Posted by The_Murker on 2012-07-11 15:19:54

It would be better if you told us names and positions, so we could take sides here on this blog too. Stop short of insults, but definatly take a side!

Posted by zakatan on 2012-07-11 15:27:41

if only the animations were nice ;)

Posted by Pastorn on 2012-07-11 15:27:49

I didnt pay much attention whom said what, I just got worried this community will stagnate, filled with old men, gnabbing about dirty players and claws. if its true that we are loosing active members, maybe we could try to make spread the word and convince people to join this community.

I guess Cyanides game has made a great job selling the game to other gamers around the world.

I´m not insulting no one, nor "take side" - i just wanted to know how the condition of the community is. if there is some answer to that.

Posted by blader4411 on 2012-07-11 15:31:10

Its all very subjective, new players arrive, old players leave.
The best way to get any real sense of the player-base is to look at the FUMBBL statistics, past games over 30 months. Thus far, it seems we had a large jump in players since we got the new client, and its been steady ever since.

Posted by licker on 2012-07-11 15:39:07

Yes, you can actually look at numbers rather than worrying about what a bunch of douchebags in chat are blathering about.

Since I've been here (around 2 years, just before the conversion to CRP and the new client) I've noticed what seems to be a slight up tick in players around during north american night times.

The Leagues I am in are mostly stable without much fear of crashing into oblivion (though the summer takes a bit of a toll on activity in L due to vacations I've noticed). So I wouldn't worry about it, but by all means, recruit others to the site!

The more the hairier.

Posted by Pastorn on 2012-07-11 15:39:47

62K+ coaches!? That cant be true, is there any stats of how many active coaches there are? Logged in etc?

Posted by Fela on 2012-07-11 15:54:46

Top left corner of the UI. Fumbbl -> statistics -> coaches tab.

Posted by Woodstock on 2012-07-11 16:05:35

That number is not correct due to some bots spamming new accounts, sorry to burst that bubble.

Posted by King_Ghidra on 2012-07-11 16:22:06

Before i say anything let me say I absolutely love FUMBBL to bits, and I really hope it continues for as long as I live.

However, regarding the Cyanida game and the current number of coaches, the stats seem to indicate a very heavy fall-off of coaches here from the release of that game.

Look at the 'Games per quarter' on the stats page and you will see a very big drop-off from the 2004-2008 period during the 2009 year. Yes the new client has caused a recovery, but are those new coaches, or just ones who came back? I don't know, but either way, activity now is not comparable in any way to the levels it was in 2004-2008 years.

I saw a very reasonable comment here once indicating that the issue of falling numbers was also probably a result of many of the first generation of blood bowl fans, (the ones who had grown up with the 1st and 2nd ed. of the game) becoming old farts and dads and suchlike, and drifting away. I'm sure this is also part of the problem.

I don't doubt the cyanide game has attracted some new fans to fumbbl, but I don't think you can argue that the Cyanide game has cost fumbbl a lot of users.

Posted by the_Sage on 2012-07-11 16:25:59

I started playing BB through Cyanide but live on FUMBBL now.
I do spread the word, but am having a hard time convincing others. =)

Posted by Purplegoo on 2012-07-11 16:27:17

I should ignore chat arguments. Very easy way to go insane.

We are certainly down since the heyday. We are certainly up on the worst times before the new client. Where we will end up in the future is anyone's guess. I admit; I had expected Cyanide to have given up by now and us be back where we were, but it seems they're hanging on for now.

I wonder if, quality wise, we really miss those that thought the grass is greener. I think that's an open question. However, assuming we stay faithful to the rules, I can't see why our current stability would die.

Let's be honest, though. One day the boss will get fed up of us. Get maximum enjoyment whilst you can, and don't worry too much over tomorrow. ;)

Posted by LucaAnt on 2012-07-11 18:03:56

Still don't understand what is Cyanide

Posted by Dalfort on 2012-07-11 18:24:28

was going to rate this high but then read the "filled with old men" bit... 1

Signed Grumpy old Dalfort, take care.

... tonight is pie night at the home...

Posted by pythrr on 2012-07-11 18:43:16

ARGUE ALL MENS TO DEATHS!

