Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Mar 29, 2014 - 13:38 |
 
|
| Garion wrote: | | [...] concessions are policed for the enjoyment of *snip* no no [...] |
There, I've fixed it for you  |
|
|
Kamahl
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 14:09 |
|
Time for some thread necromancy 
@Christer - someone probably already come up with this, and i guess it's a nasty solution, but definite one:
Add another coach related filter to matchmaker - RTP list. RefuseToPlay. Coach adds coaches he has no desire to interact with to this list, and matchmaker algorithm acts accordingly. Drain on site resources to be sure, but:
-No more problems with proposing houserules and such
-No more whining
-You will play against a coach whose view of fun game is fundamentally different from your only once
-Community becomes self-regulated. Will i grief/whine/waste your time if that can cost me games in the future?
(list is of course private  ) |
|
|
PaddyMick
Joined: Jan 03, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 14:27 |
|
Good idea but doesn't it go against the ethos of the box, which is a match up against a random team and opponent? It allows pickers in box which is bad. You could refuse to play against anyone with a bash team, for example.
It would lead to less match ups, but maybe more people playing box, but a lot of those might be pickers, so fewer match ups. |
|
|
easilyamused
Joined: Jun 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 14:29 |
|
| Kamahl wrote: | Time for some thread necromancy
@Christer - someone probably already come up with this, and i guess it's a nasty solution, but definite one:
Add another coach related filter to matchmaker - RTP list. RefuseToPlay. Coach adds coaches he has no desire to interact with to this list, and matchmaker algorithm acts accordingly. Drain on site resources to be sure, but:
-No more problems with proposing houserules and such
-No more whining
-You will play against a coach whose view of fun game is fundamentally different from your only once
-Community becomes self-regulated. Will i grief/whine/waste your time if that can cost me games in the future?
(list is of course private ) |
Not going to happen, why not just give Christer a list of coaches you want gone and ask him to ban them? This is basically the same thing as it gives the community a way to remove coaches they don't like from the site. |
_________________
 |
|
Kamahl
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 14:42 |
|
It would not eliminate anyone, that would mean you pissed off entire division and ended up on every coach RTP list.
And if you do just that - and basically eliminate yourself from playing?
Star Trek quote: Needs of many outweigh needs of few.
|
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 14:55 |
|
| Kamahl wrote: | Time for some thread necromancy
@Christer - someone probably already come up with this, and i guess it's a nasty solution, but definite one:
Add another coach related filter to matchmaker - RTP list. RefuseToPlay. Coach adds coaches he has no desire to interact with to this list, and matchmaker algorithm acts accordingly. Drain on site resources to be sure, but:
-No more problems with proposing houserules and such
-No more whining
-You will play against a coach whose view of fun game is fundamentally different from your only once
-Community becomes self-regulated. Will i grief/whine/waste your time if that can cost me games in the future?
(list is of course private ) |
| Kamahl wrote: | It would not eliminate anyone, that would mean you pissed off entire division and ended up on every coach RTP list.
And if you do just that - and basically eliminate yourself from playing?
Star Trek quote: Needs of many outweigh needs of few.
|
That zone already exists, Ensign Kamahl.
It's located within the Ranked Quadrant.
Frankenstein out |
|
|
Kamahl
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 15:07 |
|
That's right in a sense.
Hey. Isn't ranked that division with higher number of games played, and active coaches?
|
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 15:41 |
|
| Kamahl wrote: | That's right in a sense.
Hey. Isn't ranked that division with higher number of games played, and active coaches?
|
It's the quadrant with the highest number of systems containing Cherry class planets and the lowest density of clawpomb rips caused by warp-tainted lifeforms. |
|
|
PaddyMick
Joined: Jan 03, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 15:48 |
|
It's Blood Bowl Jim, but not as we know it |
|
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 16:18 |
|
| PaddyMick wrote: | | You could refuse to play against anyone with a bash team, for example. |
Allow n = years_since_registered * k number of coaches on your refuse-to-play list. k = 1 or 2 seems perfect. |
_________________
   |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 19:54 |
|
Or just play in ranked. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
backelie
Joined: Jul 20, 2010
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 21:05 |
|
I agree with Jimmy, the solution to problems in the only division with an automated matchmaker is to give up on the idea that that division could ever be better and just play somewhere else. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 21:15 |
|
| PaddyMick wrote: | Good idea but doesn't it go against the ethos of the box, which is a match up against a random team and opponent? It allows pickers in box which is bad. You could refuse to play against anyone with a bash team, for example.
It would lead to less match ups, but maybe more people playing box, but a lot of those might be pickers, so fewer match ups. |
You get 2 people to use this with. If you have a problem with more than 2 people, it's obvious you're the issue, not a multitude of people.
That's how I'd balance it. But I'm just full of ideas |
|
|
PaddyMick
Joined: Jan 03, 2012
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 21:41 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | PaddyMick wrote: | Good idea but doesn't it go against the ethos of the box, which is a match up against a random team and opponent? It allows pickers in box which is bad. You could refuse to play against anyone with a bash team, for example.
It would lead to less match ups, but maybe more people playing box, but a lot of those might be pickers, so fewer match ups. |
You get 2 people to use this with. If you have a problem with more than 2 people, it's obvious you're the issue, not a multitude of people.
That's how I'd balance it. But I'm just full of ideas |
Yeah that could work but would you be able to change the coaches you use it against at will? So look who's online and change accordingly? 'cos that would kinda suck. Or change once a week maybe.
Also like the idea above about k and years and stuff. |
|
|
happygrue
Joined: Oct 15, 2010
|
| Posted:
Apr 12, 2014 - 21:54 |
|
The biggest problem with such an idea is that it could be used instead against the relatively few coaches who play a lot and rank near the top of the box. If you could ignore 10-20 coaches, you can carve out the major competition from the box or some of the nastiest teams (though not both). We have no idea which people would actually do... but in either case the overall number of matches is going to go down somewhat - and big C has made it clear that's the dealbreaker for any idea. He's not going to do something that reduces the number of matches until numbers are *much* higher than they are. |
_________________
Come join us in #metabox, the Discord channel for HLP, ARR, and E.L.F. in the box!
 |
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
