Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier

The pricepool championship would benefit from a max loss setting. When a coach gets 12 or 13 (unlucky number) losses, he can't play more matches with that team in the pricepool championship. He can of course make new teams to try for good record.

This max losses would in large part stop the coaches that just make kill stomp stacks to destroy rather than to try to qualify.

Common guys, please?

last edited by Hotdogchef
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

Again, how would you implement this? Moderation is done manually and this would require even more regular data parsing that we already have, and more work for the admin team in booting those teams (something which has to be done in-game) which have lost n matches.

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Again, how would you implement this? Moderation is done manually and this would require even more regular data parsing that we already have, and more work for the admin team in booting those teams (something which has to be done in-game) which have lost n matches.

Looks like you answered your own question.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

There was an unspoken "which won't happen"...

The admin team does plenty as it is. I have no intention of increasing my workload, certainly not to that extent.

last edited by dode74

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

There was an unspoken "which won't happen"...

The admin team does plenty as it is. I have no intention of increasing my workload, certainly not to that extent.

Got an uncanny feeling you only support your own suggestions... at least its a consistent pattern if you look at all your posts and replies...

last edited by Hotdogchef

@hotdogchef said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

This max losses would in large part stop the coaches that just make kill stomp stacks to destroy rather than to try to qualify.

You already got enough arguments in the other thread, each of them completly disqualifying the suggestion. If I may add another one: Have you looked at the top teams in the ladder recently? The team on top is a killer-chaos-dwarf-team with 41 wins, 6 draws, 4 losses
http://www.mordrek.com/goblinSpy/web/goblinSpy.html?platform=pc&league=Cabalvision Official League&competition=Champion Ladder X&q=*team&t1=1736345
-> It is very possible to kill everthing and still win on the way
-> This is not the solution to the problem you are seeing

@hotdogchef said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Got an uncanny feeling you only support your own suggestions... at least its a consistent pattern if you look at all your posts and replies...

You should really ask/understand what the admins are doing and how much time they spent on this stuff without getting any money. I think if you know this, you wouldn't ask for such a thing.

Edit: This spam-protection is really annoying, if you want smaller changes to a post

last edited by Arne
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@hotdogchef said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Got an uncanny feeling you only support your own suggestions... at least its a consistent pattern if you look at all your posts and replies...

Hey, if you keep making bad suggestions then I will keep disagreeing with them 🙂

Slightly more seriously, there are lots and lots of suggestions from people who have no idea what systems are in place and what is possible, and if people make suggestions which I can't implement then I will say I can't do it. I'm not disagreeing with you because the idea is good or bad but because it won't work with the systems we have.

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Again, how would you implement this? Moderation is done manually and this would require even more regular data parsing that we already have, and more work for the admin team in booting those teams (something which has to be done in-game) which have lost n matches.

Well.. I know how programmers hate "it's in fact fairly easy to implement!" remarks from a laymans 🙂 Yet in this case it's indeed failry easy to implement check in the server code which simply deactivates a team with specified number of loses. Except for the fact I still fail to see how it solves anything. The topic starts with a premise that griefing/killer teams always lose because they are developed as killers. Which doesn't seem like it, to me. They may be just totally unconcerned about the ball at the moment. So, even if what he proposes is implemented, they will start to try to win a bit more often - which should be apparently easy for them, as that's what initial premise is as well - they cause huge attrition. If you can remove half of opposing team, you have high chances to win.

last edited by Mori-Mori

Yes there is a difference. A killer grief chaos dwarf coach with one reroll... and three dirty players. He tries to max injuries every turn and winning is not the main goal, just a bonus if it's happen. I really don't believe that the best rated chaos dwarf coaches play this way. It's not just to "run away" when you only have 4 players with dodge, and the rest is agi 3.

Yes I believe it's worth a change and the time to moderate this.

Of course back to the wish for Cabalvision resurrection Blood bowl "light" leauge, with spp and money gain. Keep your grief leauges with normal Blood bowl rules but give us also an Cabalvision leauge for long term grinding of our own star teams. Then everybody will be happy??

last edited by Hotdogchef

@hotdogchef said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Yes there is a difference. A killer grief chaos dwarf coach with one reroll... and three dirty players. He tries to max injuries every turn and winning is not the main goal, just a bonus if it's happen. I really don't believe that the best rated chaos dwarf coaches play this way. It's not just to "run away" when you only have 4 players with dodge, and the rest is agi 3.

