gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
 Posted:
May 01, 2013 - 20:47 |
 
|
| Smeat wrote: | | Quote: | | Another way to do it would be to have a normal round robin, but again, manually edit scores each round. It wouldn't naturally match the highest against each other, though. |
Or - screw it, I could just do it manually each round, and have a schedule page that gets updated. Cat Herding is annoying, but it would also show who is up for the League pace and who is not. |
I think doing it manually might be fine for a little bit, but would lead to a huge amount of work for a longer-term league. In my opinion, finding a way to do something within one of the current league structures is important in the long-term. |
_________________
  |
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2013 - 20:49 |
|
Is there any plan to add a more "custom" option to the available Tourney structures?
Does an "Open Round Robin" format allow for re-matches? Could that be made to work w/ some oversight? |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 01, 2013 - 21:17 |
|
| Smeat wrote: | Is there any plan to add a more "custom" option to the available Tourney structures?
Does an "Open Round Robin" format allow for re-matches? Could that be made to work w/ some oversight? |
There have been plans spoken about for more custom options in [L], but don't know if we'll see them any time soon.
I don't think Open Round Robin does allow for replays.
One thing to consider is that every time a new team enters, hopefully one of the biggest "sharks" will have been promoted, so maybe not such a massive deal? |
_________________
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 02, 2013 - 12:02 |
|
Ok, how about this compromise:
We use a regular, on-going round robin.
To replace the team that is relegated (when they lose the 8th place inter-conference shield match), we promote the current top team.
When someone drops out, and we need more than one team promoted, we use a lottery.
That way, it includes the random element of "anyone could be promoted", but also means people at the top don't miss out every time.
If we also include the idea of "second teams" (goblins, flings, etc.) for anyone in the main league that wants one, that means that while there will be some tough match-ups sometimes for new teams, they will also have some games against not so tough teams. |
_________________
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 16:36 |
|
Season IV
New question for the league:
Should there be a TV (TW?) cap on teams in the Kislev Conference next season?
The thinking behind this is that, after relegations, there will be a mix of old and new teams in the division. It is seen as a combination of a "Training Ground" for new teams, and a "Naughty Step" for teams that get relegated. But, we want new teams to have a chance of getting promoted - otherwise, what is the point?
I can see three options here, and I'd appreciate your feedback:
1) A start of season fixed cap, at say 1500 TW. This ensures that no teams grow to monstrous sizes in the Kislev Division, keeping it relatively safer for new teams. Relegated teams might have to make some tough decisions, but that is part of getting relegated. On the other hand, it means teams coming up to the main conferences will always be smaller than ones already up there, which could be a disadvantage. Also, relegated teams are already being punished by being relegated.
2) A flexible cap, at say the average TV of everyone in the division + 200TV (or a percentage, say 20%). This is more complicated, but will mean the cap fluctuates depending on the size of the teams down there. It has the advantage that it doesn't necessarily limit the potential size of teams that will be promoted to the top divisions. However, it may be difficult to work out, and again double punishes relegated teams.
3) No TV/TW caps. We don't have one in the divisions above, so why in the Kislev? Let teams learn to battle it out the hard way, and risk alienating a few rookie teams. 4 teams out of 8 get a chance of promotion, so plenty of chance for an upset (especially with the Swiss system). Prepares teams for life in Albion & Bretonnia. But, may make life unpleasant for teams just starting out in the league, and discourage them from participating further.
What do you think? |
_________________
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 16:47 |
|
I would consider a hybrid approach. Relegated teams suffering a TV cap is a bit harsh. Not only did you get your ass kicked but you have to slash your roster too!
However if somebody goes AWOL but then wishes to rejoin, a TV cap is more than fair. The position is more-or-less self inflicted! |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 17:07 |
|
No caps necessary in my opinion. There are inducements. |
_________________
   |
|
FRSHMN
Joined: Feb 25, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 17:50 |
|
No caps needed. We want bloodbowl-hardened veteran teams in the Albion/Bretonia leagues, no "hush, hush, little babies"  |
|
|
FredAstaire
Joined: May 10, 2013
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 18:12 |
|
I think no caps needed . . . However, some sort of relegation punishment is an idea? You could lose 1 player (sorting simulating how football teams (soccer for the heathens) lose players when they drop down from the premier league). Could roll a Dx in iirc with someone to watch (x = amount of players in the team) and then you fire that one player?? Might be a little harsh, but at the same time, we don't want teams in Kislev to be just as good (i.e. no one should be winning Albion or Bretonnia the season after they get promoted)
Not sure if this is a good idea or not, ideas? |
|
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 18:51 |
|
Possibly if the TV difference gets big enough and there is enough interest in the league, you can just form a 2nd conference. Low TV conference and High TV conference with the 1st/2nd places playing off for promotion. |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
xarogobar
Joined: Sep 06, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 20:32 |
|
No TV cap. Relegated are already punished. |
|
|
Winni
Joined: Jan 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 21:18 |
|
Option 3 all the way.
