20 coaches online • Server time: 07:25
* * * Did you know? The highest gate in a single match is 243000.
Recent Forum Topics  Replays - Fumbbl Cup | BB2016 Ranked, Leagu... | Fumbbl Cup - Are you... |
2013-03-07 19:35:18
21 votes, rating 4.8
21 votes, rating 4.8
Gamefinder Design - Ideas
The new gamefinder is a big step forward from the old gamefinder.
It makes it easier to offer games (just tick them instead of having to message each coach individually).
It now makes the transition from having found a game to getting started [usually] very smooth (start game > let's go!).
Sadly it is also a big step back.
The old way to find games was almost passive. You could list your team, and do something else. When your IRC client pinged, you knew you had an offer and could handle it. That is gone.
Now if you are waiting for an offer, you have to periodically check, maybe every 2-3 minutes. It's impossible to concentrate on anything else until you find a game.
Now if you have a high CR, you have to stare at this list, scrolling up/down clicking relentlessly hundreds and hundreds of times just to get games. It is mind numbing at times. It is productivity stealing. It is draining.
Before, all teams were only listed once. This made it really easy to grok the options available as well as look for games with multiple teams. Or if you didn't like the options for your current set of teams, but saw other options at a different TV bracket, you could make that decision quite easily.
Now if you dare list more than a couple of teams, as soon as a few other coaches are doing the same thing it becomes nigh unusable. Can you imagine this scaling if say double the number of coaches were using the finder? It wouldn't. So you are forced to limit your options - and the options of the other coaches - by listing just 1 team in order to remain sane. If you want to investigate other TV ranges, you have to fiddle about and keep interacting with this dynamically changing unmanageable list. It's all quite tricky TBH.
It needs a complete redesign. A total rethink. Not because Christer has done a bad job; not at all. It was a bold step forward and has its merits. Just anybody who interacts with it frequently really can't be happy with it, especially those who have to be on there for more than 5 minutes to get a game.
For it to improve, either we as a community wait for the doers (i.e. Christer) to have the motivation and energy to improve it again, or we have to suggest something better, something thoroughly thought through, something prototyped, and something that he agrees with and can feasibly implement.
Ideas please. I have my own, but I would like to hear others before beginning to formalise them.
It makes it easier to offer games (just tick them instead of having to message each coach individually).
It now makes the transition from having found a game to getting started [usually] very smooth (start game > let's go!).
Sadly it is also a big step back.
The old way to find games was almost passive. You could list your team, and do something else. When your IRC client pinged, you knew you had an offer and could handle it. That is gone.
Now if you are waiting for an offer, you have to periodically check, maybe every 2-3 minutes. It's impossible to concentrate on anything else until you find a game.
Now if you have a high CR, you have to stare at this list, scrolling up/down clicking relentlessly hundreds and hundreds of times just to get games. It is mind numbing at times. It is productivity stealing. It is draining.
Before, all teams were only listed once. This made it really easy to grok the options available as well as look for games with multiple teams. Or if you didn't like the options for your current set of teams, but saw other options at a different TV bracket, you could make that decision quite easily.
Now if you dare list more than a couple of teams, as soon as a few other coaches are doing the same thing it becomes nigh unusable. Can you imagine this scaling if say double the number of coaches were using the finder? It wouldn't. So you are forced to limit your options - and the options of the other coaches - by listing just 1 team in order to remain sane. If you want to investigate other TV ranges, you have to fiddle about and keep interacting with this dynamically changing unmanageable list. It's all quite tricky TBH.
It needs a complete redesign. A total rethink. Not because Christer has done a bad job; not at all. It was a bold step forward and has its merits. Just anybody who interacts with it frequently really can't be happy with it, especially those who have to be on there for more than 5 minutes to get a game.
For it to improve, either we as a community wait for the doers (i.e. Christer) to have the motivation and energy to improve it again, or we have to suggest something better, something thoroughly thought through, something prototyped, and something that he agrees with and can feasibly implement.
Ideas please. I have my own, but I would like to hear others before beginning to formalise them.
