| Poll |
| Do you want BR in the Formula? |
| Yes - And if it is removed, I will likely leave Blackbox |
|
4% |
[ 10 ] |
| Yes - But I would play Blackbox regardless |
|
23% |
[ 53 ] |
| No - But I would play Blackbox regardless |
|
39% |
[ 91 ] |
| No - And if it remains, I will likely leave Blackbox |
|
20% |
[ 48 ] |
| Unsure - I have not decided, or do not understand BR |
|
12% |
[ 28 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 230 |
|
Shimin
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
|
 Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 00:02 |
 
|
Not really.
As said many times earlier, teams focussing on maiming and not winning will get even easier games over time and getting to maim easier if they just play "bad" enough to lose a majority of their games.
To counter this, you could try and work into the calculation a system taking into account balancing out any surplus on the casulties....
And when all is done calculating, what is it excactly you want to achieve?
All to have the same win % ?
For what reason?
Let us instead celebrate that we can meet on even terms instead of the best shooter getting a dillinger against the worst players sniper riffle with a distance close to maximum range of the dillinger.
Paul Hicks is a player, that to my knowledge (by experience) isnt focussing on winning the game, but just takes that as an added bonus after maiming as much as possible.
Thereby making a mockery of a system that is supposed to limit any advantages made from superior coaching. (This actually works opposite its own goal, when Paul Hicks (or any other player for that matter) plays not to win, but to cause mayhem)
I have nothing against Paul Hicks, he is just legendary for his unique playing style (well, many has copied it since, but noone lived out the idea as he did).
BR=intended for balancing out wins.
Sideeffect = imbalancing casulty side.
Considering what has earlier been written about this issue, and the "problems" connected with this playing style, i found it unneccesary to explain further other than type the founder himself as a reason. (If anything Paulhicks should take this as a compliment!) |
Last edited by Shimin on Nov 20, 2008; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 00:09 |
|
Maybe I should have been clear about what part of your post was the "worst argument ever"... oh wait... I was. Never mind. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Shimin
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 01:42 |
|
Seriously, coming with such a statement without any argumentation... Well to avoid getting down to your level i will just say this:
If you have an intelligent comment, then please do share it, but if you dont... Then just dont write at all, just a waste of time...
Try to be clear about WHAT you think makes it "the worst argument ever" instead, might result in a little (more?) respect. |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 02:26 |
|
| Shimin wrote: | Seriously, coming with such a statement without any argumentation... Well to avoid getting down to your level i will just say this:
If you have an intelligent comment, then please do share it, but if you dont... Then just dont write at all, just a waste of time...
Try to be clear about WHAT you think makes it "the worst argument ever" instead, might result in a little (more?) respect. |
I could do that... or I could re-write my entire post like some other people... It's clever and It adds so much to a conversation don't you think? 
But seeing as you did ask nicely:
You used paulhicks, specifically, to try and scare people. You used him because most people only know paulhicks from rumors and not by fact. If you're going to use scare tactics (which is dumb to start with) at least have the common courtesy to refrain from using people you know nothing about.
(one game vs paulhicks... I guess that means you know what you are talking about doesn't it? Oh wait... he won that game didn't he? Making the point of using him even worse.) |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Shimin
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 21:26 |
|
Well, watching the replay, you will see furthermore, that winning wasnt a priority, more of an added bonus against an at that time rookie coach.
Furthermore i have seen a lot of his games, and know him to concentrate more on doing damage than winning the game. He isnt such a bad coach as his CR might suggest, he just doesnt care about winning as much as on putting a well placed boot in the groin/head/"insert other weak limb".
BR isnt prepared for a maiming team. Maim and lose and you get an easier opponent. That doesnt sound like a bad idea to you? |
|
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 21:42 |
|
Good god!
Idon't even play [B] and i've still ruined the system?!? 
Sorry bout that one guys... my bad. |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 22:22 |
|
| Shimin wrote: | | Maim and lose and you get an easier opponent. That doesnt sound like a bad idea to you? |
Coaches who play like this (without going into the issue of who is or isn't one) are very rare. If they seem to be common, it is only that those that do exist become infamous. And even some of those who actually are interested in winning, but play a very aggressive style, may get a reputation for being uninterested in winning.
Now, having established that, tiny sub-groups behaving according to different motivations to the majority will have no discernable impact on the system as a whole. (Just as niche groups with goals other than winning, like EMU or the Rat Race, don't cause the structure of Ranked to collapse.)
Yes, occasionally there will be mismatches of this kind - but there will also be tonnes of mismatches of all sorts of other kinds. For example, there are several random elements to the system, and BR will fluctuate considerably so that, at any given time, it may not reflect his current ability. In other words, this particular 'rogue crazy fouler' concern is really not a significant one. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 22:51 |
|
Well it is not.. under the current system, there is nothing that prevents me from having one team that I just use to artificially trash me BR, so that my 'serious' team in [B] gets reasonable matchups. This could be either a khemri team that ignores the ball and just tries to trash teams I feel are lame or this could be a treeless flingteam that just standing up players trying to cause a TD and cas-dif as negative as possible to trash BR AND BBR, so that my serious team not only gets TS advantage but gets this advantage over low-BBR coaches that do extra little harm. Would there be a goal to build teams to - lets say a [B] major - I`d create a fling team right away... |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 23:10 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Well it is not.. under the current system, there is nothing that prevents me from having one team that I just use to artificially trash me BR, so that my 'serious' team in [B] gets reasonable matchups. This could be either a khemri team that ignores the ball and just tries to trash teams I feel are lame or this could be a treeless flingteam that just standing up players trying to cause a TD and cas-dif as negative as possible … |
Again, are you really suggesting that a significant proportion of people are going to bother to go to such efforts? If not, it doesn't really impact upon the system as a whole.
Secondly, if someone is really being so blatant in not making no effort to win, the relevant site rules still apply!
(Edit: For those who never read them: "Arranged games (ie. playing to lose) will not be tolerated. The same applies for coaches allowing each other to score extra touchdowns and all other SPP generating events.") |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 23:16 |
|
| paulhicks wrote: | Good god!
Idon't even play [B] and i've still ruined the system?!?
Sorry bout that one guys... my bad. |
yes paul, you are a bad bad man... |
|
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 20, 2008 - 23:19 |
|
| Shimin wrote: | | legendary for his unique playing style (well, many has copied it since, but noone lived out the idea as he did). |
Have i died and no-one told me??? that sounded like a eulogy  |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
Plorg
Joined: May 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:52 |
|
I'm still wondering why people say that Khemri and Halfling teams aren't really trying to win.
 |
|
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 21, 2008 - 02:37 |
|
| paulhicks wrote: | | Shimin wrote: | | legendary for his unique playing style (well, many has copied it since, but noone lived out the idea as he did). |
Have i died and no-one told me??? that sounded like a eulogy |
Grim news indeed. I'll miss you big guy |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 21, 2008 - 02:38 |
|
| Plorg wrote: | I'm still wondering why people say that Khemri and Halfling teams aren't really trying to win.
|
How do you actually *tell* if Khemri and Halfling are trying to win?  |
_________________
\x/es |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 21, 2008 - 02:41 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | Plorg wrote: | I'm still wondering why people say that Khemri and Halfling teams aren't really trying to win.
|
How do you actually *tell* if Khemri and Halfling are trying to win? |
There is a big difference. If you know how to play those two races and then watch Plorg play you will see that he plays to win. More often than not that means seas of blood and mountains of skulls but where he has a choice between bloodletting and winning he will aim to win. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
|
|
| |
Old style skill prog...
Search
