Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 19:36 |
 
|
The attached is a play by email league that uses a ladder system with diminishing points. Points for as win/loss are determined using a combination of team TR and ladder points. It is a challenge league with 200 teams and has major/minor tournaments throughout the year.
It works very well, so it can be done. The issue is whether the organizer of the ladder can put the time into it or not.
http://www.rebbl.com/ladder/ |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 20:03 |
|
| Mully wrote: | The attached is a play by email league that uses a ladder system with diminishing points. Points for as win/loss are determined using a combination of team TR and ladder points. It is a challenge league with 200 teams and has major/minor tournaments throughout the year.
It works very well, so it can be done. The issue is whether the organizer of the ladder can put the time into it or not.
http://www.rebbl.com/ladder/ |
Yeah, as far as points go I would look to the rebbl ladder as a basis. The difference between the rebble ladder and fumbbl, being that there are not nearly the number of matches going on in rebbl and each one is slower (pbembb) Also each of those coaches are very devoted to playing their matches and if they aren't then it is easy for the admin to award a concession because of so few that would be reported each day. (Hence the automation request for challenges)
Asperon Thorn |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 20:40 |
|
Re: Challenges. I was proposing challenges as they are described in the LRB:
| Quote: |
A coach may make a maximum of one written challenge per week of the playoffs. The challenge is then given to the tournament organiser, who passes it along to the challenged coach and gets his response. A challenged coach must make one of the following three responses within a day of receiving the challenge:
- Accept: A challenged coach may agree to play the match, and the two teams play the match as normal.
- Refuse: A challenged coach may refuse to play the match. This counts as a 2-0 for the challenger. No star player points, cash or fan factors are gained or lost for the match.
-Substitue: A challenged coach may ask any other coach that is willing to take his place to play the match instead. The subtstitute coach must be taking part in the tournament, and must not have played against the challenger so far. If he does this then the challenging coach must play the substitute, or count as having lost the match 0-2. |
The timeframes could be adjusted. I was imagining an close to an instant response, as a subsitute could be found relatively quickly in the FUMBBL channels but we could stick with them as written.
Issuing a formal challenge would be a risky proposal as a coach could find a much scarier replacement. It could add something interesting to the site. I'd recommend badges for these as well (after accepting x challenges, after refusing x challenges). I think the issuing and accptance of the challenges could be automated. The only problem would be dealing with arranging the matches. It would require goodwill within the community which I fear is sadly lacking with the anonymity of the net.
None the less. The main focus of my suggestion was that Ladder should be about the Major Tournaments. What do you think?
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Mystery Link |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 21:01 |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 04, 2004 - 21:35 |
|
I dont' like any plan that penalizes a coach for refusing a challenge. How many dwarf coaches out there will be calling on zons to play each week ? And as I've seen in other ladders, a system where you can freely decline challenges works. Especially if you have some type of diminishing points that penalize you for inactivity. The system is self regulating as the coaches who have 5 DPs won't be able to find games and thus will be forced to create playable teams to get games.
Plus, only make the tournaments open for the top teams in the ladder. That will force coaches who want to play in the tourneys to build their teams to win and not just destroy.
As I said, the REBBL ladder is pretty seamless and, except for a smaller community, faces the sames challenges FUMBBL faces . |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2004 - 00:03 |
|
| Quote: | | I dont' like any plan that penalizes a coach for refusing a challenge. |
There is no penalty for a coach refusing a challenge. I think it would be a very rare day indeed, if you couldn't find a substitute. Even if you couldn't, the only thing that happens is you would get a loss on the score sheet. If we went with the LRB scoring, they'd still get 3 points, hardly a penalty. The only penalty they'd receive is a reputation for dodging games. Not something to worry about, especially if it shows who challenged who in a Book Of Challenges.
| Quote: | | How many dwarf coaches out there will be calling on zons to play each week ? |
I wonder how often they'd issue those challenges if a Wuhan-like coach, expressed an eager interest to be a substitute for any Amazons challenged by dwarves? A Book Of Challenges, suitably mocking threads and some good substituting coaches would probably be enough policing for outrageous challenges. If need be I think a Rung System (Light, Middle, Heavy) might also be a good idea, so you don't get Uber teams subbing in to play Lightweight teams.
| Quote: | | Plus, only make the tournaments open for the top teams in the ladder. |
Now this is the sort of thing I'd like to see discussed. How would you like the Major Tournaments (The Blood Bowl, Spike! Magazine Tournament, Chaos Cup, Dungeonbowl) to be handled?
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Kingdom of Loathing |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2004 - 00:09 |
|
Now this is the sort of thing I'd like to see discussed. How would you like the Major Tournaments (The Blood Bowl, Spike! Magazine Tournament, Chaos Cup, Dungeonbowl) to be handled?
I'm copying everything from the REBBL league since I think it is run so nice.
