Teams are already moving up the caps with no regional identity and it's been that way for quite some time now.
j10er
offline
offline
Every time I read one of these ideas or I try to create my own, one thing becomes very obvious: the player leveling system makes it almost impossible to create a competitive and efficient league structure.
Allowing players to grow over 10 seasons and only plateau for 1 season creates way too much inherent disparity. Off the top of my head, 5 seasons of fast growth/boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/ boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/out boosting, decline after that. VAs kick in in the 6th season, but at half the rate they do now.
That would make this so much simpler.
Allowing players to grow over 10 seasons and only plateau for 1 season creates way too much inherent disparity. Off the top of my head, 5 seasons of fast growth/boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/ boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/out boosting, decline after that. VAs kick in in the 6th season, but at half the rate they do now.
That would make this so much simpler.
Ravenwood
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mightyhalo
Teams are already moving up the caps with no regional identity and it's been that way for quite some time now.
And the experience has been very, very lame.
Teams are already moving up the caps with no regional identity and it's been that way for quite some time now.
And the experience has been very, very lame.
BP
offline
offline
Originally posted by j10er
Every time I read one of these ideas or I try to create my own, one thing becomes very obvious: the player leveling system makes it almost impossible to create a competitive and efficient league structure.
Allowing players to grow over 10 seasons and only plateau for 1 season creates way too much inherent disparity. Off the top of my head, 5 seasons of fast growth/boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/ boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/out boosting, decline after that. VAs kick in in the 6th season, but at half the rate they do now.
That would make this so much simpler.
Scrapping the entire player aging system to make the league structure easier to figure out is easier? lol
Bort and DD are in a thread and listening to customers and contemplating change..that doesn't happen every day...focus brotha...
Every time I read one of these ideas or I try to create my own, one thing becomes very obvious: the player leveling system makes it almost impossible to create a competitive and efficient league structure.
Allowing players to grow over 10 seasons and only plateau for 1 season creates way too much inherent disparity. Off the top of my head, 5 seasons of fast growth/boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/ boosting, 3 seasons of plateau w/out boosting, decline after that. VAs kick in in the 6th season, but at half the rate they do now.
That would make this so much simpler.
Scrapping the entire player aging system to make the league structure easier to figure out is easier? lol
Bort and DD are in a thread and listening to customers and contemplating change..that doesn't happen every day...focus brotha...
Edited by BP on Apr 28, 2010 19:22:22
Pietasters
offline
offline
Originally posted by BP
people seem to like my idea D
Hey I went back a read your idea. Basically it's reduce the number of pyramids there are currently and instead of player level we just creation date for league caps? Maybe I missed something while reading it? But how does that solve the competition issues people have. Also defining and limiting casual players most likely would hurt the business in the long run as they would be less likely to become boosting players down the road. But I have no idea how many of those customers exist.
I've been mulling over this issue and it has more parts to it than just structure. Most likely more than I will list here.
1) We have to look at how teams are placed in leagues and how the current pool of teams is being used. Sorting the teams has to be done with more factors than just player level or creation date. There are a lot of things that could tell us about a team. win/loss, average player level, average effective level, team chem and such. The more factors involved the harder it becomes for a team to sandbag the system. You most likely would also see teams recruiting player closer to their average level instead of above as they wouldn't want to be put in a league that is higher than they can handle. You would have to put some thought into the players you add to the team.
2) You have to look at league structure and how you can create a competitive atmosphere within each league. By building a system that creates rivals and helps them stay closer together.
3) You have to build a system that is fluid and can be increased and decreased due to demand. So that changes won't have to be made down the road.
Build a latter list of all teams with as few separate categories as we can. While it is nice to offer everything to everyone you are diluting your player base and that is going to hurt competition in the long run. So you have a latter list for Casual/Normal/Pee Wee. There is talk of hardcore I have no clue what the real demand of that would be.
Drop Regions because what do they really do. They separate teams into certain pyramids but what do were really gain from that other than dividing the teams into 8 pools and a title that loosely bonds teams together. It is clear at this point that pyramids are not working for this game at almost every level but the top.
Build your League and Schedule structure like the NFL. 8 Divisions with 4 teams each. You could name these after the current regions or use the NFL names. But by having the different divisions/regions within each league you give the teams the same identity to bond to as before but have the ability to combined the pools together reducing the disparity curve.
Schedule should be something like this
• Each team plays home and away against its three division opponents, which accounts for six games on the schedule. (This will create rivalry because you will face teams more than once in a season instead of having to wait until next season to maybe get a chance. Would have impact on game plans, scouting and tactics.)
• Each team plays four teams from another division within its conference on a rotating three-year cycle, which accounts for four more games. (Again this creates friendly battles between teams who will more than likely see each other more often as they move upwards.)