Comments
Posted by truckerpunk on 2013-03-07 19:56:30
Something as "simple" as a small sound (like a ping) when someone offers you a game, would be really nice... For the ones of us who can still hear, at least. Of cause with the option to mute it. I'd imagine it could become insane if you add 10 or so teams. I'm sure you guys can come up with something a lot better though.
Posted by strikereternal on 2013-03-07 20:04:14
Will look at it when I have time, which means min. 1.5 weeks from now :)
but happy to help with prototyping etc.
but happy to help with prototyping etc.
Posted by Jeffro on 2013-03-07 20:06:46
Rated 4 for correctly spelling "thoroughly thought through"... lizvis: note the correct usage of the English language.
Posted by member1234 on 2013-03-07 20:21:51
Like the idea of a bit of a brainstorm. ;) Noises would definitely help. I'd go for some sort of tab system as well. Perhaps tabs vertically tabs for teams you have listed (hence you can see all matches available for that one team). A tab listing all teams currently on the finder, separated by division or by in a TV range. (toggle filter/box under that tab and perhaps a filter to only show them if you have a team in a certain TV range). A Tab showing the coaches on the finder and other teams they have with the ability to offer a game (I know, I know... useful for stunty though sometimes) etc. etc. etc. All these alongside the main window we have now. That's not a redesign though, more of a bolt on to the current one.
I miss so many matches (even now as I type this) as I'm always at something else with the gamefinder. Often I come back to the inactivity screen. If a coach with tons of teams pops up and activates them all that alone can make the finder unwieldy, I can't imagine having that many teams myself.
I reiterate the above that, a massive leap forward from before but still improvements could be made.
I miss so many matches (even now as I type this) as I'm always at something else with the gamefinder. Often I come back to the inactivity screen. If a coach with tons of teams pops up and activates them all that alone can make the finder unwieldy, I can't imagine having that many teams myself.
I reiterate the above that, a massive leap forward from before but still improvements could be made.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-03-07 20:29:42
as for the problem of large numbers of teams:
I would suggest having two seperate 'parts' to the screen, as well as three tabs to the screen.
Basically:
One half of the page is the current 'choose teams' page.
On the other half of the page, list all other teams (hopefully with several options on how to order them, by coach, by race, by TV, but simply by coach is fine); these teams would be listed as they currently are in the gamefinder, with the little button to get the quick description, which you could then click on for a full examination of the team. Next to the opponent teams is a second, larger CHALLENGE button; you click on this button and a pop up appears with all your teams (that you have chosen to put on the gamefinder who are valid choices for that opponent team based on both your and your opponent's filters); you can then select as many of those teams as you like to challenge your opponent.
The second tab is the 'challenge' tab: it lists all challenges other coaches have presented to your teams, similar to how the current gamefinder lists teams with the green background. However, that is all that would be on this tab so that we don't have to worry about colour options, and so that if you are one of those who simply accepts challenges from other people, then you could choose your teams on the first tab, and then immediately switch to this second tab. Next to each challenge is an ACCEPT button; by clicking this, you agree that the match up is a good one and that you are willing to play the game now. Whenever a new challenge appears on this screen, a ping would sound, and the tab would flash indicating activity.
The third tab is the 'offered game' tab. This lists all offered games, whether they appear because you clicked an ACCEPT button on your 'challenges' tab, or because an opponent click an ACCEPT button their own challenges tab after you have offered one from the list of opponents on the first tab. Whenever a new offered game appears on this screen, a ding (different from the challenge ping) would sound, and the tab would flash, indicating activity.
By listing all the offered games, we avoid the problem some coaches have where 4 or 5 games are all offered at once, but only one can be seen since the current gamefinder 'locks' itself to one as soon as it pops up and so you don't know if there are any more.
Variations: You could combine the 'challenge' and 'game offered' tabs into one split screen. You could separate the two halves of the first tab into two separate tabs.
I would suggest having two seperate 'parts' to the screen, as well as three tabs to the screen.
Basically:
One half of the page is the current 'choose teams' page.
On the other half of the page, list all other teams (hopefully with several options on how to order them, by coach, by race, by TV, but simply by coach is fine); these teams would be listed as they currently are in the gamefinder, with the little button to get the quick description, which you could then click on for a full examination of the team. Next to the opponent teams is a second, larger CHALLENGE button; you click on this button and a pop up appears with all your teams (that you have chosen to put on the gamefinder who are valid choices for that opponent team based on both your and your opponent's filters); you can then select as many of those teams as you like to challenge your opponent.
