Garion
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
|
 Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 20:52 |
 
|
I will be playing solely in B and I dont think that will be very hard to get a game in each group, if they are shown as above. It will probably take around 20 gamesish. All of them except group E have at least one race that is very very common in the Box. |
_________________
 |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 21:05 |
|
| Garion wrote: | | I will be playing solely in B and I dont think that will be very hard to get a game in each group, if they are shown as above. It will probably take around 20 gamesish. All of them except group E have at least one race that is very very common in the Box. |
until last season, at least, you needed 2 games of each group to complete de cycle |
|
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 21:11 |
|
So, arranging by (reliable) Strength Access and then grouping in pyramid fashion gives the following totals for active Box teams representing each category:
A 328
B 348
C 326
D 337
E 332
That's pretty tight. Astarael's idea flows into my desire to make E.L.F. more accessible for Box elves really well. I appreciate the other suggestions and the attempt to rework the classic categories, but this has caught my fancy.
I can see that this splits up the old stunty twins. I think Goblins will be a bit more challenging with weapons though, so maybe they can be separated without much worry. Other concerns?
Break it down for me!
Also, I had Mexican for lunch. |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 21:16 |
|
Those new to the whole E.L.F. metagroup, the cycle was the maximum number of matches that could count towards your final score. Best two scores versus two different races in each of the five categories. So, 10 matches in total.
I've got an eye toward making sure you can get paired up against two of the members from each category in the Box without having to play dozens upon dozens of matches trying to catch a "blue moon" race. |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
Dolls
Joined: Jul 26, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 21:54 |
|
How about setting the baseline to something like opponents (tv/100 )-5? So baseline usually ranges from 5 to 20 (tv 1000 to 2500). Encourages bit of a higher tv games and so acts as a little fix to the ease of beating tv1000 chaos/nurgle compared to beating a tv2300 chaos/nurgle.
And huge thanks to Pizzamogul for running this. Awesome stuff. |
|
|
Astarael
Joined: Aug 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 22:03 |
|
I like how balanced that pyramid came out, it's almost as if the community wanted it to be easy on ELF 
I don't have any concerns, but perhaps there could be a small points bonus for [B] players in recognition that they'll have to put in more work in order to complete cycles? Something small though. Like a Snotling.  |
_________________
Oh my. |
|
Rijssiej
Joined: Jan 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 22:10 |
|
| pizzamogul wrote: | | My other idea was to have 8 "tough" teams that offered double points, 8 average teams, and 8 "weak" teams awarding 1/2 points and let the coaches "build their own cycle" of 10 games (or 8?) with no more categories. I doubt Rizzle wants to make THAT change though! |
That would be no problem. |
|
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 22:42 |
|
| Dolls wrote: | | How about setting the baseline to something like opponents (tv/100 )-5? So baseline usually ranges from 5 to 20 (tv 1000 to 2500). Encourages bit of a higher tv games and so acts as a little fix to the ease of beating tv1000 chaos/nurgle compared to beating a tv2300 chaos/nurgle. |
That's a really interesting idea. What if a bonus was offered for TV above 1000, like 1 point for every 200 or 250. Something to encourage experience but not taking the yeoman's share of the final score in any match. I like that as a replacement for the now less important Fan Factor/Gate numbers. Let's think through the implications of this a bit more. Discuss!
And thanks for the offer, Rijssiej, but I haven't gotten much positive feedback on that "no categories" idea. I'll think of some other way to torture you via programming language! |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 14, 2011 - 22:53 |
|
i didn't like the FF system because it made it impossible for new/newish teams to compete with dolls and other FF30 teams, even if they picked FF1 loser teams all the time (not that he did, just an example). I'd like to see a baseline system that allows any team to compete for the ELF title even if it's a new team or gets bashed so bad that is forced to play at low TV. |
_________________
 |
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 - 01:56 |
|
But without it what would happen is that a coach would make a new team and rack up big wins against teams like Khemri and Chaos and such before they present any real threat or even challenge to elves. Offering bonus points encourages coaches to compete with the same teams from season to season instead of rebooting for a high-scoring easy run against undeveloped teams.