Basically for major tourneys, the top 16 teams are invited to play. If an offer is rejected, team #17 is invited and so on. The major tourneys offer prizes. (ie - money, +ff, etc)
Here's the catch. Games in the tourneys dont count in the ladder standings. So if you are using some sort of diminishing points then you actually start droppng in the ladder while you are in the tourney. The idea is to get fresh teams into each tourney so while you are playing in 1, other teams that didnt make it can pass by you on the ladder. |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
cjohnsto
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 05, 2004 - 02:13 |
|
If the challenges are in a ladder format you can help cut outrageous challengers and replacments by only allowing challenges from "close" teams on the ladder. Since these are the people you should be playing anyway. That way teams that try and win will play other teams that try and win (assuming they both succeed). |
|
|
Christer
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
Suggestion:
We keep the current ladder structure with the following changes:
- Change to normal progression
- Remove the "must play down" requirement
- You lose 5 (or any other arbitrary number) points if you do not play at least one game in 14 days. Naturally you can't fall below 0 points.
As for tournaments, that is a completely separate issue and could be used on top of a system like this. |
|
|
AlcingRagaholic
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2004 - 01:33 |
|
Well, the ladder needs to be more fluid... the major reason I stopped playing was that I had to keep checking if I was playing up or down, if my opponent was in the category that I needed to play, and other such hassles.
I personally like the idea of the ladder system... maybe random match-ups?
Basically, it sorts out according to Time-Zone, or your preferred time to play BB according to BowlBot. All the coaches who fit in the similar time-zone then are randomly paired up. So, no challenges made or received. THEN, the coaches have 1-2 weeks [whatever number goes here is currently not an issue]. If the coaches do not play the game, they both lose ranking points or whatever is at stake. If they do play, the winner gets paired up with another winner, and the loser with another loser, as long as they have played the same number of games. So, that means people could be paired vs someone they played recently every other game, but with the number of players, that shouldn't be an issue. Also, another idea would be to have the rounds be only 1 game a week, so at the end of the week, everyone gets paired up again. Unless they didn't play their last one. In that case, they get suspended like in faction [inactive or whatever].
Just an idea...
Z |
|
|
Azurus
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2004 - 02:54 |
|
I like the idea of tournaments, I think FUMBBL needs to have more 'official' (and hopefully mostly automated) tournaments.
Seperate versions of each tournament for 'weight divisions' would be good IMO, so you end up with, for instance, Bloodbowl Light Cup, Bloodbowl Medium Cup and Bloodbowl Heavy Cup. Championship Belts like the faction icons would be a must, of course. |
|
|
Funso
Joined: Apr 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2004 - 12:05 |
|
Challenge systems which try to force someone to play the challenger don't really work, though. They bring out the worst in many coaches.
I could, (and have, in a league in my home town of Lincoln) create a dwarf team and challenged only teams above me, with the entire aim to destroy the softish (elves, human, norse, chaos, orc  ) teams. I would give up any chance of winning, but would almost always succeed in my aim to destroy the team I was playing against to such a degree that they would be forced to retire. Therefore, while they would be ahead of me on points, they would be destroyed, and that team would be no longer in front of me as they simply weren't in existence any longer.
If a coach really wants to, and this is the problem, he can destroy any AV 7 team. If he REALLY wants to, he can force any AV 7 team to retire. No matter what the opponent does, unless you get unlucky with rolls, you can't fail. |
|
|
EvolveToAnarchism
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2004 - 22:34 |
|
There wouldn't be any forcing someone to play. It would require goodwill to function optimally. The key part of the challenge system would be that you can decline (a marginal point penalty), or get a substitute team (of the same weight class). If there was a sub, the challenger would have the option of declining the challenge. It would be impossible/undesirable to force someone to play in such a huge online league. Another key feature is that you can only be challenged once a week and can only challenge once a week.
It would also be really nifty if teams got cool icons passed on the number of challenges won, dodged, subbed. This would be a fluffy addition to the division, not the main part. The key part of the Ladder would be the points system which I think should use the same points system as the old one but without the "must play down" kludge.
As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism
Win a Goblin Cheaters Team |
_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2004 - 23:41 |
|
Can't see too many coaches playing for a silly ladder ranking actually and I doubt that too many coaches play in ranked for the ranking primarily. But maybe that's just me.
However, I could see many coaches playing for the 4 major BB-trophies. Those cups would certainly be extremely exciting and should attract many coaches, no matter if there is a ladder-ranking or not. |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 09, 2004 - 00:05 |
|
The 4 majors, complete with prizes (at least the gold part, don't know if the rest of it would be possible), and open to all would be great... I realize it's a HUGE amount of work, but it would be awesome.. And each major only held once a year, too.. nice! (evenly spaced out of course).. I have no idea exactly how to do it but the idea sounds VERY nice.. |
|
|
|
|
| |
War Drums?
Search
