Flix
Joined: Oct 26, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 11:30 |
 
|
what about the Idea to have the Top list in CR and BR with the Max CR BR the players ever reached. That results that players can play on without getting out of the top 10 rankings. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 12:00 |
|
|
Cloggy
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 12:26 |
|
I would expect not. This graph has been there for ages and just became "hidden" because the button for it was removed (probably to reduce site load).
It's very unlikely that a new graph was produced for another rating when there's no intention of showing these graphs directly on the site. |
_________________
Proud owner of three completed Ranked grids, sadly lacking in having a life. |
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 13:31 |
|
I would actually make a suggestion for the opposite... We don't need a hall of fame, we need more dynamic and actual top lists. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 14:37 |
|
+1 on what flix said
-1 on what woodstock said |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 16:02 |
|
Is this really deserving of a spot on Christer's to-do list? If I dispassionately look at it from the point of view of someone who likes numbers and rankings (and takes off my bias can we-delete-them-all glasses), I still can't see this as something worth spending time on with everything else still to do with division transfers to FFB, the league upgrades, the possible new face on the site Whatball was talking about a while back, etc, etc.
If you look at it from the point of view of Ranked being historically number one and the talk being of it returning to a position of strength when tournaments come back (Flix - I've seen you say this yourself, so it's a theory you subscribe to), and the problem is solved, I believe inactive coaches fall off of the list after 2 months?
I'd say wait and see if B sticks around, and if it does, once the site is all changed over and ship shape, then bring it up. Afterall, the division is doing fine whilst BR isn’t even working properly, so it hardly seems to need an instant looking at, it‘s not stopping people playing! I'd humbly suggest, if you're going to look at B rankings, that we give team ranking a lot more bias. Doesn't matter how good a coach you are if Ogres are your favourite team, one roll up number is way too easy to manipulate and doesn't say a lot. I'd like to see R and B games (if B continues to get play long term) contribute to a coachs' team CR, and that be the thing we're looking at when we pour over numbers. Maznaz had some superb ideas in a different thread about numbers and prizes that could be attached to B, I think they'd be a better use of time than this. |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 16:05 |
|
@Goo: 95ish% of the suggestions made these days has very low priority. But it can do no real harm discussing them.
Edit: Moved the thread to 'Ideas & Bugreports'. More appropriate. |
|
|
PorkSol
Joined: Jan 10, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 16:15 |
|
It would be nice to provide more visibility for the Black Box Win rating stat.
Right now it has no visibility outside of the top 10, and it probably isn't entirely coincidental that people don't always play to win, because winning isn't that important compared to preserving your good players and killing the opponent's good players.
If you have more blackbox games than ranked games, it should probably at least show up in your profile instead of the coach rating. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 16:25 |
|
Yeah, fair enough Woodie. We talk enough about rules that won't change, fair enough very low priority ideas too. 
PorkSol, do you think people are not playing to win due to a lack of number? I'm not sure about that. And if people you play aren't playing to win, numbers mean even less!
But anyway, enough from me!  |
|
|
PorkSol
Joined: Jan 10, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 16:38 |
|
I agree that there are probably multiple reasons why people don't play to win, but the fact of the matter is BWR outside of the top 10 isn't visible at all. One has to imagine that people would be at least a little bit more interested in improving a rating that was actually visible. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 16:50 |
|
OK, so if we assume that to be the case PorkSol, does that not bring bad as well as good?
If we presume a visible number makes a coach interested in improving it, we get guys that want to win more and more. There’s loads you can do to improve your ranking in either division, both scurrilous and perfectly innocent, but neither end helps. If you just decide you want to run the tip top races and optimal teams (so, what, Dark Elves and some sort of min maxed bash team? Run the team to it's TV best area, sit on it, then retire and do it again the moment it looks like you might lose a game or have to recover) that cuts back on the diversity of the division all the more as a higher percentage of guys care about their number being representative of how good you feel you are or how good you want to be seen as. Or, you go too far and start selecting your draws, playing at specific times, doing the more underhanded stuff. I'm sure you get the idea, you can increase your BWR by a decent chunk just by playing super optimally or doing one or two slightly shady things, some of which it's best not to mention.
Frankly, I’m not sure visibility brings with it a need to win (see Burnalot‘s profile, for instance, fabulous coach, plays exactly the sub optimal races and team builds he likes, enjoys himself, we all know he's great despite numbers), but I quite like at the moment if we follow your hypothesis, a good coach can hide behind his ranking being hidden and play rubbish races or an all Zombie Undead team just because of the fun of it. By the way, he intends to win every game at the time, don't get me wrong, he's not one of the win is incidental machines you sometimes get in B at the moment, but if he was number hunting, he'd want to win more, and simply, he would.