I'd rather see (and offer equal if not a few more points to) the old standbys battling to 2-1 wins vs. killer chaos at 2,000 TV than having a bunch of brand-new teams racking up 5-0 wins over rookie chaos that present no real threat (or challenge). By design, I prefer the league to slightly favor experience instead of encouraging serial team creation. |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
zakatan
Joined: May 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 - 02:11 |
|
At the end the FF system didn't encourage hard match-ups either, specially if your own FF was high to start with. Playing easy games with mid-low FF teams (thus badly built/coached) would earn you wins, high ELF scoring and more FF, which in turn grants you more points in further games. Of course I'm seeing this from the R perspective.
For B I'd rather see that you don't need to be "lucky" with the draw to set a high score for some category. And in the end you can always manage your TV to stay in the TV-range where your team is most competitive and opponents pose lesser threat. I like myself playing my High Elves in the 1500-1750 range because i find them most enjoyable and competitive there. Also because every time i step a little higher i get smashed badly. I guess WE could easily defeat anyone at a lower bracket, as their positionals come more prepared from the box (never really played any WE team, just gut feeling) |
_________________
|
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 - 16:01 |
|
Anyone else have any thoughts about scaling the baseline points up according to TV? |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
gjopie
Joined: Oct 27, 2009
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 - 16:10 |
|
| pizzamogul wrote: | | Anyone else have any thoughts about scaling the baseline points up according to TV? |
I suppose I like the idea because of a lack of alternatives. It means that it'll be hard for newer teams to break into the top of the table, no matter how well they do. This is something I can live with, though, especially as in the past finishing the cycle has usually ensured you get in the top 10 or so.
There are two problems with it as far as I can see, though.
1) There is no random element. The good thing about the gate as the base element was that it was random but could be influenced by FF. TV is not random at all. I think some degree of randomness is good.
2) Ranked teams gain further advantage over Blackbox teams. Assuming that the opponent's TV is taken into account, then Ranked teams can pick to play up TV and gain inducements, which are better than handicaps were before, and can certainly choose never to play too far down. The Box teams all seem to get paired with teams fairly even TV. I suppose this comes back to my first point - some element of randomness would even this out, maybe.
I kept quiet up until now because I don't have any alternatives to suggest.  |
|
|
Astarael
Joined: Aug 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 - 16:18 |
|
The main issue faced is no matter what system is in place, some people will try and get the most from it. Low TV's have a lot less variables so it's much easier to power/metagame at those levels, therefor the incentives have to be aimed at a higher TV.
This undoubtedly will make it harder for a fresh elf team to get a high score, but it's unfortunatly necessary. Best thing to do with a new team is see your first season as a build up season, then get stuck in at the higher TV's and really make a go for the title.
At the end of the day, the group is there for FUN, and so the possibilty to abuse the guidelines has to be kept in checked or it will be to the detrement of the rest of the coaches in the group.
Now, on the TV based system for a baseline. I'm all for it. Anything that encourages playing harder games over playing down has to be a good thing. Perhaps to stop it being taken to extremes you could take the average between the two teams TV's and divide that number instead of solely using the opponents TV. This will keep it more balanced for [B] users as well. |
_________________
Oh my. |
|
pizzamogul
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 15, 2011 - 18:54 |
|
Now that I think about that category list from the perspective of "gaming the system," having both Chaos and Pact worth double points would be silly on my part. What 3 teams are roughest on elves fresh out of the package up through old age? I'm thinking Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves and Orcs for A.
Push Chaos and Pact down into B with Nurgle - 3 teams that start out mild then ripen like cheese sitting in the back of a fridge.
And for TV, what if the bonus points were offered for "opponent TV capped at E.L.F. team's TV." Would that nip inducement gaming in the bud?
Yea? Nay? |
_________________
"Don't expect mercy."
-Woodstock |
|
|
|
Gnome Roster - how a...
Search
