| 0 |
Subject: from TSN: Call for new game ideas!
Posted by: Bernie H.
- [19852422] Mon, Sep 17, 21:08
Hi all,
Once again we come to you guys for assistance. In our effort to keep growing and innovating here at The Sporting News, we're looking for ideas for new and exciting games that people (like you) would enjoy playing. I'm constantly amazed at the insight and creativity that everyone here shows when posting, and I have no doubt you have all also had great ideas for what we should be doing more of, less of, better, and differently. We'd like to open up a forum so that everyone here can share them. Here's your chance to build a fantasy game!
1. What changes would you make to our existing salary cap game?
2. What brilliant idea do you have that you think would make a hot new game? Would you pay for it?
3. What twist(s) would you add to our existing salary cap model that would give it a fresh feel?
We are interested in hearing your thoughts on ALL of these questions - anything goes here. Specifically, however, we are looking for realistic answers to #3, because we would like to base our upcoming premium hoops game on our salary cap model, but give it a greater point of differentiation to entice players to pay for it.
Here are some examples I came up with as answers to #3, all involving new options for what you can do with your fantasy cash account.
- buy more trades.
- pay a fee (say, a % of a player's price) to double his points for the night.
- "wager" on a player achieving some predefined goal for the night; win cash back.
Hopefully you get the picture. Thanks in advance for your input. I don't know about you guys, but I sure haven't been able to think creatively over the past week. I'm looking forward to getting back into a game designer's frame of mind, and hope you'll join me in the fun.
Bernie, TSN
ps. if you'd prefer to email me your thoughts, please do so at bernie_tsn@hotmail.com. |
| 1 | KTxGOD
ID: 40716221
Mon, Sep 17, 21:37
|
Personally, i would hate it if the game turned into "whoever has most money has best chances of winning" ~ the ability to BUY trades and to PAY for more points do not appeal to me at all.
from a business standpoint on the TSN side tho, it is great business =)
|
| 2 | Twarpy
Leader
ID: 3074280
Mon, Sep 17, 21:45
|
I have to agree with KTx. Basektball is very trade dependent, and you can really get an edge with a couple of trades by picking up an odd 50 pts/extra trade.
I can see you running a separate game like Sandbox does where you bet on hitters. With basketball maybe you could make a separate game where you bet on the right players and possibly get half the pot of bets that night.
|
| 3 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 417433018
Mon, Sep 17, 21:45
|
Is the concept to pay "real" money for more trades, or TSN money for more trades? I believe it is the latter and I think that something along the lines Bernie is suggesting could be intriguing. I don't play the basketball game, (play hockey instead) but the idea of doubling a player's points at the cost of some TSN$$, is interesting. Say double Helton at home for the night or something? It would put more emphasis on early money as always but offers differentiation.
|
| 4 | mr g
ID: 15311150
Mon, Sep 17, 21:47
|
i would not pay for a basketball game, i would pay for a football game, i would like to see three for all in basketball be turned it to 5 for all, with one center, two forwards and two guards. also in football it would be nice to see game in which you play one qb, two rb, two wr, one te, one kicker, one def, and you only get to play a player once. i guess that's 8 for all.
|
| 5 | smallwhirled
ID: 197321922
Mon, Sep 17, 22:02
|
StlCards,
I think that you may be on to something! Accessories via TSN$$$. A little more incentive for roster value.
|
| 6 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Mon, Sep 17, 22:26
|
Punishark and I have discussed on a few occasions an exchange system between TSN$ and trades in hoops. We didn't come to a concrete idea on exactly what would be appropriate, but I believe we discussed $1,000,000 for a trade or sell a trade for $500,000. I'll have to think back through our logic on why it shouldn't be an even swap, but I know that was the gist of it.
I think something like this would make it more interesting, but I would like to see the free game remain as is.
|
| 7 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 4911539
Mon, Sep 17, 22:38
|
I'd like to see some form of reward for owners that utilize sound long-term strategy.
For example:
Hold a player 30 (calendar) days, get a bonus trade added to your account.
or
Earn a total of $2,500,000 TSN dollars on a player, get a bonus trade.
