JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
 Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 17:52 |
 
|
One other thing I wanted to throw out there: given that pretty much all of the rule changes that relate to seasons seem to be site-side, not client-side (i.e. end-of-season re-draft, expensive mistakes, removal of spiralling expenses, removal of PO), and otherwise the ruleset is 98% the same as CRP ... perhaps Christer could create a new 'Prototype' division fairly soon, where we could try out some of the seasonal ideas that are being proposed, with the current FFB client?
Perhaps limit each player to just 1 team, so it doesn't draw too many games away from [R]/[B]. It would allow us to try some of these things out now and gain 3-6 months of testing and feedback before making a decision on how/if to roll it out more widely? |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!"  |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 18:00 |
|
| licker wrote: | | [...] clearly seasons is a way to regulate the TVs which are achievable, so whether or not anyone thinks high TV is a problem, seasons is a mechanism, which when used as described in the rules, makes high TV teams much less likely. |
Yes, absolutely.
I was pointing at the fear of a sudden influx of 3000 TV teams - if there is a division without Seasons - being a bit exaggerated. More high TV teams isn't in itself a bad thing.
| licker wrote: | | PO was not some magic 'I win' button, and if you think that PO players don't have to play with proper position then I suggest you've never really played PO yourself, or played against anyone who understood how to punish it when used willy nilly. |
You read too much into what I say. Piling On is gone whether we like it or not. This is going to drop attrition. When you can rely less on bash as a means for winning games, I think it's only natural that coaches will start focusing more on positioning than before. And should this not be the case, that's no big deal either.
| licker wrote: | | Here we agree, we can and should be looking for reasonable implementations (including redoing the divisions completely) while still leaving 'do nothing' as a valid option. |
Yes. If we manage think outside the current structure, we might some nice innovation and new possibilities there. |
|
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 18:04 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | [...] having several sub-divisions within that would be even worse. |
Yes, this would probably not work at all. Did you have a chance to look at my suggestion? It's a league simulator where you climb through your team's very own virtual divisional structure, however the matchmaking process is flexible, and doesn't rely on finding an opponent in the exact same division, and subsequently lies somewhere between the current Ranked and Blackbox match making system. So little thinning of the player base.
Of course that's not talking about the effects of having more official divisions, but that's a debate for somewhere else. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 18:11 |
|
@Balle2000: Yes, I did see your suggestion on that and I think it looks interesting as well. So, basically, have divisions that teams can climb/fall based on their results, but allow teams to play anyone, not just teams in the same division? Sure, I could see that working.
Personally, I'd like to see a scheduler used for 'competitive' play in a new divisional structure, but that's just my 2 cents. |
_________________
"Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got them and they all stink." - The protagonist, Fallout 2
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!!" |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 18:19 |
|
| SzieberthAdam wrote: | @Balle2000: Currently I am on page 32 and I very like your idea of tiered seasons.
One remark: Why not let coach decide about promotion/stay/delegation? No need to enforce anything by winrate. In case of promotion, the team can grow further freeely. |
Thanks Szieberth.
Yeah, that's an interesting idea. I think that would add some freedom to the coaches playing in this hypothetical division. Effectively the coach can then decide what kind of TV range he is going to operate in. This will push the division towards a Sandbox environment like RnB.
But don't you think that choice of relegation/promotion will take away from the excitement and feeling of a league simulator? After all, making sure you perform well, winning your games, and trying to gain promotion, and become champions, is a large part of the goal and fun of playing in a league? At least that's how I feel personally.
As for the technical aspects you mention. What I was thinking is that the length of a season (ie. number of games), decides directly a team's rebuy power. So the idea was that more games as you promote = bigger teams as you promote. House ruling in some extra rebuy cash instead, like you suggest, is another way to do it. And ll in all that's maybe an even better approach, as this keeps the seasons at equal, recognizable lengths. Which also makes sense fluffwise. |
_________________
Join the SWL
Get your team bios here!
