Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
 Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 13:09 |
 
|
(reposting what I wrote in the PM thread)
In the current draft there are 3 Royal Pardons floating around, which could really start to mess with the outcome of the draft. As it stands, at least 2 will end up in one division or the other, and possibly all 3, and that's almost half the draftees being shifted around. Personally, I feel that 3 is already (at least!) one too many in the mix, and that 2 should be the absolute limit. (I thought "1" was the limit, and that was random enough.)
The "winning" coaches get to draft as their "prize", and as it stands have only ~some~ control over what the divisions will look like. Out of only 7 total teams, to have up to 3 of those leave and swap for the scariest teams in the other division undermines that to a huge extent, and also could rapidly and severely imbalance the two divisions.
888888888
I like the concept of RP's, but I also feel there should be a limit to how many can be used in a given draft, and I'd say 2/draft max.
Instead of giving the Kislev winner an RP, they simply get to choose which Division they enter, just before the last draft pick - and that last team then goes to the other division. (So they are "immune" to the draft. The last team picked is often one of the surlier ones, so that's a good one for a young team to avoid, but doesn't mess w/ the draft up to that point.)
Then, once those lists are published, everyone w/ an RP (no matter how old) can declare that they want to switch (by notifying the commish by PM). Only the 2 most recent RP's who express an interest actually get to switch (via same process as currently in place) - the others are not used this draft, and are still around, 1 season older, next draft. Next season, same process - newest get priority, but anyone w/ an RP can express an interest and hope only 1 newer does likewise. So they can be as old as you want, but lose priority as more seasons pass (and so become less and less likely to ever be used).
So there's not a hard limit, but still a strong incentive to "use or lose". (Or keep for bragging rights.) |
_________________
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:
Jan 17, 2014 - 13:40 |
|
| Smeat wrote: | Instead of giving the Kislev winner an RP, they simply get to choose which Division they enter, just before the last draft pick - and that last team then goes to the other division. (So they are "immune" to the draft. The last team picked is often one of the surlier ones, so that's a good one for a young team to avoid, but doesn't mess w/ the draft up to that point.)
Then, once those lists are published, everyone w/ an RP (no matter how old) can declare that they want to switch (by notifying the commish by PM). Only the 2 most recent RP's who express an interest actually get to switch (via same process as currently in place) - the others are not used this draft, and are still around, 1 season older, next draft. Next season, same process - newest get priority, but anyone w/ an RP can express an interest and hope only 1 newer does likewise. So they can be as old as you want, but lose priority as more seasons pass (and so become less and less likely to ever be used).
So there's not a hard limit, but still a strong incentive to "use or lose". (Or keep for bragging rights.) |
I like these ideas a lot. |
_________________
  |
|
Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 15:43 |
|
I don't think they should be indefinite. Either use it or lose it, IMHO. That would get rid of pretty much all the concerns.
Perhaps we need to turn the Inter-Conference Shield into a tournament? It's currently 12 teams, so turn it into seeded knock out cup for a pardon. By seeded I mean the 4th and 5th placed teams get a by into the 2nd round. (So round 1 is 8 teams, round 2 is 8 teams.) |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 15:49 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | I don't think they should be indefinite. Either use it or lose it, IMHO. That would get rid of pretty much all the concerns.
Perhaps we need to turn the Inter-Conference Shield into a tournament? It's currently 12 teams, so turn it into seeded knock out cup for a pardon. By seeded I mean the 4th and 5th placed teams get a by into the 2nd round. (So round 1 is 8 teams, round 2 is 8 teams.) |
At the moment, it's 10 teams (4th - 8th in each Conference), but it could obviously still be done that way.
It's a possibility, but I'd like to come up with something more original if possible. If we were to change it to a straight KO cup, we might as well include the 8 Kislev teams from the plate as well. |
_________________
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 17, 2014 - 19:50 |
|
yeah, I kind of agree that it would be better to limit the number of RPs somehow. Either by having a max number that can be around at any one time, impose a shelf life or as Smeat suggests only allowing x to be used during each draft.
