cusi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Oct 22, 2003 - 12:22 |
 
|
|
HoboJed
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2003 - 13:22 |
|
While I haven't played in factions yet (I'm at university and can't play games on their computers), it seems to me that the problem could be self correcting (at least part of the problem)....
Here is an example using 3 factions (and using a more linear system than fumbbl to simplify, but the principles should be the same), each with 20 teams (I don't know the numbers factions uses for faction size/relegations/etc, so I'm making them up for the example), with relegation/promotion of 5 teams each way:
the worst case is that the teams are in reverse order of strength....lets assume a team's strength doesn't change, and a team won't play another team that is 30 or more higher in the strength order (ie, the 31st strongest team won't play the 1st strongest team), and a team wins any match against a weaker team (whilst that obviously won't happen, it's just a model).
we start off with:
faction 1 (41-60)
faction 2 (21-40)
faction 3 (1-20)
Then the strongest 5 teams in each faction goes up and the weakest 5 go down (as all possible matches are played), so:
faction 1 (21-25, 41-55)
faction 2 (1-5, 26-35, 56-60)
faction 3 (6-20, 36-40)
Next time it is more complex...in faction 1, 21-25 all win more than the lowest 5 teams, so the lowest 5 teams get relegated. In faction 2, 26-30 go up as they win more games than those below them, and more than 1-5, and teams 56-60 go down.
In faction 3, 6-10 go up.
faction 1 (21-30, 41-50)
faction 2 (1-10, 31-35, 51-55)
faction 3 (11-20, 36-40, 56-60)
I'll end the example there as it demonstrates what I was talking about...whilst the best teams have been prevented from going up, when weaker teams did, there is a general trend for the worst teams to fall down the factions, and the best teams to go up. As more good teams go up, the easier it is for good teams to go up in general.
I'm not sure if all of that example was correct as I worked it out in my head, but it shows the general idea.
The only problem will be the odd team that gets stranded on it's own, near no teams that are even close to it in strength...all of these teams will sink towards the bottom factions. However, when enough of them end up near each other, they can start to move back upwards again. This will cause them to spread out and stop moving back up, so they will then have to wait for more strong teams to come back down, to continue.
Whilst new factions are still being added, this problem will be worse as these teams have nowhere to stop falling down and collecting together, but I guess the rate at which new factions are added will decrease over time, and therefore over time, the problem will decrease (although not completely disappear). |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2003 - 18:15 |
|
After some time, the best teams will be in faction 1. Someone said, that the best coaches will be there, but I daubt, that coaching ability can compensate more that lets say 20 (without relying on luck), if you play an avarage coach. So the strongest teams will be up there (which will be imo mainly-AV9-teams and some chaos).
Why not make a STR-Limit for each fraction-tree? Lets say teams, starting a round in faction-lvl 5 (which is the lowest then), must not be stronger than STR 120. For each lvl the border rises by lets say 30 points (150-4/180-3). Faction 2 and 1 don´t have any limit. This way you have teams with roughly the same STR in each faction-lvl. Strong-Team dropping in faction-lvls either have to discard player as income and sponsoring is less in lower factions, till they fit the conditions, or have to be retired. This way the best coaches get up the ladder.
Now for the problem with the strong teams, getting sacked by those challange-dodgers (though I have to admit, that there are some challenges, I decline, too):
When the season-deadline approaches, there is a period (lets say week 3 in a monthly bases system) a coach can call for a game. His team gets marked as waiting for a match, and any coach can challenge him and he HAS to play. When noone plays him till the end of the season, he won´t be relegated, dispite the fact, that he may be the only one with 0 points and zero games. This way, there will be a team, that will play this team for sure: the team on 17th position, which will be relegated, if the calling team stay unchallenged.
Sound´s a bit complicated and I don´t know about any possible diffs to prog this system, but it was the best system, I could make up to solve the 2 problems of STR-inequality and some teams getting no games. |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 08:43 |
|
| Rennigeb wrote: | | One method of neutralizing the act of avoiding high strength sides is to have faction sides not display their strength and to not allow other players to look at the team (that part is extreme and flawed though, maybe not allow viewing if the player is logged on). |
Never going to happen. The main people it would benefit are those who want to trick people into playing obcenely built teams. If you want to built up a crusher team, don't be suprised if people won't play it. |
_________________
Looking to get your minis painted? Look no further.
The Finishing Touch |
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 09:29 |
|
Factions should force people to play crusher teams... doging is for Open...
My Original Point:
Organise parallel Factions (silly name) after Timezones.
So that 5a is all American while 5b is European u get the idea.
Obiously 2 is already east vs west, and 1 is the global melting pot. |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 10:02 |
|
Faction is perfect the way it is. Why do you think it's called Faction?
The way it works out is that you'll get a few mini-factions within each faction - happy fun people who play elves just to win and are scared of being touched play each other, and dastardly evil people who love to bash and foul and kick and smite play each other. There is nothing wrong with this. If you want to play the opposite kind, you have to be a negotiator. You have to have a good reputation, or at least not so bad that it follows you around. You also have to make sure your team isn't obviously structured as to be too harmful of the opposition.
