| 0 |
Subject: TSN: How do we avoid Randro II?
Posted by: Erik B.
- [239592612] Tue, Dec 18, 2001, 11:23
Gang:
Bernie and I are banging our heads together to come up with a way to avoid a Randro cycling situation again this year. So I'm asking for your help ... First off, did you mind the fact that most top managers needed to use the Randro strategy? If so, do you think any of these strategies will work to combat this problem?
1) Force managers to keep pitchers for XX days. The basic idea being that you'd have to keep players for at least two starts.
2) If you drop a pitcher, you won't be able to pick up that pitcher again for XX days. The inverse of point 1.
3) Limit trades. Nuff said.
4) Price strikeout kings much higher than traditional, winning pitchers (placing more emphasis on ERA and Wins).
Is there anything we're missing here? Also, are there any additional changes you'd like to see in the Ultimate game for 2002?
-Erik |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 38 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 09:22
|
Michael, it's only harsh because we've gotten used to that same situation producing a -7 TSNP in the past. But why is it harsh? As Wammie pointed out in post #28, why is it possible for pitchers to have a -50, -75, or even -100 TSNP night every 5 games, but that a hitter can barely get -25 TSNP over 5 games (0-3 with 2 K's on average over 5 nights)? To me, that's too harsh to the pitchers and to me, a -29 TSNP is more representative of an 0-4 night with 3 K's than a -7. Do you realize that if a relief pitcher enters the game and gives up 2 singles on 0 outs, they're already worse off than the hitter (-10 points for two singles)? So which was really worse, a relief pitcher giving up 2 singles on 0 outs or a batter going 0-4 with 3 K's? Personally, I think the latter is far worse than the former and should be reflected as such in TSNP's.
|
| 40 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 12:43
|
The potential for hitters to produce -20 and below is terrible for hitters. What that will do is create a huge gap between the premier hitters and Joe Average hitters.
Guys like Mike Cameron, who had his week in the sun last season, would not get a second look fantasy games.
.
As for limiting trades. I think 3 is a good number. Not every player is a gurupie and wants that much of a challenge. 4 is too many, 2 seems to few, 3 is just right.
.
As for the comment of being forced to use the Randro strategy. We are forced to use because Randy and Pedro force us to use it. Not because lemmings or other gurupies force us to. By consistently being the most dominant pitchers they are in the highest demand. Common sense says don't put 22 mil into 2 pitchers when you can put 2 trades and 11 mil into both and get the same points. Its common sense and real life peformance that 'forces' us to use Randro. No other reason.
If tsn wants to reduce the effect of randy and pedro, then its simple. Make them both cheap enough to afford on an 85 mil(Ira's magic #) or cheaper roster.
Since that makes no sense, then leave it, cause it ain't broke.
.
Next, pitcher points for batting? No way. You'd see no AL pitchers, not even Pedro on rosters that way. A pitcher might get 3 at bats per game? I'd risk that -6 (at the worst) for potentially 10-15 points (an rbi single w/ a run scored maybe) or Mike Hampton type numbers for him at Coors.
.
Points for fielding? Interesting, but I don't see it happening. Along with just above, we have hitter trades and pitchers trade. Grade your pitchers on pitching and hitters on hitting.
.
How about this. Change 1 OF slot to DH.
Increase starting $ to 52 or 53 mil and add a fielder spot. This position gets no points for hitting. Just fielding. Come up with a balanced fielding point system so that catchers throwing runners and 1st basemen getting all the put out assists don't dominate.
Nit pick away. I actually like the fielder spot idea, but know it needs some work on the specifics.
|
| 41 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 12:45
|
Actually, I think a potential -20 or so on a bad night from hitters that strike out a lot is a great idea. To this point, there is no real risk/penalty in holding a hitter that Ks too much. Attributing -5 for outs is a bit much, IMO though. If a player goes 2 for 5 with two singles and a run scored he deserves better than zero total points for the day. Perhaps -2 or -2.5 for an out is reasonable, doubled if it's a strikeout.
|
| 42 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 2810312911
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 13:02
|
I really don't think there needs to be drastic changes. The reason that hitter and pitcher points can't match perfectly (-3 for K for pitcher, -1 for hitter, -5 pitcher out -1 hitter out, etc...) is because what you are trying to accomplish is a balance of hitter and pitcher points...the top pitchers and top hitters should have roughly the same season long point totals. I think this game does a pretty good job at it. Last year it leaned a little towards hitting. Plus it is not easy to look at a box score and see how many doubles or triples a pitcher allowed etc...
