pubstar
Joined: Jun 13, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 01:38 |
 
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | | pubstar wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | I think to keep it fresh, each months winner would be put into a 'champions pot' who battle it out for champion of champions every 3 or 6 months. Each champion may not compete in the normal division whilst in the champs pot (keeping winners fresh) and stays in the champion pot for 1 cycle year.
Each months winner could be determined by ff or win % or vice versa on count back followed by TW. |
You would need sub-divisions, each with their own champions pot. If only the top 8 coaches each month get stakes, it's not going to compel a guy like me who loses 60% of the time. If you broke it into quartiles though, I would love to battle for a shot at the Goblin Cup or whatever the crap tier would be called. Keep the quartiles secret somehow, so you don't have players near the cutoff losing intentionally. |
Well one thing modern gaming has shown us is that cleverly marketed pointless incentives are a real......incentive.
Divisions would be illusionary. Incentives could be awards, badges, even a finishing position with each race. So next month you try to beat your position with that race, that could be really addictive. There are many ways to entice the punters.
Marketing the idea and how the incentives of course are important (though I've probably damned the concept). |
Well, fair enough. Badges, acheivements, or just beating my own previous performance would work, possibly better than quartiles. We're on the same page though, that crummy coaches would need incentives to win, knowing they're a long way from the top spots. |
_________________
DOTP!
3DB Highlander!
Fill the Box Grid! |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 02:00 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | Why do you thinking mixing say ranked and box would be a disaster?
I also feel that Majors do not appeal to the majority of coaches on the site. More so the hardcore not the fringers that don't really have that much to say. |
I did not say that at all. I'd favor that.
I was referring to your idea to make a second blackbox that is based on team success (ie. FF, win percentage, CR or whatever) and mixing that with majors.
Because if the difficulty of my games is directly tied to my success, my teambuilding success will be greater the worse I play.
And I said you can either have a success based division without majors or an open division with majors but not both.
And then I added: That is unless you make qualification for the majors also success based.
But when you do that most coaches will just be excluded from majors and quite a few will never ever get close to qualify. SO the gaming experience could be hollow for them. (In a success based blackbox like division.) |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 02:06 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | | licker wrote: | | The Orioles spent less than half the Yankees? (Actually the Angels had a marginally better record, but the Orioles had the superior statistics). |
I was referring to the Royals, the AL Pennant winners. It's a tiny bit of a cheat, since their place in the World Series was a combination of long-term success and short-term luck in the playoffs, but it was tangential to the main point anyway. If you want a more concrete example from baseball, the A's are perfect. One of the best win% over the last decade, and never spent anywhere near what their peers spent. |
I know who you were referring to, but I was pointing out that the Royals were not the 'best' team in the AL. Yes, they won the pennant, but they were the 5th best team (or 4th maybe, anyway a WC team) at the end of the season. Granted, winning when it matters most counts, I'm not knocking them, just pointing out what their situation was.
You can point to the As or the Rays as well. Yet, as with the Royals, the ultimate prize has eluded them, and in the case of the As even getting a pennant has eluded them. But the point is that a good coach and GM can make up for a lack of resources otherwise.
However, give a team good resources and a good coach, and then you have teams like the Yankees with Jeter and Rivera, teams like the Red Sox who one 3 of the last 10 WS, teams like the Cardinals and Giants...
Anyway, baseball talk is fine, but the analogies to how a MLB team puts together a roster really are a huge stretch to a BB team. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 11:45 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | The commissioner wanted to, regarding another issue. However I think how vocal those that wanted to stay to the official ruleset were, surprised him.
Therefore he has kept to the official rules. In his position I would have done the same thing. |
Ok, so put me into the camp who disagrees with you on the original post, but agrees with you that rules change is warranted. |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 11:48 |
|
| pubstar wrote: | I have a question for those who are practiced at TV management:
How overstated is the OP's skeleton's value versus actual cost? I would say 20k, since you're really not getting much utility out of DP, but the other skills are good.
However, I know there are some coaches who think +ST is overcosted, so the actual amount overstated might be 30k or 40k. Does that sound accurate? |
My estimation is about 25k. DP is almost always useless, nut sometimes good. So I go with -15k on that one. Plus on that particular player I would say strength is worth about 40k, not 50k. Thus the difference is 25k. |
|
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 12:00 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: | Why do you thinking mixing say ranked and box would be a disaster?
I also feel that Majors do not appeal to the majority of coaches on the site. More so the hardcore not the fringers that don't really have that much to say. |
I did not say that at all. I'd favor that.
