourage these players and you'll upset more people than you please.
You could possibly give Ladder and Faction players a more profitable and beneficial CR system, so they are the areas for CR-hunters to play in, whilst reducing Ranked (possibly change it back to Open name) to a slow progression. This would force the CR hunters to have to play the more highly competitive games in those groups if they want to advance quicker/higher. This would give them a chance to "prove themselves" as top 10(/50/100) material, whilst leaving Ranked to those who simply want to develop teams rather than CR (of course developing good teams would still improve CR, just not as much). This would hopefully reduce cherry-picking a bit. (Sorry if this is exactly how it works right now, but I don't get the maths side of things.  ) This'll still give CR hunters a CR increase from playing in Ranked, but they won't have a reason to complain about it if they don't also play competitively against anyone in Ladder or Faction.
But as I said, people still need the freedom to say no in Ranked if they feel that they are being cherry picked.
The big problem you'll have however, is getting people to read the User Guide and understand the groups and their rules in whatever state they are in. Something which at least 50% of the current players have never seemed to have done. 
Cheers,
Freshmetal |
|
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 18:29 |
|
For the channels, I think the best thing to do would be to have just two channels.
#Fumbbl - for every division except ranked.
#FumbblRanked - for ranked.
The logic behind this is that there are just too many channels right now, most of which are practically empty. The main chat could very well handle all the non-ranked lfg requests. Also, having a seperate channel for the most popular division would be certainly more sustainable than having 3-4 ghost chans for less popular divisions.
Concerning CR, I think the value placed on ranked tournaments is a little bit too extreme and should be toned down a little. A lot of games are determined on luck rather than skill, I don't think one game should ever be worth so much. I've lost 3 CR points for losing in the Rookie Rumble for playing 10 vs. 11 with unskilled elves vs. Amazons with more re-rolls than me. That's a bit too much I think.
Another point that could be improved is the strength formula. Personally, I think some teams are over valued in general while others are under valued. The most obvious in my mind are the Vampires. Team strength for them is always painfully low, making it almost impossible to find games of similar TR and TS. I think they should get a little strength bonus, just for fact that the coaches that play them have acknowledged their strength/weakness and should be up to the challenge. My own vampire team has played most of their games against stronger teams, yet I've still managed to win more than I've lost. That goes to say that they're not as weak as the formula would suggest. Maybe the vamps could get a bonus for having 6+ re-rolls, since having so many is definitely the key to a succesful vampire team and it allows you to control the blood thirst much more effectively. I think the thralls could also use a little bonus, ok sure they're crap but could still be worth at least their 40K from the start, that would help make the overall team strength a bit more balanced. A last suggestion could be to give more value to Pro when a vampire/big guy takes it, since it also allows them to control their neg trait more often.
The same goes for stunty teams but to a lesser extent. At some point it becomes practically impossible for them to play in ranked without giving some handicap because of the 40 TS rule. Maybe they could use a little boost in strength, just to widen their choice of legitimate opponent a little. Again, the stunties don't do so bad in ranked, because they're normally coached by people who know what they're doing and they're used to their best advantage. Maybe stunties do need to have lower strength than rating, but maybe not by that much.
One team that is overvalued on the other hand is the Lizardmen. The skinks are definitely not worth that much. Sure they've got good stats, but they can't stay on the field. Just having block is enough to take care of them most of the time and a few MB tacklers will simply eat them alive. The saurus are also not indestructible and they need a lot of skills to become effective. Maybe it's just bad experience, but when I've played lizards bashy teams have cleared me off the field almost every time.
Finally, it's been asked and shut down before, but I really would like another Ranked slot. Just make the requirements to get it very high. Like 20 games per team. That's 100 games to get one more slot. There are too many races that are fun to play and having to pick just 5 in Ranked is too little for my own taste. People that are dedicated enough to play that much should have a little reward. One more team is not a huge difference, but it's a nice gesture.
BTW I also definitely agree with everything CircularLogic is suggesting. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 18:55 |
|
hunter understood what I meant.
To Uber: yep R tournaments give much CR, win as losses. I don't know to think of it... |
|
|
Britnoth
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 19:27 |
|
In summary:
CR is self balancing and doesn't need changed much.
Team STR however is a fumbbl invention; and while good for some, for other races is horribly out of touch. Plus uber (sic) skill combos that win games practically by themselves arent valued enough. ie - a halfing with DP is just 1.5 str points... for a +2 to injury skill thats crazy. I can give a full list of skills/stats that look wrongly costed if you wish.
Cherry picking is easiest because the 40 str rule isnt in place for teams above 200. Reduce the range limit and implement it for all teams in ranked, BUT allow games outside this if the teams are within 10 TR, so badly beaten up teams can still find a game without giving away a pile of handicaps when they already are short of players. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 19:46 |
|
I have thought about the medal-thing and want to propose an update (though this might get another thread):
First I want to suggest to give teams attributes, telling you how the will act like on the pitch. Something along the lines of:
Strong (3+ players with ST4+)
Very strong (7+ players with ST4+; ST5-players count 1,5 times)
Fast (6+ players with MA7+)
Very Fast (6+ players with MA8+; MA9+ players count 1,5 times; oneturner count three times)
In this fashion you could add:
Mean (much dmg-enhancer)
Dirty (has 2+ DPs)
Agile
Very Agile
Tough
Fragile
Slaying
and so on.
