Joul_Ironhand
Joined: Jan 23, 2008
|
 Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 13:47 |
 
|
Perhaps I should start team building for the Fumbbl Cup from Today ^^ |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 13:50 |
|
Today?? You`re way too late...  |
|
|
Joul_Ironhand
Joined: Jan 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:23 |
|
Lol.
Maybe I was talking about the 2009 Fumbbl Cup.
Or maybe you were... |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:35 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | L forces me to play one game every week, or two weeks, or whatever, and I honestly don't know if I can guarantee that committement.
R, on the other hand, is perfect for Casual play. I can enter gamefinder and find a game whenever I want in 1 minute... |
Yep - you're exactly right. [L] isn't the place for very casual FUMBBLers, I'm afraid, as it stands. You're either tied into a schedule, or you don't play [L] since the split. And that's a shame, IMO. I do know a number of coaches that only play in [L], and order their RL around the two or three games a week they have to schedule in their leagues, but they're a die-hard breed! This is the group I'd end up in if I had to cut back any further than I already have (down to about 1 game every 2 days, I guess. Which is still a few, but isn't Dread or Emp levels! Puts me at about 2-3 [R] games a weekish). But I also know the opposite, guys that play numerous FUMBBL games, but have to take weeks off sometimes and can't or won't commit to a set schedule. We lose a fair few coaches from [L]'s potential catchment area here, much as some of these guys would love to be a part of a good league with all of the benifits that affords, [R]'s ease of use will always win out for a certain percentage. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:36 |
|
|
Qaz
Joined: Apr 28, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:41 |
|
Uhh jan often I see eye to eye with you. But not now. Duke T mentioned that what he loved with majors is that he can keep playing the team after the turnement I second that. L teams with a few execptions just dissapear after. Jan said that majors was the same teams and coaches. Isent that excactly what we want to see. The NFL or any other major sports league people have there favorite team and cheer for them it would be quite boring if it was some unknown team in the superbowl each year.
Then there is always the discussion with major prizes and birthday pimped and all but I dont feal like going into that. |
_________________
Superstition brings bad luck.
"he who has relied least on fortune is established
the strongest"
Niccolo Machiavelli |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:45 |
|
BTW, we should note that '[L] games are scheduled games' is just a convention. There's no reason why instant tournaments could not take place in [L]. Indeed, given how common it is for none of the (small number) of people able to start a Smack to be available, such a system - with a huge staff list - might in some ways be more practical. The main issue is the 'hump' of getting people into [L] (difficult due to advertising and inertia, as discussed). |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:46 |
|
Ahh (but just to play Devil's advocate Qaz, I'm not sure how much of this even I agree with), the Giants won the Superbowl because they were the best team. They had to play a fair schedule that they didn't pick, and they played the same number of games as everyone else. They didn't crank out 23 games on a day where they couldn't take injuries, prey on the Dolphins for all but 1 game of their season, or have a bank balance big enough to hire Peyton Manning and Zach Thomas in the Superbowl where the Pats didn't.
But I see the point. Team continuity is great. But the reasons you don't get it in [L] aren't just because people get fed up, it's tough to keep a team going in a division with no one-off games.
Edit: Yar pac, agreed. Why I said 'as it stands'. Change would be great!  |
Last edited by Purplegoo on Mar 12, 2008; edited 1 time in total |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:48 |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 14:54 |
|
| koadah wrote: | TR200 forget it. Many top coaches won't have a competitive team that they want to use.
There goes your kudos straight away. If the big name coaches are not there then it's not a big tournament. |
No one ever said it was going to be easy. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 15:19 |
|
| Qaz wrote: | Uhh jan often I see eye to eye with you. But not now. Duke T mentioned that what he loved with majors is that he can keep playing the team after the turnement I second that. L teams with a few execptions just dissapear after. Jan said that majors was the same teams and coaches. Isent that excactly what we want to see. The NFL or any other major sports league people have there favorite team and cheer for them it would be quite boring if it was some unknown team in the superbowl each year.
Then there is always the discussion with major prizes and birthday pimped and all but I dont feal like going into that. |
The point is different: you're SUPPOSED to be a spectator of the NFL.
On Fumbbl, you could take part, if only there weren't uberteams built just-for-that.
Now, the same could apply to NFL... I'm not the quarterback of Miami because there's a guy who trains every week and is so much better than me at the job that Miami decided to pay him instead of me.
But Fumbbl isn't real life. Isn't Fumbbl supposed to aim for the "max fun for the higher number of coaches" approach? If so, Majors fail imho. (not bitter about R Majors, mind you, just explaining you the difference). |
_________________
 |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 15:22 |
|
| koadah wrote: | TR200 forget it. Many top coaches won't have a competitive team that they want to use.
There goes your kudos straight away. If the big name coaches are not there then it's not a big tournament. |
Not quite true. Those who refuse are those who like uberteams (which LRB4 wasn't meant for anyway) and/or broken or easy matchups, with very few exceptions. The "cool" top coaches would just build a team in a couple days for that TR, and compete. And voilà, we would have a nice environment with no lamers but only the truly competitive big ones. Exactly what we would love to see.
The difficult part of this cunning plan, of course, is marketing  |
_________________
|
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 15:35 |
|
To me, the one big difference between many of the really interesting and challenging [L] tournaments as opposed to the [R] tournaments is there's never a chance for munching on cherries or noobs inbetween games. Its a slog all the way and it creates a very different style of game. Ranked tourneys, no matter what they do will never entice me anymore (I did play in one) because they dont have that magic ingredient.
As for prizes and options for [L] tourneys I'd love to see some extra features, it could be so much more than it is now. I agree with JanMattys about prizes not actually being a good thing for the top teams. It just makes the best teams better. But...I'd like to give prizes to the lads who get the wooden spoon in a tourney (for both sticking it out when the going is tough and to give them a much needed leg up if they've been mauled).
Lots more ideas in my head, but dinner is calling right now...! |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 15:47 |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 12, 2008 - 15:52 |
|
Yep, the OCCS has been in my mind here.
The main thing I would note about it is that it fits into the category mentioned earlier of [L] tournaments which run to schedules over relatively long periods. There are a lot of coaches (who play an awful lot of games) for whom this is not attractive. |
|
|
|
|
| |
data on the most use...
Search
