mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
 Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 16:59 |
 
|
| almic85 wrote: |
As seasons are a part of the rules (for better or worse) arguably the only division that should not have seasons implemented fully is League |
If anything Box and Ranked fall outside the scope of the imagination of the rules. Seasons should be an opt in experience in League, instead of a situation where you have to rely on a rogues gallery of user created leagues to get a crude facsimilie of matchmaking absent seasons.
Look at thr big picture here, is it worth torpedoing the only robust matchmaking divisions for the sake of rule congruity or is it better to allow coaches to form their own season bound leagues within League and play very close to the bb2016 rules?
And I'm not exaggerating on torpedoing - if there isn't a critical mass for acceptance of seasons in Box and Ranked, NA Fumbbl might as well not exist. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 18:26 |
|
| zakatan wrote: | | PainState wrote: | | almic85 wrote: |
As seasons are a part of the rules (for better or worse) arguably the only division that should not have seasons implemented fully is League.
So if you don't want to play them make a League team and play without season |
Thus we arrive once again at square #1 of this discussion.
How many games are we going to set a "season" at in R/B? |
Good thing we have the seasons thread to make up for the death of the Clawpomb thread. We'll easily get to 100 pages if we keep going back to square #1  |
Over and over and over again!  |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 19:20 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | If anything Box and Ranked fall outside the scope of the imagination of the rules. |
You need more imagination. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 19:26 |
|
Everyone needs more Imagination. Such a fun band. |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 21:44 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: |
Look at thr big picture here, is it worth torpedoing the only robust matchmaking divisions for the sake of rule congruity or is it better to allow coaches to form their own season bound leagues within League and play very close to the bb2016 rules?
|
What in da &^%%$#$@%!?
Sir, that was way over the top man. We do not deal well with Black/White arguments on the forums...everything must be in a shade of grey so we can keep this damn thing going on for another 74 pages.
You force the discussion into a black/white argument, well, it just turns boxers into bikini thongs in rage.
     |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:00 |
|
I do what I can Painstate. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:01 |
|
Should Ranked and Box have seasons. No.
It annoys a few people who can't keep their legends or big teams, and means the divisions are not really open.
It does help a few teams reset occasionally IF they are mauled shortly before end of season.
It adds complication for benefit to few. I mean it isn't going to take just 1 minute to sort out if you have to decide about retiring players etc.
Whatever season length is set will upset people depending whether too long or short.
Some people yes as it is in the BB rules, but it is a weak argument.
Should league have seasons. In optional rules for the commisioners. It may have merit in leagues that actually have seasons. That is what it is designed for after all!!
Probably Stunty should be No to as it is similar to ranked.
Concluded. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:02 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | If anything Box and Ranked fall outside the scope of the imagination of the rules. Seasons should be an opt in experience in League, instead of a situation where you have to rely on a rogues gallery of user created leagues to get a crude facsimilie of matchmaking absent seasons.
Look at thr big picture here, is it worth torpedoing the only robust matchmaking divisions for the sake of rule congruity or is it better to allow coaches to form their own season bound leagues within League and play very close to the bb2016 rules?
And I'm not exaggerating on torpedoing - if there isn't a critical mass for acceptance of seasons in Box and Ranked, NA Fumbbl might as well not exist. |
Precisely. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:11 |
|
To refer back to my furniture assembly analogy:
We have a set of instructions to assemble a dresser. We have the parts to assemble the dresser. We also have the parts to assemble a Davenport but no instructions. Some people want to use the instructions for the dresser to build the Davenport while simultaneously suggesting we use the dresser parts to assemble a Davenport instead, using our best guess as to how that should work. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:12 |
|
| almic85 wrote: | | licker wrote: | Then the question simply remains this. What is the goal for R and B? Once that is clearly defined (and again, it only needs Christer to accept the definition) then you can actually start to consider how to implement seasons (if at all) and what the effect of different lengths will be.
The current definitions of R and B (as I understand them anyway) seem to be at odds with the effects that seasons would have on them. So, change the definitions, or don't add seasons to divisions which don't need them, or, as it seems from the limited polling done, want them.
|
Read the help section on Ranked and Box as they have the definitions for each division. |
You think I haven't?
| almic85 wrote: | | Ranked is a place for competitive open TV play within the confines of the latest rule set. |
What Help section are you looking at???
https://fumbbl.com/help:ranked
Or are you looking at something else?
No where in those help pages does it say anything about BB2016 or 'latest rule set'.
