FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

f_alk

Joined: Sep 30, 2005

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:21

Smess wrote:

...
- There can be only two reasons: either they have way better dice than me ... or either they shamelessly pick their games in order to win as much as possible

One point that is very important for becoming a high CR coach is to not care too much for your teams.:
Your skaven team got decimated to the point where you need at least two well paid matches to get back into form?
Coaches caring for their CR will more likely retire it, as it would bring down his rating with say two secure losses. Regardless wether it would not be by much (as it has no high strength), it would lose and bring down his CR.
Bad start for a team in their first match (or even matches)? ... Retire it.
I refuse to let my teams die because of such things.

If you care too much for the CR, you also lose a lot of the fun aspect. It is fact that you find games in [R] much easier than in [U], so if you don't care
about your rating and you want to play a fun or concept team often, you will create it as [R]. A coach caring for his CR will create it in [U].

The ranking IMHO is quite useless, as it says as much about the stance and over-seriousness of the coach than his playing capabilities. There are more improtant things than BB, and I prefer to have fun here.

incantrix

Joined: Dec 09, 2005

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:32

Just an idea, if people don't like the idea of having a CR maybe make it optional so that people can opt out of it although once you opt out I don't think you should be able to reactivate it. Personally I think CR is a useful stat, it gives you a quick reference of how you yourself are doing in ranked and a rough idea of what kind of coach you're going to be facing. I strongly suspect that people who think only of their CR are missing half the fun of BB by constantly playing only safe matches where a win is far less satisfying than those crazy matches where you have to battle like crazy to score.

RC

Joined: Sep 22, 2005

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:33

The RRR tourney is very cool though. To me it is the best part of ranked and if you use it to increase your CR I couln't care less.

_________________
"Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar."

heinz

Joined: Mar 24, 2004

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:41

RonnieColeman wrote:

The RRR tourney is very cool though. To me it is the best part of ranked and if you use it to increase your CR I couln't care less.

RRR is devastating to the balance of the cr-system. It calls for frontloading, powergaming, limited choise of races and play styles, no team fluff, no fun.

IMO tournaments (except perhaps the majors) in general and especially RRR should have it's own ranking system. CR would be better off without,

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:41

More flowers!

I love this poll - you can choose between 'I´m an asshole', 'CR is flawed', 'CR is useless' and 'I hate CR'

heinz wrote:

RonnieColeman wrote:

The RRR tourney is very cool though. To me it is the best part of ranked and if you use it to increase your CR I couln't care less.

RRR is devastating to the balance of the cr-system. It calls for frontloading, powergaming, limited choise of races and play styles, no team fluff, no fun.

IMO tournaments (except perhaps the majors) in general and especially RRR should have it's own ranking system. CR would be better off without,

I´m not too sure, if it has such a huge impact. Rookie teams can get screwed by dice more easily - if it happens against a low-CR-coach it can knock your rating down BIG time. What might help would be a ruling that you have to play at least 10 different races in a RRR, before you can play the first again. I for myself plan on trying to win an RRR with every race - maybe with the exception of stunties.

Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %24, %2006 - %14:%Jan; edited 1 time in total

Smess

Joined: Feb 13, 2004

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:42

incantrix wrote:

I strongly suspect that people who think only of their CR are missing half the fun of BB by constantly playing only safe matches where a win is far less satisfying than those crazy matches where you have to battle like crazy to score.

f_alk wrote:

One point that is very important for becoming a high CR coach is to not care too much for your teams.:
Your skaven team got decimated to the point where you need at least two well paid matches to get back into form?
Coaches caring for their CR will more likely retire it, as it would bring down his rating with say two secure losses. Regardless wether it would not be by much (as it has no high strength), it would lose and bring down his CR.
Bad start for a team in their first match (or even matches)? ... Retire it.
I refuse to let my teams die because of such things.

If you care too much for the CR, you also lose a lot of the fun aspect.

These are the kind of unjustified overgeneralisations I was talking about...
(no offence ment to the coaches posting it)

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:50

OH... about funteams in [R]:

I wouldn´t take my Elfs too serious - they are suicidal, but I love them though I know they won´t last very long.[/url]

PurpleChest

Joined: Oct 25, 2003

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:51

FUMBBL Staff

I used to be in the top ten. I can't claim i didn't care, as I know i was there, i obviously did.

I got very lucky in a smack, and a cup, and the rating boomed. At the time i checked it every few games or so, especially after a good win. I peaked at 2nd.

Do i believe myself to be the second best coach on fumbbl: No. Am i probably one of the best 10: No. Am I one of the best 100: Possibly, but also possibly not.

So I agree CR is no accurate guide to ability. I suppose at best its a 'fair indication'

But the grief you get for having a high CR is incredible. PM, IRC PM's levelling accusations. game offers routinely -30str and mocked for not fancying it.

Now i languish far lower, care not a jot and have increased my fun factor. I get games easier, enjoy my gaming more and people give me far less grief.

I enter smacks now to help keep the CR trimmed down, if it gets too high. So in general i have no issues with it being removed.

BUT. Enough people use it as a stimulation and incentive to mean that removing it would probably harm fumbbl usage. Cherrypicking is a state fo mind, if it wasnt for CR it would be tr, or handicaps or something. People always metagame.

I never really understood why team rating went.

