Posted by Qaz on 2013-01-29 20:02:17

So a Forum thread was not enough?

Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2013-01-29 20:13:54

Clearly it wasn't, since people just voted no, but here we can say how we really feel with numbers! :D

Vote 1.

Posted by Wreckage on 2013-01-29 20:21:57

Race vs Race is already implemented I believe. Team value as well. PLayers missing the game aren't reflected into Team Value so they are also taken into account.

The only thing suggested different is the team record.

I'm not really opposed to it although i havely lobbied against it at the time we had it. The reason back then was that the system would result in incredibly hard games but there were no statistics available that would tell you if you were actually doing well.

I guess another issue you could argue is, that if you assume that people are potentially also interested in team building.
And a poor winning record would give you a better shot at that. Defacto that would encourage a 'play to lose' menatliity. Or at the very least a 'don't care' mentality.

Posted by strikereternal on 2013-01-29 20:28:45

Taking a player's skill rating or a team's record into account in an automatching system makes sense in a game where both players start on the same or roughly equal footing and the ending of the game results in nothing carrying over to the next one other than an adjustment of said skill rating or record. Examples would be chess, MOBAs such as Dota 2 or League of Legends, or a game like Dominion (which on Isotropic has a player skill-based automatcher).

I think it's clearly unfair in a game like Blood Bowl where teams are persistent and carry over from game to game. It's easy to envision a situation where a coach plays predominantly elves in the box, racks up a lot of wins and high CR, and already has a tough time keeping his players alive. Under this type of system he'd be punished by being given unfavorably-weighted matchups against "kill all mens" teams instead of the roughly TV-balanced ones he currently plays; the damage they inflict will persist. Furthermore, such matchups would make it even harder for this hypothetical coach to prepare his team for a run at a major tournament.

tl;dr: No.

Posted by neoliminal on 2013-01-29 20:51:15

Yeah, this is the stupidest idea ever. I can't believe you even brought it up. What an idiot.

Posted by strikereternal on 2013-01-29 22:13:31

I didn't mean any of that as a personal attack and I apologize if it came out that way. I just think introducing those criteria would be orse than what we currently have.

Posted by neoliminal on 2013-01-30 02:25:50

Don't worry, I'm not that thin skinned. I'm actually joking at myself for bringing up a new idea in this forum. People who like the idea aren't going to bother saying much. People who hate it will be all over it to make sure it never happens and people on the fence will be swayed by the massive negative reaction.

This idea isn't a "no brainer", so there's enough negative reaction to fill the stream of conversation. I just figured I'd join the winning side.

That guy who suggested this.... so dumb.

Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2013-01-30 04:56:27

But neoliminal... it's NOT a new idea.

It's a very old idea that was tried and failed.

Posted by harvestmouse on 2013-01-31 01:42:07

The biggest problem with using CR, is it discourages better players from using weaker rosters (or encourages them if they wish to prune their CR).

This is a major negative factor. Match making shouldn't involve a coaches skill but rather the team's skill.