• Each team plays four teams from a division in the other conference on a rotating four-year cycle, which accounts for another four games. (This is great because it gets rid of the issue of the best team in the league facing the weakest of the otherside. Instead all the teams in each division/region get to face the same teams each season. So they have all the same level of competition.)
• Each team plays two intraconference games based on the prior year's standings. For example, the first-place team in a division will play against the first-place team from another division within the same conference. The second place team in a division will play against the second-place team from another division within the same conference, etc... (At first I wasn't sure about this idea but the one thing the NFL does really well is make it hard for teams to repeat year after year after year. Each season every team pretty much has the same chances. Their strength of schedule changes due to how good they are)
Once that is in place you have the following seasons to look at. How do you stop the leagues from developing the same issue you have before.
1) We could create the latter list every season and rebuild each league every season with a built in preference for them to always end up in the same division/region within the league when possible. This would mean that the talent would always rise to the top but you might not face the teams as you could change areas.
2) We could build 8 latter lists based on the 8 different divisions and have teams only move up in their select division. That way they would most likely see the same teams more often. But your reducing your team pool into 8 different pools which will sharpen the disparity between teams. It would also slow down teams moving upwards as teams cling to their spots in the top leagues.
3) You would have to look at the playoffs. NFL uses 12 teams with bye weeks, but I think we would be better to run 16 teams so more teams can be involved in the playoffs. But it gives the first games of the playoffs less value when more teams are involved.
4) You could add game of the week. or monday night football by having it on the off day. A little crazy.
This plan
A) Uses as much of the team pool at is can
B) It takes in more factors which will reduce disparity between teams and deal with sandbagging.
C) removes the need for cpu teams ....yay
D) Adds a league structure that give all teams equal footing and will help maintain competitiveness between leagues.
E) Puts a solid structure in place that can expand and retract based on user demand.
F) Every season would be different but you would more than likely see the same teams as they move upwards together.
people seem to like my idea D
Hey I went back a read your idea. Basically it's reduce the number of pyramids there are currently and instead of player level we just creation date for league caps? Maybe I missed something while reading it? But how does that solve the competition issues people have. Also defining and limiting casual players most likely would hurt the business in the long run as they would be less likely to become boosting players down the road. But I have no idea how many of those customers exist.
I've been mulling over this issue and it has more parts to it than just structure. Most likely more than I will list here.
1) We have to look at how teams are placed in leagues and how the current pool of teams is being used. Sorting the teams has to be done with more factors than just player level or creation date. There are a lot of things that could tell us about a team. win/loss, average player level, average effective level, team chem and such. The more factors involved the harder it becomes for a team to sandbag the system. You most likely would also see teams recruiting player closer to their average level instead of above as they wouldn't want to be put in a league that is higher than they can handle. You would have to put some thought into the players you add to the team.
2) You have to look at league structure and how you can create a competitive atmosphere within each league. By building a system that creates rivals and helps them stay closer together.
3) You have to build a system that is fluid and can be increased and decreased due to demand. So that changes won't have to be made down the road.
Build a latter list of all teams with as few separate categories as we can. While it is nice to offer everything to everyone you are diluting your player base and that is going to hurt competition in the long run. So you have a latter list for Casual/Normal/Pee Wee. There is talk of hardcore I have no clue what the real demand of that would be.
Drop Regions because what do they really do. They separate teams into certain pyramids but what do were really gain from that other than dividing the teams into 8 pools and a title that loosely bonds teams together. It is clear at this point that pyramids are not working for this game at almost every level but the top.
Build your League and Schedule structure like the NFL. 8 Divisions with 4 teams each. You could name these after the current regions or use the NFL names. But by having the different divisions/regions within each league you give the teams the same identity to bond to as before but have the ability to combined the pools together reducing the disparity curve.
Schedule should be something like this
• Each team plays home and away against its three division opponents, which accounts for six games on the schedule. (This will create rivalry because you will face teams more than once in a season instead of having to wait until next season to maybe get a chance. Would have impact on game plans, scouting and tactics.)
• Each team plays four teams from another division within its conference on a rotating three-year cycle, which accounts for four more games. (Again this creates friendly battles between teams who will more than likely see each other more often as they move upwards.)
• Each team plays four teams from a division in the other conference on a rotating four-year cycle, which accounts for another four games. (This is great because it gets rid of the issue of the best team in the league facing the weakest of the otherside. Instead all the teams in each division/region get to face the same teams each season. So they have all the same level of competition.)