Both of these scenarios do not penalize the jumpy traders, but rather rewards owners for finding a 'gem' early on or sticking to a set player instead of jumping from flavor to flavor to flavor.....
Perhaps another idea would be to reward owners that conserve trades w/ more TSN cash.... for example when new trades are passed out, you get $20,000 x number of banked trades as a bonus for holding them! Over the course of a season you could earn a few $100,000's extra bucks. This option wouldn't help out much after $100,000,000 rosters, but would help get there sooner. Like the "piggy" but w/ merit.
Or, each month the top performer in a division based on TSN's would 'win' anoter trade. Or X points in 1 week would 'win' another trade. Give 'em something to shoot for. Some type of bonus.
.. I'm done rambling now......
rfs
|
| 8 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 4911539
Mon, Sep 17, 22:53
|
.. more rambling...
There could be prizes for:
The most Guard points per month or year
The most Forward points per month or year
The most Center Points per month or year
The highest roster value at the end of each month or year.
It would give others something to shoot for to keep them active.
rfs
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Mon, Sep 17, 22:55
|
Bernie...a couple of months ago using the golf game, I ran a 'worst-ball' tourney vs your best-ball format. Went over well, and alot of us were surprised at how difficult it really was! I also allowed the acquisition of a 5th man or 'bench player'. This player did not count against your salary cap, and no trade was used to change him from one week to the next, however he was restricted in that his price could be no more than your otherwise lowest priced player. He was only there to cover in the event of a W/D or a DQ on the part of one of your regular team spots. Only ran it for 4 weeks, 'cause the pricing would have gotten WAY out of whack had we kept going. (ie the guys we wanted weren't the same as the guys for the bestball...although, lol, there were times when it was wise to take a solid player!)
Also, ref buy/sell trades. I tried last year to advocate that notion in golf at any rate. Say buy a trade for 600k or sell a trade for 200k. Limited to one time only, upto to three trades.
I'll write more later...it's late and I have things to do yet.
Thanks again for asking for player input!!!!!!
|
| 10 | ¤ Mario LeMoose ¤
ID: 48441723
Mon, Sep 17, 23:44
|
• Guru was soliciting similar ideas to improve Small World games a year or so ago. At that time, the option of purchasing trades (for excess franchise dollars) was suggested. Seemed like a good proposal then and it still does.
• Improve the technical integrity of the current games; for example, simultaneous sell/buy transactions to reduce the possibility of an invalid roster.
• A question: Why are so many more states being excluded from prize eligiblity in hockey? Floridians are accustomed to it, but now the list (at least for the free game) also includes Montana, Vermont, Louisiana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Arizona, Maryland, and Colorado.
|
| 11 | Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 5681925
Mon, Sep 17, 23:53
|
I don't mind paying real $ for games but any charge for trades or a competetive advantage would have to be TSN $ and not real $'s.
The best suggestion for a new game I have for you is to buy Sandbox's format from sportsline- it is my understanding that sportsline is scrapping at least Sandbox's hockey and basketball. The best draft leagues on the net would really compliment the best salary cap game on the net.
|
| 12 | prefek
ID: 1381813
Tue, Sep 18, 01:13
|
This may sound too elaborate. If it is, forgive me as it's late here.
Create some kind of SmallWorld/TSN currency which you buy using real money and use to purchace teams (additional teams costing more money). Let's say $1 = 1000 SWB (SmallWorld Bucks). Reward certain achievements\actions with extra points:
1 SWB per visit (maximum 1 per day)
1000 SWB points for being the best manager for the week
5000 SWB for being the best of the month
5000 SWP for a top 101-500 finish
10000 SWB for a top 100 finish
500000 SWB for winning the game
etc.
Use the SWB to buy SmallWorld merchandise and other available items (like some of the prizes SmallWorld provides) and to register for a team, making registration cost between $5-$20 a season (adjusting winning amounts for game cost). Many managers around here use multiple teams.