You are describing a regular dorf coach so far. That's how any bash team plays when they meet an agi/hybrid team - if you allow them, they'll throw as many blocks as they can and a foul to the boot, if it worth it. That's the only sure way for them to win the match. If you'll enforce your rule, this won't change that much. They'll be still bashing you while trying to play a ball a bit. The bash wins a match vs agi team mainly by causing them casualties - that's how game is designed. Instead you should think how not allow them to do more than one blitz per turn to you, limiting damage. Having a better mobility you should actually use it, evading brawls.

I didn't get the part regarding 3 DPs on a roster, that's close to normal for a hardcore competitive team. Playing skaven you actually should have at least 2 yourself, regardless of your build. You have rather cheap linemen, you must foul when it worth it. I'm not quite sure them having 1 TRR has something to do with griefing, seems like usual min-maxing thing, trying to limit your TV as much as possible. Some people playing for result use just 2 TRRs occasionally with most teams, for example. Lack of TRR don't affect only your ball handling, you know, so a griefer could make use of them as well, to block you better. He just doesn't seem to need them, in general - possibly because he is a good couch, actually. It's not that hard to pick-up a ball for most of bash teams. They have guys with AG3 in the roster. And after it's picked they will just keep stomping you while moving it closer to endzone. Or they may choose to first stomp you, and score in the second half when you'll have 5 players on the pitch left. It's how bash team is intended to be played.

last edited by Mori-Mori

17 wins, 19 losses. Good coach? If thats your term of a good coach. I would take an IQ test?

Fair enough. I still think max 13 losses would make the Championship better. It's just too much random what opponent you meet in the qualifer. I really don't agree with you. There is a big difference of a guy that optimizes for winning or a guy that optimizes just to injure or kill as many as possible. If you don't know what I am talking about. Also take an IQ check.

last edited by Hotdogchef
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@mori-mori said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Yet in this case it's indeed failry easy to implement check in the server code which simply deactivates a team with specified number of loses.

Sure, and it'd be easy to do the same for coaches with a specified number of concessions to automate the current system. Yet it's done manually. So as "easy" as you might think it is to do it's not happening.

@hotdogchef said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Yes I believe it's worth a change and the time to moderate this.

Good of you to volunteer my time to do something...
How about you run a small ladder for a while and implement it yourself there? See how it goes for you.

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

The admin team does plenty as it is. I have no intention of increasing my workload, certainly not to that extent.

Sounds eerily similar to the AFKing topic where it became apparent that you don't speak for all the admin team regarding what is or is not worth their time. In this case, however, it's about changes in policy moreso than additional work... whether or not the other CCL moderators are willing to take the time to do this they're not going to if you're not on board with the idea of the new policy. Maybe you should address that part instead, since that's where it really IS all about you 😉

@hotdogchef said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Got an uncanny feeling you only support your own suggestions... at least its a consistent pattern if you look at all your posts and replies...

Most people primarily support their own suggestions simply on merit of already believing 100% in their merit. When it comes to other people's ideas they need to be convinced of the merit, not simply told that it has merit. Apparently you haven't managed that, so the onus is on you to sell it.

@mori-mori said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Well.. I know how programmers hate "it's in fact fairly easy to implement!" remarks from a laymans 🙂 Yet in this case it's indeed failry easy to implement....

We hate those statements because the people making them have no idea how things are coded and thus have no way of knowing how easy or difficult a change would be. Likewise, people are very short-sighted when it comes to suggesting changes they don't have to implement: you think it'd be easy to do, but you're ignoring the fact that there needs to be a "deactivated" flag for teams, they need to special case things for one league OR create a new flag for enabling the option on a league AND add a way to toggle that, AND they need to add some notification/message to people who try to use these deactivated teams AND they have to localize that message to the various languages the game is available in. It's not simply a one-line server side change. All of that assumes, of course, that the way they've coded it DOES make it relatively easy to implement those things individually.

Plus.. its a dumb idea.

BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@voodoomike said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

The admin team does plenty as it is. I have no intention of increasing my workload, certainly not to that extent.

Sounds eerily similar to the AFKing topic where it became apparent that you don't speak for all the admin team regarding what is or is not worth their time.

Really? Because I specifically referenced MY time above.