I see all these coaches who love the bash style complaining that they can't get games, and proposing ever more elaborate regulations to ensure they have the pleasure of massacring some poor suckers. All of these ideas are misguided. Faction is not about who is the strongest. The strongest teams don't deserve anything at all, least of which any kind of challenge powers. |
|
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 14:56 |
|
|
thmbscrws
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 15:31 |
|
I hate to be the bearer of bad news and all but agility teams are suposed to play bashy teams every now and then. Their low armor, low str and lack of large amounts of blocking related skills is there for a reason, they are SUPPOSED to die with more frequency than dwarves and orks. The reason for this is simple, how long does it take to get an elf linemen to there first skill compared to how long it takes to get a dwarf or ork to there first skill.
Hi agility teams advance much faster than bashy teams, to offset this advantage they get injured and killed a lot more often. From what i've seen in faction there is a pretty even spread of agility and bashy teams and it will probably stay that way. For the game to remain balanced and fun the different types of teams have to play against each other. Bashy teams can never advance there linemen unless they play the occasional soft team and agility teams will find their strength wya to high for them to find a game if they don't have a few players die every now and then, it's the way the game is supposed to work.
I'm not saying that agility teams should play every bashy team that offers, thats just plain stupid. I'm just saying that take a look at the other team and if it looks like he built his team to win and not to just grind your team into the dust for some sick self gratification then consider playing the game if it looks like an even and fair match up. Don't say no to the game just because yu read the race and don't like dwarves, orks, chaos, etc. If it's a fair match and the bashy coach plays to win then play the game. |
_________________
"If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin |
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 15:50 |
|
I'd say "You are not allowed to play more than one match against each Race" |
|
|
IvarsKulle
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
|
 Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 16:44 |
|
I think that ONE big problem will be that the teams in the top aren´t the best coaches in bloodbowl, but the best coaches of getting easy matches.
I can understand that a team on the edge of breaking(like 9 playerteams) don´t want to play a higher STR-team.
BUT when some coaches, who has a great openrecord, just dodgeas games cause they see the possibility to loose, then I get frustrated.
So what do I think we should do to solve the problem?
1. If you get an opponent that won´t play you, ASK HIM WHY!
2. Everybody should try to play as much games as possible, not concidering who they meet!
3. The points you get for a win should be associated with the teamratingdifference. If you win over a better team, you get more points. The limits should be wide, like in 10 pts difference no extrapoints awarded. But then if you beat a team that´s up like 25 pts. You should get a lot of extrapoints.
Shall I play worse? Shall I on purpose not try to score TD´s? Shall I never block an opponent? What are you thinking of? This is a GAME! I play cause it is fun!! |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 19:17 |
|
I agree with most of your points, Ivars. I don't quite go along with the extra points rule, just because it might make things a bit too complex and it opens up just as many problems.
If you give points for TR/TS differences regardless of the results (ie: 1 point for every 5 TR you play up, even if you lose), then you have to think of the scale. At 1/5 tr, people might be able to advance just by losing lots of very tough matches. Hardly the point. If you make it more like 1/10 TR, then it's so inconsequential that it doesn't actually solve anything and is therefore a pointless change. (for the record, ratios are just off the top of my head, I have no idea of what impact these exact values would have, just using them as examples).
So, let's say that you only get the extra points for playing up if you win. Then it's still not much of an impetus to play up because you are not likely to win. Sure the potential rewards are greater, but if you get your team smashed and fall short (a very likely outcome), you just lose out on that much more. Now, I personally would think that this was great (check out the TR differences here  ), but it wouldn't fix the problem, I'm afraid.
Moral of the story: don't try to legislate good behavior. People will find a way to suck (not talking about winning and losing games here...) no matter what you do. Reinforce positively or negatively as you see fit, right Evo? |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Trevor_24
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 20:00 |
|
I think there should be a challenge system in play. You can challenge who ever you want but if it is more then a difference of 9 in str there is not pen. for not excepting |
|
|
Garax
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 20:26 |
|
I can understand why people don't wanna play me, since I play dwarves (yeah, I know I said I hate 'em... Why you think I play as em now eh?), but its a bit harsh for me to get relagated cos I can't get enough games to keep up with everyone else who's played 4 orf 5.
Also wassup with 4C... Its always REALLY inactive when I'm around. |
|
|
Force
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 22:06 |
|
I hate to say it but Factions IS BROKEN the way it is now.
There's got to be some more smart rules to "trick" people into playing.
Of course its a very "young" Division so it might be wise to wait some more to let things sharpen out more, but that bears the danger of pissing people off.
First of all the Factions must be organised by timezones/countries, because in a pool of only 20 people you really must make sure they are online at the same time more often.
Then there should be a "scoring" system that awards dauntless play, for example:
Victory = 4 Points
Draw = 2 Points
Defeat by one touchdown = 2 Points
Defeat by more than one touchdown = 1 Point
Concession = 0 Points
Playing a Team with a higher Ream Rating than your Team: 1 Bonus Point.
-> This would mean by loosing to a more powerful team by only one Touchdown, you can still score 3 Points, which is more than playing draw with an even strength opponent. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2003 - 22:36 |
|
tbh whatever rules that are implemented people are still going to dodge matches or whatever
if you just let the other people in your faction know they are dodging bashing teams or whatever and get them to avoid playing that coach then unless that coach bucks his ideas up then they will get relegated cause they didn't play
if you find people aren't playing your team becuase your team is too strong there is nothing stopping you sacking a player to lower your team to a level where they are willing to play
coaches who refuse games against even teams well they just suck and there isn't really a lot we can do about that then exclude them |
|
|
|
|
| |
Blackbox Teams
Search