The second tab is the 'challenge' tab: it lists all challenges other coaches have presented to your teams, similar to how the current gamefinder lists teams with the green background. However, that is all that would be on this tab so that we don't have to worry about colour options, and so that if you are one of those who simply accepts challenges from other people, then you could choose your teams on the first tab, and then immediately switch to this second tab. Next to each challenge is an ACCEPT button; by clicking this, you agree that the match up is a good one and that you are willing to play the game now. Whenever a new challenge appears on this screen, a ping would sound, and the tab would flash indicating activity.
The third tab is the 'offered game' tab. This lists all offered games, whether they appear because you clicked an ACCEPT button on your 'challenges' tab, or because an opponent click an ACCEPT button their own challenges tab after you have offered one from the list of opponents on the first tab. Whenever a new offered game appears on this screen, a ding (different from the challenge ping) would sound, and the tab would flash, indicating activity.
By listing all the offered games, we avoid the problem some coaches have where 4 or 5 games are all offered at once, but only one can be seen since the current gamefinder 'locks' itself to one as soon as it pops up and so you don't know if there are any more.
Variations: You could combine the 'challenge' and 'game offered' tabs into one split screen. You could separate the two halves of the first tab into two separate tabs.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-03-07 20:33:00
To clarify, the second half of the first tab, where we list opponents teams, would look much like the old gamefinder did.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2013-03-07 20:38:23
I enjoy watching a lot of games. So when I go to the game finder, I do have to sit there. I also enjoy it more now, than through the IRC chat. A sound would be very helpful. It's kind of a wake up call to guys like me, who get distracted watching games. I don't think it's a too big of a deal, because I personally play more box than ranked. I do see the concern from more ranked coaches. There is a bigger problem when North American coaches search for games, because there is less of us. 50 max during the evenings. Most of them are in games, or doing other site related stuff. So waiting for a game is a problem. During European times, there a 100 plus coaches. Waiting for 3-5 minutes to get a game isn't that big of a deal. The guys that sit there waiting for the perfect match up, can sit there all day for all I care. A sound won't change their cherry picking. There should be a poll when you create some ideas. That would be helpful.
Posted by cameronhawkins on 2013-03-07 22:58:31
I think Nelphine's suggestion is actually a good and simple one–– my only suggestion would be that it hardly needs the middle tab.
Simply have all active teams listed on one side, and all challenges and offered games on the other side. The fist column would be much like the old gamefinder, the second would basically be like the current one, except only showing games that one person has green-lit.
Clicking on an active opposing team on the first column would result in a pop-up (like the skill choice pop-up) which has a scroll-down bar where you can select a team in the same division to challenge with.
Simply have all active teams listed on one side, and all challenges and offered games on the other side. The fist column would be much like the old gamefinder, the second would basically be like the current one, except only showing games that one person has green-lit.
Clicking on an active opposing team on the first column would result in a pop-up (like the skill choice pop-up) which has a scroll-down bar where you can select a team in the same division to challenge with.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-03-08 06:59:41
Cameronhawkins, I specifically want the middle tab seperate from the list of teams because I want each tab to have a very defined roll.
The first tab shows teams; I think it should show you all of yours so that you can easily choose which teams to put up on the gamefinder without going back to another page and 'losing' valuable time switching which teams are on the gamefinder if someone elses team comes on that you want to play with a particular team that you might otherwise not want to play (like you dont want to play pro elves today, but then someone comes on with high elves which is the last team you need to fill your pro elf grid).
The second tab shows challenges other people have offered you - having this seperate from the tab you challenge people on allows you to have a more simplistic view of what is going, and allows you to focus on only one task per tab. (Especially good for all those who like to multitask with other things at the same time.)
The third tab shows offered games (both sides have accepted, and just need to confirm, once both sides confirm, then we start the game like the current gamefinder).
At the same time, your version has less tabs too which might be a good thing. I'm just a fan of obvious information, even if you have to have an extra tab for it, so that skimming the gamefinder will be easier.
