BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 19:02 |
 
|
a) most tournaments do not finish
b) no one outside of any particular tournaments knows/cares wtf happens in a tournament. Thus no sense of community.
c) other than the incredible long lasting fun of watching pact teams destroy goblin cheaters there is zero available in U that is not available in other divisions, thus the market dictates that matches are unlikely to spontaneously occur in U.
Thus my comments were directed at improving the overall enjoyment of U division. Not encouraging people to play "open" style games.
And i did start the post off by saying i was ignoring the topic title. |
_________________
 |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 21:03 |
|
| BunnyPuncher wrote: | | ...And i did start the post off by saying i was ignoring the topic title. |
Well, I didn't actually read your post... 
Seriously, though. I think that argument B (no one cares about tournaments and thus, no community) applies to your proposition as well.
If you use Unranked as nothing but a staging ground for this big tournament, you're developing a sense of community for everyone who is in that specific tournament, right? Who else is going to know/care wtf happened (to use your own phrase). As an example, how many people who aren't playing in Factions know/care who's hot in Faction 2a? I sure don't.
I don't see how it is any different than any other tourney, except for the possibility of a prize from the admins - and therefore you are arguing that your proposed tournament promotes this sense of community while no others do? For that to be true, it would have to be a 14,213-man tourney with every single active coach involved.
Now with all this, don't get me wrong. I think the tourney you've proposed sounds great. I just don't think it brings us any closer to making it easier for coaches to play in a division they prefer - which is what I thought the thread was about. We need to make the options for people a little more inviting, as I believe the majority of people feel "stuck" in R because of a perceived lack of games. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 21:22 |
|
I'd agree with everything you said with two caveats...
a) 5% of those 14K coaches likely play 80-90% of the games on fumbbl. The other 13K are just dead weight and should not be considered in any argument. This is my perhaps incorrect assumption, havn't seen the data.
b) You are assuming there are a whole horde of people wishing they could play in U but feel stuck in R. I would argue the evidence to date shows more of a feeling of satisfaction in the R environment than any wish to get out. However, without the option of a LRB unranked league we will never know (the fact that we do not have an unranked LRB league is imho a huge mistake. However, the admin disagree. And yes i've heard their argument that you just don't play the silly teams. I simply think it is a BS argument).
and one retort...
c) what I proposed was definitly not a cure all. Just a different approach. Obviously the propsed mega-league would attract only the hardcore coaches who are willing to devote a entire day to a tournament. In my opinion these people are fumbbls core clientelle, and making the site more enjoyable for them is key. Any surge in U would have to be driven by them.
and finally...
Yes there will be a sense of community beyond what exists in factions. IMHO factions sucks and no one outside pays attention to it because frankly, the marketing sucks. No fluff is the real killer. When no one tells the stories that happen and its not top driven, interest will be minimal. |
_________________
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 22:45 |
|
| BunnyPuncher wrote: |
c) what I proposed was definitly not a cure all. Just a different approach. Obviously the propsed mega-league would attract only the hardcore coaches who are willing to devote a entire day to a tournament. In my opinion these people are fumbbls core clientelle, and making the site more enjoyable for them is key. Any surge in U would have to be driven by them.
and finally...
Yes there will be a sense of community beyond what exists in factions. IMHO factions sucks and no one outside pays attention to it because frankly, the marketing sucks. No fluff is the real killer. When no one tells the stories that happen and its not top driven, interest will be minimal. |
This is the sort of thing I would like to see. 'Sanctioned' tournaments get noticed a lot more than regular ones. I have played in the FUMBBL Cups and the first X-Cup and really enjoyed them and the way they were presented.
It's good to see some of the big names (both teams and coaches) face off against each other, and to get to play against teams you normally wouldn't. I still remember getting beat by Mirascael's Orcs in the 2nd round of the FUMBBL-X, it was a great game, and has gone to make some of my team's history.
