Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
 Posted:
Nov 04, 2005 - 06:11 |
 
|
I'm with ozjesting here - he has done a pretty good job with the layout in the matchups thread. Obviously it is because the Midkemian stable consists of coaches with such a high level of intelligence! 
Virral: I'm sure that persons of a lesser intelligence will see fit to use poor formatting as an attempt to irritate us. |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
Satans_mechanic
Joined: Jul 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 08, 2005 - 21:32 |
|
At the risk of reigniting the lets protect busted teams debate, i would like to submit a suggestion to be looked at in the end of season review
As it stands, the coin toss is a pretty big element in determining a stables fortunes, especially with a fair few stables using dwarf and amazon teams, so my thought ran like this, if both stable are on equal points, then toss away, how ever, if one stable has more points than t' other, then award the toss to the lower stable, it would make it harder for one stable to get a run away lead due to a good run of coin tosses, give a fighting chance to a stable who was been crippled by a bad run of coin tosses, and still leave the task of exploiting strengths whilst protecting weaknesses in the hands of stable captains.
variations on the suggestion could even extend to a range where the coin toss applies, such as stables within 3 points of each other get a coin toss, greater difference than that awarding the toss to the lower of the two
anyway, just a suggestion, and another thing to consider once we get this season out of the way.... |
_________________
I'm in your dugout, spiking the bugmans. |
|
Rabid_Bogscum
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 00:40 |
|
Great suggestion SM.. very worthy of debate for next season methinks |
|
|
xstatika
Joined: Apr 10, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 01:40 |
|
|
Rabid_Bogscum
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 01:57 |
|
Yeah real cute X real cute |
|
|
Wallace
Joined: May 26, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 02:11 |
|
Acckk! We really need to get the matchups thread sorted, I've been waiting for Symmetrical to post the matchups for this round (as he is the captain of AXIS who we are playing) and have been checking his original post and the rest of the thread. I just saw then that Satans_Mechanic posted them two days ago by editing an old post, this could have gone on for days to come very easily, I only saw that post by chance! I've recieved no PM's from AXIS about this at all (I'm the captain of my stable).
This is gunna get confusing for us all unless we start a new matchups thread and follow Ozjestings plan and only the captains post the matchups, or at least mandate that a PM should be sent to the opposing team to alert them that the matchups are posted.
Note, I'm not whinging at you AXIS ladz or anything, we're all new to this, just pointing out teething problems as I see 'em  |
|
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 02:14 |
|
While the goal is admirable, I think you're making some faulty assumptions in your logic SM.
There are already metagame considerations that should balance this for a good stable captain though. Its not necessarily as much a case of put the weakened team against the strongest as you suggest. You're actually better off putting the opposition weakest team against your weakest or middle team.
If you pick on the beatup team, you make them further beatup, which makes them less likely to win future games, thus giving more points to your opposition. By placing them against your weakest team, you maximise that teams chances of victory while hopefully leaving a strong opponent for their future opponents. A captain who makes a simple lets kill that team pick is actually doing a disservice to his own stable.
Such a system also assumes the weakened teams will be on the lower points team. This is not necessarily going to be the case. To use a current example, our stable will have two beatup teams next round, but will be on a minimum of 14 points, making us likely to be playing someone on lower points. So not only would we have two weakened teams, but we would automatically give up the decision of when and whom to pick. (BTW, people do realise they have a choice between picking first and last don't they, or have we scrapped that - I think its a good idea personally).
I don't think the coin toss is big of a deal as you seem to believe. The fact the team who chooses second picks two matchups goes a long way to balancing the choice of the first matchup. In our last matchup, we won the toss, but either way the matchups would likely have ended up exactly the same way, as both captains would have picked based on the long term metagame and trusted the incividual players to win through on skill.
The only team that absolutely gets trashed by getting chosen is Zons, but they are also among the biggest benefactors as well (try pitting them against Chaos for example). If you choose to have one in your stable, its a big risk vs big reward thing, so why should the risk be reduced.
This also depends greatly on whether or not other rules are brought into play. |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs
Last edited by chunky04 on %b %09, %2005 - %02:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
ozjesting
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 02:16 |
|
Aye! At the least Captains should be in PM contact. Then BOTH captains should update their "eternal" post with all 3 games. THEN each captain should alert his troops to who they are playing. With the open RR thing we no longer get a home page reminder of the game..so smarten up captains! YOU are the leader! |
_________________
Say GO AWAY to CuddleBunny! |
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 04:06 |
|
I actually think SM's idea is a pretty good one.
