| Poll |
| What is the single biggest factor that would encourage you to play more [B] Games? |
| 1) A competitive goal beyond the single match |
|
34% |
[ 79 ] |
| 2) More racial diversity |
|
24% |
[ 57 ] |
| 3) Greater ease in getting a [B] game |
|
5% |
[ 12 ] |
| 4) Reducing TS exploits |
|
9% |
[ 21 ] |
| 5) Integration of the blackbox concept with other divisions |
|
7% |
[ 18 ] |
| 6) None - I'm happy playing in other divisions. |
|
19% |
[ 45 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 232 |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 05:36 |
 
|
| Snappy_Dresser wrote: | | And I fail to see how a policy that would only increase the variety of opponents in a division would do harm to a division that is losing coach interest because of the lack of variety of opponent. |
1) It would not only increase variety, it also would force coaches to build and play rosters they do not want to play.
On top of that, you seem to assume that variety for the sake of variety is a good thing in the first place, a position I'd strongly disagree with. There are core races and there are freak races and I do not have any problems with playing against popular races more often than against less attractive ones.
2) That the division has lost more coaches due to lack of variety than it would lose to enforced rosters is just your assumption.
Personally, I haven't experienced any significant variety problems. However, I am convinced that people always will bring up perceived variety problems due to statistical reasons. This is similar to when coaches moan about broken random number generators when they encounter a statistically perfectly normal streak of bad dice.
BTW: Ranked tournaments feature everything but racial diversity. Nevertheless, they seem to be highly popular, the variety issue there appears to be meaningless. Therefore, I think that the actual impact of the "variety issue" (which in my opinion is no issue at all) has been highly exaggerated in this discussion. |
|
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 06:20 |
|
Not sure if it's already been posted, but I'd say that [B] is far from dead. Sure it has declined significantly from the first week or so when it had a lot of appeal simply because it was new and different, but there are still a similar number of games in the box as there are in league.
Statistics - Games (purple = ranked, red = League, grey = box) |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 17:05 |
|
| Laviak wrote: | Not sure if it's already been posted, but I'd say that [B] is far from dead. Sure it has declined significantly from the first week or so when it had a lot of appeal simply because it was new and different, but there are still a similar number of games in the box as there are in league.
Statistics - Games (purple = ranked, red = League, grey = box) |
You should use weeks instead of days.
Edit: typo |
Last edited by Frankenstein on %b %15, %2009 - %18:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
arw
Joined: Jan 07, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 18:26 |
|
All statistics seem a little too fresh for me.
BBox is new and this statisics are highly influenced by Blackbox being new and coaches not knowing what to expect- facing a new kind of difficulties they didn't expect.
A "finally stabilized" Box probably won't be able to replace Ranked. Why should it?
The Box might end up being kind of a strange "Exploiters vs hardcore challengers" division.
IF things turn out to really be as serious as some coaches describe that is.
A lot of coaches will be in between those two parties though playing a variety of teams.
Do you mind? I don't.
My tough teams want a challenge and the softer ones too. I do not only enjoy the fact that I can field three DPs with my Orcs without anyone able to dodge a game (though it's just one DP by now). I especially enjoy to meet Khem and Dwarfs and Mass DPs along the way- without ever being tempted to pick the soft option!
Same with my Delves too! Actually I can't take a team for full if it doesn't face real challenges. I'm not "looking for trouble" playing Khem all the time (which I could perfectly do in Ranked). It's just the fact that I like my Delves a little more after their recent winning survival against ravaging Khem fouling 15 times in that game! Could have gone bad but didn't. Now it's history ^^
Won't complain if I meet Pro Elf next.
Please go on and use that absurd zero ReRoll + Captain rebate! Be welcome to- though it clearly is an exploit!
The point is: You and I both know it is an exploit. Now let me kick your ass dude!
Back on topic:
More fame for "the glorious survivers" and the "most evil henchman" in BBox would certainly make people join. Famous teams like the Hellfishes or the Charioteers for Ranked would probably describe playing a tough division with pride rather than with rejection.
Can't be done just like this... Tourneys would help teams to get fame. More Meta-Groups might. |
|
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2009 - 23:53 |
|
ok Arw, you are happy with an idiotic bash league. If multi DP 0 reroll teams were a challenge to me, I might be too. All drawing a team like that does for me is waste a couple hours so that some moron half a world away can stroke his epeen. |
_________________
<PurpleChest> the way it splooshed got me so excited
"I hear that shadow is a douchebag"
-Mr Foulscumm |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 02:00 |
|
|
johan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 10:37 |
|
Some kind of reward system is going to be critical once we get out of testing.