I would think it cool to be able to win a free or nearly free second game with a reasonably good performance in the one you purchased. Even those that win, however, may still buy another team or two the next year for a competitive advantage. You could also combine winnings from multiple games to buy some big prize instead of 10 hats like I imagine some people around here have by now. You could possibly offer some kind of bulk rate, like $10 a game or 3 for $20, or $25 for 1 team in every sport.
|
| 13 | Bernie H.
ID: 19852422
Tue, Sep 18, 03:22
|
Just a clarification: I did mean using TSN Dollars for the extra options, not real cash.
Keep 'em coming.
|
| 14 | discgolfer
ID: 2682813
Tue, Sep 18, 05:10
|
I would like to to see the pay $10.00 3 for all game come again. It would have to be for the season though. I thought they were getting carried away when they started making games for the month. You might want to do a hockey game the same way. A foward, center & defence. One time for the season.
|
| 15 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Tue, Sep 18, 06:35
|
Would it be at all feasible to run a series of 'keeper' leagues? These would have to be a 'pay-to-play' format, and to avoid the otherwise inevitable disppearing managers, the amount would have to be enough that quitting wasnt a viable option. I know that if I could find 11 or so other guys, dedicated to maintaining their presence, I'd be willing to fork over $100-$200/yr for a well run, well organized keeper league with appropriate prizes. (realizing that with 12 to a league and all leagues needing appropriate prizes, an obvious limit in prizes comes into being due to each league having to 'pay its way' in a business sense. Football being the only team sport I follow anymore, with a $150 entry fee annually, that would be $1800 gross. Maybe 1st Place each league...Super Bowl tickets (2 ea) plus waive next years entry fee and 2nd place...free entry the following year with 3rd getting 1/2 of next years entry fee waived. Best keeper league I've ever participated in, post draft we each named 1 guy for a 4 yr hold, 2 for a 3 yr and 4 for 2 yrs. We had drafted IIRC 18 man rosters. *shrug*)
|
| 16 | IRRIDUCIBILI LAZIO
ID: 34433228
Tue, Sep 18, 11:02
|
JUST 1 THING:
BRING BACK SOCCER'S GAMES!!!! AND POSSIBLY ONE DEDICATED TO ITALIAN LEAGUE.... IF YOU NEED HELP, HERE I AM.
|
| 17 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Tue, Sep 18, 11:19
|
yeah, I would defenetly play a good Serie A fantasy game.
|
| 18 | clach
ID: 43757914
Tue, Sep 18, 11:42
|
No a paying game. For all out of Usa (like me and a lot of players) it's difficult.
Regarding new ideas: I think one more trade for a week make the game more animated
Ciao Irri..it's full of good serie A game! Why you want another one?
|
| 19 | discgolfer
ID: 2682813
Tue, Sep 18, 14:36
|
I just wanted to add to post #14. To make it a survival game like last year where teams were droped out untill one was left to win the group and move on to the finals with the winners of the other groups for the grand prize.
|
| 20 | miguel p
ID: 59444612
Tue, Sep 18, 14:46
|
My favourite ideas of the ones mentioned so far:
Buying/Selling trades: I think they should be expensive, and I see them really only coming into play towards the end of the season (which is good, because the lack of differentiation by the end of the season is ridiculous, and this might encourage more risky trading).
Bonuses for achieving certain milestones: I think these should be points-based, rather than based on winning a division over a given period (that would create a disincentive to join a competitive division if you're concerned aboot your WWR, while rewarding people in crappy divisions, or in 1-team private divisions). Trades would be a nice bonus, but are probably too valuable; I think something like $250-500K for reaching some total points milestone over the course of a trade week would be good.
Most of the suggestions have centred around trades and/or $, either because those were the basis of the suggestions in the initial post, or because people like the points part of the game how it is. I'd like to throw oot some suggestions for changes to the points system (some of which might be truly stupid in practice; I'm just throwing these oot as they come to me):
- Award points for being on a winning team (and possibly subtract points for losing). Nothing huge; just + or - 5. This would increase focus on the actual game and reward knowledge of the game overall, but might further reduce differentiation.
