|
||||
|
05-01-2019, 08:41 PM | #41 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,943
|
Quote:
takes some work but it can be done |
|
05-01-2019, 08:44 PM | #42 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,624
|
Quote:
I enjoy matching up with Waffletown every week. |
|
05-01-2019, 09:05 PM | #43 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 289
|
Quote:
|
|
05-01-2019, 09:19 PM | #44 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,073
|
Quote:
|
|
05-01-2019, 09:26 PM | #45 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,152
|
There will never be separate tiers for f2p and p2w since it massively discourages small purchases which is very bad for the developers. That should be obvious.
The more I think about it the more I like scrapping promotion/relegation and assigning teams a level each week based on their total PP value. No more reason to game the system building up points at iron/bronze or throwing the playoffs to avoid promotion. And it gives people the "rebuild" option without intentional tanking season after season they've wanted, it will just come at the cost of your current points. Have some sort of achievements based on the tier you play in. Last edited by dkgo; 05-01-2019 at 09:28 PM. |
05-01-2019, 09:29 PM | #46 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,073
|
Quote:
|
|
05-01-2019, 09:40 PM | #47 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,278
|
Quote:
I think card values determine overall quality better than PP values. For example, if someone has a perfect Walter Johnson, then their total PP value is very high, but their team isn't necessarily that good (just ask Westheim).
__________________
|
|
05-01-2019, 10:06 PM | #48 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,943
|
Quote:
one downside I would see with that would be with theme teams... I'll use my own as an example... got a pre-ww2 team that's restricted to 1945 cards and earlier... but due to impending collections missions and tourneys (available players for tourneys won't be limited to the theme), I keep all other cards I get from packs on my reserve roster... so I have a gold and a bunch of silver modern players just sitting there (some are better than what I have on the active roster); not to mention all the bronze and iron cards... if they get counted in my total PP, my team might seem a lot more powerful than it really is (but if you don't count the reserves/inactive cards, then someone could just hide cards there to artificially decrease their total points). if we're tossing out ideas to help balance out levels and keep teams from getting stranded at a level too hard for them but not so hard they don't end up in the bottom 4; as well as prevent powerhouse teams from not moving up due to a playoff collapse... perhaps a simple solution is to just have all 10 playoff teams get promoted and 10 teams get relegated... that would keep a healthy sweep of teams moving up/down each season |
|
05-01-2019, 10:40 PM | #49 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 1,328
|
As an aside, I would like to point out that arguing that the current system requires no change is very different from telling people they need to shut up and color.
__________________
"And, Masters, do not forget to specify, when time and place shall serve, that I am an [censored]." (Much Ado About Nothing 5.1.255-256) Primary Team Collection Rewards (Cards & Packs) F2P Theme Team Movers F2P Theme and Adam Schlesinger Memorial Team |
05-01-2019, 11:07 PM | #50 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,152
|
Quote:
I cant say for sure the absolute best way to do it but I think something along those lines would be better than the way it is now. |
|
05-02-2019, 12:45 PM | #51 |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 413
|
I definitely do not want to give players the option to stay where they are. If you are one of the better teams in the league you get promoted and move up. You don't get a chance to decline just so you can mop the floor with the other teams in your league. How is that fair to them? I really hate this idea. And I am in this position right now. I have a FTP team that is in Perfect and looks to stay there by winning about .300. And I'm fine with keeping the current system.
The only thing that might need a tweak is the number of teams relegated each week so that a team that is really struggling doesn't 'just miss' being relegated week after week. Make the leagues have more turnover and that should solve it, I think.
__________________
|
05-02-2019, 12:53 PM | #52 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,278
|
Quote:
I think you completely missed the point. No one that I know of is suggesting it would be a good idea to keep a team that is significantly better than the others at the same league level. Instead, some of us are saying that just winning the championship is NOT an indicator of superiority and shouldn't be used as a criteria for advancement. Furthermore, W-L record isn't necessarily the best indicator as well. For example, winning 100 games in one season doesn't mean your team is that much better than the others since you can get lucky (for example, imagine a pyt +9) in a single season. So we're just looking for other better measures to determine what level a team belongs at.