I was referring to your idea to make a second blackbox that is based on team success (ie. FF, win percentage, CR or whatever) and mixing that with majors.
Because if the difficulty of my games is directly tied to my success, my teambuilding success will be greater the worse I play.
And I said you can either have a success based division without majors or an open division with majors but not both.
And then I added: That is unless you make qualification for the majors also success based.
But when you do that most coaches will just be excluded from majors and quite a few will never ever get close to qualify. SO the gaming experience could be hollow for them. (In a success based blackbox like division.) |
Ahhh ok. I also wouldn't advocate a mix of a TV and FF style divisions. I was advocating having a scheduler/game finder in both. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 15:11 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
Ahhh ok. I also wouldn't advocate a mix of a TV and FF style divisions. I was advocating having a scheduler/game finder in both. |
Why would you need different divisions? Why not keep it all in the same division but run different schedulers.
North America is already pretty dead for the Box so splitting people between divisions won't help anyone.
The advantage for me of merging divisions is that I could use my favourite teams in both formats.
Beaten up teams can 'cherrypick soft games to recover.
does anyone care about being a 'pure scheduler' team anymore?
Not that I'm that bothered now. Most my favourite teams are now in [L]eague.  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
harvestmouse
Joined: May 13, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 19:40 |
|
I'm obviously not making myself clear. Box and Ranked would be merged. You could then choose whether or not to use the scheduler or the game finder.
There would also be a (for sake of argument let's call it a FF match maker). Which had exactly the same. A scheduler and a game finder.
Possibly an award for those that just used the scheduler on teams for so many games or something, as they're very protective on that subject. |
|
|
akaRenton
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 19:48 |
|
From Christers blog in 2011:
Merging the divisions
A number of people have suggested to merge the divisions into one. The reasoning behind this is to try to get the "best of both worlds". The way I see it, merging these two divisions would completely destroy the point of the black-box. The two different types of competitiveness I outlined above are simply not compatible and one of them would die (hint: it would be the open ranked way that would survive). Inherently, removing a division while they're both relatively active is nothing I intend to do. Sure, Ranked is currently vastly under-played, but I believe that's mainly because people want to play LRB6 rather than LRB4. Once I can migrate Ranked as well, I will continue to monitor the number of games played and go from there. The migration to a new client is probably the most complex change that I've done on the site over the years and I really don't want to do other fundamental changes if I don't have to.
If anyone knows of a more recent response to the issue from him that favours a merge, fair enough. If not, consider that dead horse flogged. |
_________________
Dirty Cranberries - All zombie funtimes
Fumbbl Image Library - Free images to make logos, player bio pics etc |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 20:11 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: | I'm obviously not making myself clear. Box and Ranked would be merged. You could then choose whether or not to use the scheduler or the game finder.
There would also be a (for sake of argument let's call it a FF match maker). Which had exactly the same. A scheduler and a game finder.
Possibly an award for those that just used the scheduler on teams for so many games or something, as they're very protective on that subject. |
You still appear to be talking about two divisions, two schedulers. Hence my previous comments.
I don't think that the FF scheduler or VoodooMike scheduler were very popular ideas. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 20:12 |
|
Flogged or not, it's always useful to review current conditions and make decisions based off of the current state rather than what was assumed 4 years ago.
My personal problem with both R and B is that they are not what they are stated to be. This is because there is ultimately no point to either of them. Sprints and building for majors is not a point to either, they are simply options that some (clearly not all) coaches use those divisions for.
Both divisions need to be better defined as to what their purpose is. Frankly, a place to play a game, is not really enough in my opinion.
Which takes me to the other issue. And this issue isn't mine alone, it's the fact that in Western Hemisphere time zones, evenings/nights are basically dead in both. So even if you leave it as 'a place to play a game' you can't, because the population of the players is too low. Ok, that may or may not be something anyone can solve, but it was not always like this, which has had me begging the question of why the player base disappeared.
My admittedly small sample size of asking players I know/knew why they don't play (much) any more points back to earlier complaints about the nature of both R and B. I won't rehash that, I won't even suggest that a merge would increase the number of games being played, but it's pretty clear that in the present state, B doesn't work and R isn't much better. |
|
|
billiebob
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 20:25 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | I greatly enjoy Box and Ranked.
All the teams I have I try to develop into teams that are capable to win majors.
Over time I have realized that this is a futile undertaking, that a team i think is capable of winning is very rare, especially in blackbox and so most of the time I just hope to get lucky.
