licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
 Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 00:51 |
 
|
| Balle2000 wrote: | | IF there will be seasons in RnB, and that's a huge IF in itself, the number of games will - if Fumbbl history is anything to go by - be decide based on thorough calculations much like what was done for the rookie protection given in the Blackbox scheduler. IMO. |
I agree, I also believe that if the first approach is deemed unsatisfactory adjustments will be made.
I still think it would be absolutely no problem if the coding for seasons were implemented for L to do with as they please, and for R and B to have a disclaimer (to satisfy those...) saying simply that they do not use seasons, if a coach wants to play in an environment with seasons, they should check out the thriving leagues this site has.
Of course I'm also happy with a new division running parallel to B (because I prefer MM to challenge, but could go to R) which does use seasons, and does have tournaments and tries to be the 'competitive' analog to the (new) casual Box. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 01:02 |
|
| PainState wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | The whole thread is in the context of R & B. |
Lets never forget one thing.
League will be able to disable and/or change how "season play" is implemented in each of the hundreds of leagues.
Ranked/Box..... It effects every single coach who plays in those two Divs. There is no way to move to another league to play under "seasons" that I like. You have to just suck it up and accept what the new mandate from on high is. |
Indeed.
I did manage to get one team out though. I think it was due to a donation prize. 
How about we allow coaches to buy their teams out? Each time you donate $10 or more the "Transfer to League" button reappears for a once only use. 
Hopefully we'll get the "transfering between rulesets" before the new rules. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 01:21 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | Of the suggestions I've seen on here, not many suggested ending every season with a play-offs. Not that it matters, as that's not in any way relevant to the point I was making. |
Reiterating that point would help to focus on it. Here's the point I think you're making: 'growth during a season' discussion is that important to the seasons discussion, or rather not so important as it requires pages of arguing. Here's why I think it's one of the main points to discuss, and thus deserves all the pages it got and more, at least until we get a sandbox to test anything:
Seasons have an impact on B and R teams. The Fumbbl Cup is played by B and R teams. Other majors also involve B and R teams. How the teams will evolve through their season to enter majors is thus something quite relevant. This is true even with short seasons. Teams that hit 1600TV on their first season will get to more than that on their second. This leaves some room for gamesmanship, and gamesmanship is what will obtain if you let Munchkins do what Munchkins do.
This is why Uedder's suggestion contains such an inintuitive clause.
As an aside, I don't think your subjective reasons to go for 16 games seasons take into account the feedback that has been provided so far in the thread. I don't think you can dismiss them as irrelevant.
Also note that condescension started on page 2. I can provide links if you need. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| licker wrote: | | But yeah, I'm sure no one would try to play with 5 studs and 6 loners... |
I reckon that with Seasons we'd do away with the journeyman rule. Carrying journeymen to the end of a season and then replacing them with rookies would be the expected practice.
Just my opinion though.
| thoralf wrote: | Reiterating that point would help to focus on it. Here's the point I think you're making: 'growth during a season' discussion is not that important to the seasons discussion, or rather not so important as it requires pages of arguing. Here's why I think it's one of the main points to discuss, and thus deserves all the pages it got and more, at least until we get a sandbox to test anything:
Seasons have an impact on B and R teams. The Fumbbl Cup is played by B and R teams. Other majors also involve B and R teams. How the teams will evolve through their season to enter majors is thus something quite relevant. This is true even with short seasons. Teams that hit 1600TV on their first season will get to more than that on their second. This leaves some room for gamesmanship, and gamesmanship is what will obtain if you let Munchkins do what Munchkins do. |
If seasons limit team development then they limit it for everyone. My point was that it doesn't matter if teams can only grow by 100TV or by 600TV as long as that growth is similar to what other teams can achieve. Playing cups has no effect on this. If (for a quick example) seasons force you to cut to about 1600, and in a season an average growth is 200, then most people will enter the cup or whatever at 1800ish. TVs will certainly be a lot closer together than they are currently. This is also why I advocated a season length where it was possible to get close to the limit after 1 full season.
| thoralf wrote: | | Also note that condescension started on page 2. I can provide links if you need. |
I don't need quotes, and I don't care when it started. I'm just saying cut it out. That applies to everyone. All points and reasoned discussion get lost when every post ends with an insult. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 11:35 |
|
So, I've gotten to read the whole thing now.
Seasons in DZ1 are not what I thought they were.
1) They don't limit the number of games you can play with a player or team before they retire, because you get unlimited numbers of Friendly games per season. If you want to play hundreds of games, go nuts.
