49 coaches online • Server time: 14:01
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnome Roster - how a... | Problem to organize ... | Updated star player ... |
2011-02-04 20:53:43
40 votes, rating 4.3
40 votes, rating 4.3
Cowards in the Box.
I purposely chose a title to raise interest. Be glad it's not a thread.
I'm enjoying box. I really am. I think I may well keep playing after Ranked is transitioned. But BlackBox is full of cherry-picking cowards! So is Ranked for that matter! You want REAL competition? take off all these fair match-up restrictions on TV difference, and let me play up 350 TV for a decent challenge!
Now, the above is not serious, but this is:
The ability to choose games means I can choose teams better than mine, and coaches better than mine. Yup, If competition and/or challenge is really your goal, why use a random scheduler? Even if you love the convenience of it, why does Bowlbot not schedule everyone in as close a match up as possible? Why is there a limit on TV difference?
Now, I know you are going to say that challenging and competitive don't mean the same thing, but for all the accusations of Ranked being for pixel-hugging cherry-pickers, you certainly don't get yourselves the hardest match-ups possible in Box, do you?
For those who are all about tournaments and leagues, thanks for reading this far.... you didn't have to!
I'm enjoying box. I really am. I think I may well keep playing after Ranked is transitioned. But BlackBox is full of cherry-picking cowards! So is Ranked for that matter! You want REAL competition? take off all these fair match-up restrictions on TV difference, and let me play up 350 TV for a decent challenge!
Now, the above is not serious, but this is:
The ability to choose games means I can choose teams better than mine, and coaches better than mine. Yup, If competition and/or challenge is really your goal, why use a random scheduler? Even if you love the convenience of it, why does Bowlbot not schedule everyone in as close a match up as possible? Why is there a limit on TV difference?
Now, I know you are going to say that challenging and competitive don't mean the same thing, but for all the accusations of Ranked being for pixel-hugging cherry-pickers, you certainly don't get yourselves the hardest match-ups possible in Box, do you?
For those who are all about tournaments and leagues, thanks for reading this far.... you didn't have to!
Comments
Posted by DonTomaso on 2011-02-04 22:09:53
I'm longing for ranked...
But you make a good point, here you don't get the hardest games... you might get a fairly even game.
I'm suggesting another division: Black Box Hardcore
Just matchups, no restrictions.
But you make a good point, here you don't get the hardest games... you might get a fairly even game.
I'm suggesting another division: Black Box Hardcore
Just matchups, no restrictions.
Posted by Calcium on 2011-02-04 22:43:16
I actually love the Black Box Hardcore idea!
It would give us all some insane matches!
It would give us all some insane matches!
Posted by Ancre on 2011-02-04 22:45:33
Well, the big problem is that if your rookie flings are challenging TV2200 dwarves you're having a hardcore match ... but the dwarf coach don't ! Therefore ruining the purpose of the Black Box giving the hardest possible matches to the players. (It must be very difficult for the poor dwarf coach. Another disappointed fummbler.)
Posted by RandomOracle on 2011-02-04 23:00:43
A bit off-topic, but one reason why I didn't usually like to play as a big underdog in Ranked is that I didn't want to reward cherrypickers. I would gladly play a difficult match against a familiar coach whom I knew not to be a cherrypicker, but not against an unknown opponent.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind an option in the Box that would allow your team to get matched up against teams higher in TV than normally. This would both provide a bigger challenge on average and also make it easier to get games.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind an option in the Box that would allow your team to get matched up against teams higher in TV than normally. This would both provide a bigger challenge on average and also make it easier to get games.
Posted by Macavity on 2011-02-04 23:02:30
In Ranked, the dwarf coach can refuse.
Currently, in BlackBox, Neither of us play, because the closest match ups were between the 4 teams in between us in TV.
If (some of) the box proponents are claiming the reason it's better is that you get tougher matches, why is guaranteeing a reasonably close pairing a good thing? Wouldn't random be better? Or at least paired without limit, so I'd only hit that dwarf coach if no one was closer?
Currently, in BlackBox, Neither of us play, because the closest match ups were between the 4 teams in between us in TV.
If (some of) the box proponents are claiming the reason it's better is that you get tougher matches, why is guaranteeing a reasonably close pairing a good thing? Wouldn't random be better? Or at least paired without limit, so I'd only hit that dwarf coach if no one was closer?
Posted by Macavity on 2011-02-04 23:04:34
RandomOracle, as usual, you make sense, I was responding to Ancre in my previous post. I prefer to think of it as an opportunity to punish cherry-pickers, though! Play my halfling/goblin/human/wood elf team, no way they could hurt you! ;)
Posted by RandomOracle on 2011-02-04 23:10:22
Well, if you if pair teams randomly, you make it a harder matchup for one team but an easier one for the other. Theoretically, the games remain as difficult on average, but the variance of the difficulty increases. I'm not sure if that would increase the competitiveness of the division.
