Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
 Posted:
May 07, 2005 - 21:45 |
 
|
This thread has been created in an attempt not to flood the Grudge League Season 1-thread with discussions and arguments about the season structure, redlines/deadlines, tourney point allocation and miscellaneous ideas.
This is a free forum for all ideas suggested - and questions asked - by grudge league participants, grudge league tournament organisers, soon-to-join participants and random fumbblers alike. |
|
|
soren72
Joined: Nov 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 07, 2005 - 23:15 |
|
Just to add my 2 cents: I support the two weeks. |
_________________
Cheers,
Soren - Back Judge, The Reformed Church of Nuffle |
|
AlcingRagaholic
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
May 07, 2005 - 23:19 |
|
I've played several leagues where 10 days is the difference, and so far it has worked pretty well, with only the occassional missed game, but those are few and far between...
Z |
|
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 07, 2005 - 23:59 |
|
Collection of the redline/deadline suggestions so far:
Current system= 10 days redline, 14 days deadline
Suggestion A (has got some support)= Keep it as it is, even though it will take much longer
Suggestion B (Has been voted against and will not happen!)= reduce the deadline to 7 days
Suggestion C (has not yet been discussed about)= reduce the redline to 7 days, keep the deadline at 14 days
Suggestion D (new idea by AlcingRagaholic)= reduce the deadline to 10 days |
|
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2005 - 21:39 |
|
sorry just touched twice on submit! |
Last edited by ZevinzeNompardi on %b %08, %2005 - %21:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2005 - 21:40 |
|
hello!
thanks kharhumies to create this thread.
i will try to be as odious :p as i can in this thread, cause i want to have the lighter compromise possible!
out of jokes:
i'd like to understand better the idea of a redline of 7 days, "suggestion c".
the thing i do not understand is this:
let's say that the first turn will start the 1st of january.
the redline of the first turn will be the 7 of january.
the deadline of the first turn will be the 14 of january.
when will the second turn begin?
the 14 of january or the 7?
this is not a without importance question because if
1) it begins the 7 it will have a redline the 14 and a deadline on the 21,
while if
2) it begins the 14 the total speed of the tournament will not be affected, while tyrant will see the number of post-redline games and consequently PM go up.
i believe being the correct one is the case 1, in which a tournament with 5 games (like DOBC) as it is being played would have a time to play (from the opening to the last deadline) of 6 weeks against the 10 of now.
this would mean 5 matches in 6 weeks, almost a game a week;
more, when you start being late once, you lose the almost, and it is a game a week.
is this correct about suggestion c?
i'd like to add the suggestion e, which is not mine but i cannot remember from who i read it:
suggestion e: let's always have two tournaments at a time, so the more willing to play in this marvellous
league can do it every week (though with 2 different teams) and the less reliable ones can
evitate feeling too much pressure.
thank you all see you! |
|
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2005 - 21:51 |
|
| ZevinzeNompardi wrote: | --
i'd like to understand better the idea of a redline of 7 days, "suggestion c".
the thing i do not understand is this:
let's say that the first turn will start the 1st of january.
the redline of the first turn will be the 7 of january.
the deadline of the first turn will be the 14 of january.
when will the second turn begin?
the 14 of january or the 7?
this is not a without importance question because if
1) it begins the 7 it will have a redline the 14 and a deadline on the 21,
while if
2) it begins the 14 the total speed of the tournament will not be affected, while tyrant will see the number of post-redline games and consequently PM go up.
-- |
Suggestion c was meant to be like this:
If all "regular" games are played before the 7th in your example, then the concedes for inactive coaches could be handed out on the 7th and the new round would begin on 8th.
If all "regular" games are not played before the 7th, the round would last until the 14th.
This is one option, but I am not saying it would be the best option (perhaps not even a good option). |
|
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2005 - 22:00 |
|
| ZevinzeNompardi wrote: | i'd like to add the suggestion e, which is not mine but i cannot remember from who i read it:
suggestion e: let's always have two tournaments at a time, so the more willing to play in this marvellous
league can do it every week (though with 2 different teams) and the less reliable ones can
evitate feeling too much pressure.
thank you all see you! |
This is actually a really good suggestion!
However, we somehow need to make sure that the two teams controlled by a single coach can
a)each join a different tourney (if there is a Max. TR or Min. TR included, it might be impossible)
b)will not be paired against each other at any state of the league (should not be very difficult if they are in different tourneys)
We also need to somehow modify the "max. 2 teams of a single race" rule if some coaches would like to join with a second team. As it is, there are not many free races left.
Solution possibilities:
I)to divide the league two equally ranked sections A and B , have a different schedule for both, a separate max. 2 teams per race list and group A teams would not ever play versus group B teams.
II)Another solution is to have a champions league and a lower division.
