Traul
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
|
 Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 00:19 |
 
|
The season rule is a great improvement for closed round robin leagues. Before, they only had the choice between reset and no reset. Resetting rosters balances things out but you lose the fluff. Without reset, the league becomes less and less friendly to new teams as time goes by, be it new coaches or coaches who want to switch rosters. The buyback acts like a soft reset that compromises between both options.
In an open TV-matched environment, there is less incentive for a soft reset since TV spread is only an issue if people cannot find games anymore.
There is, however, something quite exciting to do with this: a real black box. No more matchmaking, just let the server pick games at random between active teams and let the soft reset take care of keeping the league balanced. That also means less incentive to minmax the TV system since a smaller TV would not give you easier opponents, only change inducements. |
|
|
Matthueycamo
Joined: May 16, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 00:35 |
|
| Traul wrote: | | The season rule is a great improvement for closed round robin leagues. Before, they only had the choice between reset and no reset. |
I play in leagues that do something other than this supposed binary choice... |
_________________
DLE College 7s |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 00:52 |
|
Overall it is hard to seasons working in R and B. So many of the coaches play to develop teams, and don't play in tournaments, that having some kind of reset at particular intervals of games doesn't sound appealing at all. It makes sense in a league where a set of scheduled games are completed for all teams playing. Even for leagues I can see a small set of legends/stars and more rookies being the preferred start of season setup.
As others have said Box may well be more popular with PO weakened. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 01:56 |
|
You know, looking at a few of the bigger tournament teams still in the fumbbl cup ....
Mostly what a periodic (16-game) TV cap would do is cut them to 11 players and 1 RR between majors, with up to 15 games to buy a bench and RRs and build up near 300k treasury for the next. It'd force them to play a set of games between successful majors to build for them, and squads over about 2300 TV look like they'd have to drop one of the better players, maybe two.
And of course the oldest players, Debog would cost 1080k all on his own to re-hire, the team would struggle to make 1000 TV for the next season if they kept him at +760k cost, you couldn't make tournament teams with a player anything like that old in them. |
_________________
  |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 04:06 |
|
| tussock wrote: | | Debog would cost 1080k all on his own to re-hire |
And after 10 seasons if he feels like retiring, 1280.
After 20 seasons if tempted by retirement, 1480.
30 seasons, again feeling old, 1680. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Jim_Fear
Joined: May 02, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 05:53 |
|
Thought:
(Piggybacking on what has been mentioned)
A new division, home to the new Major Tournaments,(maybe 4 a calendar year){The Fumbbl Cup could still happen between the R and B divisions} in which each "season" consists of the span of time between each tournament. Once your team have been eliminated from Tournament A, or did not sign up for Tournament A, they draft and begin the season leading up to Tournament B. It would give each team almost 3 months to play before a season ended.
B and R could hang around for pick up matches, but the new division would be the official division going forward.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of my R teams, but if it's time to give them up, so be it. |
_________________
 |
|
fidius
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 06:25 |
|
A small fraction of you have the advantage of the rest of us in that you have access to the actual rules. But from what I've read on here, the seasonal buy-back and expensive mistakes mechanisms look fairly clever to me, if the purpose is to solve the "problems" of ageless players and infinite bank. I've tried to come up with more fluffy options myself but the problem is always tuning for an unlimited number of games. GW's solution slaps hard limits on, rendering tuning more or less unnecessary.
Problems might be:
1) picking for TDs and CAS will be rampant
2) artificially floating player SPP just below skill thresholds at season ends will be the new min/max with playoffs or a major in mind
3) stars-and-scrubs now explicitly encoded into the system
4) cheap rosters (undead, dwarf) will have a permanent player maturity advantage over expensive rosters (nurgle, dark elf) no matter how well-played
5) cycling players for doubles and stats now an encouraged behaviour (perhaps how it should be)
6) lower-skill coaches (who have trouble scoring and/or dealing damage) will not be able to maintain as high TV compared to the better coaches
7) certain races that deal neither CAS nor TDs effectively will have lower TV potential. (Will CAS from fouling count?)
8) TV management becomes as important in League as it is in match-making, leading to more "canon" builds, and much greater importance placed on Mighty Blow than currently
Overall I guess I'd say I'm optimistically curious, since as an RP/fluff-first player the infinite life/bank suspensions of reality have always bothered me a bit. However the incentives for "gaming" are now higher, which might be 1 step forward and 2 steps back. |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 06:48 |
|
i think it would be reasonable to implement this in ranked and blackbox in some way. This is a balancing mechanic to prevent teams from growing infinitely and should be respected as such as a balancing mechanic required with these rules.