About limiting a pitchers negative point potential...while it might be nice never have to look at -50 or more on a night I would miss it. It adds some risk to picking particular pitchers and I think it adds to the strategy of the game.
About Randro...we just happen to be in a cycle of the game where there are two dominant pitchers above everyone else. Who knows how long that will last...as soon as there are 3 or 4 pitchers lumped together randro goes out the window. With Pedro's physical problems and RJs age I do not see that strategy lasting long. Even if SW did something like average price changes over a 5 or 7 day trade cycle we would still figure out ways to exploit those price changes. People would have spreadsheets up here by the first month of the season predicting optimum price changes and when pitchers would be due for big gains. Plus I simply do not buy that you have to randro to win and all the best players randro etc...I think that is BS and simply not the truth. It is an inefficient use of trades and after the first few months is a bad strategy IMO. The muted price swings have done enough to balance this trading strategy.
IMO Bernie and Eric are banging their heads against a wall trying to fix something that is not broke and I think they do not understand how the best players win this game. I think randro has little to do with anyone winning.
I think 3PTs and 3HTs is a perfect balance. I wouldn't want any less...3+3 is already very lean...I don't remember too many times during the season where I was just looking for a way to burn excess trades if anything I was always short trades and had to be very conservative in the use of trades so I didn't run out. If any fantasy game has too many trades it is the Football game...4 a week allows you to remake half your roster every week and you never really have to worry about planning ahead much at all. In baseball I have to constantly look at the upcoming schedule so I don't burn a trade on a player I will have to move out of very soon.
|
| 43 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 2810312911
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 13:06
|
The stock market aspect of this game is a fundamental concept and is what really sets this game apart from other fantasy games. Muting price changes anymore or muting price changes just for specific players or player trades destroys the integrity of the game IMO.
|
| 44 | Jackie Robinson
Sustainer
ID: 4942911
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 13:12
|
You have my vote ChicagoTRS(#42).
I loved the game last year. Why does everything have to be equal. The game was challenging and never boring. Having 3 pitcher and 3 hitter trades per week kept me actively engaged.
|
| 45 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 13:47
|
Guys:
Thanks for the feedback. What I took from this:
1) Better prizes are a must for a pay game.
2) Adding a DH might be cool.
3) In general, the game should stay as it is.
Yes?
-ESB
|
| 46 | philflyboy
Donor
ID: 2844635
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 14:07
|
yes!!
|
| 47 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 2810312911
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 14:21
|
yes!
|
| 48 | Jackie Robinson
Sustainer
ID: 4942911
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 14:28
|
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 49 | Ref
ID: 1442849
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 15:18
|
there needs to be more options. right now the starters score the big points and are shuffled because of that. i've always suggested points for holds to allow middle relievers to look attractive for points. let's face it--some of those pitch most every game but for an inning or less. could be consistant, albeit, small, points.
the more options there are, the less swings will be available and in theory, the more differentiation. (More than one way to skin a cat). whatever you do, do NOT change formulas after the season starts!!! this irks me to no end. i can adapt to whatever the rule or strategy i have to, but it really stinks to have my plans all in-line and have to overhaul it.
there were a few hitting things i hated, such as getting nothing for sacrifices. more later...
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 15:40
|
I don't like the idea for holds. That idea has come up several times before, once at my suggestion IIRC. As has been pointed out, it is too vague a stat that is too easily attributable to insignificant and mediocre appearances.
Negative points for hitter outs, bigger hitter penalties for strikeouts, more points for wins/saves and -3 points for pitcher BBs are all ideas worth kicking around in the spirt bringing pitchers up to par with hitters IMO, and the DH idea is a great one. I didn't mind the GIDP penalty, though it seemed pretty irrelevant in hindsight. Still, if nothing about the game changes you certainly won't hear me complain.
Above all, there should be no distortion of price swings. If a trend is established, so be it. That the game is based on a market-like economic system dictates that people who are able to pick up on such trends should benefit. If everyone picks up on the same trend and magnifies it by using it en masse to their advantage, so be it. The suckers that don't pick up on it don't deserve to perform well, and the ones smart enough to exploit it further by kowing when to abandon it deserve to be rewarded further. Don't mess with the integrety of the game.
|
| 51 | X Giants
ID: 281012610
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 15:48
|
Adding a DH slot in place of the 4th outfielder is an excellent idea.
