i'd be in
Forum > South Atlantic Pro League > Africa Conference > APL Fantasy Football... that's right, your dots!
stevenmac03
offline
offline
Originally posted by GMathiasf
The only thing that holds me back from this is gutted teams. Would kind of lame it up don't you think? Is there any way that this is accounted for?
That's kinda the reason I asked if it was head to head or total points. If one guy has a couple of guys playing against a gut team then he has a huge advantage in a head to head game. Of course since this is starting mid season, the same problem would exist in a total points league because some teams have already played the gutted teams.
I'm still not sure if I want to try it or not.
The only thing that holds me back from this is gutted teams. Would kind of lame it up don't you think? Is there any way that this is accounted for?
That's kinda the reason I asked if it was head to head or total points. If one guy has a couple of guys playing against a gut team then he has a huge advantage in a head to head game. Of course since this is starting mid season, the same problem would exist in a total points league because some teams have already played the gutted teams.
I'm still not sure if I want to try it or not.
StiffarmSteve
offline
offline
Maybe its not worth the effort then... I thought there would be a bunch of guys in there that would jump at the chance for this! Who cares if you win or lose... its just a test, just for fun. Takes almost no effort (except for the draft).
No biggie guys... I'll tell the guy thanks, but not enough were interested.
No biggie guys... I'll tell the guy thanks, but not enough were interested.
Edited by StiffarmSteve on Nov 5, 2009 07:01:55
kondor
offline
offline
Originally posted by StiffarmSteve
Example World League Starting Roster...
QB Gambler, Riverboat
RB Csonka, Larry
RB Orangeblood, Jacob
WR Steamer, Stanley
WR Heisman, Ghetto
WR Streeter, Josh
TE Justin, Adam
Def Flames, Singapore
OL Navigators, Lincoln
ST Explosionaries, Haliblack
Needs moar Jedi, imo
Example World League Starting Roster...
QB Gambler, Riverboat
RB Csonka, Larry
RB Orangeblood, Jacob
WR Steamer, Stanley
WR Heisman, Ghetto
WR Streeter, Josh
TE Justin, Adam
Def Flames, Singapore
OL Navigators, Lincoln
ST Explosionaries, Haliblack
Needs moar Jedi, imo
GMathiasf
offline
offline
Originally posted by StiffarmSteve
Maybe its not worth the effort then... I thought there would be a bunch of guys in there that would jump at the chance for this! Who cares if you win or lose... its just a test, just for fun. Takes almost no effort (except for the draft).
No biggie guys... I'll tell the guy thanks, but no enough were interested.
haha, I like the idea and would definitely be interested in something like this if we could find a way to cap points scored against guts/cpus or some other measure to limit the problems caused by that.
Maybe its not worth the effort then... I thought there would be a bunch of guys in there that would jump at the chance for this! Who cares if you win or lose... its just a test, just for fun. Takes almost no effort (except for the draft).
No biggie guys... I'll tell the guy thanks, but no enough were interested.
haha, I like the idea and would definitely be interested in something like this if we could find a way to cap points scored against guts/cpus or some other measure to limit the problems caused by that.
StiffarmSteve
offline
offline
Originally posted by kondor
Needs moar Jedi, imo
True... They had a couple open teams that were auto drafted... but I don't really follow the WL... I didn't know 80% of the players.
Originally posted by GMathiasf
haha, I like the idea and would definitely be interested in something like this if we could find a way to cap points scored against guts/cpus or some other measure to limit the problems caused by that.
I totally agree. That is something I'm sure will be worked out. maybe we'll shoot for next season. Just hope he has enough to test it out this season and work out the kinks.
Needs moar Jedi, imo
True... They had a couple open teams that were auto drafted... but I don't really follow the WL... I didn't know 80% of the players.
Originally posted by GMathiasf
haha, I like the idea and would definitely be interested in something like this if we could find a way to cap points scored against guts/cpus or some other measure to limit the problems caused by that.
I totally agree. That is something I'm sure will be worked out. maybe we'll shoot for next season. Just hope he has enough to test it out this season and work out the kinks.
haymondjunior
offline
offline
Steve I wouldnt mind helping test if you wanna add another to the list. If you cant drum up enough interest for 10 teams just scale it down so the testing can still take place for next season.
Captain Kaos
offline
offline
Originally posted by GMathiasf
The only thing that holds me back from this is gutted teams. Would kind of lame it up don't you think? Is there any way that this is accounted for?
We're still in development of that idea. Currently, it's to cap players at 20 points if the score difference is 50+. I just proposed a new idea to the rest of the PF about creating a maximum and minimum a different way. We don't have a current minimum for players, but I think one needs to be addressed because of not having enough snaps to allow the RNG to be able to call every player's number at least once.