Now you can base medals on archiving goals or playing games against teams with certain attributes, based on the teams own attributes.
E.g. Slayerteams could get a medal by outscoring a team that is fast and agile by at least 2 points. Elves could get a medal, by playing 4 slaying&dirty teams in a row and so on. Just something to throw in for discussion. |
|
|
thesquig
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 19:59 |
|
I honestly believe the best solutions are simple ones. My solution would to make coach ranking public or private. Everyone would still have a coach ranking which was taken into account when a game is played. However, with a private coach ranking only the coach himself can see his actual CR but for public CR everyone can see it. This way people can opt out of ranking and still enjoy the open format. Perhaps even the total win % and games could be hidden also.
It would make cherrypicking harder since not everyone would have a visible coach ranking and people would have to judge on team records rather than CR. It makes it less competative for people with private CR and harder to cherrypick for people who enjoy their CR.
Opinions? |
_________________
Nuffle Sucks!!!
|
|
AlcingRagaholic
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 20:21 |
|
I love the medals idea! That would be awesome!
Z |
|
|
Pau
Joined: Jan 12, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 20:31 |
|
| uber wrote: | | Stuff about stunties in Ranked games. |
I would like it if teams with the stunty skill could have lesser TR, and of course I don't like the last suggestion about pro with vampire/big guys costing more, its like if you make a stunty who gets +st a bigger cost more than if the +st goes to someone else or an orc with +mov. Noone should be punished for balancing out team handicaps. |
Last edited by Pau on %b %28, %2005 - %21:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
MattDFan
Joined: Sep 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 20:34 |
|
Please do not change ranked.
I, like many coaches play for the fun and the challenge not the ranking. When a "cherry picker" turns me down i write it off as an uneven game or a coach who is too crap to play me. Neither senario is fun. Ranked is the easiest way to get a game and in my experience has less "cherrypicking" than faction so why change? FUMBBL is great. Keep in mind it is a game.
PS I only post when drunk, otherwise i prefer playing, cheers |
|
|
LordSnotball
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 20:39 |
|
| thesquig wrote: | I honestly believe the best solutions are simple ones. My solution would to make coach ranking public or private. Everyone would still have a coach ranking which was taken into account when a game is played. However, with a private coach ranking only the coach himself can see his actual CR but for public CR everyone can see it. This way people can opt out of ranking and still enjoy the open format. Perhaps even the total win % and games could be hidden also.
It would make cherrypicking harder since not everyone would have a visible coach ranking and people would have to judge on team records rather than CR. It makes it less competative for people with private CR and harder to cherrypick for people who enjoy their CR.
Opinions? |
or, having your CR public or private as a profile option. this would go both ways of course... when u have your CR private, it would instead show a different number, 150.00. that way, its a guess... |
_________________
-Snottie
The Congregation - Always Recruiting
[url=http://igolocal.net/badge.php?user_id=1949] [/url] |
|
Captain1821
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 21:52 |
|
Official Tournaments fix many things. |
_________________
STATUS: CLOWN |
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 22:36 |
|
I think it would help if divU (possibly renamed to open) was fumbbl's main division. The only way this could be done would be to make sure it has the most teams in it. Lots of people in this thread so far have been saying 'Nothing wrong with R, I don't care about CR anyway'. So if the majority of coaches feel this way, they might be better off in U. Then let the competetive coaches have divR to themselves.
Alternatively, I would suggest only applying the CR formula to matches which fall within a certain range. So (for example) perhaps only games where the two teams are within 20 SR and 10 CR would have any impact on CR of the participants. And any match which falls outside this range could still be played, but wouldn't effect either player's coach rating. This way there is no reason for a high-CR coach to pick on a poor coach, since their CR would only improve if they play a closely-matched oppo (rather than the current small gains for winning an easy match). Same goes for TS.
Anyway, keep up the good work Christer, we really do appreciate it you know. |
_________________
*This is a public safety announcement. Azurus is a cynical, sarcastic idiot. Please ignore any and everything he may say. Thank you for your attention.* |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 28, 2005 - 22:50 |
|
| thesquig wrote: | I honestly believe the best solutions are simple ones. My solution would to make coach ranking public or private. Everyone would still have a coach ranking which was taken into account when a game is played. However, with a private coach ranking only the coach himself can see his actual CR but for public CR everyone can see it. This way people can opt out of ranking and still enjoy the open format. Perhaps even the total win % and games could be hidden also.
It would make cherrypicking harder since not everyone would have a visible coach ranking and people would have to judge on team records rather than CR. It makes it less competative for people with private CR and harder to cherrypick for people who enjoy their CR.
Opinions? |
I REALLY LOVE THIS.
Simple to code (I think), and quite clever.
Once again TheSquig proves me his superior Wisdom.
 |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
Secret League Americ...
Search