In this case, however, it's about changes in policy moreso than additional work... whether or not the other CCL moderators are willing to take the time to do this they're not going to if you're not on board with the idea of the new policy. Maybe you should address that part instead, since that's where it really IS all about you 😉

I already addressed it: it's a shit idea.

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Really? Because I specifically referenced MY time above.

When you say "It's not going to happen" you're doing more than speaking for yourself as a single member of the moderating team, you're saying nobody is going to do it. You make a pretty big show of "the buck stops with dode", but as I say, we've seen that is not the case when it comes to the moderating team's willingness to do work in CCL.

Since other moderating team members might be willing to put in the effort, there's really no rational reason for you to focus on whether YOU are willing to put in the work... it only makes sense to talk about whether you will veto the policy and forbid the other members of that admin team from putting in the work if they are interested in doing so.

@dode74 said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

I already addressed it: it's a shit idea.

That's not really good enough. There's a difference between having a negative opinion of something as an individual, and officially refusing to allow it to be done. In the former case you don't want to do it... in the latter you won't be allowing anyone to do it. It's important to differentiate when you're very casually drifting between Dode the random guy and Dode the guy who sets policy for CCL.

@Hotdogchef
I think you really haven't thought that through. Do you know, that you can look on goblinspy, which team should get banned by your suggestion? Unfortunately I can't sent you the direct link here, but you can got here by yourself and search for it. Overall there are 23 teams with 13 or more losses, but 10 of them are already deleted or will be banned soon, due to their number of concessions -> Leaving 13 teams. Of these 13 teams, there are following races:
1 Human
1 Chaos dwarf
1 Nurgle
1 Ogre
1 Goblin
1 Amazon
1 Pro-Elf
1 Chaos
5 Orcs
-> The change would have almost no impact at all and the teams in question are not the traditonal killer-teams (only 3 of them are from the CPOMB-fraction)

Btw: I looked at the replay which was the initiator of this discussion and I can understand, why you are frustrated, things didn't go well for you from the beginning and you got a lot of injuries. However, this is something which can happen to you in any matchup, if you want my suggestions: (1) Ask people in the forums to analyze the replay and to give you advice on how to handle such situations better, regarding general strategy and inducments (I don't consider myself a super-coach, so I will shut my mouth with giving advices). (2) take a small brake from blood bowl and come back in the next CCL-season, all teams will strat from new there and the far developed teams, won't be a problem anymore. (3) Make better suggestions to solve these issues like a rez-league, if more people are for it, maybe the developer will go for it. I have to admit, I am a bit disappointed by the way the rez-leagues were implemented, especially after I have seen people like VM repeatedly requesting the rez-part to be optional, to allow the combination of rez and spp-gain.

@voodoomike said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

We hate those statements because the people making them have no idea how things are coded and thus have no way of knowing how easy or difficult a change would be. Likewise, people are very short-sighted when it comes to suggesting changes they don't have to implement: you think it'd be easy to do, but you're ignoring the fact that there needs to be a "deactivated" flag for teams, they need to special case things for one league OR create a new flag for enabling the option on a league AND add a way to toggle that, AND they need to add some notification/message to people who try to use these deactivated teams AND they have to localize that message to the various languages the game is available in.

And that's why I can still say it's quite easy to do, as I'm observing more complex things done per customer's requests on projects I participate into (not as a programmer, though) within a week, at worst - which are around the same scale as Cyanide deals with, though deals with much more complex server-side logic designed as an enterprise-grade solution, usually. It's just the matter of, you know, will to do it 😉 A motivation, incentive, you name it. Adding some counter and a checkbox, and a notification to web UI per request of a good customer usually takes several days at worst, taking into account developers still have other, long-term tasks to care about. It's just a matter of setting priorities (or not setting them). So, from Cyanide you could expect this happen, in a couple of weeks, if they really would like to add it (together with some automation tools which would help @dode74 and others with moderation tasks). It's doable, relatively easy. It's not like changing some core mechanics, or, say, implementing Special Play cards 😉

last edited by Mori-Mori

@arne said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

Overall there are 23 teams with 13 or more losses, but 10 of them are already deleted or will be banned soon, due to their number of concessions -> Leaving 13 teams. Of these 13 teams, there are following races:
1 Human
1 Chaos dwarf
1 Nurgle
1 Ogre
1 Goblin
1 Amazon
1 Pro-Elf
1 Chaos
5 Orcs
-> The change would have almost no impact at all and the teams in question are not the traditonal killer-teams (only 3 of them are from the CPOMB-fraction)

Great research - it certainly highlights the futility of the idea and the fact that it would be more likely to punish teams even the OP wants to see playing in CCL than it would improve anything about the climate of CCL.