The shield seems to suffer a lot from people quitting the league (ie games not getting played - its happened every season). Turning it into a knockout tournament seems more interesting but it would be great to keep the inter-divisional rivalry in place. Perhaps include the two promoted Kislev teams and run mini leagues of four teams with the points counting towards a divisional total (also has the advantage of being a 3 round tournie).
This would also allow the playoffs to continue in the background. |
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:00 |
|
I originally thought the RP's were "use now or lose", but being able to keep them for a bit isn't a bad thing. The "keeping" isn't the problem - the danger of too many coaches using them all at once is.
| gjopie wrote: | | It's a possibility, but I'd like to come up with something more original if possible. |
I have no problem w/ the current post-season system. The only criticisms are that 1) the "playoffs" seem to take almost as long as the regular season (meh), and 2) that, as U says, some see no point in trying to win the Shield game for bragging rights only. It's like getting injured in the all-star game - why risk it? (I disagree, but can see the lesser attraction.)
But if we were to change it, I've always been a big fan of a double-elimination ladder. I have no idea how much the FUMBBL code could handle and how much would have to be hand-done (or worked-around), but a double-elim lets everyone keep playing for quite a while, and one "unlucky" game isn't a dealbreaker for an otherwise consistently good team.
And sometimes, the final is a rematch of an earlier game - and there's drama there, b/c if the previous loser wins that game, then that's the first loss for the team in the winning bracket... so each team has only been "eliminated" once, and there's a THIRD match for all the marbles! Woohoo - walk your talk or go home! |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
Anzelak
Joined: Nov 26, 2009
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:27 |
|
Double-Elimination, exactly as Smeat describes it, works brilliantly for our 14-man TT league "post-season", which is a 5-rounds Swiss league. I'd heartily recommend giving the idea a hard punt into the zone of consideration.
It'd have to be manually done with FUMBBL's infrastructure though, which sucks. |
_________________
Proud Commissioner of the EEL. |
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:49 |
|
For those unfamiliar with it, a double elimination tourney works like this...
Everyone enters a "standard" ladder tourney (maybe after a seeding period - Swiss is typical), but a team has to lose twice to be out. (Any number of teams can work about the same, odd or even - because of the way the brackets work, there is really no "perfect" number).
After the first round, the teams that win (ties go to OT/etc.) then move on to play their next games, but the half of the teams that now have lost once form a new ladder all their own. So you now have the "winner" bracket and the "loser" bracket, both moving forward in (rough) parallel.
Teams that keep winning stay in the winning bracket, teams in the losing bracket that lose a second time are out of the tourney, but teams that win and then lose are added in late to the loser ladder (slots are reserved in expectation of them) - you have to lose twice to be out of the tourney.
At the end, you have one undefeated team that wins the winner ladder, and one "one-loss" team that has survived their time (long or short) in the loser ladder - and they play each other for the championship. (And if the "undefeated" team loses that game, then they play again, because a team has to lose twice to be eliminated from the tourney.)
So, yeah, it would take some hand-sorting to get the new teams inserted into the flow of the 1-loss ladder (altho' the "winner's ladder" could be automated), but that's not hard to do.
(Note - If we were to do something like this, I think we would have to adopt some of the options that many other Leagues use that (slightly) nerf some of the more murderous skill combos - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that playing a particularly brutal team twice in a row (and quite possibly 3 times in the Tourney!) could be a deal-breaker for many of the softer team rosters.) |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
FredAstaire
Joined: May 10, 2013
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 - 04:16 |
|
If anyone is a visual learner & wants a graphical representation of how this ladder system works, then look here . . . Ignore the teams & just look at their progression through the system. (this site is nice because when you hover over a team, it highlights their entire progression)
As for the idea of a double elim tournament, I think it's great, and would be something that is worth fighting over (and may even help retain coaches who leave, you never know). However one problem I see with it, is that it would definitely take longer than the Challenge Cup that the top teams are taking part in . . . I mean, it might not be so bad because then the winning teams get to take a break for a couple of weeks, but that depends on each coach individually. |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 - 12:43 |
|
ARe you suggesting this idea to replace the shield or as a replacement to the regular season?
