Posted by pubstar on 2010-03-02 23:39:47

I think new players tend to have very concrete ideas about what's 'fair' in Blood Bowl (I know I did). New players may not deem wizards, stars, fouling, crowdsurfs, etc to be fair, fun ways to play the game. They may have a personal 'blacklist' of races they think are unfair (again, all this applies readily to noob-pubstar). In ranked, you can decide which of these Blood Bowl elements you wish to experience. In the box, you cannot. This might alter the level of competition in the two divisions, but likely keeps players happy... which is quite the point, yes?

Posted by KJG on 2010-03-02 23:44:08

I can only agree with you resarf. Pubstar has a point in that people who don't like fouling or crowdsurfing might be better off in ranked, but players in ranked still do those things. As a noob in ranked you're cherry picked, which doesn't happen in B. To me, therefore, B seems like the ideal division for new players, where the games are decided on the pitch, and not on gamefinder.

Posted by Gromrilram on 2010-03-02 23:45:09

Ranked is better to start BECAUSE you can pick a game. Picking a game means, beeing able to choose it.
If you go into Blackbox without knowing the game/the site well might bring you into games that are harder than you want.
Extreme Example: You might quite early find out, do not play halflings vs dwarves, but whe you don't know about the bashyness of [B], you might bring a fling team and face dwarves and than take that as your only experience on fumbbl.




Besides that, "starting" as I used it means, after a couple of Academy matches.

Posted by CircularLogic on 2010-03-02 23:53:31

The recent rage-quit of a noob that joined the box right away might be an indication, that hardcore BB isn`t exactly for every beginner of this game.

Read here:
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=17781

Joined the site, went to the box, got his ass handed to him several times, rage quit.

Posted by Resarf on 2010-03-02 23:53:45

@ Grom: Doesn't that argument assume an odd combination of the knowledge, ie enough experience to avoid a bad game in R but not enough to handle a bad matchup in the box?

Posted by Resarf on 2010-03-03 00:04:48

I guess the point I am trying to make is that in B there is an equal chance of having an advantageous or disadvantageous matchup. In R if you're new there is not an equal chance. Incidents (and I am not sure the fellow would have made a very good coach for the community) of rage-quit are I am sure not limitted to B.

Posted by freak_in_a_frock on 2010-03-03 00:39:18

The box is a far rougher environment than ranked. In ranked you can search for a soft game if your team needs it, but in the box if your team gets beaten up it just means you are more likely to face ogres next match.

I have no figures, but i would expect fouls per game to be much higher in the box, as i also would expect player turnover to be much higher (last time i looked there were only 2 legends actually still alive in the box). All these things mean that it is not such a good option until you are familiar to the standard of players in the fumbbl community. That is not to say that the box is not for the newbies amongst us, but they do need to be warned that the box is a harsh place to be, and there are softer alternatives.

Posted by Gromrilram on 2010-03-03 01:20:03

no it asumes a decent knowledge of the GAME while no knowledge of the SITE, or better: not thinking about it.

Posted by pythrr on 2010-03-03 02:50:19

noob in!

Posted by Warmaster on 2010-03-03 04:27:55

For every person who cherrypicks an opponent there is an opponent who allows themselves to be cherrypicked. Learn the rules and you'll have no issues.

MacDonalds made me fat because i am too lazy, stupid and weak willed to learn healthy living and eating. Same argument, same morons.

You consider Ranked should be the creme de la creme while others think it is B, leagues or stunty. Who cares? Play BB whatever way you want but remember others will do the same and will have a different view.

Posted by Warmaster on 2010-03-03 04:30:30

BTW... since you have obviously read some of the league profiles, did you maybe look at the one for academy?? Its for those who don't know much about BB or the client to learn from. If you don't need academy then you should be well versed in cherrypicking, fouling, crowd surfs, teams you like/dislike and all those fun things that the forums are crammed full of. Play 'em all and have fun!

Posted by Resarf on 2010-03-03 05:33:17

@Warmaster,
1. I said that R ought to be the creme de la creme not that it was. I believe that the added nuance involved in picking opponents takes experience to master. There is more to this point, but I would be following my own foolish digression.
2. Of course everyone should learn each type and enjoy every opportunity that is offered here.
3. Yes, Acadamy is clearly demarcated as a beginners group, what my post (I thought reasonably clearly) was exploring was why Box is specifically singled out on the team starting page as a place not for new players.

@Grom: Thank you. That is a good reason and speaks to why I wrote. Maybe this distinction should be clarified in the division descriptions.

@freak: Rougher is a meaningless distinction in a stakeless endeavour. If the client allows it it is allowed, to me that's a very good lesson to take away from a game in any division. Also I don't think B's scheduler works quite as you imply.

noob out (I'm sleepy)

Posted by Hofmeister on 2010-03-03 09:03:14

I was put off Box initially by the constant talk of bashiness and teams being destroyed, but my very limited experience so far suggests it's no tougher than some of the leagues I play in. Think Box is tough? Try playing in WIL. I was also expecting poor manners and a lack of chat from my opponents and that hasn't been true either.

I think the wording could be better though. How about something like: Players can have a much shorter lifespan in Box, so expect the worst if you join this division and try not to throw your doll out of the pram when your team gets ripped to shreds. After all, you can easily make a new one.

Posted by Grod on 2010-03-03 11:14:30

I think you may have a point about Ranked. In Ranked, in theory coaches gain diminishing returns to their ranking (and increasing risks) by playing coaches with a low ranking, and by playing mismatched games. Moreover, racially beneficial match ups are factored in.

In practice, a coaches rank is only affected by games in which both they and their opponents teams have already played 4 games. Unfortunately, this means that it makes sense to play the first few games with new teams teams against weaker (or newer) coaches, and even to play mismatched games.

So I can completely understand when someone has a rough entry to Ranked.

Perhaps you might elaborate what you constitute in Ranked to be "advantage is taken" ? Do you primarily mean when an experience coach (say with a CR > 160) plays an inexperienced coach (say with a CR < 150). Or do you primarily mean when a coach offers an unfavourable match up, irrespective of coach experience?