Posted by Astarael on 2012-07-11 18:51:32

I was in that chat showing we've experienced an increase in games played since transferring to CRP and the games played is not dropping.

The debate for me ended when I was told I was 'using facts to prop up lies'.

https://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=stats

Posted by Niebling on 2012-07-11 19:02:51

who is this boss your talking about goo? our laides? ;)

Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-07-11 19:10:56

Yes, we had a serious bot problem for a month or so, however Christer has sorted that now.

The drop started pre cyanide, and I don't think the Cyanide client had a massive effect of stealing coaches.

More of an effect was online gaming in general. Upto late 2008 not that many people were into online gaming, however when consoles brought online to the masses, this changed and fumbbl suffers for this.

FUMBBL I doubt will ever recover to the heyday of around the birthday of 2008, which is a great shame as it was truly the golden era. Cyanide's client, is about as much to blame as activision's first person shooters; probably less.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-11 19:38:53

@ Astrael - it's not the 50k+ games (often 60k+) per quarter FUMBBL was getting between Apr 2004 and Apr 2009 though. The current 30-35k per quarter is certainly a drop compared to that.

Not suggesting any reasons, just pointing out the relevant stats.

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-11 19:39:54

There are a lot of people playing on Cyanide. If it didn't exist many of them would be playing here.

Sure the AI is rubbish but if all you want to do is kill some mens it works well enough.

With the AI you also don't have to worry about inconveniencing anyone or breaking any rules if you need to quit after half an hour.

Posted by Astarael on 2012-07-11 19:56:05

Agreed dode, but the dropoff was before CRP. I reckon most of that 15k drop was Emphasy quitting personally.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-11 20:22:21

@ Astrael - the dropoff began at the start of 2009. I'm not blaming Cyanide or anything, but the release date was June 2009. Yeah, there's been a pickup since, and the play rate seems stable, but my point is that you could have been arguing at cross purposes:
- Yes, there are more people playing now since any time since CRP came to FUMBBL.
- Yes, there are fewer people playing now than there were at FUMBBL's peak.
Depends on your baseline, I guess.
The statement "we've experienced an increase in games played since transferring to CRP" could also be read as meaning that transferring to CRP has caused an overall increase in the number of games played on FUMBBL, so that may be where the confusion lies. Perhaps clearer might be "looking at games played from the point at which FUMBBL went CRP, the number of games has been steadily increasing and is not yet declining".

Posted by Ehlers on 2012-07-11 21:22:29

Part of the reason I guess has been mentioned before, but also that past groups on FUMBBL have vanished or seem less active.

FUMBBL.DK used to be very active, but not anymore. Guess other group as such has declined.

So when those people you used to talk to is not around anymore, you will be less active yourself.

I have been using IRC less and less lately, but seems generally that IRC is used less and less lately. FUMBBL used to be a playform for friends across the world to talk, seems FUMBBL is changing more into a gaming platform than a social platform (hopes this makes sense).

Posted by Fightingmongoose on 2012-07-11 21:23:51

Just wanted to add my voice to the 'Started playing on cyanide, but now I play here' group.

FWIW, I think the strength of the community is the real draw of Fumbbl. However, the anonymity of playing the Cyanide game may appeal to a lot of players who are not as good at the game and don't know the rules yet. People rarely engage you in conversation, and the calibre of play is dramatically worse on average over on cyanide. New players may find that laissez-faire attitude less intimidating.

I don't know if there is anything to be done about that. Just my two cents.

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-11 22:04:39

I got my first start in a table-top league using a special team called the Crusaders. I downloaded the old DOS game for practice (ha), made it to the semi-finals, then after the championship match all activity died out. When I saw Cyanide's game come out, I knew I had to buy it! I've been playing Cyanide's game for about a year. After some time of searching for better tactics, I noticed that a lot of the top ranked Cyanide players came from fumbbl, so this is what brought me here. I enjoy looking at replays and spectating games.

Cyanide also has replays, and there is an open-source program called BBManager that acts as a volunteer-driven database for replays. So I sometimes browse through that looking for games.

