Posted by Kam on 2014-04-13 01:36:39

If you could transfer this team to Ranked, would you do it?

Posted by xnoelx on 2014-04-13 01:37:12

I can see the point you're getting at. But, 3 points come to mind:

1. Although you've had a bad run for the last 5 games, these games with TV gaps are still less likely than even TV matches.

2. If you really dislike the TV gap games, they can be protected against by activating a higher TV team at the same time, as long as that team has a reasonable number of games played.

3. With a record of 2/1/2 from these matches (or 2/1/1 in the ones with gaps), it clearly isn't a big factor in whether you win the game, just your ability to build the team up...

Posted by DukeTyrion on 2014-04-13 01:38:34

The problem is, what the fixed in sorting out the min-maxers, also broke the recovery games for normal teams.

There are teams out there who regularly get matched with a 600tv advantage.

Posted by awambawamb on 2014-04-13 01:39:17

scendi da sto cazzo di cammello e gioca stunty :D

indeed, the box is bashy!

Posted by OenarLod on 2014-04-13 01:47:40

@Kam
Yes, I would transfer it. I really liked the early Box, but it's becoming less appealing every day. The only thing that keep my hooked is the VTS.

@xnoelx
Record is not a problem at all. Frustrating matches are.

@DukeTyrion
Yeah, I know. I even enjoyed our match, btw. But it's like going
against the drift.

@awambawamb
Mi piace il cammello!

Posted by Rabe on 2014-04-13 01:51:47

The match against the dwarves doesn't link to the correct match report...

Sorry to hear that you're losing the fun there. :-/ Hope it gets better again soon!

Posted by xnoelx on 2014-04-13 01:55:21

Yeah, I get it. But don't you also get frustrating matches at even TV?

As a sidenote, I'd recommend everybody use Google Translate on awambawamb's comment. I don't know what it means, but it amused me...

Posted by OenarLod on 2014-04-13 02:00:13

@Rabe
Fixed

Posted by Kam on 2014-04-13 02:12:42

@ OenarLod: ok, thanks. Now I can understand the frustration and rate the blog accordingly. :)

Posted by Kuja on 2014-04-13 02:27:40

So our game was the refreshing one?... that must have been a couple of horrid games for you, sorry to hear.

Posted by pythrr on 2014-04-13 07:51:24

what DT said.

fixing the smallman problem has borked things for normal recovering teams.

Posted by azyx on 2014-04-13 12:04:38

could be fun to applicate will just have to rename rainbowbox

Posted by Verminardo on 2014-04-13 12:43:46

Looking just at the numbers of games it seems that the scheduler fix has not been a success. :-\ I do like Box but I've played more Ranked recently because I am trying to complete an E.L.F. cycle, and also build up my Darkies in the process, plus, when I see only 4 matches going on in Box I don't really expect to get scheduled so it doesn't seem worth the trouble to wait for the next draw.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2014-04-13 14:16:51

So is the scheduler going to change back? It's funny that it was changed because of one guy.

Posted by Frankenstein on 2014-04-13 14:32:44

OenarLord, what you're complaining about hasn't got much to do with the scheduler proper.

You retire healthy players continually and refuse to keep even insignificantly injured ones (e. g. human lineman with block and AG-1). These are 2 reasons why you play up and one could argue that you are minmaxing yourself.

Also, 5 consecutive games is hardly statistically relevant and even if it was, you couldn't really blame the scheduler since the root cause would be the popularity of certain races/team builds.

That said, I'd give teams the option to opt out of the rookie protection phase. And pair teams based upon the number of acquired skills.

Posted by OenarLod on 2014-04-13 14:52:11

@Frankenstein
Yep, I have a clear policy when it's about players: fire injured ones unless -MA on lino and 2 skills lino (or 3 skills throwers) without interesting stats.
That's the root of all min-maxing evil? Ok, I'm guilty for the state of the Box.
Go figure.

Posted by Frankenstein on 2014-04-13 15:28:18

Calm down, there's no need to jump at me just for pointing out the obvious. All I'm saying is that if it is your policy to trim down your team below what is necessary (or reasonable), then you shouldn't be surprised about possible consequences (i. e. getting paired up).

Under the old scheduler, your team would benefit from playing against rookie teams as much as the next minmax pact side would, I think (disclaimer: I do NOT insinuate that that is your intention).

Being paired against the same team twice is what happens if both players are online and activating at the same time. When you check your latest 50 games, you'll see that the 5-game-streak isn't releaving a pattern. It's a bit like claiming the RNG is broken just because you had a streak of 5 games with a higher number of doubleskulls and snakeeyes than usually expected.

No disrespect, but I think that the implicit message of your rant simply doesn't pass the reality check.

Posted by koadah on 2014-04-13 15:52:00

It was pretty obvious that this would happen. I assume that is the reason that Christer considered the house rules. But there is an outcry against house rules...

Merge the divisons and teams can still get their recoveries in. People won't have to stop playing their favourite teams when they want a different challenge.

I am using a young team and the Box seems a lot better from that point of view.
I expect it to get nastier as the team grows. Even so, I don't think I would want to go back to the old scheduler.

Posted by MattDakka on 2014-04-13 19:32:13

The new scheduler seems quite fine to me, the issue is lack of variety and different match ups.
There is no proper CR incentive to play sub-par/uncommon teams and there are less coaches activating, judging by the number of scheduler's failed activations.

Posted by the_Sage on 2014-04-14 12:29:59

Funny, I'd revert your description of 'playing up' and 'playing down'.