Going a league down and being made fun of by everyone is harsh enough. And new teams cant really expect to win a league in their first season (even tho it has been done).
I like Freds idea somehow, but thats really mean and would probably make a coach or two ragequit, understandably too. I would make it like after a concession, so every player with so and so many SPPs leaves on a roll of 4+. But no, thats too mean and we´re all nice people, arent we. |
_________________
Spreading the truth about Wood Elves since shortly. |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 21:31 |
|
Ok, looks like there is pretty strong consensus on this! No TV caps it is.
I do like Fred's / Winni's ideas though, but think they are probably too harsh on teams that have already gone down for being too weak. |
_________________
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 31, 2013 - 23:30 |
|
Not an easy question, nor one that deserves a one-line answer imo.
First, let's face a couple relevant truths that are important to this consideration for the long term...
1) Teams in the upper division will keep getting larger. There is no cap there, there is nothing much to stop them from growing, especially the top teams.
1b) That means that "new" teams who move up are going to be (relatively) smaller and smaller, and the "training ground" division being less and less effective at its designed purpose. Teams will move up, get creamed, and move back down for a re-building, or have (to try) to rebuild and grow in the main-league environment. Not impossible, but not friendly to new teams, not attractive to coaches, not productive for the League.
2) Meanwhile, as that happens, the size of the teams that get relegated down will be larger and larger - teams move up, they get pounded, they move down again - or some other team that has been in the top longer moves down - and they are likely to be even bigger
2b) This means that brand new teams will be in less and less of a "peer" environment. Thrown into the deep end, at least in part.
So, imo (and sorry to say it)... ultimately, this is a pyramid scheme and doomed to fail. The point of the training league is to help teams grow, but grown teams are shuttled back down to the training league where they'll outclass (if not outplay) those new teams. So we'll need more and more new teams to swim with the little fish, but all of the fish will be growing, just at different rates.
| gjopie wrote: | | ...But, we want new teams to have a chance of getting promoted - otherwise, what is the point? |
Exactly - but what's the point of promoting teams that are still MUCH smaller than (some of) the crushers who they'll face? TV is not the only measure of survival, but we all know that Inducements are (usually) worth even less than skilled, permanent players.
(And this is especially true for some of the more "fragile" teams or ones with expensive positionals, who can find themselves in a death spiral if out-classed by even half their opponents. They lose key players, can't protect their others and don't win to earn money to replace enough to get their feet under them again - and so the coach, understandably, quits.)
So...
Should there be a TV (TW?) cap on teams in the Kislev Conference next season?
Not if you want anyone who moves up to have a reasonable chance to compete once the upper teams start to get larger - and they will.
I think the problem is not that some teams are too large in Kieslev, but that new teams are too small, and I think (know) that that diff will only get larger and that difference more and more awkward as the main-league teams grow.
Therefore, I propose we do the opposite...
In the NBFL, every "new" team starts with 1 skill on every player they want to hire, PLUS several "Veteran" or "Emerging Star" players (2-3 skills each). Every "new" team thus starts at a medium TV level, b/c that League is a high TV League, and nothing else can compete or (more to the point there) even survive.
Now, we don't want to go that far, but I think we should have a "minimum TV value" for Kieslev, and run friendly "feeder" games* to get them there. The minimum value can fluctuate with the average/highest TV in the upper Divisions. Not a set number of games, and NOT so-called "friendly" games between competitive teams, but a true one-side spp fest.
This would take a little more work* (current vet League coaches will all pitch in w/ their own Snotling trainer team), but it turns the league into something where new teams can at least survive (and perhaps compete) with the larger ones that are even now taking shape. It means you don't have to start at Level 1.
(* One coach runs an Ogre team consisting of 16 Snotlings - St 1 Stunties, perfect for Casualties - and the Stunty coach chooses -3d blocks to feed Casualty spp to the other side faster while the other side scores unchallenged again and again. Can often mine 40+ spp in a single game, feeding the player(s) of your choice the scores. It's a League game, so it's not breaking the ToU.)
We'd have to establish how the spp-fest works (some teams and some positionals will score more easily than others - easy to skill a Gutter Runner, harder to skill a Big Guy - so there may be some limitations there*. Details would have to be creative - a flat number of "builder games" is not fair to high-scoring teams (Elfs or Skaven vs., say, Khemri) but allowing a flat number of skills no matter how many games are played is not fair to Players that can skill easily vs. those that cannot (Gutter Runners or most any Elf vs. a team of skilled Saurus, Flesh Golems or Tomb Guardians) - but something in that direction.
(* There's been enough ground work by other Leagues/coaches in this direction that we wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.)
That's what I think.  |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 00:32 |
|
To be honest:
Due to the swiss tournament structure and crp-inducements/journeymen I consider these problems as non-issues.
That said, my rookie HE (who might be promoted after just 3 games) are not particularly scared to participate in the top tier conferences.
My newbie 2p |
|
|
|
|
| |
My 1st Blackbox tour...
Search