2) The don't limit your funds for re-drafting, or your treasury, because again, you get an unlimited number of Friendly games per season, and those just give you more funds for re-drafting, and more winnings, and fan factor, and you can buy things.
3) They do limit how big of a team you can carry long term, because Friendly games do not give SPPs at all, not even MVP. Players can still die or get permanent injuries in Friendlies, but can't gain skills. Eventually you can afford what's left of the skill points you gained in the regular season games and may as well end your season while you still have them.
4) It is totally up to the coach when their season will end, you mark it during the pre-game of any game you start, or effectively any tournament you start, that this will be your last.
So in a 14 game season, plus 2 game finals knockout, the only real limit is that you get a maximum of 16 games to gain SPPs, and all the other games are just a risk to spend on raising funds to re-draft your team before it falls apart, or to hopefully clear MNGs before a big game.
--
That system, that's got interesting choices for every team, even the biggest. But open play in ranked and box, that's got to be the Competitive games. Games for SPPs. They're our "competitive divisions", after all, even if we're not doing equal opponents and home-and-away games at all.
So ... what about if the majors and minors, the smacks and brawls, what if they acted as the Friendly games? You get SPPs in open play, build a team to where you like it, and if you need more funds or just want to test yourself at any point in a season, go in tournaments.
They'd give you funds towards re-drafting, and new chances for injuries, but zero SPPs. Go in as many tournaments as you like, and when the size of your team matches your funds for re-drafting, you can end season and go get some more SPPs in open play. Or skip the tournaments and re-draft anyway, up to you.
That makes much more sense, to me. Royal Rookie Rumble just stays at 1000 TV. 
--
Leagues like SWL would need it the other way, Competitive SPP generating games in the Round Robin tournaments, and zero-SPP fund-raisers with open play. I think that could be a pretty handy mechanic, make the big bloaty teams go out and take some risks, maybe park a while for a fund-raising tour. Hehe. |
_________________
  |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 11:52 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | licker wrote: | | But yeah, I'm sure no one would try to play with 5 studs and 6 loners... |
I reckon that with Seasons we'd do away with the journeyman rule. Carrying journeymen to the end of a season and then replacing them with rookies would be the expected practice.
Just my opinion though. |
There is literally no advantage at all atm in running mass loners yet there is a "JM Abuse rule". If the rules change so that you will get a definitive advantage by running lots of loners you think it would be removed?
Maybe just cos of how much admin work would be required if JM abuse actually became a thing. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | There is literally no advantage at all atm in running loners yet there is a "JM Abuse rule". If the rules change so that you will get a definitive advantage by running lots of loners you think it would be removed?
Maybe just cos of how much admin work would be required if JM abuse actually became a thing. |
What is the 'definitive advantage' of running with Loners? Sorry, maybe I missed something there.
Under seasons there would be a forced rebuy of rookies to replace loners at the end of every season, thus a site rule requiring that people replace loners wouldn't be necessary. That's how I see it anyway.
The validity of the current journeyman rule isn't really relevant to the discussion (and as I know a lot of people disagree with it, lets try not to go off on a tangent). |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 12:12 |
|
The definitive advantage of not replacing losses is more money to rebuy your team.
The validity of the current rule is absolutely relevant, as the only reason to remove it should be that it became less valid.
Using the new ruleset as an excuse to get rid of a ridiculous rule that should never have existed is fine I guess, but interesting that if it it happens it will be under these circumstances. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 12:19 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: |
If seasons limit team development then they limit it for everyone. My point was that it doesn't matter if teams can only grow by 100TV or by 600TV as long as that growth is similar to what other teams can achieve. |
It does matter as some people are happy hovering around 1400-1600. Some people would like to play a bit higher.
If you set the TV limit too low some people will not be interested.
That is basically what you have in the Box now. People who are happy with lower TV carried on playing. A lot of people who prefer to play higher TV quit. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| koadah wrote: | It does matter as some people are happy hovering around 1400-1600. Some people would like to play a bit higher.
If you set the TV limit too low some people will not be interested.
That is basically what you have in the Box now. People who are happy with lower TV carried on playing. A lot of people who prefer to play higher TV quit. |
Yeah it's important to know where the TV limit will be in that regard, but that again all relates to the number of games. The TV limit, both rebuy cost and seasonal growth, are tied to season length by the formula. Longer seasons, higher TVs. With testing the Season length can be adjusted up and down to find the best point.