The first tab shows teams; I think it should show you all of yours so that you can easily choose which teams to put up on the gamefinder without going back to another page and 'losing' valuable time switching which teams are on the gamefinder if someone elses team comes on that you want to play with a particular team that you might otherwise not want to play (like you dont want to play pro elves today, but then someone comes on with high elves which is the last team you need to fill your pro elf grid).
The second tab shows challenges other people have offered you - having this seperate from the tab you challenge people on allows you to have a more simplistic view of what is going, and allows you to focus on only one task per tab. (Especially good for all those who like to multitask with other things at the same time.)
The third tab shows offered games (both sides have accepted, and just need to confirm, once both sides confirm, then we start the game like the current gamefinder).
At the same time, your version has less tabs too which might be a good thing. I'm just a fan of obvious information, even if you have to have an extra tab for it, so that skimming the gamefinder will be easier.
Posted by Bobs on 2013-03-08 07:30:19
Or limit people to 3-4 teams each on gamefinder. Stops the option of "select all" and spamming gamefinder with teams you dont really care to play.
Posted by Beerox on 2013-03-08 07:51:27
Draining? As long as it lists all the possible matchups, I don't really care. The whole reason I come to fumbbl is because I got spare time :) No big deal to sift.
PM/IRC was a nightmare for any newbie, it literally sent me off the site for years. This is light years better, and nothing's perfect. Diminishing returns would likely accompany a rebuild IMO.
Ping is good
Showing all the possible matchups is good (stunty has a problem with this)
Other than that...
PM/IRC was a nightmare for any newbie, it literally sent me off the site for years. This is light years better, and nothing's perfect. Diminishing returns would likely accompany a rebuild IMO.
Ping is good
Showing all the possible matchups is good (stunty has a problem with this)
Other than that...
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 08:25:57
No change will have any bearing on how bad the cherry picking has got there. It takes the best part of an hour for me to get a game and i have accept huge unvafourable match ups most of the time or I just can't get a game.
Cr should be removed, link to the team and team name should be.removed, coach names should be removed. The yellow page should display the full roster properly. Do all these things and getting games would be possible. Also a ping noise is definitely needed.
Cr should be removed, link to the team and team name should be.removed, coach names should be removed. The yellow page should display the full roster properly. Do all these things and getting games would be possible. Also a ping noise is definitely needed.
Posted by koadah on 2013-03-08 10:50:55
So new/weaker coaches can get slaughtered in every match? Then they may as well play in the Box. At least then they'll be able to min/max a team to give themselves a chance. ;)
If the higher CR coaches don't have the stones to play each other that is not a reason to ruin it for everyone else. ;)
If the higher CR coaches don't have the stones to play each other that is not a reason to ruin it for everyone else. ;)
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 11:21:08
well maybe that is the problem.
I just click every game that is about the same TV other than zons because i hate playing them, never fun for me. And I usually tick a few games where I am the TV underdog too if it is generally considered a favourable racial match up. The problem is none of these get accepted, or very rarely, which only leaves noobs which offer me games or me accepting unfair match ups for me.
It is getting very silly, I don't think cherry picking has ever been so bad as it is right now. Although it may also have something to do with the fact I typically dont get to play at peak times.
but I dont see a problem with people not knowing the CR of their opponent. yes rookies will get matches against higher Cr coaches sometimes but high Cr coaches will also get games against high CR coaches and low vs low. The important thing is matching based on TV and being able to avoid minmax cheese.
I just click every game that is about the same TV other than zons because i hate playing them, never fun for me. And I usually tick a few games where I am the TV underdog too if it is generally considered a favourable racial match up. The problem is none of these get accepted, or very rarely, which only leaves noobs which offer me games or me accepting unfair match ups for me.
It is getting very silly, I don't think cherry picking has ever been so bad as it is right now. Although it may also have something to do with the fact I typically dont get to play at peak times.
but I dont see a problem with people not knowing the CR of their opponent. yes rookies will get matches against higher Cr coaches sometimes but high Cr coaches will also get games against high CR coaches and low vs low. The important thing is matching based on TV and being able to avoid minmax cheese.
Posted by koadah on 2013-03-08 11:41:31
Your CR isn't really that scary. The 1500 games looks formidable though. Also 60+ win%. You only have two active R teams and they are a combined 18/5/1. That's probably better than the majority of the min/maxers.
