Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
 Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 00:59 |
 
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | ...my rookie HE (who might be promoted after just 3 games) are not particularly scared to participate in the top tier conferences. |
Currently.
It will get worse for new teams, both in the upper divisions and the "training" one, that's the point.
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Due to the swiss tournament structure and crp-inducements/journeymen I consider these problems as non-issues. |
The Swiss format does reduce the impact as far as survivability, but if a new team wins they will move up and up, and soon be facing TV diffs above 500k - and that's scary, whether you feel it or not.
Inducements do help, no doubt, but they are not as good, nor provide the same survivability, as having your own skilled, permanent players on your team.
<shrugs>
Currently we give new teams one freebie game, for 4 TD's = 2 skills on 2 diff players - I'm just suggesting we expand on that slightly, which addresses the underlying issue that prompted this question while while not capping anything.
(And being a League that allows teams to start somewhere above "Level 1" is not a bad thing either - most all of us have been there, too many times.)
 |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 03:04 |
|
wow Smeat, that's a lot of input. The NBFL approach would be a big step change for OWCC, Im not a fan personally - although I can see where you're coming from
My view is that a TV cap isn't necessary in principle, inducements are good at balancing the game most of the time - but if there is a slight advantage to having a bigger team that is merely a just reward for being a longer serving member of the league.
But - if I remember right, the reason why the Kislev conference was introduced in the first place was so that we always had a fresh and available pool of talent to replace teams that dropped out of the main divisions - either at the end of the season or during it. The lesson we have learnt from the last few seasons is that there will be quite a few drop outs - which means that if we enforce relegations (ie promote more teams from Kislev ahead of reprieving the relegated teams from Albion and Bretonnia), then we will end up with quite a few smaller teams with new (to OWCC) coaches in the main divisions. Meanwhile we will see some larger teams with proven, reliable coaches in the Kislev conference alongside mostly brand new teams. My suspicion is that larger teams wont be in Kislev for very long... |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 08:46 |
|
| Smeat wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | | ...my rookie HE (who might be promoted after just 3 games) are not particularly scared to participate in the top tier conferences. |
Currently.
It will get worse for new teams, both in the upper divisions and the "training" one, that's the point.
| Frankenstein wrote: | | Due to the swiss tournament structure and crp-inducements/journeymen I consider these problems as non-issues. |
The Swiss format does reduce the impact as far as survivability, but if a new team wins they will move up and up, and soon be facing TV diffs above 500k - and that's scary, whether you feel it or not.
Inducements do help, no doubt, but they are not as good, nor provide the same survivability, as having your own skilled, permanent players on your team.
<shrugs>
Currently we give new teams one freebie game, for 4 TD's = 2 skills on 2 diff players - I'm just suggesting we expand on that slightly, which addresses the underlying issue that prompted this question while while not capping anything.
(And being a League that allows teams to start somewhere above "Level 1" is not a bad thing either - most all of us have been there, too many times.)
|
He, I didn't even get that freebie game
Still, I don't see the issue as dropouts should always exceed relegations of high-TV teams.
The only problem I could see are high-TV teams relegated due to inactivity, but even those I wouldn't mind much.
Other leagues have TV-caps (e. g. WIL), which I would prefer over any other approach. |
|
|
B_SIDE
Joined: Apr 24, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 10:23 |
|
I'm a fan of salary caps in perpetual league play. At the end of every season/tourney, all teams cut down to a certain maximum TW, which ensures that the treasury is also not unreasonably high.
But not all leagues are all things to all people. |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 11:10 |
|
Thanks, Smeat. I always appreciate your well thought out input. However, I think I'm against a system of minimum TVs.
I know you're against "friendlies", but I think the key might be to give the lower end teams more games to play. If we divide up the post-season tour in to 4 TW groups (of 7 each), we could go for a 1, 2, 4, 6 game limit, meaning those bottom teams are getting a lot more games than the top ones.
Uzkulak and Frankenstein: I think you're suggesting we don't relegate teams instead of promoting more when we have drop-outs from the top division?
My initial plan was to do it like this:
1 drop-out: 3 of the 4 playoff teams* get promoted.
2 drop-outs: All 4 playoff teams get promoted.
3 drop-outs: Playoff teams promoted, one last-placed team saved.
4 drop-outs: As above, but both last-placed teams saved.
*Playoffs are between teams placed 3rd and 4th in Kislev and teams in 9th in Albion & Bretonnia
Any more than that, and we'll need to get more teams in anyway.
We could swap it around so that 3 playoff teams are promoted, then the two relegated teams, then the 4th playoff team.