But even those pages are not the be all end all. There have been all sorts of discussions about all sorts of things over the years, and the message from Christer (and the admins) is that R and B are there to provide coaches with the opportunities to play their teams the way they want to play their teams (of course, within the spirit of the site rules).
There has been all sorts of teeth gnashing over min/maxing and cherry picking and what else have you, but little was done to directly remove any of it. Seasons though, does directly remove coaches abilities to manage and thus play their teams as they like. No more high TV teams, bloated or not, fewer legends, fewer legendary teams! It even destroys some of the ability to play totally fluffy teams.
So again, I'm not actually saying any of that is 'bad' per se, I'm saying seasons is not compatible with what we have come to expect for R and B.
Christer is certainly free to change those expectations if he chooses to, but that's what it comes to. |
|
|
Espionage
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:26 |
|
Voluntary season length would be an awesome tool for squishy teams to have in their toolbox. Is it too powerful, and is does it fit to the letter of the laws? If it was an option, I would love to have it. |
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:33 |
|
I'm starting to think 1-50 games is appropriate for Ranked seasons. Having to end season every 50 games will have little if any impact on any team's development (extrapolating the Agility Monsters' posted 30-game stats, a bad team should have 1950k+Treasury to rebuild; a good team should have more like 2500k+Treasury). Just make it clear how much money the team will have to rebuild on.
Oh, and we need a column next to games for the number of seasons a player has played. |
_________________
Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:42 |
|
And not just play teams their way, but play a rainbow of teams at your pace on your own time without the constraints of a League structure.
So why can't we have a user created open league that doesn't have the season constraint?
1. Lack of access to official tourneys which mostly function because of delegated responsibility among the tourney admin staff. Why is this important? Because so much of what people take for granted here is distributed to be manageable. Not only that, these official tourneys work because there is a team base that is more than large enough to garner enough participants.
2. Loss of teams through transition - you have to start fresh which is certainly not palatable to many coaches that have been here for many years with legacy teams they've poured 100s of hours into and helped keep Fumbbl afloat, through thick and thin.
3. If you build it, will they come? Believe it or not, the way things are currently set up at team creation putting an additional hurdle between a coach and joining a league with a non-seasonal rule set might be enough to prevent a critical mass of users to sustain it. Visibility matters. Without recognizing the crowding out effect in place at team creation, certainly you're liable to fall back onto the faulty logic chestnut of "Well it clearly wasn't popular enough blah blah blah..." The deck is stacked against user created leagues from the get go.
4. No Bowlbot created matches which is a sticky wicket for many Box coaches who don't want to play stupid meta games on gamefinder vis a vis picking.
5. You are at the whims of the commissioner of the league. The distributed management of B and R is mostly just and fair.
I could probably come up with 2 or 3 more but these thoughts should be enough to make it more than apparent as to why shunting off the way that most coaches enjoy R and B to L where someone who wishes they ran Fumbbl has all the control is a bad idea. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 22:49 |
|
| Espionage wrote: | | Voluntary season length would be an awesome tool for squishy teams to have in their toolbox. Is it too powerful, and is does it fit to the letter of the laws? If it was an option, I would love to have it. |
If you just renamed seasons to "mulligan" for the purposes of B and R you could have seasons in while not alienating a significant portion of the player base. It seems like the least ideal solution because it's not semantically consistent (and for you guys tripping over that hurdle, learn to hurdle) with seasons, nor does it squash enterprising coaches from finding exploitable rackets, nor does it place clearly defined parameters on coaches to pick apart and introduce your own pet idea on how seasons should work (again, learn to hurdle). But it places the onus and the freedom on a coach to decide when their team could use a rebuild effort and if the objection is "well that's not fair" I ask "to whom? Everyone has the same opportunity to choose"
All the flexibility in the world is within your grasp if you're willing to reach for it. |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2017 - 23:15 |
|
I would assume that the tourny crowd would frown somewhat on people 'rebuying' their team right before a tournament starts.
But to them I say, I simply do not remotely care, and it's also just not an issue worth worrying about.
It's not as though they cannot already police how teams are accepted, and yeah, maybe they have to do a little more policing? Not like it would be that hard to just say no teams who have 'reset' in their last 10 games is eligible and then just look at the counter on each team for current season length.
But yeah, really don't care how it would affect them, and frankly it's easier just not to bother with any season nonsense in which case it doesn't affect them at all anyway. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
