| Poll |
| Ranked challenges? |
| Great idea |
|
29% |
[ 20 ] |
| No way |
|
37% |
[ 25 ] |
| Suck it down Uber! |
|
32% |
[ 22 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 67 |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
  Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 04:47 |
 
|
With the demise of Ladder, I think challenges should be brought into ranked. For one, I think the Challenge section of the site was very well done, and if Ladder is going to go under, it would be a waste to just throw the coding that's been done for ladder out the window. These challenges could bring another interesting element to ranked, but I think a few changes would be required to make them work in the big division.
First, I think the challenger should be asked to propose a date and time for the game to be played. When you receive a challenge, you could easily make your decision based upon your availability or counter-offer at with another time.
Next, since there wouldn't be any Ladder points in ranked, challenges should be restricted to teams that are really close in TS to insure that the match ups are even. After all, an interesting challenge should involve teams that are evenly matched.
Another thing that should be included would be the ability to flag a team as open/closed to challenges. This would prevent people from picking on recovering/inactive teams and allow coaches to prevent from getting offers if they don't want them.
There should also be a limit to how many challenges/offers you can accept within a certain time period, but on this I didn't have any specific idea.
I also think a small mod on the Games page could also be a neat way for people seeking games to spectate to identify a particularly interesting challenge and drop in to watch. It would also be a nice place to show the little smack talk remarks that are sent with the challenges.
Overall, I think Ranked challenges would spice things up and add a little fluff to a division that's been known for anonymous cherry picking and sometime poor sportsmanship. A little boost to the K value to make the challenges worth a bit more in the CR department would be an interesting way to make the outcome of these games a bit more meaningful, as they would be official challenges that are supposed to be taken a bit more seriously.
I know it's quite a big proposal when all of this is taken into account, but in the long run I think it would add a great social aspect to Ranked and add an interesting new way to play the game. I call out all trolls to come out of their closet and bash away at this proposal.  |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 05:00 |
|
I like Uber but Ranked = Open |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Woodpecker
Joined: Apr 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 05:09 |
|
Can the kookyness be kept out of ranked? If you want this to happen, do it in [U].
By the way, the "waste of good code" argument doesn't hold much water. Any code I write is backed up in Word before it's actually used... |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 06:18 |
|
Uber.....
I agree with you in the sense that challenges in ranked should be an option. However, this does not need to be coded or have some rule set applied......
This is all on the coaches. I have challenged and been challenged recently and the games have been truly fun. Just post a challenge out loud.
__Synn |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 08:02 |
|
If the challenge system were to be implemented in ranked, I would like to see coaches being able to specify a range of times / days that they are available to play, and only allow people to challenge coaches when they can suggest a time that is within those times - and the other can counter-offer within the challenger's preferred times. (can't take credit for the idea myself, CircularLogic mentioned it in his King of the Hill thing)
How would you work out who you can challenge? - base it on CR? base it on TS? both? (if you just limit it to "legal" (i.e. +-40 TS) matches, I can see *some* coaches abusing the system to cherry-pick even more than they do already).
I think that the idea of boosting K value for challenges is a good one - it would give some incentive to actually use the challenge system 
PS: Woodpecker, I'd take the "waste of good code" argument to be about the code just sitting there not doing anything ... not that it will actually be lost.
And finally - Maybe it's actually better not to have a challenge system - that way the challenges that do happen are a bit more interesting - "it all started with one innocent forum post..." |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 08:05 |
|
Base challenges on those coaches who just plain piss you off (in a good way). Would love to see Eagle and Emphasy continue their rivalry in some K-enhanced games.
__Synn |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 09:28 |
|
Ranked is Open.
If I want a way to get enforced games I go to Unranked tourneys.
The challange system would offer some great opportunities for coaches that like cherry-picking (at least CR and race based cherry-picking) and thus would even increase the problem you´d like to solve.
Well, and to poor sportmanship. I can´t imagine how that would improve a bit with a challenging system.
I believe that you would offer only "fair" challenges, but if you really assume that only "fair" challenges would be issued, then, well, then R would not be as bad a you think it is...
I kind of like the system, but it is better positioned in U, I think. Or even better in A. |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 09:45 |
|
I don't see any reason that challenges need to be enforced - they never were in [L] (just that you lost challenge points if you didn't take on challengers, which was kinda crap when the people who challenged you didn't suggest a time and were half-way across the world). To me, it would be more about a bit of extra fluff for the coaches that are interested (maybe people will make elf or halfling teams that will take on all challengers etc). And you can build up a pretty interesting rivalry between teams with challenges
You can (of course) do the whole fluffy thing without the challenge system in place - just need to find a few cool coaches/teams to play every now and then with the same team, and build up a nice fluffy hatred for one another 
I don't think that a challenge system should be rushed into. There are plenty of things that really need consideration like ...
- how do you stop it being used for cherry-picking (can it be done?)
- what kind of penalty should there for not taking on a challenger (should there even be one?)
- what restrictions are there on teams that can be challenged?
- what kind of bonus (if any) should be used as an incentive to use the system?
- how do you deal with time-differences/scheduling of matches?
I'm sure there are plenty more things too, but that's a bit of a list to start things off (chances are most of them have been discussed in previous forum threads, but I didn't feel like searching today  )
<< Insert troll food here >> |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 11:04 |
|
Ranked is open, yeah yeah perfect argument...
oh I just need to remember to arrange my RRR final and look at the next the date when the next major R tournament starts. Oh and If I can, I will play a little smack this week end.