What are you rambling on about with your 'metagame' waffles chunks? |
|
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 04:29 |
|
Ugh, if you want me to simplify it:
- Winning stables are not necessarily less beatup stables, particularly at low TR levels and differences
- Matching beatup opponents vs bashy teams does not = good strategy
- The coin toss isn't a massive difference as picking the remaining games will be roughly even (with a possibility to even things up further down below)
- This isn't the case when Amazons and Dwarfs get involved, but thats a big risk vs a big reward for the Zons considering they fair very well against many teams as well (Chaos for example). You choose to use Zons you must accept both sides of the coin.
- It's also very dependant on the TR level of the teams involved, which is something yet to be determined.
So while the idea seems to have merit, it wouldn't achieve much, except it would completely destroy the point of stable in the first place.
The game picking to me is an integral part of the stable concept. Without it you might as well play a straight teams league and determine matchups completely at random. This isn't what stable is about.
If you want some alternative suggestions:
- Increase each Stable to 4 teams. This makes the choice between choosing the first game, or the rest of the games a very even choice. This was the setup of the original version, and I believe had we known how many stables we'd get, we likely would have had 9 stables of 4 instead of 12 stables of 3.
- Give each Stable a certain number of bid points per season. They may use these points each round to bid with their opponents for the right to pick first. This makes it important to consider the importance of getting the first pick each round, and doesn't make any assumptions as to whether winning or losing teams will need it more.
Metagame is simply taking decisions in a game that relate to outside factors, rather than strictly thinking of the game and team at hand. The easiest example I can think of is Zen Adepts vs German Vermin in round 1 of Premier. Had he have chosen to, Flo could quite likely have crushed the Vermin with casualties (improving his team with the spp). Instead, he decided it was better to leave them intact, and hope they would prove a hurdle to his future opponents. This has definitely been the case. |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs
Last edited by chunky04 on %b %09, %2005 - %04:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
Laviak
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 04:30 |
|
I think that SMs just saying that the side choosing the first match up has an advantage ... and why not give that advantage to the side that has fewest points so far in the season. Makes sense to me. It doesn't really try to give "fairer" match ups as such, but it does give stables that are running behind a better chance of catching up (and also vice-versa). |
_________________
We Fink Wer Orks
--------
Help save blood bowl, foul an elf today!. |
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 04:34 |
|
So why not instead try and make the choice a more even one than destorying one of the two aspects that make Stable unique? |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs |
|
Satans_mechanic
Joined: Jul 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 05:23 |
|
I don't see how it destroys anything about stable chunky, it's merely removing a random element, whilst still retaining the outcome of aforementioned random element, how exactly is a coin toss a unique feature? If anything it increases the meta game because now depending on situation it will be obvious who will get first pick in upcoming rounds.
as mentioned in the first sentence, the suggestion is not actually about protecting beat up teams, it's about giving a stable lagging behind in the championship chase a chance to cover their weaknesses (not the same thing as a beat up team) and maximising their strengths (not the same as beating up a weak team), because i know if i've been having a rough season, the last person/entity/deity i want to entrust my fortunes to is that bastard nuffle, he fouls more than miyuso.
captains still have to pick match ups
and a good captain will pick his first match up with a definate picture of how he thinks the opposition will want to select the remaining two.
the main point of my suggestion is preventing one stable or the other getting to far ahead or behind because of constantly winning/fluffing the coin toss and a) winning the season half way through, or b) being left with nothing to choose but poor match ups due to the cleverness of his opposing captains combined with a jolly nuffling. |
_________________
I'm in your dugout, spiking the bugmans. |
|
ozjesting
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 06:06 |
|
I like it as it is. We play a game BASED on random elements! So one more or less will affect nothing. I really don't see it helping one way or the other. I will make my one or 2 picks every round regardless. The clevrest cappytain can't do more...and if his coaches go and lose anyway? well...dammit! It must have been the coin!
I think more attention to the match-up thread format is time better spent. Although I enjoy the term Metagame! And I shall seek to use it in more conversations.
Oh...Amazons should REALLY get over their Tacklephobia. It is not some evil curse...play smarter against the bearded ones and quit your girly whineing! |
_________________
Say GO AWAY to CuddleBunny! |
|
Snorri
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 09, 2005 - 06:16 |
|
Yeah, I understood all your points chunky. And as surprising as it may seem to the edumacated people out there - this northern barbarian does know what terms like 'metagame' mean. I haven't forgotten that much english yet!
I just didn't see the relevance of many of your points, and the fact that it coincidentally popped up with one of the words I love to hate led to the comment.
Winning stables *are* more likely to be less beat up/higher TR stables, no matter how you look at it. And like SM said, removing the coin toss in some games doesn't remove the match picks - they're still there, so I'm not sure where you're going with that either. At the moment, SM's idea looks a good way of keeping the competition closer without changing much or making it much more complicated - that's all good I reckon. If it happens to help along a few struggling stable teams along the way, all the better. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Custom Icon, Portrai...
Search
