Peter_Thorpe
Joined: Oct 08, 2005
|
 Posted:
Aug 19, 2006 - 11:58 |
 
|
how can you still go on?????
| Malthor wrote: | Snorri...
First of all what are you talking about? It was not possible to play games between the qualifier and the final. Your opponent in the GLT could not have gotten soft games with their mates before their final with you.
Secondly, Ranked is the Real Deal in that it is the premier division of FUMBBL. Just check the stats for number of games played.
Cherrypicking and coddling is part of the open ranked structure.
I have some things planned for next year that will make the ranked tournaments even more meaningful to more coaches. Some of the other things that have been discussed include no qualifiers for FUMBBL Cup next year. IE, straight 256 team KO. No recovery/cashup/soft games between qualification and the final.
Unranked tournaments are too open to different types of abuse and variation LRB rules. EG 1v1, 4v4, no apoth leagues, no RR leagues, no big guy leagues etc.
So the SWL is well respected. If we add that to the list of official FUMBBL tournaments, the NWL will want in. Then another, and another and another. Who is responsible for assessing the worth/merit of each league?
Your SWL seems to be running strong so what is the issue?
As for coddled etc teams, look at past major winners, eg Charade, Nandorins, Black Axe. Coddled? Don't think so  |
This, speaks for itself! |
_________________
[url=http://www.sloganizer.net/en/style3,Peter-spc-Thorpe.png] [/url] |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
 Posted:
Aug 19, 2006 - 21:45 |
|
| Thorpe_Star wrote: | how can you still go on?????
|
Why not? This thread is just 2 pages long, and it was you who brought it there.  |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
|
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 21, 2006 - 06:13 |
|
Think I should go back to letting ranked meander as it will.
Perhaps though, the official tourneys should be called Ranked Tourneys and not Fumbbl Tourneys if they have no interest in being a geniune representation of the Fumbbl teams, because ultimately that appears to be all that people want them to be. |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 21, 2006 - 06:18 |
|
Problem with U being considered "official" tournies is that U teams can play grossly uncompetitive matches.....
Playing against snotling teams, cheaters, fairies, etc.
As for the desire of a TR gap... just enter a SMACK. Those seem to have become very popular.
__Synn |
|
|
Topper
Joined: Aug 03, 2003
|
| Posted:
Aug 21, 2006 - 07:36 |
|
There have been quite a few claiming that low TR equals more "on pitch skill"
This I find to be 110% wrong, the better the team the less likely it is to make mistakes - thus eliminating luck (as much as possible).
And the coach who is best at doing what he´s guys do best wins quite often.
Besides a TR 230 team stands a chance against a 260-70 team pretty often.
But a TR 100 team, rarely if allmost never stands one against a TR 120-30 team. |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Aug 21, 2006 - 08:50 |
|
| Topper wrote: | There have been quite a few claiming that low TR equals more "on pitch skill"
This I find to be 110% wrong, the better the team the less likely it is to make mistakes - thus eliminating luck (as much as possible).
And the coach who is best at doing what he´s guys do best wins quite often.
Besides a TR 230 team stands a chance against a 260-70 team pretty often.
But a TR 100 team, rarely if allmost never stands one against a TR 120-30 team. |
I dont think anyone was talking about TR100 comparisons. Though I do wonder at your claims. Do you ever play mismatched contests? We run an entry division with teams ranging from TR100-150 and the TR100 teams often claim upsets. My CTL team also entered a swiss tourney and played out of their league and did brilliantly for a while before they caught up in TR (Wraithlords - first 10 or so matches). Quite a stretch for 'almost never'.
But anyway, I also disagree with your claim about luck. At high TR, the game often comes down to one or two crucial fails of the dice (less mistakes due to more skills). At low TR there is a plethora of dice fails, so statistically those crucial rolls tend to even out over the course of a game and it comes back to skill. I win far more often against a lesser coach with a low TR team (and far less against a better coach) than I do against the same coach with a high TR team.
But these issues are all kind of moot. The two biggest things I see with TR are the effect of artificial team building thats been discussed and the range of TR for which teams are competitive. Everything seems to come together at about TR170-200. High TR discounts many teams, like necro, norse, zon, undead, skaven. Just look at the lack of variety in the big fumbbl tournies. At low TR you have some similar situations, e.g. zons are brilliant but hopeless against dwarves.