Beating a min/mmaxer is probably easier than beating you. ;)
People also want to be able to get through to the coach bios to find out whether the opponent is likely to take 4 minutes every turn, get the hump if you take more than 2 minutes a turn, have a fit if you kill one of their players, stall, foul etc.
Beating a min/mmaxer is probably easier than beating you. ;)
People also want to be able to get through to the coach bios to find out whether the opponent is likely to take 4 minutes every turn, get the hump if you take more than 2 minutes a turn, have a fit if you kill one of their players, stall, foul etc.
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 12:19:50
Fair points. Though my Cr has taken a hit recently (mainly from lack of effort really :P ) and i think the term Legend may scare opponents off more. Although cool, I'm not sure these rankings do any good in ranked.
Fair point on the bio, i should probably stick something there.
I would just like CR to be less of a factor for people when picking games, my Cr may be quite high, but the current standard of my game is pretty low. I just want a way to get a quick fair game, these arent possible in Blackbox because of the min max issue, unless I join in. And ranked takes forever.
There is no easier solution than doing away with rankings in ranked.
Make the divisions, Unranked and Blackbox. This is the best solution imo.
Fair point on the bio, i should probably stick something there.
I would just like CR to be less of a factor for people when picking games, my Cr may be quite high, but the current standard of my game is pretty low. I just want a way to get a quick fair game, these arent possible in Blackbox because of the min max issue, unless I join in. And ranked takes forever.
There is no easier solution than doing away with rankings in ranked.
Make the divisions, Unranked and Blackbox. This is the best solution imo.
Posted by xnoelx on 2013-03-08 12:23:33
'I just want a way to get a quick fair game,'
'doing away with rnakings (sic) in ranked.'
You realise these are pretty much exactly opposite? Me (for example) vs a Legend coach, with any teams, is not a fair match.
'doing away with rnakings (sic) in ranked.'
You realise these are pretty much exactly opposite? Me (for example) vs a Legend coach, with any teams, is not a fair match.
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 12:36:48
So if i go and play nothing but low TV chaos and Ogres for ages get my CR down to 150, then it will suddently be a fair game will it?
xnoelx - this is exactly the problem, people think the CR Legend is actually meaningful, that this coach will be far better, the important thing is to have 2 evenly matched teams by Tv where no min maxing is going on. Nice clean fair teams that arent abusing the games mechanics. surely Cr is secondary when anyone can easily become legends if they want by just min maxing in the box for example.
xnoelx - this is exactly the problem, people think the CR Legend is actually meaningful, that this coach will be far better, the important thing is to have 2 evenly matched teams by Tv where no min maxing is going on. Nice clean fair teams that arent abusing the games mechanics. surely Cr is secondary when anyone can easily become legends if they want by just min maxing in the box for example.
Posted by koadah on 2013-03-08 12:48:58
But Garion whether you are a Legend or not you are still 18/5/1. For someone (probably most) looking for a 'fair' game those odds are worse than going in against the majority of min/maxers.
Also, you talk about it being impossible to avoid min/maxers. I looked at your Box teams and you've had many. I only found one over 1600. Press on at least past 1550 and I personally don't find min/maxers a problem at all.
Even in Ranked your only two teams are both under 1500. I suspect (no stats) that many of the more experienced coaches prefer to play higher TV than that. So are you are restricting yourself to the pool of coaches most likely to be scared of you?
Also, you talk about it being impossible to avoid min/maxers. I looked at your Box teams and you've had many. I only found one over 1600. Press on at least past 1550 and I personally don't find min/maxers a problem at all.
Even in Ranked your only two teams are both under 1500. I suspect (no stats) that many of the more experienced coaches prefer to play higher TV than that. So are you are restricting yourself to the pool of coaches most likely to be scared of you?
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 13:42:35
i dont know about that. Why would there never be any legends playing at a low TV?
I do retire teams before they get to a high TV because I cant stand PO filled games and I'm not going to min max. why would i go to a high TV an dplay CPOMB after CPOMb after CPOMb, that is just as bad as min maxers. But meh, I guess nothing will ever happen anyway when people continue to defend min maxing and people refuse to try any solutions to the problem.