Solving for the TSNP inequity between pitchers and hitters combined with reducing the number of pitching trades would be a huge step towards dampening the impact of Randro.
|
| 52 | beastiemiked
ID: 17414316
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 15:51
|
Exactly Erik B.
|
| 53 | sosa
ID: 111151817
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 16:49
|
Limiting the maximum daily price swings to roughly $200,000 or whatever was sufficient as far as limiting the need to Randro. If you're defining Randro as just taking one of your pitcher slots and blindly going back and forth between two elite pitchers I could care less how many people use that strategy because it is not the most efficient way to use your pitcher trades. You'll obviously always make at least some money when you rotate your pitchers, and with the price swings limited I did not see the need to use the Randro strategy at all in 2001 and I finished with a WWR around 180 and had a roster value of $100,000,000 by the end of the year. I'm not trying to brag, and I realize there's several people here who finished higher than that, but I'm just pointing out my stats to counter Erik's original thought that the top managers have to Randro. I'm not sure if a rank of 180 is considered a "top manager" around here, but it's not too shabby in my book.
|
| 54 | Baron
ID: 011301222
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 18:47
|
exactly eric b
|
| 55 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 258492618
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 20:06
|
I'd re-iterate all players getting all points (pithers getting hitting points, position players getting pitching points). Other than that, exactly right, Erik.
pd
|
| 56 | Chuck
ID: 35853023
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 22:14
|
While I don't know how I feel about the "hold" statistic, I don't think the rationale should be this:
"I don't like the idea for holds. That idea has come up several times before, once at my suggestion IIRC. As has been pointed out, it is too vague a stat that is too easily attributable to insignificant and mediocre appearances."
Because I feel wins and losses for starting pitchers can easily be the same thing. I could name many examples, but the one that comes to mind is this: We all remember Clemens (I believe) and his consecutive win streak a couple (?) years ago. He was bailed out of many games b/c he had a strong offense behind him. The reason that I am against including holds is that it is not a well-known stat with the characteristics well-laid out. Just because a pitcher does not "deserve" a win does not mean that he does not get one if he meets the qualifications. The same is true for a hold.
I think I like the idea of a hold, but there would need to be a clear-cut definition of what a hold is for this game.
BTW, anyone know who the top hold leader was last year (or a place to get the stat)?
|
| 57 | Chuck
ID: 35853023
Thu, Dec 20, 2001, 22:21
|
Answered my own question.
Leaders according to ESPN
Those would be the ones you would have on your team long term (most likely). And though some might have had some flukey holds (but what pitcher hasn't had a flukey win now and then), those that lead the league in holds had many, many that were well earned. Frank Rodriguez: 80.1 IP, 15 ER, Arthur Rhodes: 68 IP, 13 ER.
Do not say it is not a reflection, b/c the leaders in holds are some of the best set-up men in the game. I think with a good definition, it would make the game a ton more fun. Make it 1/2-1/3 the value of a win? Half the value of a save?
|
| 58 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, Dec 21, 2001, 09:41
|
Chuck
Check the original Proposed Changes Thread from back in October, which ChicagoTRS recently BUTTed up. Check posts 3 and 16, and check items 4 and 4a in post 21 and item 2 in post 24.
|
| 59 | Jeddi
ID: 24519209
Sun, Dec 23, 2001, 14:39
|
Don't penalize a pitcher for his team losing a game! It makes no sense to me that he is hurt points wise in something he had no control over. He doesn't determine if his team wins the game, it's how well his hitters do and the opposing pitcher does, also play a part in it. Keep the points for a win where they are, but take away the negative points for a loss, it just makes no sense if you want a true look at how good a pitcher really is when you look at his TSN points.
my two cents..and don't do anything to mess with the price changes because when you do that it takes away from what the game should be. A reflection of the real life stats and how good each player is. Everyone has Randy and Pedro because they ARE the best.
|
| 60 | Mr. Nice Guy
ID: 421124113
Tue, Dec 25, 2001, 19:45
|
I would like it if strikeouts were worth more pts.
|
| 61 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Dec 26, 2001, 07:51
|
Mr. Nice, as it is, strikouts are already worth 8 points. 5 for the 1/3 of the inning they get for a pitcher and 3 for the strikeout.
|
| 62 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 487331412
Wed, Dec 26, 2001, 16:19
|
I don't know if this was brought up, but what about adding another pitcher? Six pitchers with only three trades a week could cut down on the Randro without effecting much of the game. To Randro each week while gambling that your other five pitchers remain healthy and point producers will take some guts.