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | The definitive advantage of not replacing losses is more money to rebuy your team.
The validity of the current rule is absolutely relevant, as the only reason to remove it should be that it became less valid.
Using the new ruleset as an excuse to get rid of a ridiculous rule that should never have existed is fine I guess, but interesting that if it it happens it will be under these circumstances. |
The rule is to stop people running Loners perpetually. With seasons you can only run them to the end of a season when the forced rebuy would see them replaced. Whether you agree with the current rule is irrelevant because the thing it's there to prevent would not be possible, hence the rule would no longer be needed. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 13:50 |
|
| mister__joshua wrote: | | koadah wrote: | It does matter as some people are happy hovering around 1400-1600. Some people would like to play a bit higher.
If you set the TV limit too low some people will not be interested.
That is basically what you have in the Box now. People who are happy with lower TV carried on playing. A lot of people who prefer to play higher TV quit. |
Yeah it's important to know where the TV limit will be in that regard, but that again all relates to the number of games. The TV limit, both rebuy cost and seasonal growth, are tied to season length by the formula. Longer seasons, higher TVs. With testing the Season length can be adjusted up and down to find the best point. |
So you're saying pure trial and error rather than try to figure out in advance what you're trying to achieve?
| mister__joshua wrote: |
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | The definitive advantage of not replacing losses is more money to rebuy your team.
The validity of the current rule is absolutely relevant, as the only reason to remove it should be that it became less valid.
Using the new ruleset as an excuse to get rid of a ridiculous rule that should never have existed is fine I guess, but interesting that if it it happens it will be under these circumstances. |
The rule is to stop people running Loners perpetually. With seasons you can only run them to the end of a season when the forced rebuy would see them replaced. Whether you agree with the current rule is irrelevant because the thing it's there to prevent would not be possible, hence the rule would no longer be needed. |
If it is all about 'perpetually' then it is a doubly stupid rule. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
| koadah wrote: | | So you're saying pure trial and error rather than try to figure out in advance what you're trying to achieve? |
That wasn't what I was saying, though I think there have been several crossed wires in this thread as the subject changes every few posts. All I meant was that it's not that important to know the theoretical maximum advancement possible in a season, and that with a shorter season the rebuy TV level is more important than the in-season growth when working out what TV it's possible to achieve. It was such a small point it didn't really warrant this much discussion. I think I'm going to bow out of this thread for a bit 
| koadah wrote: | | If it is all about 'perpetually' then it is a doubly stupid rule. |
See, this is exactly what I said would happen. Back to discussing current rules and old gripes. Just read it like this...
Current rules: There is no mechanism to force people to replace JMen
Season rules: There is a rule that forces people to replace JMen every X games.
That's all I was saying. That's it. Please leave the discussion of the current journeyman rules for another thread. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 14:16 |
|
Part of the problem is that some people are talking mainly about R & B and others seem to be talking about New Faction.
If you are talking about 20 game seasons then what Jimmy says makes a lot of sense. Run with journeymen to save money for end of season, positionals and spending on inducements.
There is no point buying linos unless you can jump to 12/13 players. If end of season is going to cut you down to 11 again, then there is just not point buying linos except at end of season reset. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
mister__joshua
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
|
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I agree with that. It just seems to me that with Seasons that is the intended mechanic. I wouldn't expect anyone to replace players mid-season unless it was a key position or very early into a long season. I can only guess that's intended behavior because it wouldn't make sense any other way. With only a couple of games to go in a season no-one is going to rebuy any players. You'd effectively just be buying them twice. |
_________________
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude
Mr. J's LRB7 / Forum |
|
Uedder
Joined: Aug 03, 2010
|
| Posted:
Dec 09, 2016 - 14:55 |
|
| koadah wrote: | Part of the problem is that some people are talking mainly about R & B and others seem to be talking about New Faction.
If you are talking about 20 game seasons then what Jimmy says makes a lot of sense. Run with journeymen to save money for end of season, positionals and spending on inducements.
There is no point buying linos unless you can jump to 12/13 players. If end of season is going to cut you down to 11 again, then there is just not point buying linos except at end of season reset. |
Well, remember EM will likely cut your bank if it goes too high... so there's little interest in saving piles of gold (unlike now).
So it's all about inducements. Which may or may not be better than playing with loners.
As of now spiralling expenses really push most teams (elves mostly) to play 11men to keep tv lower and gold flowing. This means you don't want to replace loners. That's not even a choice as of now, it's the only way to get a long stance elf team going. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
