| Poll |
| Hourly box activations? |
| Permantly change box to hourly activations |
|
2% |
[ 3 ] |
| Permantly change box to 30mins peak, hourly offpeak |
|
3% |
[ 4 ] |
| Trial change box to hourly activations |
|
3% |
[ 4 ] |
| Trial change box to 30mins peak, hourly offpeak |
|
24% |
[ 25 ] |
| Change nothing |
|
64% |
[ 66 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 102 |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
 Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 16:33 |
 
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Taking that to B.. No matter what you do, unless there is an outside agency testing and screening potential players, you will never stop us casual, fun seekers coming along and cracking smiles while playing you. |
Who is trying to stop casual players coming and playing in B? I don't remember saying that.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Hear me now JellyBelly and MattDakka, your dream is impossible. You cannot define how others behave, what they perceive or what they do. there is no purity, no right way, no ideal or paragon to reach. There is just messy, stupid, silly people playing BB in whatever way they choose, and you must carve your fun out of that. Trying to force such joyful randomness into a pattern you crave is Cnut like in its fallacy. Like fending a Juggernaut. |
I think you've seriously misunderstood what I've been trying to say, PC. This isn't about trying to force people to play in Box or make them play competitively if they don't want to. It's about how the site caters for the more serious, competitive crowd (and whether it should).
You might not want to play competitive (god forbid!  ), but there are other people around that do want to play more serious, competitive Blood Bowl. My key point is that, if the site wants to sustain a more serious, competitive environment, then the rewards for playing in that environment should be greater than the rewards for playing in the less competitive, more casual environment just next door.
Part of this comes down to what Christer wants the site to be and what his intentions were when he set up the B division. Was it supposed to be 'just another way to generate BB games', or was he trying to set up a more serious/competitive playing environment? If it was the former, then he may as well have just added a scheduler to R (or just merge them, as you and koadah have suggested). However, the fact that he created a new division suggests to me that it was more the latter. Otherwise, why split the player-base?
There are a lot of things that could be done to boost the Box, involving rewards and/or closing exploit loopholes, if Big C wanted to do them.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | I need to quit B then. I refute that I ever try hard, i certainly don't plan for my gaming to ever involve effort and the idea of perseverance makes me shudder. Yet I flatter myself I am far from an easy win, for most. |
I like the way that the guy who's won close to 200 FUMBBL tourneys is telling us he doesn't try hard. The rest of us must be really bad then! XD |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
If you set a number of predetermined skills to match 0 (zero), those skills will be applied in open play matches. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 16:48 |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 16:58 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 17:39 |
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | MattDakka wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | "Casual" people may well "try hard to win". |
When a casual tries hard to win he starts to be competitive, otherwise he would not try hard.
If he just tries to win but without too much effort and perseverance he's still casual. |
I need to quit B then. I refute that I ever try hard, i certainly don't plan for my gaming to ever involve effort and the idea of perseverance makes me shudder. Yet I flatter myself I am far from an easy win, for most.
|
Please read carefully what I wrote. I referred to "casual coaches", not to "competitive coaches", as you are indeed. Even when you don't try hard your level is high enough to be defined as competitive anyway. Also, I didn't mean that you are forced to play competitively, but I think it's reasonable to expect a certain degree of competition and commitment in a competitive division, otherwise it should not be classified as "competitive". It could be called "matchmaking unranked division" then.
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Or maybe, just maybe, it's fine for you to game as you want, and leave me the hell alone to game as i want. |
I agree with you to a degree, but when you (generic you, not PC) play in certain ways, for example exploiting rules loopholes like cpomb or teams with 0 rrs, your freedom of gaming as you want suddenly collides with the freedom of gaming of your opponent.
I'm not referring to you, nor implying you exploited/exploit loopholes, but some coaches did and still do.
That could put some coaches off the division, not because they don't want to compete, but because they perceive the competition as unfair due to roster meta advantage + TV matchmaking pairing.
This is detrimental to the division, because could make it less appealing and less populated. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 18:18 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 18:27 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | How big a deal is this min/maxing really? |
I think big enough to make some coaches refrain from activating when a minmaxer (or monoactivator, or both) is online, especially during low traffic time.
For sure it's not as serious as in the past, when there were teams with 2 cpombers at TV 1200.
| koadah wrote: | | What would you do to stop it? |
Considering illegal rosters which still have 0 trrs after 10 games (or another amount of games), or considering the TV of 0 trrs teams higher than how actually is (like +100 TV). |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 18:42 |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 18:58 |
|
Not many, not many, but even the ratio of 1 on 4 is relatively great for a single activation. |
|
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 19:09 |
|
OK. I can't help but ask.
Matt.. you like the word competative. You want competition. You want coaches to be forced to play competativly in certain divisions.
So in what way can you have been offended by an ultra-competative coach who was rocking 2 CPOMB players at 1200 TV?
Is there such a thing as TOO competative in your world? |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 19:12 |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 19:17 |
|
Dakkas arbitrary ideals need to be scorned and laughed at. Illegal Rosters...okay dakka quixote. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 19:17 |
|
| The_Murker wrote: | OK. I can't help but ask.
Matt.. you like the word competative. You want competition. You want coaches to be forced to play competativly in certain divisions.
So in what way can you have been offended by an ultra-competative coach who was rocking 2 CPOMB players at 1200 TV?
Is there such a thing as TOO competative in your world? |
Competitive is one thing, exploiting rules loophole + TV matchmaking is more than competitive, it's a cheap exploit to win.
It shifts the emphasy from good playing (that is the trademark of skilled coach and should be the focus of a competititive division) to sheer dice rolling/relying on players' skills vs teams not yet skilled enough and ready to face that amount of destruction.
It's not a coincidence that, to prevent that, after a while a young team protection system was introduced in the Box, so teams freshly created could not be matched vs minmaxer teams.
The competition must be fair. |
|
|
The_Murker
Joined: Jan 30, 2011
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 19:38 |
|
"Competitive is one thing, exploiting rules loophole + TV matchmaking is more than competitive, it's a cheap exploit to win."
OK, but a 'young team protection system' WAS introduced. So why aren't you rocking a 1200 TV Renegade team with 2 Claw-Mighty blow players now?
Could someone argue that YOU are not being as competative as you should be? Why aren't you trying to win better?
Also.. what is your opinion of goblins in Black Box? Are they just giving everyone easy wins in what should be a hard-core division? Would you ban hobbits and goblins from Black Box? |
_________________
Join the wait-list. Watch the action. Leave the Empire. Come to Bretonnia! |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2017 - 20:09 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | How big a deal is this min/maxing really? What would you do to stop it? |
koadah, seriously, you need to stop talking as if you're some sort of authority on the Box. You're not. You've barely payed there in the past 3 years. The game has changed rulesets since the last time you played there with any regularity. Perhaps the Box has changed since the last time you played in it? The size of the player pool has certainly decreased, for a start.
I don't know how much of a problem min/maxing is at the moment, although there have been a lot of complaints about a certain coach involved with this thread being very prolific with it.
Personally, I think monoactivation is a bigger problem, and I would say it's played a big part in killing off the Box in the American timezone. Box is effectively dead now in the US, where I play. It can be very difficult indeed to get a Box game in the American evenings - often you're just wasting your time by looking.
There's no min-maxing in the American Box because there is no Box! |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