I feel that increasing the variance in matchups would make it easier to pair teams and thus get games, but it would also mean more unbalanced games on average, although inducements balance the games better than hanidcaps. It would benefit high-TV teams that would get matched down more often than up. Thus, it would benefit races that do well at high TVs such as orcs, chaos, elves, etc. Currently, you can use a human team effectively at TV 1200, safe in the knowledge that you'll never have to face a TV 2000 chaos team.
I feel that increasing the variance in matchups would make it easier to pair teams and thus get games, but it would also mean more unbalanced games on average, although inducements balance the games better than hanidcaps. It would benefit high-TV teams that would get matched down more often than up. Thus, it would benefit races that do well at high TVs such as orcs, chaos, elves, etc. Currently, you can use a human team effectively at TV 1200, safe in the knowledge that you'll never have to face a TV 2000 chaos team.
Posted by Macavity on 2011-02-04 23:28:11
I guess the problem is that different Box proponents propone different things. One thing I hear is that it's more like "Real Life" because you can't be picky about your matches. But in Real Life, the TV 2000 Chaos team SHOULD win most of their matches. Because they are a better team.
Never having to play a better team and 'most competitive' just don't co-exist for me. I'm not saying I would enjoy playing down 300 TV, I tend to prefer close matches. The basic arguments for the superiority of BlackBox seem very flawed, is the main thrust of all of this.
What do I like about Box? Time for a quick game, I get one quickly. Pretty much the total of it.
Never having to play a better team and 'most competitive' just don't co-exist for me. I'm not saying I would enjoy playing down 300 TV, I tend to prefer close matches. The basic arguments for the superiority of BlackBox seem very flawed, is the main thrust of all of this.
What do I like about Box? Time for a quick game, I get one quickly. Pretty much the total of it.
Posted by SillySod on 2011-02-04 23:30:02
Dont forget that the box used to compensate according to your coaching ability - so it gave you harder games if you were winning lots. That was a good challenge.
Sadly lots of "good" coaches whined and cried :(
Sadly lots of "good" coaches whined and cried :(
Posted by RandomOracle on 2011-02-04 23:43:27
One of the fundamental ideas behind the Box is that each match is relatively even. That doesn't mean you never play better teams, but it should mean you're rarely (maybe never) grossly outmatched. I don't see why playing even matches constantly should not be considered competitive. Sure, you can play more difficult games in Ranked, but in my experience that's not what the majority does.
By the way, what "Real Life" are you talking about? Table top leagues? I don't think you can compare a free-for-all league with thousands of teams to table top leagues that are typically scheduled and contain at most dozens of teams. In any case, I do think some limits are a good idea. I don't think it would be a good idea to match TV 2000 teams against TV 1000 teams if it can be avoided.
By the way, what "Real Life" are you talking about? Table top leagues? I don't think you can compare a free-for-all league with thousands of teams to table top leagues that are typically scheduled and contain at most dozens of teams. In any case, I do think some limits are a good idea. I don't think it would be a good idea to match TV 2000 teams against TV 1000 teams if it can be avoided.
Posted by Macavity on 2011-02-05 00:00:35
Maybe I need to start a thread where everyone says what they think box is supposed to be.
I agree with you, Random, that the basis of it is fair matches. But all the anti-Ranked messages seem to be based on Ranked being easier to win games in.... I don't know, maybe I just need sleep. I love challenges, and ultimately, Box will not be where I find my biggest ones in BloodBowl.
I thin Catalyst is the only merge proponent whose position makes any sense to me, everyone else is scared box will die, and therefore wanting people to have to use it, but trying to phrase it differently.
I would definitely play in an auto-scheduled division with no limit, but closest match ups possible picked. FFB testing was a lot of fun, with inducements flowing, and crazy match-ups!
I agree with you, Random, that the basis of it is fair matches. But all the anti-Ranked messages seem to be based on Ranked being easier to win games in.... I don't know, maybe I just need sleep. I love challenges, and ultimately, Box will not be where I find my biggest ones in BloodBowl.
I thin Catalyst is the only merge proponent whose position makes any sense to me, everyone else is scared box will die, and therefore wanting people to have to use it, but trying to phrase it differently.
I would definitely play in an auto-scheduled division with no limit, but closest match ups possible picked. FFB testing was a lot of fun, with inducements flowing, and crazy match-ups!
Posted by EvolveToAnarchism on 2011-02-05 00:46:03
That's why I play my Toronto OgreNots. With an all snotling team, it's always a challenge. And you never can truly lose ;)
Posted by fly on 2011-02-05 02:41:51
rated 6 for not understanding
Posted by uzkulak on 2011-02-05 15:39:50
I agree only in that for some teams it is an advantage to play non-equal games in terms of TV. flings and gobbos are the most obvious examples.
WHile for others like elves it can be an advantage but not so important.
But some races almost certainly gain an advantage from consistently playing games without inducements.
WHile for others like elves it can be an advantage but not so important.
But some races almost certainly gain an advantage from consistently playing games without inducements.
Posted by Hogshine on 2011-02-18 16:36:17
I only read the title and first line. Rated 6.