Putting the romantic in necromantic since 2010 |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 18:29 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | So, basically, have divisions that teams can climb/fall based on their results, but allow teams to play anyone, not just teams in the same division? |
Thanks for reading  And yes, sort of. As your team advances through its own season, it will be matched with opponents within a reasonable range (much like both R and B works now), but it does not need to be from the same tier/division (although it would try that first). So a Div3 team could play a Div5 team if the scheduler thinks its a good matchup, and it will count as a Div3 game for one team, and Div5 game for the other. I've basically ripped the idea from FIFA Online Seasons, if you're familiar with it.
| JellyBelly wrote: | | Personally, I'd like to see a scheduler used for 'competitive' play in a new divisional structure, but that's just my 2 cents. |
Don't take this the wrong way, but this has been discussed on many occasions when talking about merging divisions/split player base. The main argument against - if I'm not mistaking - is teams spending most of the time playing/picking preparation games, and the competitive scheduler not being able to provide enough quality match-ups as a result. At the same time it awards coaches who prepare a lot, while those who want the competitive nature in each and every game might suffer.
Having said that, its not a completely crazy concept for a division, but I think we should be careful of talking about "But what about R/B etc?!", as it quickly becomes noisy. |
|
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 18:54 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: |
BTW, I'm not counting the standard 10k for just playing a game in those numbers. |
You Should
It would take OL right in the 25k median earnings.
Are you still not counting games played in the total?
The numbers seem a bit off to me...
For example the first line (TD+CAS per game) 1
has an interval of 20.
When it should be 60. Because 4 games x 15(earning per game) = 60.
The base calculation is right, but the interval is off. It only counts extra earnings from TD+CAS and not from extra games played. So it should be raised by 40 in every case. |
I am counting games played in the total. But I made an error with cells not filling with the correct game amount. Will update in a moment.
Edit: Updated! |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 21:21 |
|
| uzkulak wrote: | So, if I want to maintain a tv2000 team I need to somehow find an extra one million gold PLUS extra cash for players who have more than one season under their belt. Even if a season is 20 games thats going to be a very hard ask. 20 matches x 10k = 200k, add my average of 1.4 tds per match and 2.2 cas = 360k means I need another 440k in my treasury. Realistically long term there's probably another 100k needed to retain the better players. This is exceptionally tight financially and doesnt leave a lot of room for manouvere if Im also replacing any players mid-season.
The only good thing about it is that I would be able to shed unwanted ff.
If a season is only 10-15 games long it is completely impossible to keep a high tv team running. Many actual leagues have fewer than 10 matches per season which increases costs while providing less income to cover them. I think league commissioners will need to think carefully about how they would implement this change and if they want to create a low tv environment or not. |
oh dear, how are teams of leagues with 7 games a season suppose to manage this?
according to your calculations, this leaves ~1200k + treasury to rebuy a team.
Will this not encourage minmaxing even more? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 21:25 |
|
This certainly nerfs chaos and nurgz lol. They will never get high enough to claw mb stuff! |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 21:28 |
|
| Roland wrote: |
Will this not encourage minmaxing even more? |
It makes some think they should find a new game.
  |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 21:43 |
|
| Roland wrote: |
oh dear, how are teams of leagues with 7 games a season suppose to manage this?
according to your calculations, this leaves ~1200k + treasury to rebuy a team.
Will this not encourage minmaxing even more? |
Actually it's quite simple.
Just give some extra money for the re-draft.
I'd do something like this to allow higher TVs through the seasons, but still levelling the game table:
1st season normal team creation
2nd season 1milion+100k + normal game bonus for re-draft
3rd season 1milion+300k + normal game bonus for re-draft
And so on until you find a cap that you and your League pals find suitable for the way you want your League to play out. |
|
|
Roland
Joined: May 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 21:48 |
|
| Uedder wrote: | | Roland wrote: |
oh dear, how are teams of leagues with 7 games a season suppose to manage this?
according to your calculations, this leaves ~1200k + treasury to rebuy a team.
Will this not encourage minmaxing even more? |
Actually it's quite simple.
Just give some extra money for the re-draft.
I'd do something like this to allow higher TVs through the seasons, but still levelling the game table:
1st season normal team creation
2nd season 1milion+100k + normal game bonus for re-draft
3rd season 1milion+300k + normal game bonus for re-draft
And so on until you find a cap that you and your League pals find suitable for the way you want your League to play out. |
yeah, that was what I was thinking too.
Let's just hope it will be possible to set this ammount somewhere, in ruleset for example. |
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 03, 2016 - 22:26 |
|
Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 01:19 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
There's a lot of truth in this imo. |
|
|
keggiemckill
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2016 - 01:48 |
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | Seasons sound like a complicated solution to a none problem. |
There's a lot of truth in this imo. |
This is what happens when people publicly shed tears over pixels. The give a solution, no one wants. |
_________________
The Drunker I get, the more I spill
"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro |
|
|
|
| |
FUMBBL HAIKU'S
Search