The part of Bunnypuncher's posts that appeals to me is the idea of 'Legacy'. I always record my team's histories, so I'm perhaps a little biased, but I'd much prefer 'lost in FUMBBL Cup 2nd round' (or similar) in my history than 'Meaningless-Obscure Tourney XXI Champion'.
I realise I'm rambling now and I'll shut up soon, but to summarise I agree with BP on the tourney stuff, I DO think sanctioned tourneys would generate games in general, and the 'Legacy' bit is the hook. |
|
|
tautology
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 23:49 |
|
I think BunnyPuncher has it exactly right.
The reason I play most of my games in the Ranked division is because it feels like those games "matter" (at least as much as silly pixels on a screen CAN matter;-)) Folks are generally serious about their play and the overall quality of competition is incredibly high. You can aspire to building legendary teams to compete with the likes of the Trees and the Burnville Godfathers and Charade and all the other teams that have managed to survive 75+ games and built a reputation for excellence as well as a staff of very skilled players. For instance, I can think of the names of two dozen formiddable Ranked teams without even trying. If I see them playing on the games page, I have at least a passing interest and might well spec a few turns. There are only 2 unranked teams that I can even think of, only two that are notable enough to possibly entice me to spec a game: The Crazy Kings (for the sheer bogacity of a fully developed all Ogre team) and the Terrifying Anarchists (who largely developed playing against all the Ranked teams). I wonder if the Anarchists would be the inspiring team they are if they had started out in today's unranked environment? I would probably be less impressed quite frankly, imagining (wrongly) that they'd had little competion most of the time, quite likely cherry-picking along to build up such monstrous players.
It is history that builds great teams and the possibility of making history that offers long term benchmarks for a team. And history is much more tangible when it is created in an environment where coaches care about their teams, care about winning. It is difficult, very difficult IMO, to build a dynasty in Ranked. I am a decent enough coach and I have worked hard to try to build a championship calibre team...only to see the vagaries of the dice eventually undermine my efforts.
Adding some element to increase the stakes in Unranked would at least allow for some benchmark of recognition. A regular set of "meaningful" open tourneys might be one way to do this.
As it is, I only play Unranked games in order to play my friends without worrying about legitimacy issues or when I am just frustrated by recent ranked games and need a break. Yes, the atmosphere is much different there, much more relaxed...and that is a nice break from Ranked. But ultimately the "who cares if you win or lose?" mentality deconstructs to "who cares if you even play?"
I am overstating that point of course, but for me at least there is some kernel of truth behind it.
Just my 2 cents, of course  |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2004 - 00:43 |
|
I agree with BP's assumptions, too... but not the conclusions.
I think that the 95% of people here who don't play 80-90% of the games (yes, assumed number disclaimer gets inserted here) are a little more than "dead weight". The same conclusion applies to making open U play more attractive - there may not be an overwhelming majority who want to play open games without ranking, I certainly think that there's enough people (and that there would be more, if it were perceived as being a valid option) that it merits attention, rather than dismissal.
| Tautology wrote: | ...I would probably be less impressed quite frankly, imagining (wrongly) that they'd had little competion most of the time, quite likely cherry-picking along to build up such monstrous players.
It is history that builds great teams and the possibility of making history that offers long term benchmarks for a team. And history is much more tangible when it is created in an environment where coaches care about their teams, care about winning... |
So, you don't think U games matter so you don't find them important and this keeps you from caring about your U games, right?
That only makes sense if you yourself are playing superfluous games without trying to win, right? If you are trying to win, then you should know that people can and do play Unranked and still care about their teams, their performances and their matches - since, like me, you're one of them. Right?
I'm off for the weekend, so enjoy the discussion, guys. I'll try to work up some more piss and vinegar while I'm kicking back and relaxing up in Maine. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2004 - 02:45 |
|
Honestly, I can't see the main reason why U is so attrictive to his defenders. I enjoy games against highly praised coaches and try to beat them in very tough showdowns. That's something I do not know if I will find in U.