__________________
|
|
05-02-2019, 01:07 PM | #53 | |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 413
|
Quote:
I thought the OP was all about the option of being able to stay where they wanted? |
|
05-02-2019, 01:11 PM | #54 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,798
|
Quote:
I can't imagine two better indicators of superiority than championships and winning percentage. I am anxious to see what other measures you develop. |
|
05-02-2019, 01:11 PM | #55 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,278
|
Quote:
The thread moved on since then so I actually forgot about what the OP even said. Those of us who've been posting more recently are not saying that at all and so we're in agreement here. But the current way of determining what level a team belongs at is what we'd like changed.
__________________
Last edited by old timer; 05-02-2019 at 01:25 PM. |
|
05-02-2019, 01:25 PM | #56 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,278
|
Quote:
You obviously know that a team can win a championship even though they had a .500 record. Are they superior to the competition then and should not be at that level anymore? Surely not! Same thing goes for WPct for a single season as I already indicated since luck can play a big part there too. Let's say a team is in a bronze league and has mostly high end diamonds and perfects. Even though they may not win the championship and even though they may be unlucky and not win as many as expected, they'll still almost certainly outclass the rest of the league and win a lot more than most others. In other words, the quality of the cards on the active roster can be ONE criteria used to tell if a team belongs at another level or not. But maybe it shouldn't be the only criteria used. The point of promotion/relegation is to move teams that don't belong at a certain level (because they're much better or much worse) to a different level where they'll be more equal to the other teams. Looking at something like the quality of the cards can determine this difference better than championships and record for a single season. Of course, if a team can consistently win a lot at a given level, then that might need to be factored in even if the quality of their cards doesn't seem to warrant their advancement. Perhaps devising an algorithm that can judge team quality would be too difficult, I don't know, but I'm hoping that something like this can help make better (if not perfect) decisions about what level a team belongs at.
__________________
Last edited by old timer; 05-02-2019 at 01:26 PM. |
|
05-02-2019, 01:27 PM | #57 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,073
|
I think what we're down to is "How to better group teams so there isn't as much of a talent spread once you get to Perfect" (and maybe Diamond). I would think the talent in Perfect should be close enough that spreads of more than 15 games would be VERY rare.
I think measuring teams based on an entire season (win/loss percentage) is far superior to playoff winners (which includes wild cards and 2 a 20 games run at best). Maybe (and I'm just throwing out ideas here) once the teams with the best winning percentages are moved up a level (how ever many that is), an equal number of teams with the lowest winning percentage at each level are relegated. That would both increase movement between levels AND assemble these groups into a tighter talent circle. |
05-02-2019, 01:33 PM | #58 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,278
|
To add a little more...
W-L record for one season as a criteria is problematic, but so is using just card quality since some combinations of cards, no matter how good they are individually, may not make for as good a team. For example, having an extreme groundball pitcher on a team with subpar defense is not such a good idea, even if the pitcher has great ratings. So clearly card quality isn't enough either. But it does tend to have some predictive value, especially when the gap in quality is significant enough. Maybe if this can be combined with W-L record over more than one season it would be more useful. I don't know though. It's easier to see what's wrong with something than it is to figure out something better.
__________________
|
05-02-2019, 01:36 PM | #59 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,278
|
Quote:
Others have been suggesting this increase in movement between levels as well and it does sound better than the current system so maybe it would be a better alternative since it's simpler? Using card ratings to help figure out where a team belongs might introduce all sorts of extra complications.
__________________
Last edited by old timer; 05-02-2019 at 01:44 PM. |
|
05-02-2019, 01:53 PM | #60 | |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
I love this idea. I do like the idea of being promoted based on winning playoffs and seasonal record, but for relegation and assigning all the other teams, this would work great. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|