pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 21:12 |
|
Circular - we ALL get the point: you don't like BR. Bored now. |
_________________
|
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 21:16 |
|
The idea of blackbox is that you get games easily. When the opponent pool is reduced to 1/4 the size by using a faction based system the idea of the blackbox is lost. |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 25, 2008 - 21:41 |
|
pythrr wrote: | Circular - we ALL get the point: you don't like BR. Bored now. |
Apparently you don`t get the point.. because I like BR. And I haven`t argued anything, but just given a reason, why option 4 isn`t that likely. |
|
|
Focus
Joined: Oct 15, 2007
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 06:14 |
|
I'm not saying we abolish [B] in favor of some kind of [BF], more so run it alongside. Like I said the idea would need a lot of fleshing out. On the other hand I like the idea of needing to have a high BR to get into majors.... That also solves the problem and in fact gives people an incentive NOT to tweak their BR by losing games with some of their teams. |
_________________ Supporting dwarf and orc coaches in their struggle to be recognised as equals. Down with the prince of lies BillBrasky! |
|
Kill-Kill
Joined: Nov 22, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 06:50 |
|
CircularLogic wrote: | pythrr wrote: | Circular - we ALL get the point: you don't like BR. Bored now. |
Apparently you don`t get the point.. because I like BR. And I haven`t argued anything, but just given a reason, why option 4 isn`t that likely. |
Well, TR does not directly reflect how much a team wins (I realize I should have quoted your other post, but too lazy to change now), so TR != Team by team ranking.
I personally don't see a problem with individual team BRs. For example, Synn is a good coach, but I know I will win a hell of a lot more games against his gobbos (http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=318591) [160/132] than his skaven (http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=team&op=view&team_id=377032) [164/133]. Basically same TR/TS, same CR, but the skaven win 50% more. |
_________________ Your words are just bloody fallacy
A house of cards, painted white
Tried to recreate Normandy
But you made up the reasons to fight |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 08:50 |
|
I wouldn't want KO tournaments in [B]. They just give something to save/build your team for. i.e more whining and moaning whenever a player dies or someone draws a tough game.
Something like a Championship would be cool. |
_________________
New teams. Secret League or Official. Always recruiting! |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 08:55 |
|
Why transfer the system that is least successful to [B]? |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 09:13 |
|
Kill-Kill wrote: | ... TR != Team by team ranking. |
Team ranking is exactly what CircularLogic was talking about .. there used to be a team ranking value, calculated the same way as coach ranking (but for teams). It hasn't existed for a long time though (removed well before my time). |
_________________ We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
torsoboy
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 10:32 |
|
Zombie69 wrote: | You still don't get it torsoboy. You make multiple teams. They all lose on purpose when scheduled, except for one that tries to win. It will be matched up against easier opponents because of your bad BR. Pretty straightforward really.
Three good solutions have been proposed:
1. Forget all about competitions, this division is not meant to be competitive.
2. Forget BR.
3. Tournaments require high BR to enter. |
Thanks for the explanation. |
_________________ The plural of anecdote isn't data. |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 10:41 |
|
CircularLogic wrote: | DexC wrote: | What about 4: Different BR ratings for each team. Im sure someone mooted this at some point. |
Once upon a time there was something called TeamRanking - a rank for every team someone had. It was abolished loong ago despite resistance and every attempt to get it back has failed.. So I reckon the this option can be neglected for the time being |
Team Ranking (as a CR type value) would be perfect for [B]. It avoids all of the nasty "I cant start a team" problems and it makes it easy to do rankings for each race and it means that you cant play rubbish to achieve a higher BR.
To be honest, I could probably be content to forget about tournaments in [B] for at least a year if there was a decent BR system for each team.. I'd really enjoy trying to compete for the best team in a particular race (and since you cant exclude teams from the box players would have to maintain their BR, they wouldnt be able to just hibernate it). |
_________________ 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." |
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 14:06 |
|
How is a Smack not already Blackbox?
Except for the "Pentalty for being a good coach" factor.
That's the #1 reason why I like(d) Smacks. Haven't had time to play one in a while. |
_________________ Previously intelligent. |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 14:23 |
|
I like the idea that tournaments may have a lower level BR cap.
That would make some games really tense if a player is 0.2 BR short of the entry level for a major.
I also think different majors should have different BR entry levels
Major 1) 165 BR required
Major 2) 155 BR required
Major 3) No BR restriction.
Also, I think the BR should apply at the point the team is entered, so if a coach reaches 165.1 then applies their team to Major 1) (where it gets locked), they should then be able to carry on playing [B], knowing their team is in the draw, even if their BR then drops to 164.8 |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Pro511 wrote: | How is a Smack not already Blackbox? |
Blackbox doesn't commit you to more than one game. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 14:42 |
|
DukeTyrion wrote: | I like the idea that tournaments may have a lower level BR cap.
That would make some games really tense if a player is 0.2 BR short of the entry level for a major.
I also think different majors should have different BR entry levels
Major 1) 165 BR required
Major 2) 155 BR required
Major 3) No BR restriction.
Also, I think the BR should apply at the point the team is entered, so if a coach reaches 165.1 then applies their team to Major 1) (where it gets locked), they should then be able to carry on playing [B], knowing their team is in the draw, even if their BR then drops to 164.8 |
So we'd have to start pimping our BR just to get in? |
_________________
New teams. Secret League or Official. Always recruiting! |
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
  Posted:
Nov 26, 2008 - 14:50 |
|
koadah wrote: | DukeTyrion wrote: | I like the idea that tournaments may have a lower level BR cap.
That would make some games really tense if a player is 0.2 BR short of the entry level for a major.
I also think different majors should have different BR entry levels
Major 1) 165 BR required
Major 2) 155 BR required
Major 3) No BR restriction.
Also, I think the BR should apply at the point the team is entered, so if a coach reaches 165.1 then applies their team to Major 1) (where it gets locked), they should then be able to carry on playing [B], knowing their team is in the draw, even if their BR then drops to 164.8 |
So we'd have to start pimping our BR just to get in? |
Just an idea, but yes, you would potentially have to get a high enough BR to enter the tournaments.
No sure a BR can be 'pimped' as you put it, as you can only increase your BR by winning games.
But, nothing wrong with adding a few ideas into the pot, as it were. |
|
|
|