21 coaches online • Server time: 06:42
* * * Did you know? The most aggressive player is Taku the Second with 6628 blocks.
Recent Forum Topics  Increasing the max R... | No seasons! - Open P... | All Star Bowl!!! |
2009-01-11 10:38:09
45 votes, rating 3.2
45 votes, rating 3.2
100th BlackBox game. A suggestion.
Today I played my 100th BlackBox game.
And I absolutely love it! \o/
Although my opponent marred the occasion with a turn 4 concession, the two dead and niggled Chaos Warriors helped a little towards the post match celebrations of the Black Lagoon Biological.
But let's talk shop. We who dislike it, are finally free of all the pickety business going on in [R]anked. My teams in that division have all been retired, and I think all of us in the Box are more or less looking forward to the improvement of an already impressive - though yet far from flawless - system.
So after 100 games under my blood stained belt, I have a suggestion for the next level of Box. One that will make more games possible, especially for us who enjoy our touchdowns and casualties in less crowded time-zones.
Replacing/modifying the "Minimum Coach limit".
The Minimum Coach limit is now 6. If there are 5 or less activated coaches, it's not possible to play BlackBox. Consequently there are often favorable match-ups disallowed and coaches needlessly disgruntled, just because BowlBot didn't reach the 6-count.
The limit is there to protect against abuse. Against coaches making intentional match-ups, subsequently making it possible to rig games. Fair. We benefit from such protection. But I think that with a change, we can see more games, and still have a more than adequate cheat protection.
My suggestion is modifying how the limit works. Let me give an example:
When there's less than 6 coaches, instead of the overly strict no-games-allowed limitation, how about a coach vs coach and team vs team specific limit?
When configured properly (let's not get into the numerical specifics this time, please) this will allow for more games, and still protect against possible abuse and any too frequent match-ups of teams and coaches.
This limit would only kick in when there's less than 6 coaches activated, so it doesn't affect any of the match-ups procedures in the current system (ie. when there's 6 or more coaches).
I've aired this statement frequently in the #fumbblblackbox channel, and I've found that we can all enjoy our Bowl more with such an implementation (especially us time-zonedly challenged).
Thank you for reading through. I've taken up too much of your time already. Get back to the Box!
And I absolutely love it! \o/
Although my opponent marred the occasion with a turn 4 concession, the two dead and niggled Chaos Warriors helped a little towards the post match celebrations of the Black Lagoon Biological.
But let's talk shop. We who dislike it, are finally free of all the pickety business going on in [R]anked. My teams in that division have all been retired, and I think all of us in the Box are more or less looking forward to the improvement of an already impressive - though yet far from flawless - system.
So after 100 games under my blood stained belt, I have a suggestion for the next level of Box. One that will make more games possible, especially for us who enjoy our touchdowns and casualties in less crowded time-zones.
Replacing/modifying the "Minimum Coach limit".
The Minimum Coach limit is now 6. If there are 5 or less activated coaches, it's not possible to play BlackBox. Consequently there are often favorable match-ups disallowed and coaches needlessly disgruntled, just because BowlBot didn't reach the 6-count.
The limit is there to protect against abuse. Against coaches making intentional match-ups, subsequently making it possible to rig games. Fair. We benefit from such protection. But I think that with a change, we can see more games, and still have a more than adequate cheat protection.
My suggestion is modifying how the limit works. Let me give an example:
When there's less than 6 coaches, instead of the overly strict no-games-allowed limitation, how about a coach vs coach and team vs team specific limit?
When configured properly (let's not get into the numerical specifics this time, please) this will allow for more games, and still protect against possible abuse and any too frequent match-ups of teams and coaches.
This limit would only kick in when there's less than 6 coaches activated, so it doesn't affect any of the match-ups procedures in the current system (ie. when there's 6 or more coaches).
I've aired this statement frequently in the #fumbblblackbox channel, and I've found that we can all enjoy our Bowl more with such an implementation (especially us time-zonedly challenged).
Thank you for reading through. I've taken up too much of your time already. Get back to the Box!
Comments
Posted by Rafikii on 2009-01-11 11:23:17
10 points for creativity
10 points for functionality
10 points for improvement of the current system
An all up winner, especially for those who have limited play time or are in unfavorable timezones. Why should our location restrict the number of matches we get? A system that should surely be implemented.
10 points for functionality
10 points for improvement of the current system
An all up winner, especially for those who have limited play time or are in unfavorable timezones. Why should our location restrict the number of matches we get? A system that should surely be implemented.
Posted by Rafikii on 2009-01-11 11:55:18
Back up your votes with reasons you cowardly onlookers who care not enough to debate an issue they're against!
Posted by westerner on 2009-01-11 16:39:17
I'd have to see the details. Perhaps you'd care to start a forum thread?
Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2009-01-11 19:16:23
"Back up your votes with reasons you cowardly onlookers who care not enough to debate an issue they're against!"
See... this is a blog. If you want discussion I would suggest the forum.
See... this is a blog. If you want discussion I would suggest the forum.
Posted by Kryten on 2009-01-11 20:27:46
Start a forum thread, on the surface this is an excellent idea. As I understand it, the reason to force a minimum number of coaches is to ensure a sufficient pool of matchups to give the scheduler a good chance of producing mostly "fair" matches (fair being defined by the scheduler, or course.) More coaches generally means better matchups, because the scheduler has more to choose from. If you can mitigate this problem with your modification, and it sounds like you've got a good shot, write it up for us to debate.
Posted by SillySod on 2009-01-11 20:40:29
I think the main reason against this idea would be "being able to select your opponent at exactly the right time in a teams career is still a powerful abuse"
Basicly I like the idea but I'm not convinced that its 100% abuse free, notably if I have a beat up team and Kryten has a beat up team (and they havent played recently) we could arrange to meet up at 4am bbtime and garuntee a foul free game to give both our teams a bit of a leg up. So it would still be possible to engineer recovery games.
Basicly I like the idea but I'm not convinced that its 100% abuse free, notably if I have a beat up team and Kryten has a beat up team (and they havent played recently) we could arrange to meet up at 4am bbtime and garuntee a foul free game to give both our teams a bit of a leg up. So it would still be possible to engineer recovery games.
Posted by Balle2000 on 2009-01-12 06:40:52
By popular demand, I've made a thread with a poll here: http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=15224
And your comment is viable SillySod. Two solutions to this particular thing might be only scheduling with 3+ coaches, and only if the coaches haven't played each other before?
And your comment is viable SillySod. Two solutions to this particular thing might be only scheduling with 3+ coaches, and only if the coaches haven't played each other before?