BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 21, 2004 - 21:21 |
|
Doctor_G wrote: | I think the best thing you could do is to play with ranked teams |
Now that's a productive use of your second post...
On second thought, it does illustrate my point about mob mentality... I retract that last statement. Thanks for adding to the conversation!
(Just picking on you a bit, Doc. No actual malice is intended. I know it can be hard to tell on a forum.) |
_________________ Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 21, 2004 - 21:22 |
|
There are a couple reasons why I don't want to play in ranked, but that is not the topic of the thread .
Sadly the play more [u] philosophy doesn't really have an effect. I don't have any teams in [r] anymore, since the switch was made. It's not lack of my interest, it's lack of other people's interest, and that seems to be diminishing. Probably there is no good answer to this (and as usual I agree with my BMM - forcing people won't do any good) - but who knows .
-Mnemon |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
  Posted:
Oct 21, 2004 - 21:37 |
|
Well people seem to have voted with their feet. Ranked is the most popular div on fumbbl and unranked isn't. Probably since it's seen as a 'newbies division' where the new coaches learn to play. Nothing wrong with that, just nothing to attract the more experienced players who want some kind of challenge in their games.
If you wanted to ressurect (U) you would probably need some kind of incentive other than the games themselves to draw people in.
as a simple suggestion why not give (U) a ranking the same as/similar to (R)? The difference being that the (U) ranking wouldn't be policed by the administration.
What would this achieve?
Its still a good place for new players to learn since the ranking wouldnt be taken seriously in any way. Its a lure to other coaches since its an addition to their 'portfolio' of success.
It may also be a good idea to have teams removed from this ranking systsem whenever they play tournament games, leaving people to concentrate on the tournament rather than the ranking.
err this was all off the top of my head so its probably a really stupid idea.... |
_________________ Forum terrorist. |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 21, 2004 - 22:04 |
|
I always thought a chance to play against this team would be incentive enough for every team to move to Unranked.
FUNky groups might also encourage more [U] play. A few suggestions:
I enjoy good old-fashioned rivalries (Farwood Fire, My 11 Thugs, My 11 Fumbbl Favourites, etc. vs. my Anarchists). Informal leagues that let you play outside games, but keep track of scores between members might encourage such fun play.
Thematic groups can add some novelty to the tournament circuit. We've seen a ton of those. But to encourage teams to continue to play outside those tournaments, perhaps tournaments to determine who's the best [Insert Race Here] might have some prestige attached. A giant round robin to robin might get more [U] games going, as the winner will likely be the coach who plays the most.
I really enjoyed running the old Anarchist challenge league. It's a pity the ladder challenge system has taken off like I thought it might. Maybe a port to [U] might give it some legs? Heck! Someone could manage it manually .
None the less, I think the best thing for [U] is just simply to get more coaches playing [U] games.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Ulthuan Invitational |
_________________ Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Xeterog
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 21, 2004 - 22:28 |
|
Virus must really be a pain against that team |
_________________ - Xeterog |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 16:31 |
|
I think one of the problems is, type bb lfg and you're tournament teams appears. And I honestly would be upset by searching a "true" U team. |
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 16:45 |
|
sk8bcn wrote: | I think one of the problems is, type bb lfg and you're tournament teams appears. And I honestly would be upset by searching a "true" U team. |
Which is another plus point for the Gamefinder at least. Now we've got that, it's easy to just advertise your 'nomadic' (as opposed to tourny) divU teams. |
|
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 16:46 |
|
sk8bcn wrote: | I think one of the problems is, type bb lfg and you're tournament teams appears. And I honestly would be upset by searching a "true" U team. |
You do realize that you can type a portion of the team's name, right? If I want to look for a game with my non-tournament U teams, I can just type, "bb lfg uns|aca|9th".
It's not that hard. And with gamefinder, it's actually easier. |
_________________ Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Idolen
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 16:49 |
|
Maybe if you make a rule in gamefinder that says you have to put an U team in for evry R team, then people at least have a chance to challenge you in U, even if you don't really wnt to play in that division.
And as inquisitopustus ( man that's a long name ) said, this was all off the top of my head so its probably a really stupid idea.... |
_________________ 1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 16:56 |
|
Idolen wrote: | Maybe if you make a rule in gamefinder that says you have to put an U team in for evry R team, then people at least have a chance to challenge you in U, even if you don't really wnt to play in that division. |
That would really kind of make gamefinder useless if you have a bunch of teams listed which no one has any inclination of actually playing.
Also, less rules = more better. |
_________________ Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 17:16 |
|
I realize I am ignoring the topic title by saying this but...
Officially sanctioned tournaments in U that "fit the fluff" of the tournament play in the LRB. What I mean is that they should reflect the concept of "travelling" tournaments. Teams show up in town and play tournament over the course of a few days. The tournaments would have set prizes (cash and fan factor) and set qualifications (100TR only, 150-200TR, Open etc.), with minor tournaments worth less than major tournaments. Games played outside these tournaments would be exactly what they are, pick up games played as one offs to strengthen the team, train players etc. The tournaments would have a fixed annual schedule, with major tournaments every quarter and monthly or twice monthly minor tournies. Obviously governing these would be difficult so the rules would have to be draconian, for example: any teams which do not start their match within one hour of the round commencement will be expelled from the tourny and the other team moved on.
This would be a ton of work, so it is likely won't be considered. But this type of organized tournament league is what is missing from fumbbl. Currently in U there really is nothing to play for other than "fun".
Without the ongoing schedule, one-off boosts (such as the Div-X cup) will not provide a sustained interest. Long (in real-time) tournaments do not allow for legacy building as entering multiple tournaments would take years at the rate most tournies plod along in.
Benefits:
a) Continuity, teams would enter multiple tournaments, and as a result be able to have a "legacy" visible to all of fumbbldom
b) History, each tournament, after a while would have its own stories and legends, champions, contenders, and hopeless teams.
c) Purpose: prizes provide goals and fame.
d) Fluffy goodness!
Costs:
a) TIME!
b) Organization
c) Commitment.
Just my 2 cents. |
_________________
Last edited by BunnyPuncher on %b %22, %2004 - %17:%Oct; edited 2 times in total |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 17:23 |
|
This could be community driven providing there was some standardized way of requesting tournament prizes and a little bit more functionality in the tournament management page. |
_________________
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 18:02 |
|
Got my vote |
_________________ Forum terrorist. |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 18:36 |
|
So, the solution to getting more people to play nomadic/open/non-tournament divU teams is to have tournaments?
I don't quite grasp the logic. There are already divU tourneys (<sagan>bill-yuns</sagan> of them) and we are having this problem. How will adding more tourneys will help? There's a relatively small number of open "training" matches involved - probably primarily between tourney participants trading "soft" matches, if I may be so base as to imply it - but other than that...?
I don't think the point is to boost the divU numbers on the stats page (which this would very likely do) but rather to make more matches available for pickup games. |
_________________ Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
  Posted:
Oct 22, 2004 - 18:57 |
|
I think the idea was more fumbbl sanctoined tourneys, with prizes involved as a sweetner to get more teams involved.
If some tournaments required you to be at a higher level (in terms of TS) to participate, then I think you'd see the numbers of one off 'team building' games increase. |
_________________ Forum terrorist. |
|
|