I'm probably bias, I like that it's hidden. Not that I imagine I'll get much more use out of the division, but still. |
|
|
Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 19:55 |
|
Everything Pgoo says is true, however people also do like stats; but rather than make the current stats visable, which doesnt really bother me either way, Im sure we could do something more interesting like have a monthly and yearly B awards ermm thing...
Every month in the news section there could be a post that shows the team with the best winning record that month the coach with best winning record. Best passers bashers etc...
Then at the end of the year a similar thing. Obvoiusly I do not know how hard this would be or how the stats are currently recorded etc... but this type of thing would be a lot more interesting and rewarding to people than just having some stats on dispaly IMHO |
_________________
 |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 20:44 |
|
In my opinion, [B] has 3 potential long-term problems:
1) Top 10 List:
The current top 10 list totally encourages coaches to play tier 1 cookiecutter rosters exclusively and cease to play altogether once a top position has been reached. This not only totally opposes variety and diversity, but also discourages top 10 coaches to continue playing.
2) Grief-/Killerteams:
It's called BLOOD Bowl, I know, but regardless of whether the new killer-build of Claw/MB/PO/JU is broken or not, this kind of playing style has the potential to alienate a large number of coaches and cause them leave the box, especially if more and more players will go for such an approach (regardless of whether they concentrate on winning, bashing or even griefing, as it might very well be the best approach for all 3 strategies).
3) Low Variety / Diversity:
There is absolutely no incentive for variety and diversity (this problem is partially related with point 1 above).
However, if you want to encourage a larger variety of teams and rosters and keep the division thriving, there might be straightforward solutions to fix aforementioned problems:
1) Racial Rankings:
Introduce rankings for all 24 races (and use the combined average mean to determine the actual coach ranking, see below).
For purposes of ranking the score for races with less than 5 games played should be the starting default (i. e. 150 as far as I know). Perhaps you might want to only include teams with at least 5 games played or so.
2) Base the Top 10 on Racial Rankings Average Mean:
That way, coaches would be encouraged to play all races, not only the cookiecutter ones. To reach the top 10 you'd have an incentive top play as many races as possible.
You possibly might want to weight the individual racial rankings according to relevance (e .g. if only a small number of coaches play ogres, the ogre ranking should only have a small impact as well)
3) Have Rankings Expire:
A coaches' individual racial rankings should temporarily expire temporarily for races not played for a certain amount of time in order to avoid top ten parking (i. e. a racial ranking would be temporarily reset to the default value after like 3 months without playing the race for as long as the coach doesn't play at least 1 game with a qualified 5-games-team).
4) Team Rankings:
Introduce team rankings, overall as well as for individual races. Team rankings had been in place for Ranked a long time ago and people seemed to like it a lot.
You could even have [i]racial team rankings, you then could see which teams, in general as well as race-dependent, perform best against specific races.[/i]
I am pretty certain that these or similar suggestions might not only encourage many coaches to play a broad (or even the entire) range of rosters, but also would help to keep Blackbox prospering.
Anyway, I'm convinced that [B] would massively benefit from racial rankings, a top ten list based on racial rankings and team rankings (along with racial team rankings). |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 22:24 |
|
Frankenstein, I really like all your ideas there and I think they would all improve the [B]ox and make it even better, but especially this one:
| Frankenstein wrote: | 2) Base the Top 10 on Racial Rankings Average Mean:
That way, coaches would be encouraged to play all races, not only the cookiecutter ones. To reach the top 10 you'd have an incentive top play as many races as possible. |
This is a great idea and I think it would really help to improve the diversity in the [B]ox. As a suggestion though, perhaps rather than base the top 10 on an averaged ranking over every race (which would work against those that aren't able to play a LOT of games), maybe average over each coach's best racial ranking in each of the categories in the regional [L]eagues/ELF, e.g.:
A) Rock
B) Scissors
C) Paper
D) Elves
E) Dynamite
F) New (LRB6)
Just a thought ... ?? |
_________________
"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!!"  |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 06, 2011 - 22:42 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: |
A) Rock
B) Scissors
C) Paper
D) Elves
E) Dynamite
F) New (LRB6)
|
there is no real criterium to base groups on.. Hard factors like races are much more appealing then made up ones. |
|
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