- Have more bonus points for various statistical milestones (like reaching 30 points or 10 rebounds, or shooting better than 60%). Again, nothing huge (it would have to be less than the 3D bonus, which, by the way, I think should be more than 10). It might bring a greater range of players onto our radars, by making guys who aren't good all around but are good in one area (shooting %, rebounding, etc) better low- or mid-price alternatives.
- Include a team defense roster spot? It wouldn't work in basbeall, because it varies completely depending on the starting P; or in hockey, because it's too dependent on one guy; but in hoops it would work nicely. I like the symmetry of the 2-4-4 roster spots, but I'm all for any change that rewards basketball knowledge (which would be more a part of picking a good defense than picking a good individual player). I can't really think of a good reason not to do it.
I've gotta go to class. I hope this discussion keeps up; there are some great ideas being thrown around! Thanks for listening Bernie (and probably Erik).
|
| 21 | dusty bottoms
ID: 18442117
Tue, Sep 18, 14:55
|
the main problem I have is that players are too expensive, I would like the luxury of at least having, One quality player at each position. I realize it is about money but the prices are rediculous, prices should be less money.
|
| 22 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Tue, Sep 18, 15:39
|
dusty, the problem with that is then we reach roster gridlock much, much sooner in the season. As it is, the last 3 weeks (month?) are totally uninspiring because everyone had pretty much the same roster. There is little to no chance of making up any ground. This was greatly magninfied last year by the absence of a second stud center.
|
| 23 | havenbros
Donor
ID: 075039
Tue, Sep 18, 17:11
|
Bernie: Some suggestions for the 3-for-all games (both the surivor and regular versions), which were going splendidly last year until the rule change/interpretation fiasco at the end left many of us questioning whether playing these games is even worth it (P.S.: I assume that you either already know all the sordid details or can find the discussion in this forum) (P.P.S.: I'm still waiting for my prize):
1. Don't finalize the roster of players until the season gets close and the potential surprises are known. For example, last year Baron Davis wasn't on the list even though by the time the Hornets were half way thru the exhibition season it was clear he was going to be an important part of the team and everybody had him in their regular game lineup. You should post a tentative list of players when the game opens up but make it clear that the list (including the position of each player) won't be finalized until a later date. I wouldn't mind even if players get added mid-season, as long as everyone gets sufficient notice.
2. Have the week for the 3-for-all game match that of the regular game so it won't be necessary to do a separate calculation of the number of games a team has each week for both games.
3. Eliminate any weekly or monthly prizes. Put that money towards either better prizes or more winners.
4. In the survivor game, establish some reasonable thresholds to advance. Last year a lot of teams were in divisions with a number of dormant teams so they were able to advance without using the better players each week. A threshold would minimize this "luck-of-the-draw" factor. The threshold for each period could be either a minimum number of SWPs (look at last year's results and figure out what the top half averaged during each 4-week period) or an overall ranking (i.e., you have to be in the top XX% of all teams to stay alive, with the percentage increasing as the portion of teams getting eliminated increases).
5. Keep in touch with these threads so that if a question arises we can get a prompt definitive answer from someone who understands how the answer could affect teams rather than an inane, after-the-fact ruling based on the advice of some clueless lawyer. The conversations and correspondence gurupies had with the SW folks last year were reported here and we all took it as gospel, only to learn later that SW disavowed that advice and applied a different rule to reach the opposite result. If the reported advice had been published directly in this forum, I can't imagine that we would have ended up where we did.
Of course, these rule/structure changes are just my opinions. If any of my suggestions have pitfalls that I haven't considered, I'm sure my esteemed colleagues will illuminate us.
I appreciate the approach you're taking on this. Keep up the good work!!
|
| 24 | The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Tue, Sep 18, 17:27
|
Hello Bernie H, glad you started this thread. Not tooting my own horn, but I won the $5000 hoops pay game this past season, so I would love to add my 2 cents.
Bottom line, your game model is great the way it is, the only changes I would like to suggest is:
1.) Add a wild card player to hoops, we would then choose 4 guards, 4 forwards, 2 centers, 1 wild card slot. This has been metioned here in the past, and possibly in this thread, I haven't took the time to read the entire thread yet :(
This would add to differentiation, plus it puts more emphasis on keeping a cheaper player on your team throughout the season.
