PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
 Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 15:30 |
 
|
Why was EP even invented in the first place?
I think is was invented because when you discus seasons. The #1 way to get around "season" play is to have a large stash of gold. If you allow teams to have huge gold stashes then the whole concept of seasons is null and void.
BUT
What is the idea of seasons anyway? Is it to prevent some teams having +stat monsters? Legends? is it to prevent some teams from having a TV over X amount, lets say 2000?
I think it is safe to say you cannot run "seasons" as defined by the new rules with out introducing EM into the mix.
I think it is not safe to say what Iam about to say. Painstate puts on his flame retardant suit
Season play in R/B is folly and here is why. How long is a season in R/B? That is the #1 factor in determining the average TV range of teams. It also puts a cap on the high end. Do you think there will ever be a majority of coaches who agree with what ever the TV range is set to?
So, if the goal is to restrict TV then here is a better way to do it.
You have EM +SE in R/B. The #1 restrictor plate on high TV, 2200+TV range is that you have no gold to replace players coupled with the new inducement madness you can no longer be spending money on some "goodies", problem solved.
Oh, I hear some guy on the back bench yelling and screaming about legend players and so forth.
So, that is the concern then, huh? Well, that is more of a function of the new MVP rule, which I will not discuss. Then again, do not legend +stat monsters inflate your TV, which in turn SE would take care of that issue?
IMO this a much better way to go at it in R/B play. Bring back SE coupled with EM will restrict team TV in a big way IF the goal of all of this is to restrict the TV of teams in R/B. |
_________________
Comish of the:  |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 15:39 |
|
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 15:46 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | It all sounds way too complicated IMO. Why not just something simple. e.g. A form of aging plus a hard cash limit. |
What?
Having expensive mistakes AND Spiraling expenses is to much to comprehend?
EM + SE is a form of ageing and it does put a serious limit on gold for High TV teams. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
PainState
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 15:49 |
|
I will admit, even though Iam throwing out this alternative idea for R/B instead of "season" play. I have no issue having EM as the restrictor plate on teams because I do not mind having 1% of the R/B teams having TV in the 2400+ range. It does not annoy me and in fact Iam looking forward to my push to TV 3000 on the Buccaneers.
The reality of the day is we have to have EM on FUMBBL if we are going to allow teams to purchase inducements with no equal value in return. It has to happen. |
_________________
Comish of the: |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 15:58 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | It all sounds way too complicated IMO. Why not just something simple. e.g. A form of aging plus a hard cash limit. |
What?
Having expensive mistakes AND Spiraling expenses is to much to comprehend?
EM + SE is a form of ageing and it does put a serious limit on gold for High TV teams. |
Edit:
I was posting after reading the previous page. Had not seen your post.
EM + SE does not actually remove or gimp players.
Attrition is less than before and MVP makes it easier to skill players.
It remains to be seen how much seasons/aging are needed. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed
Last edited by koadah on %b %24, %2017 - %18:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 16:09 |
|
| Kondor wrote: | | ArrestedDevelopment wrote: |
But really for me the "issue" in a perpetual division is simple: there's no over-arching environs that dictates a player needs to do anything other than win the game at hand. And thus given the rules of the arena, many will feel if you feel you need to induce to win, you induce, especially if you know the guy on the other end of it gets nothing and perhaps can't even throw in for a babe. Others won't be playing by the "one game" rules, and thus may feel this is unfair, unbalanced or simply untenable.
In short, it's pretty much destined to end in a tantrum somewhere.
[L]. |
To me, this is only an issue for BlackBox. In ranked you can check out the other team and see how much cash on hand before you choose to accept the match. If you don't have money to spend you don't need to play someone who does. |
Sounds like it is actually more of an issue in ranked than anywhere else then as you say picking will increase. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 16:22 |
|
| dode74 wrote: | | JellyBelly wrote: | They are separate, yes - you could have one without the other. Although, it seems pretty clear that if you are going to remove petty cash then you need to somehow limit how much of a treasury teams can build up, which I assume is why expensive mistakes was brought in.
Removing petty cash seems to be quite a strange decision to me - I'm not quite sure what the intention was there. It's like, they want teams to be able to use their surplus cash to affect the game, but not too much .. |
Ok, I thought of that differently. I'm not sure the primary aim was to remove Petty Cash at all, I think it was limiting teambuilding in perpetual leagues. The Season system combined with EM limits the amount of cash you have available to redraft, which would achieve that goal but leaves you with a need to spend the money somehow.
I suspect PC was removed to allow people to spend in-game the excess cash they have over the amount they intend to keep without a back-and-forth of "who has what TV now?" which PC could potentially create. I think they either didn't really think it through or thought that people would trim on a per-match basis, limiting spending to ~100k per match. There are certainly better ways of doing it if that was the goal. |
I'm sure you're right, that EM also links into seasons as well. It seems to me that seasons, EM and the removal of petty cash are all somewhat linked, so it makes sense to discuss them together. EM is necessary with seasons to limit cash for redrafting, but I think it is also very necessary if you take out petty cash, to prevent teams hoarding cash to 'buy' tourneys, for example. Did you see the chaos we had on FUMBBL last week when petty cash had been removed, but EM hadn't been implemented yet?
I'm not sure if there would necessarily be a 'back-and-forth' issue if you had EM with petty cash as well. I thought with PC, the team with the higher TV has to decide how much cash from their treasury they are using first, then the lower-TV team decides? I think in that situation, you would probably see more teams just dumping cash, as you can't use it to gain an advantage anyway.