And Frankenstein: We didn't do the booster games for teams going in to Kislev this season because the levels were so low. |
_________________
  |
|
FredAstaire
Joined: May 10, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 11:24 |
|
| gjopie wrote: | | If we divide up the post-season tour in to 4 TW groups (of 7 each), we could go for a 1, 2, 4, 6 game limit, meaning those bottom teams are getting a lot more games than the top ones. |
I think this is an excellent idea. Even a difference of one or two games can be huge (especially when you think about how the Low TW teams need less spp anyway to skill up)
Obviously the amount of games for each group might need a bit of play-testing to see how effective it is (and also if it turns off coaches who are waiting around if they have less games)
But definitely a good idea imo |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 11:27 |
|
| FredAstaire wrote: | | also if it turns off coaches who are waiting around if they have less games |
This is always a concern. But the post-season tour is done in an open round robin format (precisely so that the whole thing can take a set period of time - usually a couple of weeks), so the lower TV teams would have to arrange their own games, and this is generally what puts people off. |
_________________
|
|
FredAstaire
Joined: May 10, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 11:40 |
|
Maybe if we really push the iirc chat channel? Especially in the post-season tour? idk though |
|
|
FredAstaire
Joined: May 10, 2013
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 11:44 |
|
Im also aware that if you expanded the acronym, I said 'chat' twice in a row. I'm also aware that I have no regrets |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 12:42 |
|
| gjopie wrote: | | And Frankenstein: We didn't do the booster games for teams going in to Kislev this season because the levels were so low. |
To avoid any misunderstandings here:
It wasn't a complaint but rather a comment to emphasize that I couldn't have cared less for pimping as I was eager to participate in the OWCC and had no problems at all starting with a brand new team. |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 12:53 |
|
| gjopie wrote: | | Uzkulak and Frankenstein: I think you're suggesting we don't relegate teams instead of promoting more when we have drop-outs from the top division? |
Definitely. |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 01, 2013 - 12:58 |
|
| Frankenstein wrote: | | gjopie wrote: | | And Frankenstein: We didn't do the booster games for teams going in to Kislev this season because the levels were so low. |
To avoid any misunderstandings here:
It wasn't a complaint but rather a comment to emphasize that I couldn't have cared less for pimping as I was eager to participate in the OWCC and had no problems at all starting with a brand new team. |
That's ok, didn't take it as a complaint. Just wanted to clear it up!
Personally, I like the idea of the challenge of starting with a brand new team and building them up in to champions in a tough environment, but I understand that I may be in a small minority here. Also aware that it is easy to say that as one of the bigger teams (although I may restart in a season or two for just this reason).
And the IRC channel is very helpful for organising games, and I would definitely encourage people to hang out there more often. It is always open, and I'm often in there when I'm online. |
_________________
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 02, 2013 - 13:17 |
|
| gjopie wrote: |
Uzkulak and Frankenstein: I think you're suggesting we don't relegate teams instead of promoting more when we have drop-outs from the top division?
My initial plan was to do it like this:
1 drop-out: 3 of the 4 playoff teams* get promoted.
2 drop-outs: All 4 playoff teams get promoted.
3 drop-outs: Playoff teams promoted, one last-placed team saved.
4 drop-outs: As above, but both last-placed teams saved.
*Playoffs are between teams placed 3rd and 4th in Kislev and teams in 9th in Albion & Bretonnia
Any more than that, and we'll need to get more teams in anyway.
We could swap it around so that 3 playoff teams are promoted, then the two relegated teams, then the 4th playoff team. |
That sounds like a good plan. Going from the last couple of seasons that means only the last placed teams have a realistic prospect of getting relegated.
Reliable coaches are so precious to a league. Maybe if someone has played all their games for three seasons they can win a "first replacement pardon" which allows them to jump to the top of the queue, re dropouts? Just throwing that out there... |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 03, 2013 - 22:07 |
|
I get your point, and reliable coaches are absolutely priceless. However, I'm against this because I'm not sure there is an easy way to measure "reliability" - some games that have been forfeited have been entirely due to one side, some have been somewhere in between. Like the idea, but just don't think it's workable, I'm afraid. |
_________________
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Nov 05, 2013 - 01:44 |
|
| uzkulak wrote: | | The NBFL approach would be a big step change for OWCC, Im not a fan personally - although I can see where you're coming from |
I'm not suggesting the "draft" part - but we currently give 1 game away (4 unchallenged scores = 2 skills, + MVP + Gate $) to every new team. I'm just suggesting we might want to give a little more to jumpstart the virgin teams, maybe 2-3 games total, especially as the top teams in each division grow.
| Quote: | | But - if I remember right, the reason why the Kislev conference was introduced ... then we will end up with quite a few smaller teams with new (to OWCC) coaches in the main divisions... |
Currently, there is exactly the sort of matchup that is so painful to see, the 1690 TV 3-time league champion Goldlords vs. a 1110 TV Norse team.
Ouchies. 
And while most upper-division teams will grow, "new" teams will always be "brand new" (as it stands).
The question is whether painfully low(er) "placeholder" teams are good enough, and being a low-TV placeholder in a high(er) TV division will hold the interest of those new(er) Coaches, or not.
| gjopie wrote: | Thanks, Smeat. I always appreciate your well thought out input. However, I think I'm against a system of minimum TVs.
I know you're against "friendlies", but I think the key might be to give the lower end teams more games to play. If we divide up the post-season tour in to 4 TW groups (of 7 each), we could go for a 1, 2, 4, 6 game limit, meaning those bottom teams are getting a lot more games than the top ones... |
It's not that I'm "against" them, it's that I don't believe they really exist as anything much diff than cut-throat, regular-season games. Mighty Blow is still Mighty Blow, Claw is still Claw.
They're "pre-season" games, and the only diff is that there is not quite as much incentive to win at all costs, and so some coaches can protect their players better and not worry about losing.
(Of course, you could ban Piling On, Fouls, Surfing and Wizards, anything that is designed to hurt the other team, but some coaches would still use them "out of habit" - and then what do we do with them?)
Still, a weighted "pre-season" so the lower-TV teams get more games in might be the answer - more games = higher TV (usually), and that's the answer, regardless of how we get there. |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
|
|
| |
Finishing the 60 Gam...
Search