[B] should count for awards, of course. BR should be displayed. Some kind of monthly trophy (analogous to the Ranked Championship) would be great. Black Box Tourneys would be tricky to design, but a very good addition. Some kind of reward system for underplayed races could be interesting. |
_________________
”It's very sad
To see the ancient and distinguished game that used to be
A model of decorum and tranquillity
Become like any other sport, a battleground...”
—Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus, Chess
Last edited by johan on %b %16, %2009 - %14:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 11:12 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: |
1) It would not only increase variety, it also would force coaches to build and play rosters they do not want to play.
On top of that, you seem to assume that variety for the sake of variety is a good thing in the first place, a position I'd strongly disagree with. There are core races and there are freak races and I do not have any problems with playing against popular races more often than against less attractive ones.
|
My opinion:
If you do not want to play with 16 out of 21 rosters, then i honestly cannot help you.
There was no suggestion - to my knowledge - that forced anyone to create a specific team of a specific race. All of those were category approaches.
In a similar way, noone ever wanted to force anyone to play a 'freak race'.
Also, noone needs to be forced. A 3-6TS bonus for [B] teams of a coach that has only one or two races (or categories of races) would be fine, too. To ensure that those who lower the quality of the matchups by submitting less teams are usually the ones being handicapped by their own choice. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 12:24 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: |
My opinion:
If you do not want to play with 16 out of 21 rosters, then i honestly cannot help you. |
It's not just about races it is about teams. I don't really want to play high TR when I wanted low TR.
Even if all my teams are dark elves it is usually a particular team I want to play when I sit down.
So I don't know if getting rid of the 1 or 2 team coaches really improves matchups as less coachs = less teams.
I don't know how many of the multi-team coaches would start only activating 1 or 2 teams.
Choice may mean more teams and better matchups as the 1 or 2 team coaches play more games. |
_________________
[SL] + Official Stunty teams. Progression KO. Old & new teams welcome. 29th May! |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 12:40 |
|
I think the most important things B should get after the testing phase is over would be a monthly championship, like in ranked. BR could also lure in a few coaches. Or the monthly championship could have the best performing team of every race mentioned or something like that , this could bring out some diversity, I might actually create some other team than skaven or gobbos just to try out how I would do with them.
Tournaments would be a lot more difficult to arrange in B, because of the scheduling. I guess one way could be that if coaches are set up for a game, and both of them are activated, the scheduler would set them against each other. The problem would be the teams either not being to able to play other games while in the tourney, or would they be allowed to play 1 off games while the tourney was going on? Since I dont think we'd want to lock out teams from the scheduler, since we do want more games in B. This could work, but then again, the problem is that teams bashed in a tourney game, would get to play a recov game before the next round. And it would get worse, if the coach manages to get that recov and a team into shape, he wont be activating his teams since he would be waiting for that tourney game and not risking his players.
I'd like tournaments in B, but the thing is I wouldnt want one of my teams being tied up in a tourney for a long time. That would mean I'd have to play with my gobbos for as long as the tourney lasts 
Either way this problem would be solved, it wouldnt be good enough for everybody, someone would complain. |
|
|
TheCetusProject
Joined: May 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 13:29 |
|
I suspect it'll be hard to come up with a monthly championship that is meaningful and not open to fairly easy abuse. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 13:38 |
|
|
wackyone
Joined: Dec 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 13:46 |
|
| odi wrote: |
I'd like tournaments in B, but the thing is I wouldnt want one of my teams being tied up in a tourney for a long time. That would mean I'd have to play with my gobbos for as long as the tourney lasts
|
Aaand I think we have a winner!
Maybe you just pointed out a way to gently nudge people to make new (and possibly varied) teams, without shoving them down their throats! |
|
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 14:02 |
|
| wackyone wrote: | | odi wrote: |
I'd like tournaments in B, but the thing is I wouldnt want one of my teams being tied up in a tourney for a long time. That would mean I'd have to play with my gobbos for as long as the tourney lasts
|
Aaand I think we have a winner!
Maybe you just pointed out a way to gently nudge people to make new (and possibly varied) teams, without shoving them down their throats! |
Well, to be honest, there are plenty of different AV7 teams I could use. I prefer skaven, but could go for elves too |
|
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 16, 2009 - 14:16 |
|
| TheCetusProject wrote: | | I suspect it'll be hard to come up with a monthly championship that is meaningful and not open to fairly easy abuse. |
Sure, some people would be powergaming and and managing their TS, I'm sure we'd see more 0RR+Leader dwarves and stuff. But I'm pretty sure it would work better than in R |
|
|
|
|
| |
custom pitch per tea...
Search