This one is most likely:
III)A third solution is to maintain a single league with no group division and always have two different tournies going on. Coaches would be permitted to enter only 1 team max. per each tournament. |
Last edited by Karhumies on %b %08, %2005 - %22:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
Karhumies
Joined: Oct 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 08, 2005 - 22:03 |
|
Oh, and once we get down to three to five really good, alternative suggestions for the redline/deadline rule, I will hold a poll. The poll should last at least a month before any action is taken and that is why I want to hear all the suggestions before creating the poll. |
_________________
Main Organiser of
Grudge [L]eague, #GrudgeLeague @ irc.fumbbl.com
and Stunty Spinoff Series, #GrudgeLeague |
|
Drud
Joined: Jan 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 09, 2005 - 14:18 |
|
| Karhumies wrote: | Collection of the redline/deadline suggestions so far:
Current system= 10 days redline, 14 days deadline
Suggestion A (has got some support)= Keep it as it is, even though it will take much longer
Suggestion B (Has been voted against and will not happen!)= reduce the deadline to 7 days
Suggestion C (has not yet been discussed about)= reduce the redline to 7 days, keep the deadline at 14 days
Suggestion D (new idea by AlcingRagaholic)= reduce the deadline to 10 days
Suggestion E (has got some support)= Let each coach join with up to 2 teams, and hold several tournaments simultaneously. 1 Coach can then participate in 2 tournaments. His 2 teams will not be permitted to join the same tournament at the same time. |
I added the last suggestion to Karhumies post (so it's not really a quote :p).
Of those 2, I support D and E, perhaps both could be implemented? (Atleast E and something else could.) Another option is to have several tournaments with different redline/deadlines. For instance the "normal" 14(/10?)-days tourney, and then a 7-day tourney for hyperactive coaches... |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 09, 2005 - 19:54 |
|
Ok, I rather see an option Z.
Make a season a year played in four phases, .....(don't remember the word) summer autumn and winter.
In all of these some tourney choices open with various rules AND TR.
Open the tournament for more than a team per player but unauthorised to play the same tournament AND
just create tourneys with various lenght and deadline lenght.
THE only known problem, IMO is that we need a bigger group. |
|
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 09, 2005 - 20:00 |
|
hello
i saw the light and i like your suggestion c even if it will be the suggestion that will make me the only one to play once in 15 days when i have time problems and will be the thing that will make me be banned from the league.
i'll vote that on the post.
and this is because i realized that when it comes to the ko part of the league (kislev invitational, tribal/moonlight) and you are just out of the DOBC playoffs and out of kislev eligibility you have quite a long time to wait to play.
tyrant, kharhumies is right!
suggestion c is the real religion!
to the crusade!
(hey, doctors, why are you putting me that white shirt again? no! i do not like the iniections, no! noooooo!)
see you! |
|
|
Drud
Joined: Jan 27, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 09:34 |
|
@sk8bcn (is there any particular way you want that pronounced? when I read your name, it just says "Ska-bacon" in my head...) 
Well, your option Z is a bit like option E. It doesn't need to be split into the seasons (spring, summer, autumn and winter), but could just be more loose depending on how long each tournament lasts.
Also if this option is taken, we could still have 1 big tournament where everyone (every coach, not every team, still only 1 team per coach) participates, like a season-ender.
@ZevinzeNompardi:
Boya!
Actually, last night, I was thinking (yeah, I do that sometimes), that the system we have at the moment is actually flawed... It has a 10 day redline, and a 14 day deadline. BUT the new redline doesn't start untill the last DEADline is passed. So actually, it's just a tournament with a 14-day deadline. The problem is that the dates are set for all rounds, and not just for the next one. The system should have been like Karhumies explains option E a few posts up (shouldn't it?). Please correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 11:17 |
|
hi all, hello drud.
i believe that the idea of flexible turn starts is appealing to at least you, me and khar.
but i do not belive that giving a fixed time to play to each and every turn is a bad idea.
that is: i do not like the time between the redline and the deadline being subtracted from the time you have for your next turn.
i feel that this is by far the simpler way to guarantee that anybody wont feel pressured to play more densely exactly in those periods in which he has difficulties in playing games, that is what would happen if we superimpose the "after red" time of a turn to the next turn.
i'm throwing a new stone to the water:
do we really have to tell tyrant something if we want to play faster?
i saw in the DOBC that when we want to play faster than planned, we end the league in less time than planned and that's it:
in NULN and MARIENBURG division we are with just a match still to play before the end of the turn 4 redline, and in nuln that is with a change of players too! do we really need to legiferate to play once a week as we actually did?
[quote="Drud"]@sk8bcn (is there any particular way you want that pronounced? when I read your name, it just says "Ska-bacon" in my head...)
i always thought it was something like skate-barcelona! |
|
|
ZevinzeNompardi
Joined: Oct 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 10, 2005 - 11:32 |
|
it is not directly connected.
it is just an idea:
it is true that it would be rude for higer TR/TS teams to buy rerolls and than discard them just to lower their team rating and enter the max limit of the kislev classic (or other tournament)?
that is:
kislev classic was thought to help the non playoffing teams of DOBC having games more to get in par before the "real" ko's.
games to recover against similarly beating teams, to be more correct.
would or not be rude for a team to lower their team rating voluntarily with the sole scope of playing that tournament?
would it be different if the reduction has a in play reason, such as to subsitute a niggling veteran with a fresher newby, something that the TR doesn't read as making your team stronger but you do?
ciao! |
|
|
|
|
| |
Having issues launch...
Search