2.) Definately add a 20 point bonus for a triple double! Triple Double's are very hard to acheive, and a player should be given a 20 point bonus if he acheives this.
3.) A 5 point bonus for a double double.
4.) Add a Division World Rank. Alot of us would love to see this one, mainly for the free game. This would make it more fun for everyone in the division if they had something else to play for. I know Guru's division, and the Belly Division would have a huge battle, and would definately spark new topics to the forum. Maybe give TSN T-shirts (stating the Top Divison of TSN) away to all the players in the top division.
5.) I think adding a Hall of Fame for all the World wide winners and runner-ups in every SW game.
6.) Paying TSN $'s for a trade is intriguing to me, but as stated above, the price needs to be steep (1.5-2.0 Million). Maybe a reward of 1 million TSN $'s per month to managers who do not buy a trade during that month. This should limit people buying trades unless it is absolutely needed. If people abuse this, they pay the price with there salary cap. This would add a new twist and strategy to the game.
|
| 25 | The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Tue, Sep 18, 18:06
|
Restating 6.) in the above thread. Instead of rewarding 1 millon dollars to player who doesn't buy a trade during a month, reward the manager with an extra trade.
Also, I would like to add one more thing, and I would like to hear response from some of the hoop guru's in here.
What do you guys think about adding 5 trades per week instead of 4? Last year at 4 trades a week, you could turn your team over every 2.5 weeks. With 5 trades per week, you could turn your team over every 2 weeks. This would speed up your team turnover, plus it might add more excitement, and strategy to the game. Someone mentioned that late in the season last year, it was almost impossible to catch up, would 5 trades help this at all?
Maybe this could create a new strategy, trade for long term for the 1st part of the season, and save your trades up to do a short term trading spree later in the season, Or trade short term all season long. I haven't decided on this yet, but while I was thinking about it, I was hoping maybe some of you guys could post your thoughts.
|
| 26 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 147341310
Tue, Sep 18, 19:26
|
Some additional thoughts on whats been stated earlier:
1) I personally am not in favor of using TNS $ to be able to buy trades
2)I think the price increases need to be scaled down a bit to avoid roster convergence too early.
3) I like Bandwagons idea of 5 trades per week but think if it were structured along the lines of basebal it would involve a little extra strategy, i.e. 2 guard trades, 2 forward trades and a "wildcard" trade (since centers are not a normally highy traded position). The wildcard trade could obviously be used at any position.
4) A divisional ranking would also be a good touch, much as they do in Swirve
5) bring back the bonus for a triple double
6) i would be against anything invoving bonuses for performance being paid in TSN $ ( if I interpret some of the above correctly )
|
| 27 | The Bandwagon
ID: 148381715
Tue, Sep 18, 22:19
|
I agree with Dave R, I totally disagree with being able to double your players points with extra $$ or whatever, that is going way overboard. That would be more like a video game instead of a strategy game. If that was inserted to the TSN game, I would not play the pay or free game. Keep the game realistic and strategic.
|
| 28 | mr g
ID: 15311150
Tue, Sep 18, 23:25
|
5 for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, this will lessen so many team that are alike a week.
|
| 29 | havenbros
Donor
ID: 075039
Wed, Sep 19, 09:04
|
I'm not sure about converting 3-for-all into 5-for-all. Think about the Fs and Gs you had left at the end of the season last year. Were there another 26 of each you'd have wanted to use? Probably more like 3 or 4 of each, with the rest being real part-timers or guys who were hurt. I also question how much differentiation it would produce. We're still going to use the sartibles to project the best player to use each week -- we'd just be using alot of second-stringers in addition to the studs.