@arne said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

I have to admit, I am a bit disappointed by the way the rez-leagues were implemented, especially after I have seen people like VM repeatedly requesting the rez-part to be optional, to allow the combination of rez and spp-gain.

As I said on one of the two threads related to this topic, I have a terrible suspicion that Cyanide and Focus are generalizing the opinions of a very, very small group of long-time BB players to the entire game, and a lot of them can't wrap their heads around the idea of having rez without removing progression when they don't oppose rez outright. Even some of the people who support the idea of rez declare it absolutely needs to be paired with some other form of attrition before it is implemented with progression, which, given the motivation level of Cyanide to make changes, is the same thing as opposing its implementation.

@mori-mori said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

And that's why I can still say it's quite easy to do, as I'm observing more complex things done per customer's requests on projects I participate into (not as a programmer, though) within a week, at worst - which are around the same scale as Cyanide deals with, though deals with much more complex server-side logic designed as an enterprise-grade solution, usually.

Again, you're talking about an entirely different project and assuming its comparable. We don't know how the BB2 project is set up or coded, so there's no way to say what is or is not easy beyond extrapolating from the time it has taken and how willing they have been to make changes in the past. How easy it is to make "adjustments" later on is based on how much work you put into making the code easily adjusted during initial development. It often takes longer to make well structured and easily adjusted code, and in a rushed project or sweat shop style environment the programmers won't be given the time to do that. Sometimes they're just bad, lazy, or selfish programmers and aren't interested... especially if they'll be passing it on to a different set of people for maintenance and updates.

What we do know is that Cyanide has expressed very firm reluctance to making GUI changes in the game. From that we can assume some aspect of GUI changes is either time consuming or expensive. My guess is the localization, but it might also be that they have no gui person on the ongoing update team and have to request that the company budget them some time with the gui people, taking them away from other projects. Either way, it's not a trivial thing to them... and if you're going to block people's use of their teams there needs to be some information available on their GUI.

@voodoomike said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

As I said on one of the two threads related to this topic, I have a terrible suspicion that Cyanide and Focus are generalizing the opinions of a very, very small group of long-time BB players to the entire game, and a lot of them can't wrap their heads around the idea of having rez without removing progression when they don't oppose rez outright. Even some of the people who support the idea of rez declare it absolutely needs to be paired with some other form of attrition before it is implemented with progression, which, given the motivation level of Cyanide to make changes, is the same thing as opposing its implementation.

To be honest, this sounds a bit too much like a conspiracy theory for me. I rather think, that the main problem is a much simpler one: The developers put their main focus on on-pitch-mechanics, graphics & animations* and decided to do only the bare minimum for the rest. Just to name a few things off the top of my head: the way the chat is implemented, everyone sees the "Delete Competition"-button of every competition, the way leagues are administered, the way AIs are put into a league,... . I could go on and on with that list and the implementation of the rez-mode would just be another item on it.

All that said, I would still be carefull with just adding rez with spp-gain to an official league (besides anarchy ladder), since it could change some of the core game mechanics completely and lead to new problems, but the option for private leagues and general testing would have been nice.

*Btw: The graphics and animations are really amazing, I was really impressed when I saw some of the animations the first time and I still enjoy watching them or zooming in and looking at the details which they put into the player models -> they did a really good job here

edit: some minor changes/Have to write additional content, otherwise, the spam-protetction wouldn't let me edit my post :'(. This spam protection system here, is really annoying

last edited by Arne
BB2 Champion Ladder Admin Team

@voodoomike said in Max 12 or 13 losses in the Championship qualifier:

When you say "It's not going to happen" you're doing more than speaking for yourself as a single member of the moderating team, you're saying nobody is going to do it. You make a pretty big show of "the buck stops with dode", but as I say, we've seen that is not the case when it comes to the moderating team's willingness to do work in CCL.

I make no show of "the buck stops with dode" because it doesn't, nor have I stated otherwise. The buck stops with Netheos. What I can, and have, said is what I am willing to do.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.