On a side note, I would like to see something done about increasing the selection of relievers. Relievers were used in 90% of the games played in 1990 as opposed to 5% back in 1900. Maybe a bullpen in TSN Fantasy game with points that are (gasp) not read in the box score. A point table for relievers with InR (inherited runners scored) InS (inherited runners stranded) PERA (potential ERA) WERA (worst-case ERA) and RE (relievers effectiveness)
Below are two links to articles on Ari Kaplan and his student Thesis research on relievers stats.
LA Times article on Ari Kaplan and his reliever research and new stats
Trenton Times article on Ari Kaplan's research
Maybe we could get a thread going on the ideas pro and con about including relievers (a Bullpen) and new stats/points.
|
| 63 | Chuck
ID: 35853023
Wed, Dec 26, 2001, 21:49
|
I've been busy and not able to respond recently.
Here's the quote from KKB in the last post that MITH mentioned:
"Middle relievers are role players and the great ones are few in number. Keep them that way."
And while I understand this, I feel right now that they have NO role in the SW style game at the moment. So why not make it so that the "great ones" will get to the point where they are few in number in this game-- whereas now they are practically non-existent.
I agree that there needs to be one criteria for a hold, but if it is set out ahead of time, there would be no problem if everyone knows the definition.
I just like the idea of having more options. If it doesn't get added, I'll survive.
|
| 64 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Thu, Dec 27, 2001, 08:46
|
At the same time, pinch hitters and pinch runners are role players and the great ones are few and far between.
Following that line of thinking, should TSN also make spots for pinch hitters and runners?
To keep the game balanced, not everybody is going to be represented. Starting every day players, starting pitchers and the best of the best for closers get represented.
Specialized leagues by the players, like the 500k league for example gets some action for the specialized players of baseball. But we can't expect TSN to give us a fun and balanced game if they try to represent EVERYTHING the game has to offer.
I had offered the idea above of adding a spot for a defensive point gainer. But the more I think about it, the more I think the idea of adding another spot, for any reason, is terrible and potentially unbalancing.
|
| 65 | Micheal
ID: 199332618
Thu, Dec 27, 2001, 09:12
|
Leave the game alone.
|
| 66 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Thu, Dec 27, 2001, 10:40
|
The average fantasy manager/baseball fan barely knows what a WHIP is, and is not likely to know how to calculate it and you want to introduce InR, InS, PERA, WERA, and RE into the game? And how many emails do you think TSN would get if their strict Hold rules don't give a reliever a Hold and MLB's "loose" rules do? More than I'm sure they would like to deal with just to make a relatively unvaluable player valuable to an All-Star style of team. The idea of the TSN model is to hold an All-Star team, not to hold a team that is a replica of an actual baseball team complete with middle relievers, pinch hitters, pinch runners, bat boy, water boy, towel boy, and sunflower seed stocker. Keep it that way.
|
| 67 | Micheal
ID: 5815241
Thu, Dec 27, 2001, 17:38
|
Yeah, when your RV goes up, are people really going to get the pinch hitter or reliever that they want TSN to include in the game to make it fair? No.
Leave the game alone!!
|
| 68 | Motley Crue
Donor
ID: 101010298
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 10:29
|
You could do away with price changes for pitchers, and just keep them for hitters. Then you could get rid of PT's and HT's and just give 5 trades per week again. This would force managers to trade positional players to make money, and limit the number of trades guys could use on pitching, at least until later in the season.
Of course, if Pedro Martinez is washed up, "Randro" as we know it is over. And he could very well be with the arm ailments he keeps getting.
|
| 69 | Mr. Nice Guy
ID: 421124113
Mon, Dec 31, 2001, 17:15
|
see post 15, it has some very good ideas
|
| 70 | Mr. Nice Guy
ID: 421124113
Mon, Dec 31, 2001, 17:18
|
btw: any news on whether it will be pay or free? I would like to see the pay game. At first I was against it but it certainly separates the men from the boys. (you won't see 200,000 people w/ invalid rosters)
|
| 71 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Mon, Dec 31, 2001, 17:48
|
I would guess they will do something similar to what they did in hoops - full game for pay, scaled down (maybe similar to playoff game - 2 pitchers, 2 IF, 2 OF?) for free.
|
| 72 | James K Polk
ID: 4455731
Tue, Jan 01, 2002, 19:42
|
I think Motley Crue's idea of eliminating pitcher price changes is pretty interesting. Because the pitcher price changes are pretty much the "obvious" ones -- even without sampling, I think we all can pretty much name who the top 5-6 pitcher price gainers will be on a given day.
