Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
 Posted:
Feb 07, 2014 - 18:39 |
 
|
| gjopie wrote: | | Nobody cares what you decide, you're not top of the league and we're not afraid of you any more! |
You will be once I stop rolling quad skulls and 1s!!! |
_________________
Coach Chainsaw's Dugout
Free Gamer - blog - community |
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 07, 2014 - 22:26 |
|
First - we're only talking "mid-season", right? (Or would/could (some of) these changes be applied to season-end promotions as well?)
| Nablah wrote: | | ...Otherwise teams might want to improve their TV or TW in the first games to get in a better position for promotion. |
Hard(er) to do without also winning.
However, whether done intentionally or not, it doesn't help competition if one team is simply a walk-away for the largest TW - they would be the one to be sent up, no doubt about it.
(But read on...)
| gjopie wrote: | | I think promoting the team with the highest TV (or maybe TW...) |
Definitely TW, not TV - a League is a Tourney, the long-term measurement is the approp one. TV is a measurement for the "next" game only.
| Quote: | ...and allowing them to transfer their (capped) points, would be a good compromise. We don't necessarily want transferred teams jumping straight to the top, but we also don't want them automatically relegated again, after having a decent shout at getting promoted and then ending up back down in Kislev.
These transfers are only likely to happen in the first 2/3 games of the season - there's no point doing it at the end. |
We want to promote the most "competitive" team - and that's not easily measurable along just one axis.
It's not hard for a good coach to win a few early games with a new(ish) team against other new(ish) teams. However, it's MUCH harder for that same good coach & same team to do well against developed teams. Against a TV 1500 team, 250 in inducements (typically) helps a TV 1250 team much more than 450 helps a TV 1050 team. So it would not necessarily be a "win" to bump up a low-TV winning team, all things even.
However, with all due respect and commiseration to coaches who get diced in early games, we also want a coach who demonstrates that they can be competitive, regardless the TV/TW. If a high-TV/TW Kislev team has been struggling to turn in wins... urgh, is it doing the League a favor to bump them up?
So... a compromise is needed.
Either...
1) Highest TW that has at least a .500 record so far (or something in that direction?). This promotes staying competitive while growing for all teams, but gets the larger teams out of Kislev, one way or another.
...or...
2) Only the teams in the highest flat # or % of TW's* are eligible to move up (mid-season), and we pick the best win/loss % among those. This keeps things competitive among the highest TW teams.
(* i.e., maybe the top 3 or top 25% of active teams?)
These also encourage new(er) coaches/teams to "build" in their first season, rather than winning at all costs and/or milking journeymen (which some teams can get away with against other low-TV teams).
| Nablah wrote: | | ... if you take the top of the pile there is a high probability for them to have several wins and thus they will be promoted and they will end up in a good spot (score wise). |
Good point - especially in our short seasons, an early streak of 3-wins in Kislev would almost be automatic to get to the post-season.
Which is why I suggested "averaging" the two - their record and the record of the team they're replacing.
Maybe with an automatic penalty of "1 loss" averaged in for the last game the MIA team didn't play? (Forget if forfeits are ties or losses, but some A/B coaches will announce their departure before forfeiting, either way.)
Or simply a flat penalty of -1 point (or more?) - if they can overcome that, they deserve post-season, and either way they've been bumped up, which is a win. |
_________________
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:
Mar 04, 2014 - 12:41 |
|
I've had an idea regarding the Inter-Conference Shield, that will both give teams more games to play, and hopefully make it more interesting. (This would be for next season, by the way - we'll stick with the current rules for Season V).
So here is the idea:
-For the first game, all teams play their opposite number in the other conference, as currently.
-However, they also get a second and third game. One conference goes first (either coin toss, or points total in the season, or previous ICS winner), and picks which teams will face each other in the second round (all inter-conference). Finally, the other conference picks their favourite matches. No repeat matches are allowed - all three have to be different.
-At the end, the conference with the most points gained from winning, wins the shield.
-The Royal Pardon could be awarded by lottery, with each point scored by each team counting as one ticket.