That being said, here's my viewpoint... I love Blood Bowl in all it's forms. I want to learn. But if I'm going to spend an hour and a half / 2 hours playing a game with all else being equal, I definitely prefer the 3D graphics. I've done MM / league play in Cyanide and I've done a little bit of black box / ranked here. The games don't seem much different. I enjoy Fumbbl, though, because of the community. This is just a better learning environment than Cyanide game communities. This is where the "pros" hang out.

I also play in the OFL (Old World Football League) - a Cyanide Blood Bowl League - and the admins will be reworking the Cyanide game to have all BB teams including Slann and Chaos Pact. He's also recreated the full star player roster for use in our games. (Cyanide only offers a few of the star players)

Sooo.... I do see it as a competition. I think with all things being equal (quality of game), the majority of (new) players prefer better graphics. As more and more players become adept at the game, play-wise and mod-wise you will eventually see the leagues start to match the caliber of FUMBBL. It will basically come down to who treats their new members the best.

Every new player has to go through the fire. It's almost like an initiation ritual. You definitely need a support model. You need an automated game-matching system (that has low learning curve). I also think the best way to match up people is through Coach Rating THEN by TV. This will lead to games with huge TV differences, but will produce better quality games for the newbies.

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-07-11 23:00:20

"I also think the best way to match up people is through Coach Rating THEN by TV. This will lead to games with huge TV differences, but will produce better quality games for the newbies."

this will also lead to an environment which will guarantee that newbies never get better, and stay at a lower skill level than the rest....

bravo...

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-11 23:35:33

"this will also lead to an environment which will guarantee that newbies never get better, and stay at a lower skill level than the rest...."

No it won't. The more you win the higher your Coach rating and vice-versa. Once you reach "equilibrium", you can always expect a similarly skilled coach. I used to play Red Alert 2 matchmaking and this is how it was setup. Eventually it got to the point where I kept losing lots of the games I was matched in simply because of the top dogs I was up against. At this point you have already won the games to build your confidence and drive to further study the game.

Besides, I don't ONLY play Black Box or Ranked matches. Coaches won't be pigeon-holed to this type of setup either. It could be called Ranking Box... just a different way to create match-ups.

This will also eliminate the temptation of newbie CPOMBing. Hey if you want to create a CPOMBING min/maxed team, guess what there's a chance you're gonna go up against a higher TV team with an equally skilled coach, maybe with his own CPOMBing.

After a loss and after a rating drop, it would also allow teams to be setup in "easier" (opponent coaching ability not necessarily TV-wise) matches so their teams can more easily recoup.

Let me give you an example of how much coaching ability affects the game and not necessarily the skills of the team. I took a year off from Blood Bowl. I had a team in the OFL with a high-winning percentage. I LOVED the team... Orkington Blue Shirts - they were like 15-1-1.

Something like that... When I came back, I started playing with them again (against the same coaches I played a year before) and I got BLOWN away my first couple of matches. I HATED my team! I was like, "Why did I like these guys so much?" After a ton of practice to get me back in the swing of things, I started to love my team again. It's all about the nuances of the skills... and how the coach uses them.

If you give a newbie coach the #1 FUMMBL team and give that coach a newbie team (maybe a few skills), we will have a CLOSE match if not the FUMMBL coach winning.

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-11 23:41:48

It could also be an internal rating system based on rating box games separate from the Coach's FUMBBL rating.

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-11 23:52:07

CR is not at that accurate anyway.

Coaches can choose their opponents in Ranked & open [L]eague.
They can play in 145 Club.

It just seems common sense that if you are a white belt you start off against other white belts.
There are not usually that many coaches in the Box. If you enter random matching you're going to meet black belts what ever you do.

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-12 00:03:39

1.) that's why it would be a separate and internal rating system... with CR influencing only new members of the box (whatever formula you would like to create)

2.) With enough marketing and hoopla it could be popular. The point is not to shield newbies from losses. it's going to happen. The point is to set up newbies with other coaches who are "not-so-competitive" who play the game for fun and not for blood (like most top dogs do:) If you can keep a newbie winning and losing at around .500 I believe they will stay motivated enough to hang in the community. If a newbie does well and skyrockets they're going to bang heads with the top dogs who will teach him / her a few lessons. If a newbie lags in development. Who cares! He's reached the point of "equilibrium" where he's comfortable playing AND HAVING FUN.