• Each team plays two intraconference games based on the prior year's standings. For example, the first-place team in a division will play against the first-place team from another division within the same conference. The second place team in a division will play against the second-place team from another division within the same conference, etc... (At first I wasn't sure about this idea but the one thing the NFL does really well is make it hard for teams to repeat year after year after year. Each season every team pretty much has the same chances. Their strength of schedule changes due to how good they are)
Once that is in place you have the following seasons to look at. How do you stop the leagues from developing the same issue you have before.
1) We could create the latter list every season and rebuild each league every season with a built in preference for them to always end up in the same division/region within the league when possible. This would mean that the talent would always rise to the top but you might not face the teams as you could change areas.
2) We could build 8 latter lists based on the 8 different divisions and have teams only move up in their select division. That way they would most likely see the same teams more often. But your reducing your team pool into 8 different pools which will sharpen the disparity between teams. It would also slow down teams moving upwards as teams cling to their spots in the top leagues.
3) You would have to look at the playoffs. NFL uses 12 teams with bye weeks, but I think we would be better to run 16 teams so more teams can be involved in the playoffs. But it gives the first games of the playoffs less value when more teams are involved.
4) You could add game of the week. or monday night football by having it on the off day. A little crazy.
This plan
A) Uses as much of the team pool at is can
B) It takes in more factors which will reduce disparity between teams and deal with sandbagging.
C) removes the need for cpu teams ....yay
D) Adds a league structure that give all teams equal footing and will help maintain competitiveness between leagues.
E) Puts a solid structure in place that can expand and retract based on user demand.
F) Every season would be different but you would more than likely see the same teams as they move upwards together.
Jiddy78
offline
offline
Originally posted by BP
Scrapping the entire player aging system to make the league structure easier to figure out is easier? lol
Bort and DD are in a thread and listening to customers and contemplating change..that doesn't happen every day...focus brotha...
Kansas City Shuffle....
Scrapping the entire player aging system to make the league structure easier to figure out is easier? lol
Bort and DD are in a thread and listening to customers and contemplating change..that doesn't happen every day...focus brotha...
Kansas City Shuffle....
Mightyhalo
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ravenwood
And the experience has been very, very lame.
I would love to roll through the cap leagues in a region, but it just isn't realistic. Trying to pull that off just leads to more CPU teams. Adding a regional tournament layer to the idea makes in even more appealing, especially considering all the minor league teams that haven't reached AA yet.
And the experience has been very, very lame.
I would love to roll through the cap leagues in a region, but it just isn't realistic. Trying to pull that off just leads to more CPU teams. Adding a regional tournament layer to the idea makes in even more appealing, especially considering all the minor league teams that haven't reached AA yet.
Jiddy78
offline
offline
Ha Ha...Sweet irony song that just came up and started playing on my playlist...Can't even make this sh*t up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eaz9zMk2yM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eaz9zMk2yM
Ravenwood
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mightyhalo
I would love to roll through the cap leagues in a region, but it just isn't realistic.
Not only is it not realistic, it's not actually solving anything either.
Player level does not equal team performance; There are too many ways to screw up a build or a game plan. Leagues should be organized based on on-field performance.
I would love to roll through the cap leagues in a region, but it just isn't realistic.
Not only is it not realistic, it's not actually solving anything either.
Player level does not equal team performance; There are too many ways to screw up a build or a game plan. Leagues should be organized based on on-field performance.
At the end of each season, there is always a playoff of some sort
In order to fairly determine who is in and out of the playoffs and who hosts the playoff games, the teams all need to play the same opponents - a true round robin
So any scheduling that pushes things into a ladder format that doesn't allow for this then does away with playoffs and league championships altogether so what does the end of your season mean?
The other problem you face is that if you want to shuffle teams based off a roster's effective level or anything else, you have to pick a point in time to make that decision from, and things change daily with signings in GLB - you never know when someone will decide to pack it in
changes to the current system:
1 - All team sellbacks happen on day 40's rollover to day 41 - after that, once you own the team, you have it until the next season - I realize this won't force a team to be competitive but it is a small step in the right direction
2 - promotion/relegation - the elite and competitive minors is working much better as well as peewee gold - those alignments are based off finish from the previous season on the assumption that those owners are going to keep doing well - why not do the same thing with Pro, AAA and AA?