Around TR 200 is where the fun, skill (team management, tactics) and variety is at. |
|
|
henrikpp
Joined: Jul 02, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 20:00 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | Think I should go back to letting ranked meander as it will.
Perhaps though, the official tourneys should be called Ranked Tourneys and not Fumbbl Tourneys if they have no interest in being a geniune representation of the Fumbbl teams, because ultimately that appears to be all that people want them to be. |
um...if i understand things correctly, ranked tourneys are official fumbbl tourneys because unranked tourneys are unofficial. anyone can create a tournament in [U], only official people can create tournaments in [R].
am i wrong? |
|
|
SideshowBob
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 20:14 |
|
| Snorri wrote: | | Topper wrote: | There have been quite a few claiming that low TR equals more "on pitch skill"
This I find to be 110% wrong, the better the team the less likely it is to make mistakes - thus eliminating luck (as much as possible).
And the coach who is best at doing what he´s guys do best wins quite often.
Besides a TR 230 team stands a chance against a 260-70 team pretty often.
But a TR 100 team, rarely if allmost never stands one against a TR 120-30 team. |
I dont think anyone was talking about TR100 comparisons. Though I do wonder at your claims. Do you ever play mismatched contests? We run an entry division with teams ranging from TR100-150 and the TR100 teams often claim upsets. My CTL team also entered a swiss tourney and played out of their league and did brilliantly for a while before they caught up in TR (Wraithlords - first 10 or so matches). Quite a stretch for 'almost never'.
But anyway, I also disagree with your claim about luck. At high TR, the game often comes down to one or two crucial fails of the dice (less mistakes due to more skills). At low TR there is a plethora of dice fails, so statistically those crucial rolls tend to even out over the course of a game and it comes back to skill. I win far more often against a lesser coach with a low TR team (and far less against a better coach) than I do against the same coach with a high TR team.
But these issues are all kind of moot. The two biggest things I see with TR are the effect of artificial team building thats been discussed and the range of TR for which teams are competitive. Everything seems to come together at about TR170-200. High TR discounts many teams, like necro, norse, zon, undead, skaven. Just look at the lack of variety in the big fumbbl tournies. At low TR you have some similar situations, e.g. zons are brilliant but hopeless against dwarves.
Around TR 200 is where the fun, skill (team management, tactics) and variety is at. |
I agree with everything in this post. TR200 cap on (at least one) official tourney would have been great! |
|
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 20:17 |
|
I think I mentioned this in some discussion before the FC opened this year - you could have, for instance, the GLT with a 200 TR max, the WO with no restrictions, the UI with a 175 minimum and 250 max, and the FC with a 150 minimum and 300 Max, just as an example. |
|
|
Macavity
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 20:40 |
|
*sigh* New tourney formats are fine to discuss. Suggesting that tournaments should be in unranked is silly. They ARE in unranked. Suggesting cherry-picking happens more in ranked is ludicrous. If "Official Tournaments" were in unranked, where you can play against any TS, the abuse to build teams just for the tourney would be ridiculous. Complaining about chosen names is...... petty. Eating Goldfish crackers? THAT is a good idea!
P.S. Malthor using the top teams to illustrate that "soft" playing does not rule is true. If teams with soft records enter the tourney but don't get anywhere, how is that unfair? |
_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis |
|
Panda_
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 21:11 |
|
I'm actually thinking that Royal Rooky Rumble should be U tournaments, as the teams are created for the event, and destroyed immediatly after. |
_________________
"Rien ne sert de partir a point, il vaut mieux courir." |
|
vanGorn
Joined: Feb 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 21:48 |
|
| Panda_ wrote: | | I'm actually thinking that Royal Rooky Rumble should be U tournaments, as the teams are created for the event, and destroyed immediatly after. |
Not all are destroyed afterwards. My Hedge Fond Locusts are still alive. If "alive" is the right term for undead. |
_________________
Gimme a pint of fungus beer!
Then we will climb the ladder.
|
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 01, 2006 - 21:56 |
|
My undead are still active as well. So is Dominik's Turniermumien who demolished my undead team in said RRR. |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