If there is a strong sentiment to increase the number of players being used each week and produce more differentiation, adding a 4th player as a wild-card slot (as mentioned above for the regular game) might be worth exploring. Then, each week you'd be picking an extra F or G and there could be some significant dispute over which player to use in that slot each week.
|
| 30 | Stretch Nuts
ID: 59847420
Wed, Sep 19, 12:10
|
Just throwing out an idea of which I'm not sure myself:
How about varying the number of trades given out each week as the season progresses? For instance, giving out fewer trades in the beginning of the season might keep managers more packed together and keep the game competitive further into the season. As the season progresses, gradually give out more trades... Not sure how the dynamics of this would actually work, because there are so many possible strategic reactions to it.
|
| 31 | sarge33rd
ID: 55829199
Wed, Sep 19, 13:10
|
mention was made earlier of pts for being on the winning team, and that reminds me of something which has been discussed in the past on the golf boards. Best--ball is, as presented, a game where getting the 'odd-man-out' if you will, is essential. When you have 2 'studs' and 2 'journeymen' golfers, perhaps 3 of them finishing in the top 10 for the tourney...you are NOT at all gauranteed a decent let alone good best-ball score. If golfers A,B and C birdie basically the same par5's as each other and there is little differentiation...you get virtually no pts out of a field which could do remarkably well in the tourney. Seems strange at best, but I've seen it happen to others and have had it happen to me. Anyway, my pt would be to grant 1 pt per rd for the occupant of the top spot on the leaderboard, 1 pt day for that days lowest score, and 5 pts to the tourney champion and 2 pts to anyone else in the top10.
|
| 32 | Baron
ID: 335292020
Wed, Sep 19, 15:54
|
Here are the few things that I would like to see:
1.)one spot for each position, plus one or two wildcard spots.
2.)being able to buy and sell trades. i think this would add a lot more strategy to the game and make it more interesting.
3.)rewarding teams for holding players who aren't widely owned.
this one applies to the end of the year when all rosters are the same. you could have a multipler (ranging from mabey 1.2 to 1.8)that changes based the number of people that own them. each 10% range under 50% would resault in a .2 multiplier. so if a player is owned by between 30%-39% of the teams, they would get a 1.4 multipplier for that players points ever night.
|
| 33 | E'ville
Leader
ID: 29017810
Wed, Sep 19, 17:02
|
I like the 5 for all idea. I know you would have to pick some dogs to play but that made centers interesting last year. I think it puts a little more stategy in the game without being bizzare and overly complex.
In the regular game an 11th wildcard slot would be good. Make you stretch your hard earned $$$ a little farther. Perhaps add an extra trade per week to make rotation and money management more important.
|
| 34 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 147341310
Wed, Sep 19, 21:21
|
No, to the above posts, being able to buy and sell trades, or being able to earn money by player performances is dramatically altering the game. Keep the game fundamentally as it is. I would be totally against any changes that rewards players with additionl points, TSN $, additional trades, or the ability to buy extra trades.
Sounds like we are trying to reinvent the wheel. SW is a great game, lets make it better, not totally alter it.
|
| 35 | jumpball
Sustainer
ID: 480332121
Wed, Sep 19, 22:18
|
Thanks for asking Bernie. And since this is the Hoops thread, I’ll limit my comments to just hoops.
First a couple of responses:
While I am one to conserve trades, I do not think it’s a good idea to reward managers for doing that. A manager that had a good draft and then ignores his team could profit.
I like increasing the triple-double incentive, but I don’t like the double-double. Rosters would converge too much (would you rather have Kidd or Iverson in that situation?)
Buying and selling trades, as mentioned, has been discussed for a couple of years now. I would rather NOT see it happen, but IF you decide to include this ability, make sure the price of buying is steep (at least 1M TSN$). And, if you are allowed to buy, you should be allowed to sell (for about 1/4 to 1/3 of the buy price).
I like the idea of the buy/sell combination screen, but I am opposed to FORCING a buy for every sell. There are times during the season where an open roster slot is a viable strategy. And, of course, I like the idea of getting down to $500K (as opposed to $5M) in LRV. ;-)
Regarding the player prices – if anything they are too LOW, not too high. One of the things I enjoy the most about this game is working TOWARDS my ideal roster, not having it from near the beginning of the season.
I like the idea of a divisional ranking, but for that to work, all divisions would have to have a minimum number of teams (say 10) to be considered.