Solution
1 - Cut regions from 8 to 6 - change WL promotion/demotion from 16 to 12
2 - Promote/Demote in Pro, AAA and AA but take the bottom 2 HUMAN owned teams PLUS the CPU's out of a league - drop the human owned teams and dump the CPU's into a vacant league - too many Human owned teams remain in a league just by beating 2 CPU teams - make the evaluation on day 40 BEFORE teams can be sold back so you don't screw someone over because people sold their team - Promote from below to backfill until AAA and Pro are filled with human teams
3 - Cut AA down to whatever is left based off teams remaining - evenly distribute CPU's amongst the leagues if there is an uneven number (which there always will be)
4 - Shuffle the AAA and AA leagues within a region like you do with the elite and competitive minors (again, based off last season's records) and even skew the promotions so that any extra promotions beyond the 2 conference champs comes from the elite AA or AAA league
this isn't drastic, but it shapes things better - I don't know that the user base is ready for another complete makeover of any system or that any of these other ideas (although most have some merit) also leave in a fair way to create a post season playoff system
In order to fairly determine who is in and out of the playoffs and who hosts the playoff games, the teams all need to play the same opponents - a true round robin
So any scheduling that pushes things into a ladder format that doesn't allow for this then does away with playoffs and league championships altogether so what does the end of your season mean?
The other problem you face is that if you want to shuffle teams based off a roster's effective level or anything else, you have to pick a point in time to make that decision from, and things change daily with signings in GLB - you never know when someone will decide to pack it in
changes to the current system:
1 - All team sellbacks happen on day 40's rollover to day 41 - after that, once you own the team, you have it until the next season - I realize this won't force a team to be competitive but it is a small step in the right direction
2 - promotion/relegation - the elite and competitive minors is working much better as well as peewee gold - those alignments are based off finish from the previous season on the assumption that those owners are going to keep doing well - why not do the same thing with Pro, AAA and AA?
Solution
1 - Cut regions from 8 to 6 - change WL promotion/demotion from 16 to 12
2 - Promote/Demote in Pro, AAA and AA but take the bottom 2 HUMAN owned teams PLUS the CPU's out of a league - drop the human owned teams and dump the CPU's into a vacant league - too many Human owned teams remain in a league just by beating 2 CPU teams - make the evaluation on day 40 BEFORE teams can be sold back so you don't screw someone over because people sold their team - Promote from below to backfill until AAA and Pro are filled with human teams
3 - Cut AA down to whatever is left based off teams remaining - evenly distribute CPU's amongst the leagues if there is an uneven number (which there always will be)
4 - Shuffle the AAA and AA leagues within a region like you do with the elite and competitive minors (again, based off last season's records) and even skew the promotions so that any extra promotions beyond the 2 conference champs comes from the elite AA or AAA league
this isn't drastic, but it shapes things better - I don't know that the user base is ready for another complete makeover of any system or that any of these other ideas (although most have some merit) also leave in a fair way to create a post season playoff system
AngryDragon
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
I see it as more of a way for people to "hold on" to their old regional identities if we go to a non-regional system of some sort. Like DD said, you could even have it feed into tourneys or "top teams from X" lists.
Make region choices be like archetypes for teams.
I see it as more of a way for people to "hold on" to their old regional identities if we go to a non-regional system of some sort. Like DD said, you could even have it feed into tourneys or "top teams from X" lists.
Make region choices be like archetypes for teams.
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Make region choices be like archetypes for teams.
yeah, you would have to choose one if we keep them in. some people do like to represent their home region.
Make region choices be like archetypes for teams.
yeah, you would have to choose one if we keep them in. some people do like to represent their home region.
Pietasters
offline
offline
Originally posted by reddogrw
At the end of each season, there is always a playoff of some sort
In order to fairly determine who is in and out of the playoffs and who hosts the playoff games, the teams all need to play the same opponents - a true round robin
So any scheduling that pushes things into a ladder format that doesn't allow for this then does away with playoffs and league championships altogether so what does the end of your season mean?
Wouldn't the playoffs just remain the same. Pretty much any system you use you will always have some type of tiebreaker that will sort through any issues that come up.
At the end of each season, there is always a playoff of some sort
In order to fairly determine who is in and out of the playoffs and who hosts the playoff games, the teams all need to play the same opponents - a true round robin
So any scheduling that pushes things into a ladder format that doesn't allow for this then does away with playoffs and league championships altogether so what does the end of your season mean?
Wouldn't the playoffs just remain the same. Pretty much any system you use you will always have some type of tiebreaker that will sort through any issues that come up.
BP
offline
offline
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Make region choices be like archetypes for teams.
yeah, you would have to choose one if we keep them in. some people do like to represent their home region.
Cool, so the people now who have teams in Western Europe want to rep WE. Then in 4-5 seasons when all of the teams coming up were never in a region...they are all going to choose USA, cuz 90% of your userbase in from the US.
I dunno, just doesn't seem like a solution to anything...
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Make region choices be like archetypes for teams.
yeah, you would have to choose one if we keep them in. some people do like to represent their home region.
Cool, so the people now who have teams in Western Europe want to rep WE. Then in 4-5 seasons when all of the teams coming up were never in a region...they are all going to choose USA, cuz 90% of your userbase in from the US.
I dunno, just doesn't seem like a solution to anything...
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