This is my current proposal at the moment:
Originally posted by cwisler
Thoughts on blowout games factoring as so:
Maximum points scored by one person is 10% of the score difference if the score difference is greater than 200.
Minimum points scored by each player is 1% of the score difference if the score difference is greater than 200.
If the score does not reach the 200 point mark, defaulting maximum is 20, defaulting minimum is 2.
This allows for more points from scores over 200 points, but not a ridiculous amount more (unless we're talking about Haliblack). This also gives those players that score nothing a small value because of the possibility of not getting enough offensive snaps for the RNG to call their number.
I think it'll make it more 'fair' since players can already score more than 20 points, especially RBs and ST, and teams won't be penalized for huge blowouts.
In the Haliblack game, you're looking at a maximum of 52 points per player, minimum of 5 points. Anyone that falls in between those numbers keep their score.
Originally posted by cwisler
Or, use the above, but change:
Minimum points scored by each player is 1% of the score difference if the score difference is greater than 200.
To:
Minimum points scored by each player is 1% of the non-penalized points of the top scorer (not including D, ST, or OL) on the team, if the score is greater than 200.
Ex. Highest scoring player in the Haliblack game was Jerricho Brooks with 387 points. This would put the minimum attainable by every player at 4 points.
This is going to be a rule that we really need to work on during this alpha testing phase since it's so very important. Somehow I think we need to factor in the score for at least the maximum, instead of just leaving it at a specific number since players can score above those specific numbers in non-blowouts unless those numbers are astronomical (50 points maximum). Using the above system, you're looking at an average of around 30 points scored unless something happens like the Haliblack game which we still have a defense against with the maximum being set at 10% while still giving those players that performed some credit towards that score.
The only thing that holds me back from this is gutted teams. Would kind of lame it up don't you think? Is there any way that this is accounted for?
We're still in development of that idea. Currently, it's to cap players at 20 points if the score difference is 50+. I just proposed a new idea to the rest of the PF about creating a maximum and minimum a different way. We don't have a current minimum for players, but I think one needs to be addressed because of not having enough snaps to allow the RNG to be able to call every player's number at least once.
This is my current proposal at the moment:
Originally posted by cwisler
Thoughts on blowout games factoring as so:
Maximum points scored by one person is 10% of the score difference if the score difference is greater than 200.
Minimum points scored by each player is 1% of the score difference if the score difference is greater than 200.
If the score does not reach the 200 point mark, defaulting maximum is 20, defaulting minimum is 2.
This allows for more points from scores over 200 points, but not a ridiculous amount more (unless we're talking about Haliblack). This also gives those players that score nothing a small value because of the possibility of not getting enough offensive snaps for the RNG to call their number.
I think it'll make it more 'fair' since players can already score more than 20 points, especially RBs and ST, and teams won't be penalized for huge blowouts.
In the Haliblack game, you're looking at a maximum of 52 points per player, minimum of 5 points. Anyone that falls in between those numbers keep their score.
Originally posted by cwisler
Or, use the above, but change:
Minimum points scored by each player is 1% of the score difference if the score difference is greater than 200.
To:
Minimum points scored by each player is 1% of the non-penalized points of the top scorer (not including D, ST, or OL) on the team, if the score is greater than 200.
Ex. Highest scoring player in the Haliblack game was Jerricho Brooks with 387 points. This would put the minimum attainable by every player at 4 points.
This is going to be a rule that we really need to work on during this alpha testing phase since it's so very important. Somehow I think we need to factor in the score for at least the maximum, instead of just leaving it at a specific number since players can score above those specific numbers in non-blowouts unless those numbers are astronomical (50 points maximum). Using the above system, you're looking at an average of around 30 points scored unless something happens like the Haliblack game which we still have a defense against with the maximum being set at 10% while still giving those players that performed some credit towards that score.
StiffarmSteve
offline
offline
Originally posted by haymondjunior
Steve I wouldnt mind helping test if you wanna add another to the list. If you cant drum up enough interest for 10 teams just scale it down so the testing can still take place for next season.
I'll add ya to the list and see what I can do. Thanks for the interest!
Steve I wouldnt mind helping test if you wanna add another to the list. If you cant drum up enough interest for 10 teams just scale it down so the testing can still take place for next season.
I'll add ya to the list and see what I can do.
Thanks for the interest!stevenmac03
offline
offline
Originally posted by StiffarmSteve
Just hope he has enough to test it out this season and work out the kinks.
You're right. What can it hurt to give it a try. You can add me to the list as well.
Just hope he has enough to test it out this season and work out the kinks.
You're right. What can it hurt to give it a try. You can add me to the list as well.
Edited by stevenmac03 on Nov 5, 2009 09:55:14
StiffarmSteve
offline
offline
Nice! I'll see what I gotta do to get this put together. I might not have a choice on draft day and time... so hopefully he can work with me a little bit.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