But R is JUST open games..... let us never forget.....cough cough
well the main question is that: how to avoid in f******* the system up. I mean, in ladder, we were all friendly and no abuses in challenge were done. But how to implement it nicely in R WITH serious restrictions on how challenges could be done because:
1-can you play between the time you accept the challenge and you play? This could be a problem!
2-wouldn't be 10 dorfs challenges a day on your pro elves be annoying?
well I would love to be able to vary my k to 1 sometimes in a low risk challenge were 2 would be a normal risk challenge. I sometimes get picky with my elves as long as I don't reach a 14 players roster because at less players, recoverys=losses. If I could reduce the risks, I would play more dangerous games.
Also, I discovered something that I did not like with the CR formula (already stated many times by Circ). If I play 20 str down a CR 160 coach, I still will loose a lot of CR if I loose and even loose some in case of a draw, while I do consider it as a fairly good result (the draw). This games are competitive and difficult, thus intersting but at this cost, I ll end up picky again :/
variable K choice= me playing more games |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 11:25 |
|
actually sk8, variable K would be kinda cool (though possibly a whole new way to cherrypick )i can see some high CR coaches getting "really annoyed" when they challenge a low CR coach with a K=50 game and get dice-raped |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 14:07 |
|
To me what this whole Challenge system I'm proposing would mainly be is a different way to arrange games. The idea of increasing K is just so these games would be taken a bit more seriously, but I would like it just as much even if the K value was still the same. In reality you're free to challenge anyone you like, and anyone is also free to refuse if they don't want to play you. The challenge system doesn't change a thing, but simply provides an alternative and somewhat more "official" way to send a challenge. As I said, people should be free to choose whether or not they can be challenged. It doesn't detract anything from the current system. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 14:20 |
|
| Laviak wrote: | | actually sk8, variable K would be kinda cool (though possibly a whole new way to cherrypick )i can see some high CR coaches getting "really annoyed" when they challenge a low CR coach with a K=50 game and get dice-raped |
just play a K=2000 game after :p
No seriously, nothing abusing. Something like
k=1 low risk
k=2 middle risk
k=3 high risk |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 15:54 |
|
i like ubers idea, but it will never happen 
but i could live with it if the challenge system was allowed in [U] Tournaments as an option to start a tournement as a KO, open RR, or challenge, that would be sweet, and we get to use the existing code  challenges would be seen on group pages... or even take a leaf out of the MBBL book, which works OK,
you can set yourself to be green or red, if you recieve a challenge while green you need to accept it within a certain time period, and play in a certain period, you can only make challenges while your team is green
you can recieve challenges while red but you dont have to respond, but still can play the game, as you may be away! you cannot challenge any teams while you are red |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 06, 2006 - 19:58 |
|
| Uber wrote: | | To me what this whole Challenge system I'm proposing would mainly be is a different way to arrange games. The idea of increasing K is just so these games would be taken a bit more seriously, but I would like it just as much even if the K value was still the same. In reality you're free to challenge anyone you like, and anyone is also free to refuse if they don't want to play you. The challenge system doesn't change a thing, but simply provides an alternative and somewhat more "official" way to send a challenge. As I said, people should be free to choose whether or not they can be challenged. It doesn't detract anything from the current system. |
Ubes - how about this. Since we already have gamfinder ...
Next to each team's name on gamefinder there is a box labeled challenge.
If you see a team on gamefinder you want to play you click that box and at the top of the screen gamefinder will list "Challenges". Next to the challenged coach's team there will be 2 boxes (accept/decline).
If declined, the challenge is removed, if acccepted the matchup is listed as "Accepted". Maybe BOT could post something like. Uber's Ubes accepts challenge of Mully's Mullets.
The only contraint is the challenger must also have his team listed on gamefinder.
Pros -
1) forces coaches to use gamefinder.
2) I can go through the teams on gamefinder, and rather than finding coaches in IRC I just check off the ones I'm willing to play.
3) I sure someone more intelligent than me can come up with some bells and whisltes to make this a fun conceot.
Cons -
1) Well ... someone has to program this
2) If I myself, have multiple teams on gamefinder I am not sure how to distinguish which ones are challenging who. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Uber
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 08, 2006 - 00:44 |
|
I don't why it would never happen. That's what Ranked is all about.
Right now you put your team on Gamefinder and someone challenges you, or you challenge someone on the gamefinder. Playing in ranked, an open environement, is basically just that: a series of challenges.
Now I think Gamefinder and typing bblfg in the chat is a good way to arrange a game, but does it have to be the only way? Ladder proposed an interesting alternative to matchmaking, but now it's being thrown away, not because it was bad but because the division didn't generate enough interest for enough people.
Gamefinder and bblfg is good if you're looking for a game within the next hour, but why not setup a way to arrange games a week in advance in an open environment? I would go as far as to include the option to challenge in every division. Even in tournaments you should be able to "challenge" your next opponent, if only to start off the negotiation of the time at which the games need to be played.
Scheduling games is a very important aspect of Fumbbl and I think there ought to be other ways to do it and I see nothing wrong with building improvements in that area. Take the admins job for example, the admin channel and the support ticket system work very well together and importing challenges into Ranked could be seen as the "support ticket" way of arranging games. |
_________________
Recovering FUMBBL addict. |
|
|
|
| |
New Gnones vs Old Gn...
Search