Am I right in thinking though that PC was actually removed in LRB6? I was reading through it just now and that seems to be the case ... |
_________________
"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!!"  |
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 16:29 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | You have EM +SE in R/B. The #1 restrictor plate on high TV, 2200+TV range is that you have no gold to replace players coupled with the new inducement madness you can no longer be spending money on some "goodies", problem solved. |
SE didn't seem to limit the TV of the heavier bash teams that much in CRP, so why do you think it would be such a big restrictor plate in the new ruleset?
It seems to me that part of the reason that seasons was brought in was to compensate for the reduced attrition of taking out PO, through a form of aging and forced resetting. That's probably why it's such a dilemma for Christer as to whether he implements it in R/B - it doesn't really fit with the format of a perpetual open league, but if it's not included, we're probably going to see more ultra-high-TV teams and immortal legends. |
_________________
"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!!" |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 16:32 |
|
EM doesn't restrict ultra-high-TV teams in any way really, and the removal of the uberkiller combo just means more players will make it to superstar or legendhood. I completely expect to see teams in the 3000TV range some time soon in R. |
_________________
 |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 16:46 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | PainState wrote: | | You have EM +SE in R/B. The #1 restrictor plate on high TV, 2200+TV range is that you have no gold to replace players coupled with the new inducement madness you can no longer be spending money on some "goodies", problem solved. |
SE didn't seem to limit the TV of the heavier bash teams that much in CRP, so why do you think it would be such a big restrictor plate in the new ruleset?
It seems to me that part of the reason that seasons was brought in was to compensate for the reduced attrition of taking out PO, through a form of aging and forced resetting. That's probably why it's such a dilemma for Christer as to whether he implements it in R/B - it doesn't really fit with the format of a perpetual open league, but if it's not included, we're probably going to see more ultra-high-TV teams and immortal legends. |
Ultra high TV teams and immortal legends? In perpetual format? Swoon! |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:00 |
|
| mrt1212 wrote: | | Ultra high TV teams and immortal legends? In perpetual format? Swoon! |
Lol! I'm not saying it's necessarily a problem, but the fact they brought in this seasons redraft mechanic kind of suggests GW didn't want to see 3000TV teams flying around  |
_________________
"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!!" |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:02 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | | mrt1212 wrote: | | Ultra high TV teams and immortal legends? In perpetual format? Swoon! |
Lol! I'm not saying it's necessarily a problem, but the fact they brought in this seasons redraft mechanic kind of suggests GW didn't want to see 3000TV teams flying around |
Totally. Can't wait to see how Christer puts together seasons for R&B so we can go on and on page after page speculating about the impact it will have. |
|
|
JellyBelly
Joined: Jul 08, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:14 |
|
@mrt1212: page after page of pointless speculation is what you come to the forums for, isn't it? |
_________________
"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!!" |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:16 |
|
Yes, but Id like to keep speculation clean and separate and somewhat informed
edit: And then Dode does a little thing like that
 |
Last edited by mrt1212 on %b %24, %2017 - %17:%Mar; edited 1 time in total |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Mar 24, 2017 - 17:17 |
|
| JellyBelly wrote: | I'm sure you're right, that EM also links into seasons as well. It seems to me that seasons, EM and the removal of petty cash are all somewhat linked, so it makes sense to discuss them together. EM is necessary with seasons to limit cash for redrafting, but I think it is also very necessary if you take out petty cash, to prevent teams hoarding cash to 'buy' tourneys, for example. Did you see the chaos we had on FUMBBL last week when petty cash had been removed, but EM hadn't been implemented yet?
I'm not sure if there would necessarily be a 'back-and-forth' issue if you had EM with petty cash as well. I thought with PC, the team with the higher TV has to decide how much cash from their treasury they are using first, then the lower-TV team decides? I think in that situation, you would probably see more teams just dumping cash, as you can't use it to gain an advantage anyway.
Am I right in thinking though that PC was actually removed in LRB6? I was reading through it just now and that seems to be the case ... |
PC was there in LRB6. If we apply it here with A being the high TV team and B being the low, currently B would get the TV difference. If A adds X cash B gets difference + X. If B now adds Y cash (to dump it) what happens, because the TVs are no longer even? I can see the potential for confusion, but do think it could have been done much better than it has been now.
Yes, I saw some of the angst here last week. There is always going to be with a changeover of rules.
I think you can consider applying seasons to R and B. If we define a season as being n games long then a team redrafts after n games. There's no interaction between teams during redraft, and everything is based on that team's record and players so there's nothing mechanically stopping teams from redrafting at different times.
I think the question really is whether teams being at different points in their n-game cycle will be a problem. I don't think it will for R because picking, and I suspect whether it is an issue in B will largely depend on the distribution of TVs and development during the cycle - a narrow distribution will lead to fewer problems, and it can be made narrower by restricting n to a lower number (but not too low, because we need to be able to redraft). Furthermore, given the fact that the vast majority of teams won't (or rather currently don't) make it to n games where n is in the range suggested by BB2016 - around 14 games iirc (median games played in B is 5 iirc) - seasons won't actually have an effect on the majority of teams. Certainly there are potential issues with enabling (or indeed enforcing) minmaxing on older teams as they keep their stars and hire their rookies to make 11, but it would be interesting to see and I'd be interested in thoughts on that process. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Roster Tiers
Search