Unranked would be great. That way everyone could just play and the result just wouldnt matter. Like the FFB test division when then was about. Getting games has never been as easy or fun.
I do retire teams before they get to a high TV because I cant stand PO filled games and I'm not going to min max. why would i go to a high TV an dplay CPOMB after CPOMb after CPOMb, that is just as bad as min maxers. But meh, I guess nothing will ever happen anyway when people continue to defend min maxing and people refuse to try any solutions to the problem.
Unranked would be great. That way everyone could just play and the result just wouldnt matter. Like the FFB test division when then was about. Getting games has never been as easy or fun.
Posted by xnoelx on 2013-03-08 13:54:26
It's all very well for you (as a Legend) to say CR is not meaningful. The view from the bottom of the hill is markedly different. I've played coaches of all ranks, and I get a fairer, more even match, against coaches with a similar CR. If I play a Super Star or Legend, I can almost guarantee I'll lose. Yes, there probably are some coaches who don't deserve the rank they have, because they minmax the box, or use poor races/theme builds, only play unranked divisions, etc. But in general, rankings ARE a reasonable guide to the matchup. I also dispute that 'anyone' can achieve Legend. I know I couldn't, regardless of the team I used.
Removing ranks from the gamefinder would just make it easier for those who want to pick off cherries to do so.
Removing ranks from the gamefinder would just make it easier for those who want to pick off cherries to do so.
Posted by PurpleChest on 2013-03-08 14:20:18
I agree the gamefinder is far from perfect, and as someone of high rank, for whom it often takes a long time to find games, it does become a chore and drive me to either play tourneys or slum it in B,
but i believe changing attitudes like 'Me (for example) vs a Legend coach, with any teams, is not a fair match.'(xnoelx) i think would end your frustration far better than a redesign of the sytem of you not getting games.
but i believe changing attitudes like 'Me (for example) vs a Legend coach, with any teams, is not a fair match.'(xnoelx) i think would end your frustration far better than a redesign of the sytem of you not getting games.
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 14:32:47
quote - 'Removing ranks from the gamefinder would just make it easier for those who want to pick off cherries to do so.'
as I say coach names shouldn't be there either or team names, jus thte race, the team roster and Tv. That would suffice.
When I started here I relished playing legens etc.. it gave me the chance to pit my whits against coaches i believe to be better than me. but different strokes for different folks i guess :)
as I say coach names shouldn't be there either or team names, jus thte race, the team roster and Tv. That would suffice.
When I started here I relished playing legens etc.. it gave me the chance to pit my whits against coaches i believe to be better than me. but different strokes for different folks i guess :)
Posted by koadah on 2013-03-08 15:13:23
I didn't say 'never'. But how many Legends/Super stars are there? How many want to play at your TV at your time of the day?
If you don't keep retiring teams they'll eventually reach the point where they can ignore TV restrictions and have a wider choice of opponents. But I guess that you wouldn't like those match ups.
If you only throw in two teams and they are both of similar TV it's not really going to help you much.
Being able to throw in a lot of teams with out it killing the system or hiding good potential match ups must be part of the goal here.
You say that you relished playing against Legends. But if you remove the names then how are you going to know that they are Legends? It works both ways.
PurpleChest is 75%. That's worse than Garion!
It suggests to me that a game vs PurpleChest is very likely to be a win for PurpleChest. ;)
Now if we've already played the Big Dogs in Box, leagues and tournaments where we have no choice, when we do have a choice...
A lot of people do just want to relax and don't really want to have to phink too much. Especially after their third beer. ;)
If you're going to take away all the info then it's just Box Lite.
If you don't keep retiring teams they'll eventually reach the point where they can ignore TV restrictions and have a wider choice of opponents. But I guess that you wouldn't like those match ups.
If you only throw in two teams and they are both of similar TV it's not really going to help you much.
Being able to throw in a lot of teams with out it killing the system or hiding good potential match ups must be part of the goal here.
You say that you relished playing against Legends. But if you remove the names then how are you going to know that they are Legends? It works both ways.
PurpleChest is 75%. That's worse than Garion!