So development is a long term goal but on a game to game basis I do not think about in anymore.
On a game to game basis I focus on winning every time and every single game.
I'm pretty sure that's the approach where you get the most out of those divisions.
When your approach to the game is to keep your TV intentionally low, you are just drifting around with no purpose or higher goal.
When your approach to the game is to only ever build the highest possible team and you neglect winning over it, you neglect what the game is actually about and miss out on the best part of it in every single game over some obscure metagoal that is far ahead in the future and ultimatively doesn't really matter either if you only obtained it by gaming the system to the max.
In my time on Fumbbl I found that people will talk everything bad you do, short of playing a dwarf team that passes or using an all snotling team.
Once an Ogre team was banned from majors for winning one.
So I think in this massive pool of hatred, envy and misstrust it is always important that you are comfortable with the way you approach the game and just make sure that you don't sell yourself to a strategy you wouldn't respect for being successful.
Because if you don't, you have already lost before you even start a game. And because of that any argument like: I don't want to play x but i have to because it's peer pressure and the like is ultimatively futile.
If you don't feel fine about the way you play the game, then it is because of the way you are playing it.
And if you do feel fine about the way you are playing and are proud of what you archieve by doing it, you are not doing it because of peer pressure but because you think it is worth something. |
Sorry to be moving this discussion back but I really wanted to emphasise the above point. I don't usually post here but the above struck such a strong chord that I couldn't help re-posting it.
When I started out playing on this site, I struggled like most newcomers here in that the games were very different to the ones that I was used to playing on TT. Subsequently I left the site on several occasions due to my frustrations.
I eventually had an epiphany while playing a human team in the box back in the end of 2012. I kept losing games but convinced myself that it was ok as I was developing a player and the team's TV was progressing upwards. I then had a realisation and instead of thinking about developing the team, I started to concentrate on trying to win every single game that I played.
This did not make me a better player, but it significantly increased my overall enjoyment of playing and even though I still don't have a lot of time to play games here, I will always return. When I used to lose a player I'd be gutted thinking of all the effort that had gone into developing it, now I just think of the best way to win the game with him/her/it gone.
Like Wreckage, I hope to eventually have a team that is ready for a go at one of the majors, but acknowledge that this is likely to be due to a bit of luck rather than any clever implementation of a plan on my part. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy playing games that are available at short notice - the brilliant positive of R and B that is often not stated is the availability of games - I can play blood bowl when I like - amazing!! |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 20:28 |
|
| harvestmouse wrote: |
I also feel that Majors do not appeal to the majority of coaches on the site. |
Interesting, because, I think they are very appealing to the majority of coaches who do play in R/B.
As licker pointed out and I agree with. The only real purpose of playing in R/B is play for a specific tournament or end game. Otherwise it is just a endless, pointless, boring and unfulfilling form of Blood Bowl. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 20:41 |
|
You're faulting the two largest divisions on Fumbbl for not having 'a point' because coaches use it to seek out their own varied adventures at their own pace.
Not only that but you're holding up leagues as having 'a point' but it's just an arbitrary agreement among self selecting players that you're all trying to do the same thing which is winning an ephemeral digital award by defeating one another's teams.
Maybe I'm getting hung up the words you use - maybe Box and Ranked don't have a unified 'point' but surely they serve a 'purpose'. Also, I've seen 2 years of complaining about Box and Ranked numbers and honestly, what is there to do about it? Summer numbers are not always great. We don't have a steady stream of new players because GW/Cyanide are a bunch of bungling bunglers. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 01, 2015 - 20:52 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | harvestmouse wrote: |
I also feel that Majors do not appeal to the majority of coaches on the site. |
Interesting, because, I think they are very appealing to the majority of coaches who do play in R/B. |
Why would you think that? Around 2500 coaches play on Fumbbl each month. Most majors only accept 128 or 256 coaches. That is around 5-10% Maybe a few more apply but don't get in. But not 'the majority'
| PainState wrote: |
As licker pointed out and I agree with. The only real purpose of playing in R/B is play for a specific tournament or end game. Otherwise it is just a endless, pointless, boring and unfulfilling form of Blood Bowl. |
The purpose for playing R & B is to play games. If anything else adds to your enjoyment then great. But becoming champ of all Fumbbl will not buy you a bigger house or a better car.
Play it because you enjoy it or don't play it. It's better you whine on the forums than whine in game. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
|
|
| |
Jump up on a tree?
Search