The problem I see is that pitchers' starting prices would be locked in, so a pitcher who outperforms/underperforms his price will never rise/fall to meet a more accurate cost.
I'm not sure how big of a problem this would be -- I did a few checks on some of the big-name cheapies from last year and found that Matt Morris, for example, ended the year at approximately the price he began at. He peaked at about 800K over that starting price. Mark Buehrle finished about 600K above his starting price, and his price peaked at about $1 million above that level.
|
| 73 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Thu, Jan 03, 2002, 09:47
|
Here's something to think about the pay vs free argument. Think of the side games that people kept while in the free game.
There were 500k teams, AL/NL teams, cash teams, point teams, pitching teams, hitting teams, no trade teams etc.
Having the game free allowed the TSN users to customize (and hence make it more enjoyable) your product. Making it more enjoyable makes us stay and work at getting better. Staying and getting better makes us more willing to pay.
I'm playing the pay game this year for the first time, but only because I spent time playing the free game with different strategies and feel I can at least compete this year.
I would recommend you guys keep it like last year with one of each. And don't make any major alterations to the way either game is played, either.
If you really, really insist on taking away the free game, then make us pay for 1 account and allow us to have as many teams on that account as we want. I'd be willing to pay slightly higher for this ability, rather than paying a low amount per team.
This will allow the gurupies as well as all the other pockets of players to stay active and keep the game fun for us to play. I really enjoyed the mid season 500k league I was in.
Some co-workers and I also had a team league. Each MLB team was represented. Aside from changing out injured/traded/demoted players, they were pretty much low maintenance, but fun to see who had the most points at the end of the season.
I'm sure you guys at TSN know that if you go to a strict pay to play game, you will lose some loyal players, that is inevitable.
This is a good way to decrease the amount you lose. Keep in mind what about TSN people enjoy and make changes to keep those things in place.
|
| 74 | Baron
ID: 011301222
Thu, Jan 03, 2002, 12:52
|
I agree. If they must charge for the game, I think 1 price for as many teams as you want is the best option
|
| 75 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 3100315
Thu, Jan 03, 2002, 15:01
|
Why not have a price for one team and then another slightly higher price for an unlimited team package? Some people do only play one team and it only makes sense than they would be charged less than someone who has 10 teams.
Why not have a yearly subscription rate that would allow someone to have access to all smallworld fantasy games. Of course it would be higher than the above two options but may make a lot of sense for people who play fantasy year around. Plus it might be a nice windfall for smallworld at the start of each year.
|
| 76 | Khahan
ID: 567232217
Thu, Jan 03, 2002, 21:53
|
Even better CTRS. More options to help us customize our fantasy playing experience.
Again, with the flat out yearly subscription rate, have different packages: $X.xx= all games
$Y.yy= 3 different games, $Z.zz= 2 games etc.
.
But with that, you still loose the ability to offer the free play fantasy version of a game, which, as pointed out is what attracts many people to sample your product and decide if they would like to continue play or not.
|
| 77 | Micheal
ID: 5815241
Fri, Jan 04, 2002, 18:53
|
Eric
Since you might check your own thread, I thought I would post here. Check the BBall forum, there are some questions for you concerning the issuing of extra trades.
|
| 78 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 119491116
Sat, Jan 05, 2002, 12:44
|
Off topic from Randro and other variations....
I wonder if there could be a way to execute pitcher trades a couple of days in advance.
Ex.
Randy is going tonight....you want Clemons tommorrow, and you've traded Randy > Clemons after today's freeze. Now, if you can't get onto the internet tommorrow of the morning of the day after when you want to trade to another stud....you're kinda screwed.
Would there be a way to add this feature? Or is this just stupid?
|
| 79 | Khahan
ID: 567232217
Mon, Jan 07, 2002, 10:14
|
I think that would make planning your roster even easier. Log in once a week, set up all your trades and barring injury, you are set.
|
| 80 | Motley Crue
Donor
ID: 101010298
Mon, Jan 07, 2002, 14:16
|
Ah, but logging in once a week is NOT what TSN wants you to do! They want you there every day rubbing your hands with a sinister grin and gnashing your teeth at all the points you've gained the night before, and all the points you anticipate picking up tonight (and reading all of their adds).
|
| 81 | Baron
ID: 011301222
Mon, Jan 07, 2002, 15:02
|
yea, that's not gonna happen whether it's possible or not. which is fine with me b/c i'm anxious to get on the next morning and see how did anyway.