We're all here for "good" games. We play BB for the emotions that come from the dice. If a newbie believes he's going to get one of those games instead of a devastating min/max team, he's gonna continue to use the box. The success of the system will perpetuate itself.

Of course all the top dogs will be fighting for the best rating, so they will enjoy beating each other as well.

Posted by Woodstock on 2012-07-12 00:42:35

I can see you have not been around here for long. Only a few people actually care about CR, the rest just plays games for the love of playing... And it wouldn't be hard to game your suggestions, and trust me, that would happen.

Posted by blader4411 on 2012-07-12 01:09:38

I seem to remember a mass-DP academy team last edition...

Posted by harvestmouse on 2012-07-12 01:28:45

More like somebody told you about it/them. As by the time you poked your lrb 4 bitter head onto FUMBBL, that sort of thing was being eradicated.

Mardaed, that isn't going to work for several reasons. I like your enthusiasm though. Blackbox has never been marketed as a division for new players, in fact we don't encourage it.

Hopefully a couple of things in the pipelines will make noob integration easier in the future.

Posted by koadah on 2012-07-12 01:52:45

Remind me again what is the obsession with the Box?

I just don't understand why a rookie would want to play all their games in there.

It's the shark tank. Either you eat shark or get eaten.

The new gamefinder means that you don't even have to speak any English to get a game.

Did I mention 145 Club? ;)

Posted by garyt1 on 2012-07-12 16:02:02

Box is easiest to join for a quick game. So tempting for some newbies. Heck I almost exclusively play Box though I did remember most of the rules when I joined.
A new academy would be great for those who don't know the basics. Or have played Cyanide AI.

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-07-12 16:46:47

mardaed: you seem to make the fundamental mistake in thinking that winning equates to learning, and increasing your skills...

it doesn't...

without getting into the whole "CR is useless anyways" argument, high CR coaches are at that level either a) because they cherrypick like a madman, or b) because they actually have some level of ability...

you don't gain ability by playing people on the same equal footing as you, you gain it by playing matches that are more challenging, and by playing coaches who are better than you...

if you are playing coaches who are on the same equal skill ability as you, you are playing against the same equal pool of knowledge as you....sure the other coach may know a trick or two that you don't, but overall, you are not going to learn it because it's not being reinforced in repetitive matches against higher skill coaches...

this is where your theory falters, because you have the mistaken notion that you can grow as a coach by playing like-minded, or similar ability, coaches....and that directly flies in the face of how people learn...

people learn by being instructed by those with more knowledge than themselves...two people who don't know german won't be able to teach themselves german...they have to rely on translators, on rosetta stone, german teachers, etc etc...somewhere, they will pick up their ability to speak german from a higher source of knowledge...

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-12 17:19:12

"you have the mistaken notion that you can grow as a coach by playing like-minded, or similar ability, coaches....and that directly flies in the face of how people learn..."

As someone who teaches a complex and technical skillset on a daily basis, I'm fairly content to say this is largely incorrect. I've also spent quite some time teaching competitive sports (although that was a while ago) and the same applies there. You learn when you are stretched, but not stretched to breaking point. If you play someone who simply beats you all over the pitch you will learn very little because you are mostly in a "panic" mode, whereas playing similar level (or slightly better) coaches will create matches which are challenging but engaging - no panic and plenty of learning takes place. In what I teach it is VERY easy to get people into that "panic" state of mind, and the trick is to pitch your lesson (which would be analogous to the game in this instance) at the right level in order that the student should improve. Eventually the student becomes familiar with the situations which stretched him and he finds them easier to deal with, thus improving his ability to deal with *even more* complex situations. Ideally you're a good enough teacher to recognise when a student is approaching panic and can back off, but that is quite the trick and I wouldn't expect many coaches would back off here.

