Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
 Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 06:25 |
 
|
Decay League will be kicking off on Sunday. Until then we will be still accepting all applications.
To buisness:
After talking it over with a couple of people, 100k per match does not seem enough. However, since that is the number I promised in the league description I'd like to get your opinions.
Three models have been proposed so far which I feel all have various advantages and disadvantages.
Model 1:
A strict higher cost. Right now I'm thinking 230 TV + TD difference *20 TV would be the answer here. Why? Because we don't want to drag the league out forever. The arguments for a retirement cost in the beginning are as good as they are in the end. So might as well be linear. 200 TV isn't quite enough to handle quickly skilling teams and 300 TV is too much to give early losing teams a chance to stay in it.
Model 2:
Accellerating cost. 50 TV * Number Of Games + TD difference * 20 TV.
In this model about the first 5 rounds would have very little impact but after that we would have a lot of tournament deciding games. Recovery from a loss would be almost impossible.
Advantages: No extended suffering. Once you start decaying your lifeline will be snuffed out quickly.
Model 3:
Stepwise cost increases. The cost is static but if after a number of rounds the tournament still isn't over, decay cost is doubled, then continues to remain constant. Potentially this in more than one step.
Advantages: League doesn't drag out but cost doesn't spin entirely out of control either.
Model 4:
Leave things as promised at 80 TV + TD-diff * 20 TV per match.
Advantages: You are a bunch of old people and old people are conservative. Conservatives love not changing stuff.
I have been going back and fourth between model 1 and 2. Right now I'd want to go with Model 1.
Would you guys be content with that?
If you guys are part of the league, comments are preferred. The poll is fine but anyone can vote there.  |
|
|
bghandras
Joined: Feb 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 07:05 |
|
To me 1 or 2 makes sense. 3 is arbitrary, not rules precisely so may lead to bad blood. 4 is just not enough.
I voted 1, as i think each loss being equal is more important than quick death without suffering. |
_________________
 |
|
Arcayn
Joined: Oct 18, 2015
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 08:06 |
|
I voted for 2. I just feel with 1... teams could be eliminated in 3 or 4 games or even less. And that first loss, losing 250+ TV then possibly having to play a team that won and skilled up a player or few would just start a very fast downward spiral. Now if this is your idea then fine. But if I am in a tourney that's not definitively KO then I'd like to get a few games in before I start to fade away into the oblivion. |
_________________
NCBB's SMACK-9 Conference Commissioner
NBFL's Draft Commissioner |
|
LemonheadWallenstein
Joined: Dec 20, 2012
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 11:10 |
|
| Arcayn wrote: | | I voted for 2. I just feel with 1... teams could be eliminated in 3 or 4 games or even less. And that first loss, losing 250+ TV then possibly having to play a team that won and skilled up a player or few would just start a very fast downward spiral. Now if this is your idea then fine. But if I am in a tourney that's not definitively KO then I'd like to get a few games in before I start to fade away into the oblivion. |
good point.
i voted 2 too. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 12:21 |
|
| Arcayn wrote: | | I voted for 2. I just feel with 1... teams could be eliminated in 3 or 4 games or even less. And that first loss, losing 250+ TV then possibly having to play a team that won and skilled up a player or few would just start a very fast downward spiral. Now if this is your idea then fine. But if I am in a tourney that's not definitively KO then I'd like to get a few games in before I start to fade away into the oblivion. |
Hm, fair point. Truth is, unsurprisingly most coaches have taken a rather large roster. The first loss is probably not going to have a ton of impact since it just means you're going short on reserves. The moment you run out of any things will be more serious.
On the other hand there is a the factor of inducements, which could be also quite helpful early on. Skilling wise a smaller roster means fewer players will develop faster. On a larger roster SPP will be more spread out and players will develop slowlier.
I'd imagine the first serious impact can be felt after the second or third loss, depending on the composition of the team.
Another approach would be to go with flat 200 + TV difference. It would be merely 30 TV difference but might ease those concerns a little. Just a thought. |
|
|
m0gw41
Joined: Jun 12, 2012
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 13:13 |
|
I don't mind, I suspect the first season will be "suck it and see" anyway. |
_________________
 |
|
MisterFurious
Joined: Aug 11, 2010
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 17:38 |
|
I totally misunderstood the retiring rules. I thought "When you lose a game you have to retire players worth 80k + 20k for each TD difference." meant that you retired a player worth 100k or more for each point you lost by. I thought I was being clever by having a team of cheap players that could have two skills and be under 100k and not have to get retired. Whoops. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 17:40 |
|
| MisterFurious wrote: | | I totally misunderstood the retiring rules. I thought "When you lose a game you have to retire players worth 80k + 20k for each TD difference." meant that you retired a player worth 100k or more for each point you lost by. I thought I was being clever by having a team of cheap players that could have two skills and be under 100k and not have to get retired. Whoops. |
It fine to apply a new team if you want. We haven't really started yet.  |
|
|
NickNutria
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 17:50 |
|
Call me conservative, but I like Model 4. I choose quite cheap players and would have to retire two players for each game lost without any cas. I think this could result in only very few games that you can loose. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 17:53 |
|
| NickNutria wrote: | | Call me conservative, but I like Model 4. I choose quite cheap players and would have to retire two players for each game lost without any cas. I think this could result in only very few games that you can loose. |
If you are very persistent with it, I might just go with it because that was the initial offer. |
|
|
NickNutria
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 18:25 |
|
Well, it seems I'm the only one that likes this model, if the majority likes model 1 or 2, it's ok for me. Maybe I'm too pessimistic and win all my games |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 18:37 |
|
| NickNutria wrote: | | Well, it seems I'm the only one that likes this model, if the majority likes model 1 or 2, it's ok for me. Maybe I'm too pessimistic and win all my games |
As I just said to MisterFurious.. it's also fine to change teams as long as we haven't started. I'm just gonna accept whichever is the latest to apply. |
|
|
Gror
Joined: Jul 22, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 18:45 |
|
I too would like to like to voice my support for going as originally advertised.
With option one, its two defeats and you are out. Or even one if you take some SI and KIA with the loss.
Options 2 and 3 are just arbitrary and I really don't like them. There is no reason why there should be different values for open league play.
Having said that, I could live with option 1 I suppose, but perhaps a compromise solution could be something like in the 1X0+20per TD range?
At any rate, the higher the penalty the more draws there will be. Come to think of it, if you want to make the league shorter, you probably want to do something about draws instead.
The problem with that of course is that penalisation for draws would greatly favour fast teams. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 18:52 |
|
| Gror wrote: |
At any rate, the higher the penalty the more draws there will be. Come to think of it, if you want to make the league shorter, you probably want to do something about draws instead.
|
All games are in overtime. So there won't be any draws. |
|
|
Gror
Joined: Jul 22, 2013
|
| Posted:
Mar 10, 2016 - 18:56 |
|
| Wreckage wrote: | | Gror wrote: |
At any rate, the higher the penalty the more draws there will be. Come to think of it, if you want to make the league shorter, you probably want to do something about draws instead.
|
All games are in overtime. So there won't be any draws. |
Oh very well then, that solves that.
I have another possible solution: for retirement purposes, no matter how many skills the player has, the basic value is always used. |
|
|
|
|
Secret League Americ...
Search