I like tournaments because it means having a great goal to achieve.
But after this?
I don't know but I enjoy R games, it affects my CR which is somehow a goal for me -not to be first but at 160 roughly- (oddly, I never cared about my CR before getting over the 150 bench mark lol. and CR reset was a huge help) . In U, free games lacks of a goal. Building up a pretty team??? pfff I'm no fan of cherry picking.
Then what do I have more? relaxed and fun games? I personnaly do act with no difference at all between U-R-Dix X or faction. I play to win. Why would R coaches act differently.
So yes, if you want me to play in U for free games, I would like to see something making this division different from R. And not only CR. |
|
|
tautology
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2004 - 04:03 |
|
| Quote: |
Tautology wrote:
...I would probably be less impressed quite frankly, imagining (wrongly) that they'd had little competion most of the time, quite likely cherry-picking along to build up such monstrous players.
It is history that builds great teams and the possibility of making history that offers long term benchmarks for a team. And history is much more tangible when it is created in an environment where coaches care about their teams, care about winning...
Which Prompted BadMrMojo to reply:
So, you don't think U games matter so you don't find them important and this keeps you from caring about your U games, right?
That only makes sense if you yourself are playing superfluous games without trying to win, right? If you are trying to win, then you should know that people can and do play Unranked and still care about their teams, their performances and their matches - since, like me, you're one of them. Right?
|
Well, I hope my logic was not quite so circular as "So, you don't think U games matter so you don't find them important and this keeps you from caring about your U games, right?" would imply.
My assertion is more along the lines that the "anything goes" mentality of Unranked along with the expanded raoster of eligible teams (faeries, etc) leads to a different play environment, one which emphasizes "this game in particular" rather than "this team's march toward creating a legacy." I might for instance decide to experiment with playing Goblins against Dwarves in Unranked, or see if I can win games with a -50 strength advantage, or see if I can do anything at all with Snotlings against Ogres, or practically anything for that matter. I like the possibilities of such an environment and don't disparage its existence in any way, but as you can see from the examples above there are many factors in Unranked that (for me at least) have less to do with competitive play than with exercise of fanciful whimsy. Not to say that I do not or would not be trying to win, but really...100/79 Snotlings vs 242/207 Ogres? (http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=436694) Can you honestly say that this match was about a legitimate attempt to win a game? There is nothing wrong with a game like this; I fully and vociferously support the right of folks to play any way and in any game that they desire, and to do it for reasons that require no justification at all. But I also deeply appreciate the more structured environment of Ranked where at least a modicum of discretion is enforced as to match fairness and there exists at the very least a veneer of legitimacy to every match played. (Legitimacy in the sense that both parties are engaged in the primary practice of attempting to win in a game that was ostensibly judged to be within the bounds of fairness by both parties).
Playing where a certain sort of level playing field is enforced...that is the province where building a dynasty has meaning.
Playing where anything goes ... that is where it is difficult to generate a meaningful history.
Both are fun, but one is more likely to attract and preserve long term interest. |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 24, 2004 - 21:59 |
|
| tautology wrote: | | I fully and vociferously support the right of folks to play any way and in any game that they desire, and to do it for reasons that require no justification at all. |
While some of the admins may disagree (not to put words in anyone's mouth), I concur with this 100%. In fact, this point (voiced far better by Tautology than I) is really the crux of my argument for trying to change the perception of Unranked and it is also the one thing that does differentiate Unranked from any other division - it gives any two teams on FUMBBL the opportunity to play each other if the coaches desire to do so (and are willing to move their teams to the appropriate division).
No limitations on rosters, TS, etc... simply the ability to play freely. I personally think this is a very very good thing (and, coincidentally, the embodiment of the spirit in which FUMBBL was founded, according to my observations) and, thus, I'm tenaciously defending that point.
Thanks for phrasing it so well. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
