EMU, DMU and the Kaos horde
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
AFK_Eagle
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
|
 Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:29 |
 
|
The scoring system is my only beef with the MU's and other such groups. I like Alcione's (I think it was him) suggestion to double points if you win. I'd even go so far as to say halve the points if you lose. This would ensure the team works first towards a victory, and only after that's assured would he turn to pure team destruction. But against a good coach who is always a threat to score and retake the lead, the MU coach would be more worried in winning the game to preserve points, rather than maiming to increase points.
No negative points like you could (in theory) score? Haven't seen that many negative scores posted as results--either they're few and far between (likely) or coaches merely report the good games and forget to post the bad (also likely). But if you want that risk for an MU coach, then have the same happen for the opponent as well. That elf team racks up 5 SI's on ya, you lose pts. He wins (aka you lose) you lose double the points. You win, you lose only half the points.
An example might be in order:
Cas results 2/3/2 (one perm) for, 2/0/1 (apo fail) against...
EMU gives 44 pts for cas for (34 cas +10 slamdunk), lose 5 pts for cas against; Kaos gives 37 for (22 cas +15 slamdunk), 12 against. (I by far prefer the Kaos scoring in this instance, as losing that player is a BIG point hit, while EMU just shrugs, but that's a different topic....)
Win the game doubles points for/halves against, a draw nets baseline for/against, and losing the game halves your points while doubling your opponent's. This gives point totals of:
EMU: 88-3=85 win; 44-5=39 draw; 22-10=12 loss
Kaos: 74-6=68 win; 37-12=25 draw; 19-24= -5 loss
Kinda incentive to win first. Yes, you can still get positive points for destroying a team and forgetting the ball, but you'll be left way behind in your internal standings to the guys who hurt AND win. And that's my only request--play to win. Sure, players get hurt in the process, and sometimes hurting players helps ensure a win. But go for the score, taking players out as you go, instead of going for players first and then THINKING about the score. After all, you might decimate a team, but if he wins anyway, your points lose a lot of meaning. As things stand, you lose 5 pts, big whoopee deal, just kill a guy and you're living large. But with this suggested change, it's more math intensive (not everybody's strong point, but I will gladly do the math for ya if you need help) but seems more fair and true to the spirit of both the MU/Kaos AND ranked bloodbowl, that being to reward victories more than anything else, with a subset of retiring a few players of the hated race (or in Kaos's case, of anybody you face). |
_________________
Listen to Eagle! Eagle is good, Eagle is wise!
Founder of the E.L.F.--These elves will play anybody! |
|
BadMrMojo
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:36 |
|
But the point remains that the meta-league scoring structure does provide someone who may already have an inclination to play without regards to the point of the game with a "valid" excuse to do so.
It doesn't reward sociopaths as much as solid coaches who play good, tough games, but it can easily provide an easy excuse for the sociopaths to "throw" games. In my opinion, that's not a good thing. Like I said repeatedly, it's just the principle of the concept that bothers me. I think the practical application is actually kind of fun, so long as you have a good bunch of guys. |
_________________
Ta-Ouch! of BloodBowl
Condensed Guide for Newbies |
|
AlcingRagaholic
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:42 |
|
Alcione? Is that a mixed title?
I like the point you make, AFK_Eagle [bah, couldn't abbreviate it to either AFK or Eagle]. If the points actually factored the win loss instead of a simple +5/-5, it would really raise the incentive to win. But I doubt it would go into effect... unless you make your own league. WMU: Winners' Mangling Union.
Z |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:43 |
|
Think you've missed my point on the scoring AFK_Eagle.
If points are easier to come by in EMU there's less incentive to foul turn 1-16 to get positive points on the board. If an Kaos opponent actually manages to hurt something himself, he can probably expect to step up a level in the attrition stakes.
The -5 points for a loss can be offset in both cases by more destruction. The EMU does require less to make the 5 points back though.
Personally I'd like to see +2pts per TD scored and -2pts per touchdown conceeded next EMU season. Thats going to have a big enough impact on the scoring system to kill some of the criticism. |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:47 |
|
The goal of the EMU is to kill elves. It is up to me (or paulhicks or busko depending on the mu) to decide what point structure will help me to achieve this goal. The only people who have input on the scoring mechanism are those in the group. Why someone on the outside looking in would care what the scoring calculation looks like is beyond my comprehension.
that said, I did bow to public opinion by adding the negatives and points for winning. But at that time I had to figure out how to keep the EMU alive when 90% of admin (thanks again Klipp - we miss you) wanted to kill it. Now that we have achieved a tolerated existence, I'd be quite happy to go back to the original plan - points are for maiming. However, I do beleive that the flagship teams should maintain a winning record and thats why the -5 is still there.
EDIT: and if this thread continues both pustus and I should soon hit 1000 posts  |
_________________
 |
|
nazerdemus
Joined: Nov 02, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:49 |
|
the sociopath doesnt exist in our community , The Mighty Wuhan God of the Fouling Community had a 65% win record , people who like to kill innocent wardancers also love to win , its part of there make up ,
I can undersatnd a reluctance to accept something on paper which looks one way , but I think its been proven that this simply isnt the case ....