The reason I ask is that the cup is a 3 round event and it would seem smart to keep any event running alongside it (ie the shield/playoffs) a 3 round event also. |
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 20, 2014 - 23:12 |
|
(Note - Season V is just now starting, so this has become a conversation that would change Season VI at the earliest. Gives us lots of time to think about it.)
The more I think about it, the more I think it would not be a good replacement for our current system, at least not the regular season. It's MUCH better than a standard Knock-out tourney (where 1 loss and you're out!), but for a League not as good as Round-robin or Swiss, either of which keeps people playing the whole season regardless whether they win or lose - and it allows ties.
If it replaced our current 5-round Swiss regular season (with 2 DE Tourneys, one for each division), the season would be a longer season by 2-3 games* . But in DE, once you lost twice, you're out, which would be boring for those coaches. And in a DE Ladder, there are no "ties". So for all those reason this would pro'ly not work so well.
(* @ ~10 teams/division, a DE Tourney would take 7-8 games/season, depending whether the last no-loss-bracket team wins or loses the "final" game against the one-loss-bracket champion.)
It might work for the Cup, but some of the current fluff would have to be changed. There is no consistent "head to head" system, altho' the last teams in the ladder could simply be "scored" and earn points for their division. But even a 4-teams DE Tourney takes 4-5 rounds, so that would be longer too. (6 teams would take 5-6, and with a bye for the higher-seeded teams.)
We ~could~ radically alter the way post-season works, to have the top 3-4 teams from each division in a single DE for all the marbles, combining the Cup and the Championship, and do similarly for the Shield (and the RP) - that could work, and it would allow anyone who makes the post-season to have a shot at the Championship, and work the Cup back from there. It would take longer, but there might be more interest from those who do make the cut.
And the early losers can have time for a (or one more) "Training Camp" game - a friendly w/ no fouls/etc. Rack up a few spp, get a little more cash against similar TV teams.
(If you care... Example of 10-team DE seeded Ladder ... And don't panic - it's actually not as complicated as it might at first look!)  |
_________________
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:
Jan 21, 2014 - 00:26 |
|
Thanks for everyone's feedback.
My thoughts: Any changes to the way the Inter-Conference Shield works would need to be maximum 3 games. Everything else is aimed with that in mind, so it has to fit in to that schedule. I'm not up for changing the 5 game Swiss stage, as I think that works well. Since we're still more than a month away from any Inter-Conference Shield, we could still change it for Season V, but not too drastically (I'm against drastic change, anyway).
On double-elimination: Since this is the league's fifth season, and that is a nice round number, I was planning on having a celebratory tournament at the end of this season (that wasn't for any prizes, just a bit of fun to mark the achievement - and old teams might be welcome back, if anyone is interested). There will be more announcements on this nearer the end of the season. |
_________________
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 05, 2014 - 20:10 |
|
Ok, so I have some proposals that I'd like to set in stone for this season. If anyone has any objections, let me know. I might even listen to them!
1) Royal Pardons - As Smeat suggested, in future we'll allow everyone who has one the chance to express an interest in using theirs, but only the most recent two granted ones will be allowed. We'll still grant one to the winner of the Kislev Plate, and one to a winning coach from the Inter-Conference Shield matches.
2) Mid-Season Promotions - Unfortunately, from time to time we need to promote teams from Kislev during the season. This is disruptive, but less disruptive than missing coaches, so a necessary evil in my opinion. To make the deal a little sweeter for promoted coaches, I think they should bring their points with them (up to the maximum they could have got from the number of matches played - so for example, the Shark-Toads had 4 points, but they are replacing a team that have only played 1 game, so they go down to 2). |
_________________
|
|
Nagi21
Joined: Oct 28, 2010
|
| Posted:
Feb 05, 2014 - 23:35 |
|
So I'm confused... does that mean my pardon expires or just I can't use it if someone else with a more recent one uses theirs, but it doesn't go away? |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 05, 2014 - 23:38 |
|
It doesn't expire, but you can't use it if two more recent ones are used. This means that people are guaranteed to be able to use it in their first season, then they have a fairly good chance in their second, and then the probability decreases each season after that. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
| |
Borg Invasion
Search