It suggests to me that a game vs PurpleChest is very likely to be a win for PurpleChest. ;)
Now if we've already played the Big Dogs in Box, leagues and tournaments where we have no choice, when we do have a choice...
A lot of people do just want to relax and don't really want to have to phink too much. Especially after their third beer. ;)
If you're going to take away all the info then it's just Box Lite.
Posted by the_Sage on 2013-03-08 15:46:05
-To someone searching, list teams, not matchups.
-When offered, ping on irc or desktop alert.
-When offered, ping on irc or desktop alert.
Posted by xnoelx on 2013-03-08 15:47:49
It is amusing to see these comments coming from the top coaches.
So I should ignore all the evidence to the contrary (like my 35% win rate), and instead of honestly admitting I'm not as good (yet?) as most Legends, I should declare myself their equal, and repeatedly allow myself to be cherrypicked?
As I say, I have, and do, play higher ranked coaches in various divisions (i.e. http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=3328527), but I don't delude myself; I know it's going to be a much tougher game, and that I'll probably lose. I still play to win, and occasionally I even do. Yes, it's nice to have the option to play those challenging matches, and they're helping me to improve. Nonetheless, it's also nice to have the option to play a softer game sometimes. And despite all the old-timers saying that the game is just about lucky AV/Cas rolls nowadays, skill/experience IS a factor.
There are exceptions, but as a general rule, a higher CR coach will have a higher win % and more efficient/ruthless team designs.
So I should ignore all the evidence to the contrary (like my 35% win rate), and instead of honestly admitting I'm not as good (yet?) as most Legends, I should declare myself their equal, and repeatedly allow myself to be cherrypicked?
As I say, I have, and do, play higher ranked coaches in various divisions (i.e. http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&op=view&id=3328527), but I don't delude myself; I know it's going to be a much tougher game, and that I'll probably lose. I still play to win, and occasionally I even do. Yes, it's nice to have the option to play those challenging matches, and they're helping me to improve. Nonetheless, it's also nice to have the option to play a softer game sometimes. And despite all the old-timers saying that the game is just about lucky AV/Cas rolls nowadays, skill/experience IS a factor.
There are exceptions, but as a general rule, a higher CR coach will have a higher win % and more efficient/ruthless team designs.
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 15:52:40
box lite sounds sweet.
and yeah it works both ways, but i would rather take that hit and just get more games. quick fair games. Box used to be like this but has been ruined now. Another solution would be to change the way the box scheduler works. but all of this has been gone over so many times. Its such a shame really as box was soo much fun for the first couple of months.
and yeah it works both ways, but i would rather take that hit and just get more games. quick fair games. Box used to be like this but has been ruined now. Another solution would be to change the way the box scheduler works. but all of this has been gone over so many times. Its such a shame really as box was soo much fun for the first couple of months.
Posted by C3I2 on 2013-03-08 16:24:28
It is obviously an issue, while not playing a match you should not be forced to spend a lot of time on the site. I know my work productivity in front of the computer pummels down when I´m forced to watch the finder, and refresh a lot for an hour or two.
Posted by Beerox on 2013-03-08 18:12:03
From my experience, I humbly assert that those of "Legend" level are good at Blood Bowl. Lower coaches should have the right to avoid them if they feel like it. Not only will they go up against superior play, but much superior builds and finely tuned teams. One guy's 20th elf team vs another guy's 1st human team. It ain't gonna be fun! This type of matchup should not be forced on the unwilling.
Posted by Nelphine on 2013-03-08 20:07:16
As constructive as Garion is trying to be, I don't think trying to use the gamefinder to solve cherry picking is the right idea. I think trying to sort out the more basic problem of getting a game without having to concentrate 100% on the gamefinder, with the ability to see all matches, is a better goal.
Posted by Garion on 2013-03-08 20:38:56
agreed nelphine, I just think if you are going to change something solve all the problems in one go.
A big shake up is needed imo. Box is rife with min maxers and CPOMB and ranked is absolutely ridiculous for cherry picking I have never seen it so bad.
A big shake up is needed imo. Box is rife with min maxers and CPOMB and ranked is absolutely ridiculous for cherry picking I have never seen it so bad.
Posted by the_Sage on 2013-03-13 10:13:10
http://fumbbl.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=23286