It is a bit more complicated, but would foster more of a "team" attitude, would keep ICS teams interested longer, and would run exactly alongside the main playoffs (teams would have to decide the match-ups by the deadline for the previous round, to keep it flowing).
We could stick to regular scoring - 3pts for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss - or go for something more exotic, like "1 'base' point for a win or a draw. 0 base points for a loss; +2 per TD scored, - 1 point for every TD allowed; with the minimum and maximum number of points set at 0 and 10 respectively." |
_________________
  |
|
Nablah
Joined: Nov 14, 2012
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2014 - 13:21 |
|
It's a nice idea to bring more interest in those games.
For the second and third game having 5 best counter-picks can be tough. I would suggest using a mix as following: team A gives 1 team for game 1, Team B answers with an opponent and gives a team for game 2, team gives an opponent and an third team etc...
You can run that twice with team going first on round one and team B first on second round. |
|
|
BlueDevil420
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2014 - 15:02 |
|
a bit of extra metagaming in leagues is usually a good thing, so I'd be all for it.
Not sure if I like gjopie or Nablah's format better, both have their merits and weak points. |
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 04, 2014 - 20:20 |
|
I support the general change, +1.
Both specific formats have merit, no favorite. |
_________________
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:
Mar 05, 2014 - 09:24 |
|
Ok, sounds like the response is pretty positive!
I like Nablah's suggestion for how to pick games, but my concern is making it as easy as possible to get the group to decide in time. If one group just has to get together (by PM) and make a decision in 10 days, I think that is more likely to happen than if they have to react to each other (go back and forth). |
_________________
|
|
Nablah
Joined: Nov 14, 2012
|
| Posted:
Mar 05, 2014 - 10:58 |
|
Ideas that could help:
- having a team captain responsible for answering on time and taking decision if players don't anwser
- maybe go with team A selects one team, team B give a match up and selects 2 teams, team A selects 2 match-ups and team B selects the last 2 match-ups. This way you have 2 anwsers from each side
Finding time for anwsering a PM is easier than finding time for playing a game  |
|
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2014 - 11:06 |
|
So, "Simyins" in the Old World: yes or no?
Personally, I'm strongly in the "no" camp. My own feeling on it is that of all the custom rosters that could have been introduced, monkeys are the most ridiculous, fluff-wise (except maybe Space Marines...). If we're trying to represent Old World teams playing each other, I can't see monkeys being a part of that.
Having said that, if everyone else feels strongly pro-monkey, I'd be willing to consider it. I'm certainly not against custom rosters in future, as long as they make sense. |
_________________
|
|
BlueDevil420
Joined: Dec 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2014 - 17:48 |
|
|
Smeat
Joined: Nov 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2014 - 19:21 |
|
I don't see monkeys as more or less "ridiculous" than a team of lizards or undead or Egyptian undead or elves with a living tree or ogres that chuck (and sometimes eat) goblins or mechanized dwarves with a steam roller on the pitch. I was never familiar with the original "canon" of the game world, so treat it as open fantasy - whatever. So I have no strong feelings one way or the other that way.
However, since they are brand new, I'm hesitant to throw the door open until they've been tried, tested, and approved kosher by the community at large. They may prove to be another "forlorn" race, or badly overpowered - I don't feel we should test that in our waters.
So a mild "no" from me, if only for a season or few. |
_________________
Let's go A.P.E.!
(...and what exactly do you think they do with all those dead players?...) |
|
Winni
Joined: Jan 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2014 - 20:14 |
|
Lizards and Egyptian undead and whatnot all feel very warhammerish... monkeys dont. At least to me... so no.
I wish they would allow Bretonnian and Tilean or more or less any team from the Secret League tho. While monkeys may be a very interesting and "different" and maybe even balanced team, i´d take fluff over balance any day. |
_________________
Spreading the truth about Wood Elves since shortly. |
|
SzieberthAdam
Joined: Aug 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
Oct 15, 2014 - 22:10 |
|
|
|
|
| |
My 1st Blackbox tour...
Search
