ozjesting
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
|
 Posted:
Jun 30, 2004 - 15:11 |
 
|
Another thought about match-ups is an idea that is used in team golf events. Each Stable ranks itself how it likes 1 to 4. And then just a simple matter of 1 playing 1 and so on. Stables can re-rank themselves after each round to their liking. If there is a way to know what teams are in the Stable you play next but NOT know their ranking...just try to guess how they will list them...could make for some fun/nasty surprises! |
_________________
Say GO AWAY to CuddleBunny! |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 30, 2004 - 15:20 |
|
Uhm, Don't like this... the choice of the opponent in chunky's way is much more tactical.  |
_________________
 |
|
stargzrrag
Joined: Jun 10, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 30, 2004 - 22:46 |
|
I was thinking that to avoid the strategic "oh man I just couldn't get on to play that team *smirk" game dodges, that perhaps forfeit losses should count as a first turn concession. (is there a way that could be done? Maybe a team created to join/concede against the 'winning' team? That way the team that gets dodged doesn't neccesarily get hosed going into the following round. Just a thought. Actually it was based on your example in the group listing... I can see how an Amazon team might try to dodge a Dwarf team.
I think the alternating choices of games(the way you had first said) might take a little longer to do, but it would probably be more fair that the way it is listed now. Either way I'm in |
|
|
cyric612
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jun 30, 2004 - 22:52 |
|
This sounds like a cool idea I'd like to join but will need to be picked up by a stable...I'll submit a team though |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jun 30, 2004 - 23:12 |
|
I like this idea very much, too.
Is there any hint at when it might start?
I´m still trying to mobilise some friends.. (I know I can apply now, but it would be more fun to be in a stable with people you know [my opinion]) |
|
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 01:13 |
|
Or simply make it negative points for forfeits. I assume each game is worth say 4 or 5 for a win, 2 for a draw, and 1 for a loss, with maybe some form of bonus points involved? |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs |
|
Renegade
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 01:27 |
|
Hmmm, I never did see the point in awarding points forlosing. kinda defeats the objective. |
|
|
ozjesting
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 01:29 |
|
I would have thought individual games have no points per se...except 1pt the win 1/2 a pt the draw (or some other system) and it is ONLY the stable that gets the main points. Say 5 the stable win 3 the draw. Buut I am crap at figuring out these sort of things....I can only work out block dice advantages  |
_________________
Say GO AWAY to CuddleBunny! |
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 03:09 |
|
It's basically to give a further penalty for forfeits Renegade, as I don't think you can actually give negative points on fumbbl. Basically prevents people from ducking bad matchups.
That's probably a good idea oz, but you still need to do something to prevent forfeited games by crybabies who don't like their matchups. |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs |
|
Wallace
Joined: May 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 03:23 |
|
Some good ideas here. I wasn't going to bother making a 'scoring' system within a stable match as obviously the stabe who wins the most games will win the match, a draw dosn't advance either side so there is need for a scoring system.
I hadn't considered people forfeiting to avoid bad matchups, I guess I assume better of people, silly me
The problem is that it is hard to determine who was the forfeiting team when two coaches can't make their match in the 2 weeks. Negative scoring dosn't help because it would apply to both teams and would have no effect on the stable match. Giving a dwarf Vs amazons forfeit to the dwarves because you assume the zons were avoiding the matchup can't be done either because then the dwarf caoch could just ensure the game dosn't get played and pick up the forfeit.
So I am asking all coaches to play in a good competitave spirit. Any forfeited games will need a full explanation from both parties as to why they couldn't get the game in. I'm not going to be a Nazi about it but I will keep an eye on coaches who I think are being sneaky and take away league points if I see fit. I won't be playing so will be unbiased. Hard and fast rules on this issue can always be twisted around and exploited, so I will take a more interprative angle on it. Play in a good spirit anf you will not be disadvantaged!
For those who asked when the league will start, hopefully in a week or two when we know who is keen. It may take a little longer than a normal league to get the stables organised with players who don't already have a group of 4 together, but I'd like to keep the ball rolling on this.
Thanks for your interest guys |
|
|
Sp00n
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 05:02 |
|
should we sign up while we're looking for partners for our stables?
I wouldnt want to be assigned to a random stable if i sign up now. |
|
|
Mully
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 05:43 |
|
Myself, Ug, Game_Avatar, and Barash are forming a stable. However, Ug is on vacation for 12 days and has not created a team yet. Is this OK?
I'll have him build one as soon as he gets back.
Mully |
_________________
Owner of the REAL Larson
Come join the CCC League |
|
Wallace
Joined: May 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 06:13 |
|
| Sp00n wrote: | should we sign up while we're looking for partners for our stables?
I wouldnt want to be assigned to a random stable if i sign up now. |
Sign up with a team than post on the advert thread that you are looking for a stable or talk to your buddies on IRC or whatever. You can always remove your team and put a new one in once you've sorted out a stable and decided on your race.
It's better that I get the interested coaches down on the group page with temporary teams so I know how many coaches are keen. Plus then I can PM you all easily.
No one will be put into random stables. If there are a few keen coaches left over that don't have a stable once we are ready to go then they will probably be grouped together, but that's about it. Basically it's up to you to get yourselve's into groups using the advert thread, but I will help out once we are ready to go.
| Quote: | Myself, Ug, Game_Avatar, and Barash are forming a stable. However, Ug is on vacation for 12 days and has not created a team yet. Is this OK?
I'll have him build one as soon as he gets back. |
That's fine.
It raises another point though, once you do have a stable sorted, even if you don't have all the members with teams yet like this one, can you apoint a captain and have them PM me with the stable name and the list of members. Renegade and I will then start listing them on the group page so you can all start talking trash to each other |
|
|
Covertfun
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 08:08 |
|
Renegade, I think people give points for losing so as to distinguish between playing to a loss and forfeiting.
I think. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 01, 2004 - 09:40 |
|
I say no points, just have a little faith in the players.
I mean, this is a Stable League, and the rules (as they are now explained by chuncky) clearly state that wou WILL eventually face unfair, hard matches like the zons vs dwarfs. More than this, being a TR100 tournament, it is very likely that some of us will play the second round with 10 players or even less.
If you are (or will be) disturbed by this, I think you should not even apply for membership...
I approve the "referee-Wallace" option. It is by far the easiest way to solve problems. Obviously, a high degree of responsability would be appreciated... I prefer to play than to have a conceded victory. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
Secret Stunty Cup IV
Search