Even in a contest to build the strongest teams that is not really a reason to come to a different conclusion. Everyone plays by the same rules after all.
Also ranked is designed for competitive play. Just because it is not possible to stop people from rather setting themselves meta-goals doesn't mean the environment needs to actively aid anyone in that. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 06:52 |
|
Remember that just because of no piling on doesn't mean teams are invincible! |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 06:57 |
|
| garyt1 wrote: | | Remember that just because of no piling on doesn't mean teams are invincible! |
Perhaps a balancing mechanic is not necessary at all, but the game designers think it is. And I'd argue what is the point in following the design choices of the designers only half way through? Should at least give them a shot. |
|
|
The_Great_Gobbo
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 07:56 |
|
I would not like to see seasons introduced to ranked but I think it should be an option available to league commissioners if they would like it.
In a team of all goblin linemen, where scoring and casing are rare, surviving long enough to acquire a couple of mvps is the best way to earn spp. The season system would kill Der Tide where it is not uncommon to have cretins who have played 30+ games and acquired 1spp. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 07:57 |
|
My napkin calculation might be of relevance: 30 games seasons suffice for a Nurgz team to maintain a 2000 TV.
Applying that number of games to Debog's career, that's 20 seasons. He's playing his 21st. Re-drafting him next season would then cost 520K or so.
It would be hard to have two Debogs in the same team.
If you look at Debog's team past players, there are not many who played more than a few seasons.
Seasons of 50 games or more give ample room to build legends.
***
If we want to keep our Debogs around, it may be possible to give them some kind of special status. Fumbbl icons, say. That way, the official mechanic could be maintained while preserving some fluff. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
dode74
Joined: Aug 14, 2009
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 08:29 |
|
A thought on large perpetual B and R style leagues and the disparity between team earning potential.
Since these environments are online only leagues then couldn't the winnings you get be worked out a little differently? Instead of giving a straight 10k per game and 5k per TD/Cas could we instead reward teams that cash based on the distribution of those numbers (i.e. your distance from the mean over the season)? Assuming the 20-game season is what is intended (and I am guessing based on the numbers used here) then we could work out the mean (or median - that may be better) number of games played and anyone within 1 standard deviation of that number gets 20*10k for games played; anyone with the range 2-3 standard deviations gets 20*10k*1.5 for games played, 3SD or more gets 20*10k*2 for games played (those modifiers are malleable, ofc: this is just a concept); similar concept for TD and cas. That prevents runaway teams and limits the rewards for farming TD/cas while still actually having such rewards. |
|
|
Bazakastine
Joined: Mar 21, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 08:46 |
|
Looking through all of my teams who have played at least 40 games they either ended up at around 3-3.2 TD + CAS per game (vampires, dark elves, dwarves, Goblins) or right at 4.2 TD + CAS per game (undead, Lizards, Orcs)so your napkin calculation for that Nurgle team seems reasonable. None of those teams have ever had more than 1 player with piling on at a time so while that number may be a little high those teams would of looked reasonably similar under the new rules. Also having TDs add to your effective "salary cap" for the next season may boost scoring overall as there is another incentive to not stall.
I imagine that since you wouldn't redraft fan factor and you can build some treasury even the coaches who have the most difficulty getting that TD + CAS number up would have little difficulty keeping a TV 1800 team in tact with a fairly decent chance up to 2000 or so if you ignore the season adder. Then you have the D3 MVP which will make rebuilding players easier to stomach in many cases (this is I think the biggest change as support players will be easy to build and there will be less "wasted" TV on fodder).
As far as players like Debog go they are real rare. My Lizards in 243 games played have had 14 players last longer than 50 games, 4 of those longer than 100 with the longest living lasting 122 games. Unless we used 10 game seasons none of those would be debilitating to keep around. If we really wanted to help those few super legends like Debog stay around (and I think the community at-large really enjoys this special cases) we could cap the additional cost from seasons played at some point but that's enough of a niche issue that I don't think it should be considered for the situation overall. |
|
|
Silent_Hastati
Joined: Nov 04, 2014
|
| Posted:
Nov 28, 2016 - 08:50 |
|
This may be getting into the dreaded realm of house rules, but would capping the max season cost be an option (ie after, and just throwing a random number, 5 seasons no more added rebuy cost)? At the end of the day it's empty cost to the players, assuming we are paying their TV not base cost to retain them.
As said by others though, it's a bit hard to debate the merits of rules that many of us don't have access to yet. |
_________________
Last edited by Silent_Hastati on %b %28, %2016 - %08:%Nov; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
| |
killing by fun?
Search