|
| 82 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 2810312911
Mon, Jan 07, 2002, 18:30
|
In theory being able to plan trades ahead sounds like a nice feature but implementing something like this would be a lot more work than it would be worth. Would have to take into account being able to cancel trades, what happens if the dollars/trades don't match up?, what happens if you manually trade the player before the scheduled trade, what if you add the player in a different slot before the auto trade, etc...etc... probably nothing that couldn't be coded around but sounds like a lot of work for something that has limited value.
|
| 83 | It's Outta There
ID: 2810551515
Mon, Jan 14, 2002, 19:04
|
Please don't change anything. ;)
|
| 84 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 54012146
Thu, Jan 17, 2002, 13:11
|
I am against ChiRTS's idea for unlimited teams. I don't mind competing against 2 or 3 teams per person but I am tired of competing against those with 100 teams where I finish behind 10 of them.(not to mention that these people usually let 80 go dormant when the strategy doesn't work) This is one of the good points about pay to play for me. In the alternative those with multiple teams should have only one score on the leaderboard- an average score for all their teams. I would support an option for separately scored "freak games" i.e. 500K, or lowest roster value, or fewest points, within the pay game context i.e maybe have the option to pay an extra $1 per team for defined and separated specialty games?
By the way I enjoyed the pay game much more than the free game last year- it was much harder to increase RV in the pay game- but then again I enjoyed a top 20 finish pay game and never made top 100 in the free game. ( Probably all those people with 100 teams that beat me LOL).
|
| 85 | Mr. Nice Guy
ID: 421124113
Thu, Jan 17, 2002, 16:18
|
how about making a fun league (separate from the real game) where you get unlimited pitcher trades. this would make it sort of nuts, I admit that.. but I think it would be kinda fun. NOTE: this would be totally separate from the real league, there would still be the standard league we've all come to know and love (and hate when our pitchers get rocked).
:-)
|
| 86 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Fri, Jan 18, 2002, 08:42
|
Mr. Nice Guy, that would be something TSN would have to do, not something we could just do within their game. You're right, it could be fun, but I don't see somethign like that happening.
As for Valkyrie, yeah, its frustrating to see 10 teams finish ahead of you and then find all those are controlled by the same person.
But it would seem that most people who play enjoy trying different strategies. Most people enjoy multiple teams so they can take a risk and see how it would work out.
I ran 3 'real' teams last year and ran each of them very differently. My finishes were between 1000 and 10,000 and finishing roster values were between 90mil and 99 mil. I had a lot of fun playing last year because I had 1 team (my best finish) that I ran somewhat conservatively. My other 2 teams I took a lot of chances and risks on just to see what would happen.
At the same time through this site, I participated in some of the side games like the 500k league. My main concern w/ the pay to play is that 1 aspect of TSN that so many people find enjoyment in may be killed.
If we're going to pay, I would just ask that this aspect is given some consideration.
Maybe a low flat fee gets you 1 account that can hold up to 3 teams. For additional fee, you can add another 2-3 teams.
Give us somethign that will give us some options.
Btw, no word lately from anybody at TSN on some of these ideas. You guys still out there?
|
| 87 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 467181517
Fri, Jan 18, 2002, 17:36
|
Personally I don't see someone with multiple teams as a problem especially in the fullseason or midseason games. It would be far too time consuming to actively manage more than 3-5 teams well. The more teams a person has the less time they spend managing each team which eventually hurts the play of all of their teams.
In playoff games where there are few decisions and a person can manage many teams without much time I do agree. Playoff football is ridiculous...many people have 100+ teams.
|
| 88 | ttz
ID: 511145220
Fri, Jan 18, 2002, 18:11
|
I've read a lot of this thread, but I don't think I have time to read it all, so if this has been said already, I'm sorry.
Assuming that the game as we have known it over the years will no longer be free, is there a chance that you could offer it at a reduced price to managers who don't think they'll even come close to the top 100? I'm not sure how you'd separate them (maybe an asterisk if they are on the leaderboard?), but they could be involved in price changes and in the same leagues as everyone else, but just not be eligible for prizes.
I think this would help to keep some people from leaving (provided the cost is still not too high) and you could still generate some money. I suppose you could even have a manager designate certain teams as prize-eligible, and others as not, so that they could play 'specialty games' (e.g. 500K, LRV) without having to play by other rules, as it is in basketball this season. This might be a good option for people who don't like the changes to the free game, but aren't really competitive enough to want to lay down $10/team.
Is this a coding nightmare?
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|