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-07-12 17:43:44

interesting...as someone who has ran training seminars for former employers, and the entire teaching industry can attest to...it's been my experience that someone who has equal knowledge to your own cannot teach you how to excel...it requires someone with a solid knowledge base of the subject matter...

to apply it to fumbbl, while yes a CR125 coach getting demolished by a CR180 coach is probably not going to draw much in the way of learning(despite the fact that, as long as they are actively trying to learn, they will gain at least 1 or 2 nuggets), a CR125 coach is equally not going to learn anything from another CR125 coach...

in pool, it's called the dead zone, or dead stroke...the optimal zone for someone to excel, and play to the peak of their ability, requires playing against someone better than you, but not so much better that they are out of your reach...playing someone that exceeds your own level of ability, but that you perceive it to still be a competitive match, allows you to reach a point of zen where you are able to play at 100% capacity...

so excuse me, for not clarifying where the goalposts were...

Posted by Macavity on 2012-07-12 18:04:51

Has anyone calculated the strength of community vs activity of Macavity?

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-12 19:09:47

"it's been my experience that someone who has equal knowledge to your own cannot teach you how to excel...it requires someone with a solid knowledge base of the subject matter..."
Indeed it does, but that assumes a level of tuition which I think I can reasonably say doesn't exist in B. Rather, people are learning through doing which, in a competitive environment, requires exactly what your second paragraph suggests - a slightly better, but not massively better, coach.

"playing someone that exceeds your own level of ability, but that you perceive it to still be a competitive match, allows you to reach a point of zen where you are able to play at 100% capacity..."
I'd agree with that entirely, and would say that playing anyone better would be detrimental to improvement. In fact, for the "learning experience" to be optimal for everyone I'd suggest that coaches would be best off playing anyone between that "ideal" level for them and anyone for which they are at that ideal level.

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-12 19:12:45

Look, the matching system now is not perfect. It won't be perfect here either. You're not going to have 125 vs. 125 all the time. You're going to have some differences in CR. The 125CR newbie will eventually play 135, 145CR which are "BETTER" coaches. Plus they will also have to take on rising stars.... coaches with better playing ability starting out at a lower CR. Plenty of opportunity to learn.

Like Dode said, you have to stretch the pupil but not to a breaking point.

What this system attempts to create is the "deadzone" you're talking about. Where anybody can expect a solid game with a similarly-skilled coach. If you're good, you can expect to take on a good coach. If you're not so good, you can expect to match up against someone not so good.

That's all this "box" setup is promising.

I enjoy winning, but as I've gotten better and as I use MM more and more I have come to find games against newbs that were really just a waste of both of our time. Those games are not satisfactory at all. In fact, there have been times where I've been frustrated because I couldn't find some sweet competition. I'm not trying to be arrogant. Believe me, I've gotten my butt handed to me many times. I'm saying this as a legitimate concern of current MM. Taking on newbs is really not fun. Sometimes it's desirable... like when your team has to recoup, but for the most part, I want the battles where it's a last turn TD that wins / ties the game. Or the mad scrambles where a fumble is being chased all over the field.

People want to get into the box / MM because they want to play good quality games. And shadow, I call BS on your "master with a good base". Yea, teachers traditionally have a solid foundation, but I haven't met any legendary coach that would "take me under his wing". People want to play, not teach. I'm sure you or any other of the hardcore guys here don't want to take 50-60 newbs under your belt.

This setup facilitates good playing environments for coaches that through time will allow the coach to grow in playing ability.

And of course, if the newb is ambitious and doesn't mind getting destroyed for the sake of learning, he's going to find other outlets! Like league or ranked play... If he wants to go for the sharks, let him go black box. He's got the OPTION to move up.

This is an automated matching system that will nurture NEWBIES (this is the operative word here) and stretch them not too much. It will be an incremental learning, it takes longer, but guess what. They still play, they're part of the community.

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-07-12 19:38:26

more importantly...i'm always amazed at newbies who come out of the woodwork, particularly those that have only played 6 games site-wide, and only 1 game in the "matchmaking" division...

but yet seem to have such expansive knowledge about the system...

....just saying....

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-12 19:42:42

That is a very disappointing reply. Here I was thinking you might actually try to back up your point regarding learning, but instead you decided to take the "what do you know" route because it's easy for you. Shame it's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-07-12 19:44:17

"And shadow, I call BS on your "master with a good base". Yea, teachers traditionally have a solid foundation, but I haven't met any legendary coach that would "take me under his wing". "

actually, we were just talking about this earlier....

this is *NOT* a problem with matchmaking, and is 100% exclusively a problem with coaches on this site...