I dont even thing that many people change their game style whilst there in theses leagues , Foulers Foul , Non Foulers Dont , Sometimes I will foul other games I wont , |
|
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:55 |
|
right.... ive had enough..... you guys win with me....dmu is disbanded |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:57 |
|
| BunnyPuncher wrote: | | EDIT: and if this thread continues both pustus and I should soon hit 1000 posts |
...and thats why I'm still posting 
If I'm lucky enough to be invited back to help run next season I'd really like to see points for touchdowns.
Having a results thread full of lost games just looks ugly and I'd like some score related success in addition to my mighty elf splatting prowess. |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
Gatts
Joined: Jun 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 19:58 |
|
just some words on the "ranked is for people who play to win" and the "we should all play the same game in ranked" comments so far in the thread.
Quotes:
Evolvetoanarchism:
| Quote: | I wonder too.
I wonder why they are allowed in [R] at all. [R] is explicitly designed for Coah Ranking, and anything that pollutes the Coach Ranking system should have a very good reason for being included.
|
BadMrMojo:
| Quote: | Like I told him, I'm against the idea of meta-leagues which promote non-standard goals on principle. If you're playing the game, you should be playing the game with the actual intended goal of the game in mind. I'd be against a "My Left Foot" meta-league which scored based upon the number of GFIs failed as well, since it promotes making stupid plays over playing with the actual goal of the game in mind. Throwing a game - even to achieve your own, non-standard ends - is an insult.
If I sat down with Kenty* to play a game of Monopoly, I'd expect him to try to accumulate more cash than I did. Let's say Kenty decided that he didn't want to accumulate the most cash, he just wanted to make it around the board more times than I did. I'd be pretty annoyed that he was basically throwing the game. It's a bit insulting, somehow. |
Interesting points, however the .m.us are not the first by far to do this. let's consider some examples.
1. First one that requires you to use your imagination a little.. Your orc team is down 1-2 playing a skaven team. it's the last turn.. you have a goblin and a troll on the pitch. A ttm touchdown is possible.. but it'd be complicated. On the LOS you have your trustworthy BOBs with block guard and mighty blow What do you do? Some players would proceed to knock over the rats on the los, and some players would go for the ttm touchdown right away. Even though the rats on the los have no influence on the ttm action whatsoever. It's pretty clear that some players value teambuilding more than others and some are more bent on winning games than others. A similar example, you'r down 1-2 and decide to make a pass with a 5 spp elf to a 3 spp elf instead of making the touchdown right away.
2. People who do not foul. Yup there are people like this too. Even though they often acknowlöedge that a foul would be the most tactically favourable option they choose not to based on some moral or ethic issues, are they playing the same game as us?? in this cathegory we also find people who do not stall. Intelligent people who agree that by stalling they'd be far more likely to win certain games, but still they choose not to. Bye bye, No more ranked division for you.
3. The "I'm gonne prove a pointers", people that decide they'll only score with their sauris, or only do ttm touchdowns, should they be excluded from R?
4. For that matter, anyone playing halflings. if the point of the R division is to play to win games, why are halflings or the other clearly bad races even allowed there. ISn't that what we have unranked and stunty for.
I think it's pretty obvious that even without mus or other groupings we play bloddbowl differently, with different intentions and goals. |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 20:09 |
|
| inquisitorpustus wrote: |
If I'm lucky enough to be invited back to help run next season I'd really like to see points for touchdowns. |
Points for TDs shall return. They were removed to prevent the skaven from winning again (boy did that ever work) and the Season 2 scoring system will come back. We're just dividing the EMU into two divisions based on race so the skaven can only win one of them 
And of course you are welcome to come back! |
_________________
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 20:28 |
|
Woo Hoo!
Elf splatting and no Skaven menace!
I am trully blessed among weasels |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
Darkwolf
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 20:39 |
|
I am starting a new group!
E.M.U.M.U
Elf Mangling Union Mangling Union. I will send $5 Canadian per coach that forces an EMU team to retire or concede a match. I will send an additional $10 if you make Bunny cry or have a nervous breakdown. I will send you $50 if you can force Bunny to leave/quit fumbbl or shut down EMU. Open to all races and coaches, except those in Denmark. pm Darkwolf for details! While quantities last! |
_________________
Check out the latest Darkwolf "***Did you know?" in his bio! Each month, a new Darkwolf factoid!
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=coachinfo&coach=768 |
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 20:46 |
|
its been done darkwolf |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 20:47 |
|
The money aspect is new though....
Give Bunny a nervous breakdown eh?
EMU vs cold hard cash...
Err eeeeh oooh
Need time to think adout that one. |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 21, 2004 - 20:55 |
|
its a shame you didnt offer the same cash to get rid of dmu.....the timing would have been perfect |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
|
|
| |
RNG speculations
Search
