Originally posted by jaltiere
+1, great suggestion
+1, great suggestion
spindoctor02
offline
offline
We are running out of time to get this implemented yet this offseason.
Originally posted by CDZYO
Seriously, why isn't this up for a vote yet?
Originally posted by CDZYO
Seriously, why isn't this up for a vote yet?
patrickrobe
offline
offline
Originally posted by spindoctor02
We are running out of time to get this implemented yet this offseason.
Originally posted by CDZYO
Seriously, why isn't this up for a vote yet?
not going to happen for this season but should be looked at for next season. makes too much sense.
We are running out of time to get this implemented yet this offseason.
Originally posted by CDZYO
Seriously, why isn't this up for a vote yet?
not going to happen for this season but should be looked at for next season. makes too much sense.
CDZYO
offline
offline
Yep -- I can't remember if it was Bort or Catch-22 (it wasn't DigitalDaggers) who essentially NGTH'd the idea of a post-shuffle shuffle, but I would love to see the OP implemented beginning next season.
Speaking of which... why isn't this up for a vote yet?
Speaking of which... why isn't this up for a vote yet?
merenoise
offline
offline
Originally posted by CDZYO
Yep -- I can't remember if it was Bort or Catch-22 (it wasn't DigitalDaggers) who essentially NGTH'd the idea of a post-shuffle shuffle, but I would love to see the OP implemented beginning next season.
Speaking of which... why isn't this up for a vote yet?
I don't know tbh. Has stayed on the first page of suggestions since April 28th and has had nothing but positive feedback for 6 pages. I might PM catch and see if it is something that is possible for next season.
Yep -- I can't remember if it was Bort or Catch-22 (it wasn't DigitalDaggers) who essentially NGTH'd the idea of a post-shuffle shuffle, but I would love to see the OP implemented beginning next season.
Speaking of which... why isn't this up for a vote yet?
I don't know tbh. Has stayed on the first page of suggestions since April 28th and has had nothing but positive feedback for 6 pages. I might PM catch and see if it is something that is possible for next season.
spindoctor02
offline
offline
Originally posted by merenoise
I don't know tbh. Has stayed on the first page of suggestions since April 28th and has had nothing but positive feedback for 6 pages. I might PM catch and see if it is something that is possible for next season.
Best of luck with that. I did that on April 30th, he read the PM, but no reply or admin/mod response in this thread.
I don't know tbh. Has stayed on the first page of suggestions since April 28th and has had nothing but positive feedback for 6 pages. I might PM catch and see if it is something that is possible for next season.
Best of luck with that. I did that on April 30th, he read the PM, but no reply or admin/mod response in this thread.
dmfa41
offline
offline
Won't be able to work this season (obv) but hopefully for next.
I actually posted this in the moderator forum as soon as I saw it (which is when I got back from a weekend computer-less vacation) which was a couple days before the season was to roll over.
I wouldn't mind an actual definition of what is "elite" and what is "competitive" with SP value/EL/record definitions, and not just top 32 - next 32 - the rest and the tags being solely nominal.
Anyway, I think about putting things up for vote every few days. There's not really a defined process for it, and as you can see from the voting page there's a ton of stuff up there. I'm trying to restrict myself from piling too much on because it dilutes the sample, and there isn't any measure of what's more/less important, just in how many votes something has received.
That's another thing that doesn't really tickle me, so to speak, but w/e. This qualifies.
I actually posted this in the moderator forum as soon as I saw it (which is when I got back from a weekend computer-less vacation) which was a couple days before the season was to roll over.
I wouldn't mind an actual definition of what is "elite" and what is "competitive" with SP value/EL/record definitions, and not just top 32 - next 32 - the rest and the tags being solely nominal.
Anyway, I think about putting things up for vote every few days. There's not really a defined process for it, and as you can see from the voting page there's a ton of stuff up there. I'm trying to restrict myself from piling too much on because it dilutes the sample, and there isn't any measure of what's more/less important, just in how many votes something has received.
That's another thing that doesn't really tickle me, so to speak, but w/e. This qualifies.
XtremeTony
offline
offline
Originally posted by ImTheScientist
-1, voted against. I dont like this at all.
Yeah. Me too. There would be alotta teams that normally would be winning w/ constant 0-16 seasons. This would be a rich getting richer situation.
-1, voted against. I dont like this at all.
Yeah. Me too. There would be alotta teams that normally would be winning w/ constant 0-16 seasons. This would be a rich getting richer situation.
deez11010
offline
offline
Originally posted by merenoise
Having a situation like we currently have in Regional Minor where there as as many Elite leagues as there are Competitive and Regular combined is antithetical to competition as it separates the very best teams into two leagues and then fills in the gaps with teams that simply will not be able to compete. This suggestion is a synthesis of several other suggestions that have been put forth in the last couple of days.
+1 to only having 1 elite league in each age grouping.
But to add, the sorting of the leagues should also be based off effective level and number of players on teams. Anything over 40 players can be moved to elite as long as they win the gold trophy in competitive. If not, only teams within 5 effective levels of the highest effective level team in elite should be able to be placed in elite.
Right now in Nat Minors Elite the highest effective level team is EL 56. There are 24 other teams within 5 ELs of them. But the lowest effective level team is 27 ELs lower. They have absolutely no chance to win a single game in that league.
I dont even know why ELs and roster counts arent even taken into account when sorting the leagues. They're doing all this to balance the leagues and imho, thats the easiest and best way to do it.
Having a situation like we currently have in Regional Minor where there as as many Elite leagues as there are Competitive and Regular combined is antithetical to competition as it separates the very best teams into two leagues and then fills in the gaps with teams that simply will not be able to compete. This suggestion is a synthesis of several other suggestions that have been put forth in the last couple of days.
+1 to only having 1 elite league in each age grouping.
But to add, the sorting of the leagues should also be based off effective level and number of players on teams. Anything over 40 players can be moved to elite as long as they win the gold trophy in competitive. If not, only teams within 5 effective levels of the highest effective level team in elite should be able to be placed in elite.
Right now in Nat Minors Elite the highest effective level team is EL 56. There are 24 other teams within 5 ELs of them. But the lowest effective level team is 27 ELs lower. They have absolutely no chance to win a single game in that league.
I dont even know why ELs and roster counts arent even taken into account when sorting the leagues. They're doing all this to balance the leagues and imho, thats the easiest and best way to do it.
Edited by deez11010 on May 5, 2011 13:50:41
spindoctor02
offline
offline
Originally posted by XtremeTony
Yeah. Me too. There would be alotta teams that normally would be winning w/ constant 0-16 seasons. This would be a rich getting richer situation.
How would this be the rich getting richer? The best teams would be playing each other every season, instead of the current setup where the best teams are spread throughout 2 to 4 different leagues. If anything, the current setup is more "rich getting richer".
Yeah. Me too. There would be alotta teams that normally would be winning w/ constant 0-16 seasons. This would be a rich getting richer situation.
How would this be the rich getting richer? The best teams would be playing each other every season, instead of the current setup where the best teams are spread throughout 2 to 4 different leagues. If anything, the current setup is more "rich getting richer".
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