5 years ago, there was a plethora of high skill level coaches who would be more than willing to teach people tactics, and help them learn the game...hell, myself and a few others, had a group that brought in quite a few coaches to help teach them the subtle nuances of the game....

ask roseph...he can tell you all about it...

the problem is, though, that there is a new breed of coaches on here who are self-centered, vapid, egomaniacal jerks who don't care about the community as a whole, and only really want to get their jollies doing whatever they want "because they can"...

coincidentally enough, these same coaches are the ones responsible for blackbox being as acidic of a division as it is...

point being, you can't blame the matchmaking system because coaches don't stop to teach you how to play the game....

you can only blame the other coach for that....

it's not their responsibility to do so, and expecting it to happen is ludicrous...but with that being said, the current community is less inclined to do so as it was 5 years ago....

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-12 19:45:00

HA HA HA HA HA HA

your black box setup is no different than cyanide's.

Black box is not for newbs. I'm suggesting an automated system tailored for newbs. Not the 145 club, something different, another avenue for newbies.

A place where the community as a whole can come together to compete. Not a place where you get kicked out for winning too much.

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-12 20:13:49

"5 years ago, there was a plethora of high skill level coaches who would be more than willing to teach people tactics, and help them learn the game...hell, myself and a few others, had a group that brought in quite a few coaches to help teach them the subtle nuances of the game...."

Stop calling out your top coaches and saying it's "their fault". BS again. People don't have the time, and I agree with you. You shouldn't expect other people to go out of their way to teach you.

Why was black box created in the first place? So people can play games quickly without going through the "headaches" of finding games. The problem with black box is that min/maxers have come in and are taking out lower TV teams... who are primarily newbies. Matching by TV is the problem. Not the coaches.

You can't ask coaches to "follow invisible rules". Give 'em a taste of their own medicine. Matching by internal rating will group the min/maxer teams with higher TV teams of equal coaching skill, or better yet, with another mix/maxer team!

The objective is to put the "high stress" where it's supposed to go, the top-end players, the type of people who are not faint of heart and are willing to accept the challenge.

Posted by dode74 on 2012-07-12 20:53:32

@ Shadow, I don't think anyone is suggesting that people should take their time to teach other people unless they really want to (we had a similar thing on Cyanide which also appears to have died a bit of a death).
What we (you and I) were both saying was that learning takes place when the individual is stretched as opposed to panicked or in their comfort zone, and playing someone too experienced or too inexperienced is both unproductive (from a learning perspetive) and dull. The suggestion is that using a form of CR (which *could* become meaningful) to matchmake will increase the chances of any one game being in the stretch zone rather than the other two, thereby increasing the learning potential of the game.

Posted by shadow46x2 on 2012-07-12 21:22:30

"Stop calling out your top coaches and saying it's "their fault". BS again. People don't have the time, and I agree with you. You shouldn't expect other people to go out of their way to teach you."

why?...first off, i'll call out whoever i feel like calling out...secondly, it's not a false statement...5 years ago, experienced coaches were openly helping others learn the game better, and that sort of atmosphere was more prominent than it is now...

yes, they're not responsible for teaching, and shouldn't be expected to....but yes, it is also their fault if they choose not to do it....

it's not fault in a negative sense, but the fact that the learning experience does not exist anymore is directly their fault...

"Why was black box created in the first place? So people can play games quickly without going through the "headaches" of finding games."

wrong...

blackbox was created to provide a truly blind system for matchmaking purposes, to try and provide as equal of a playing ground as possible...

it had nothing to do with playing games quickly, nor any "headaches of finding games"...

i get that you're new and you don't know the history of blackbox, even though you pretend to(or you're not new, and your multiaccounting, in which case, we should step aside and have a talk)...but don't pretend you know the history of something when you don't...