Numbers are there to look pretty, not mean things. If only we stopped attaching meaning to the numbers and starting seeing them like flowers. But then some people insist on competing for the prettiest flowers don;t they?
Sad

Last edited by PurpleChest on %b %24, %2006 - %15:%Jan; edited 1 time in total

Glomp

Joined: Jan 04, 2004

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 14:59

This discussion has been going on for a fair while, but it's usually been people ranting in IRC rather than a forum topic.

Ranking encourages people to play easy games and games that would involve a low chance of player damage, which might influence their ability to win more ranked games. I think if pressed everyone here could name someone who always plays easy matchups and in some cases people who flat out refuse to play any type of matchup which dosen't suit them.

People playing like this invalidates the CR, which is a shame because it'd be nice to have an open and competative division where being skilled has some benefit.

Suggestions

A greater creiteria for 'fairness'

The Fumbbl rules page states:

Quote:

Coaches are expected to play reasonably balanced games

At the moment this simply refers to people who feel the need to constantly play down a large number of TS points, but it could be changed to be an overall assesment of whether someone is constantly playing beneficial matchups (like avoiding 'bashy' teams).

People found to be constantly playing 'easy' games should be subject to forced team moves to unranked, coach rating resets and eventually site bans.

There are people who publically state on their coach page that they won't play certain game types which is clearly unreasonable in a competative league and the practice should be stamped out.

Pros

- It'd make ranked more competative
- It'd stop 'elfbowlers'
- It'd promote more 'real' superstar players as they'd be more difficult to cultivate

Cons

- It'd have to be policed by the administrative staff who'd have to use their judgement on specific cases. This is a problem because they may be overstretched already and also because it's more difficult to be objective and fair in cases which require a broader overview of coaches games.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A coach rating hit for retiring your own team

This is one of Britnoths suggestions, where every time a coach retires a ranked team they suffer a 5 point coach rating loss. This is to ensure people don't build ranking on disposable low TR powerhouse teams and then retire them when they become too difficult to manage. One of the hallmarks of a balanced league should be lots of teams surviving to maturity to give the 'late bloomers' (chaos, dark elves, etc) other teams to play against when they start to become strong.

Pros

- Less low level thuggery
- May encourages people to take a broader mix of teams

Cons

- May cause more people to play only 'soft' games to avoid gaining injuries (perhaps some creiteria that lets the coach off the 5 point penalty if their team gets unreasonably beaten up?)

- Teams that people get bored of quickly.

- Dosen't really solve the whole problem of people farming coach rating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random draws

Every 10th game or so the site locks the relavent team out and randomly generates a list of x coaches with similarly locked out teams in ranked (within say 10 points of TS) . Coaches must pick a team from the list to play if they want their team to be free to play other matches.

Pros

- Forces people to actually compte with better coaches.

- Forces people to play against races they normally wouldn't.

Cons

- Makes ranked slightly less free as you need to wait for a certain matchup occasionally.

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 15:22

brownrob wrote:

well im 160ish, i used to be 170ish, its not an attack on high CR coaches, as i used to be one. not saying all high CR coaches are cherrypickers, but the temptation is there... just feel that CR creates an unfriendly athmosphere... dont have time for an elaborate arguement, have to go back to work, more imporatant! Wink

The high CR coaches get cherry picked in a way too: If I see a coach with a great team and high CR, the high CR usually is the more important criterium for declining the game.

Topper

Joined: Aug 03, 2003

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 15:51

I care about CR.

I play pretty much everyone, this means that some games are against TR 250 Ogre teams or my woodies vs Dwarves etc.
I am attached to my players too even though they die alot.

I like CR because it gives me an idea of how good an opponent I can expect to play or just did play.
I also like it because it´s nice to gain a CR jump after a hard fought match.
I usually meet coaches around my CR, because it calls for closer games - This means I loose some and win some.
Hopefully it will help me get better too, as a 160 CR coach is better than a 148 coach is.
Thus I might get a bit more used to do the "perfect" thing everytime, because I have to in order to win.

One thing that really irritates me is to be called a cherrypicker - or as it happens "high CR coaches are cherrypickers".
I am not, and actually I think that there is more "cherrypickers" so to say in the low CR.
They simply say no to perfect reasonable matches alot more than high CR players does.

These are my views on this subject.

centaur

Joined: Jan 15, 2005

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 16:13

i wish i could care less about my cr though it isnt worth caring about at all as it is slightly over 150.
so i voted for more flowers Very Happy

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Jan 24, 2006 - 16:23

CircularLogic wrote:

More flowers!

I love this poll - you can choose between 'I´m an asshole', 'CR is flawed', 'CR is useless' and 'I hate CR'

heinz wrote:

RonnieColeman wrote:

The RRR tourney is very cool though. To me it is the best part of ranked and if you use it to increase your CR I couln't care less.

RRR is devastating to the balance of the cr-system. It calls for frontloading, powergaming, limited choise of races and play styles, no team fluff, no fun.

IMO tournaments (except perhaps the majors) in general and especially RRR should have it's own ranking system. CR would be better off without,

I´m not too sure, if it has such a huge impact. Rookie teams can get screwed by dice more easily - if it happens against a low-CR-coach it can knock your rating down BIG time. What might help would be a ruling that you have to play at least 10 different races in a RRR, before you can play the first again. I for myself plan on trying to win an RRR with every race - maybe with the exception of stunties.

yes it is not such a good safe way for CR. actually, I gained 7 CR points by beating Smess ( Razz

Smess ha ha) beeing 20 str down to him. But trully, he was screwed by the dices. I clearly IS a better coach than I and lost a lot in this game. Joining an RRR or smack increases your chances but damn, it's really really dangerous.