"The problem with black box is that min/maxers have come in and are taking out lower TV teams... who are primarily newbies. Matching by TV is the problem. Not the coaches."

see, here's the problem...the TV rules are a static entity...the rules cannot exploit themselves...it is up to the coach to find the loopholes in the system, and then decide whether or not to lobby to have them closed, or exploit them...

the rules themselves are flawed, yes...but when coaches take advantage of that flaw to give themselves an unfair leg up on the opponent....then yes...it is the coach's fault...100%...

"Give 'em a taste of their own medicine. Matching by internal rating will group the min/maxer teams with higher TV teams of equal coaching skill, or better yet, with another mix/maxer team!"

actually, no it won't...because it'll give the minmaxers added inducements, so not only are they playing with their minmaxed powerhouses, they're also stacking multiple stars, wizards, etc etc on top of it, giving them even more of an advantage.....

"The objective is to put the "high stress" where it's supposed to go, the top-end players, the type of people who are not faint of heart and are willing to accept the challenge."

but see, there's the catch....the real top-end coaches...coaches like randomoracle...they're already playing in that environment...

the minmaxers are not top-end coaches...they're coaches taking the path of least resistance, looking for a shortcut, to achieve whatever goal they have in mind....

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-12 22:06:50

"why?...first off, i'll call out whoever i feel like calling out...secondly, it's not a false statement...5 years ago, experienced coaches were openly helping others learn the game better, and that sort of atmosphere was more prominent than it is now...

yes, they're not responsible for teaching, and shouldn't be expected to....but yes, it is also their fault if they choose not to do it...."

Give me a break. Every person on this world should love everyone else and put others before themselves. Do you see people do that? No. There's always exploiters. That's why systems are put in place. Law and order. Yea call out your top coaches... what's it going to do? Will it solve anything? no. You don't even expect people to teach so why are you chastising them?

"see, here's the problem...the TV rules are a static entity...the rules cannot exploit themselves...it is up to the coach to find the loopholes in the system, and then decide whether or not to lobby to have them closed, or exploit them...

the rules themselves are flawed, yes...but when coaches take advantage of that flaw to give themselves an unfair leg up on the opponent....then yes...it is the coach's fault...100%..."

Finding loopholes goes hand in hand with competitive play. You can't tell a coach he has to win a "certain way" without using rules. If he doesn't break rules, it's fair game.

Black box opens up exploitation by TV matching. CR matching eliminates this exploitation to a certain extent. A victorious min/maxer will eventually have to face the better-skilled coaches. This is where he's knocked down. The min-maxer will not be a top-tier team anymore. He'll be in the middle of the pack. A small shark in the pool. No glory.

"actually, no it won't...because it'll give the minmaxers added inducements, so not only are they playing with their minmaxed powerhouses, they're also stacking multiple stars, wizards, etc etc on top of it, giving them even more of an advantage....."

Who is better equipped to deal with these teams? Newbies or the pros. The pros. Which is why you pit the coaches looking for least resistance with coaches of randomoracle's caliber. Let the top-end coaches slice and dice them. You said, he's already playing in a high stress environment. It's no difference to him.

The least resistance coaches are not getting what they want.... griefing wins. They only get them sporadically.

A good coach looking to take advantage of a higher-ranked coach with a min/maxed team is playing the way a competitive coach should. The higher-ranked coach should manage his team so that inducements won't be given out or, he has to play at a high level. Again, the stress is put on the victorious (<- key term here) players... not the other way around, like it is with black box.

Posted by mardaed on 2012-07-12 22:44:18

CR matchmaking works as a hierarchy based on victories. This is how competitive play should be. The winners take on the winners and vice versa.

It will be like Mike Tyson's Punchout. New players will start with Glass Joe then move up the ranks with the more victories they get.

On average, coaches of the same skill will be pitted against each other.

What will probably end up happening is that we'll have specially designed min/max teams fighting at the top OR Behemoth Chaos / Dwarf/ Pact teams taking the top spots. You'll have a few brave AGI souls up there as well. You'll have people gripe about once you're at the top, you stay at the top...

But so what! Who better to take on the challenge of getting to the top then the pros? It would definitely be an accomplishment that means something. Also, the guys at the top are not going to quit. They're still going to play on Fumbbl. Newbies utterly destroyed, however, stop playing altogether.

I thought the objective was to get and keep new coaches? This automated match making system will allow this and will be better than black box.