Now some suggestions:
I’d very much like to see a wild card slot to create an 11 man roster. This would help with the differentiation of rosters. If this is added, I would also suggest adding an extra trade. (And BTW, with a 10 man roster, 4 trades is just right IMHO)
I’d like to see 3-4-all converted into 3+for-all, where there is a wild card slot, or (and I like this one better) into 5-4-all where you pick a full team of 2 guards, 2 forwards, and 1 center for a TWO week period.
And here’s a new idea – using the same roster format, combine the best of the draft leagues with the best of the market league. Make one slot for each position a “unique slot” where only one person in each division would be able to have that player. This would require making all of these types of divisions a set size (say 15 teams), and holding a 3 round draft to acquire the “unique” players. After the draft all the other players are available just like in the regular market game. There are other logistics to be worked out with this (like trading with other managers, what happens when a manager sells one of his “unique” players, do the unique players count against the salary cap?, etc.). If this is a viable suggestion, I’m sure those details could be worked out. This format would also require that awards be given on a divisional basis.
And, finally, how about a “politically incorrect” hoops game? You know, one where TSN points are awarded for technical fouls, flagrant fouls, personal fouls, suspensions, and the like? Oh yeah, you’re right, there would not be a way to price Rasheed so that he could be affordable . . . ;-)
|
| 36 | Special K
ID: 67503014
Fri, Sep 21, 14:44
|
What i'd like to see:
1.) Definitely change the current Triple Double bonus to 20 tsnp.
2.) Wild card slot. It would change the dynamic of the game, but as already mentioned, keep the rosters a little more diverse.
3.) 5 trades a week. If the wild card slot were added, this would be perfect for that - however, I guess 4 trades a week aren't bad IF you don't add this wildcard slot.
4.) Divisional Ranking. Seems like a pretty cool idea also.
5.) Buy/Sell Prompt. As jumpball said, maybe don't "force" the sell, but have it there as an option to perhaps beat out Roster Freezes.
Just re-stating the obvious, cause those are the things I would like to see as well.
Thanks Bernie.
-Kurupt
|
| 37 | DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Fri, Sep 21, 15:44
|
1. I like better the 3G-3F-2C roster with two wildcard slots. That way we keep the 10 player total and 4 trades per week which has worked pretty well so far.
2. Establish high (1MM) price tag to buy and low (200M) price tag to sell trades, coupled with a little TSN$ incentive/bonus every week you have more than 5 trades left when new trades are given (bringing the total to 9+).
3. I like the buy/sell prompt but only if we also have the separate choices.
4. Eliminate all inactive teams after a couple of months or so, it'll speed up the game, helping everyone.
|
| 38 | Sandlot
Donor
ID: 59832108
Sun, Sep 23, 01:21
|
haven't read the whole thread, but what I've read sounds great so far. One thing I'd like to see as far as stats go is a greater point value for offensive rebounds. 2 or 2.5 points for offensive and the regular 1.5 for defensive boards.
|
| 39 | Janitor
ID: 35872511
Tue, Sep 25, 12:31
|
Thanks for opening up the table for discussion Bernie H. I am a tad taken back by your opening post. Maybe I took it the wrong way but it seems that you TSN guys are set on making major changes to the hoops game. I hope this is not the case. I thoroughly enjoy the game as it has been in the past.
As far as some of the suggestions that have been mentioned, I argue against most of them. I am not for allowing TSN dollars to be spent for extra trades or doubling of a player's output. Seems too radical of changes for me and wouldn't seem to add any fun IMHO.
The extra wildcard roster spot is something I would consider. By the end of the season, the good players can afford any roster they want. An extra player could add differentiation. But I don't agree that any extra trades need to be added. 4 trades is a good number becuase it makes you manage your team more carefully.
One feature that I think might be interesting is a team pick choice. Either weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly every team would choose an NBA team. The number of wins that team had during the specified time period would translate into TSN points. Teams that are expected to win alot like the Lakers would be expensive and bad teams like the Bulls would be really cheap. Come to think of it, you could possibly make the changing of the NBA team a daily transaction instead of weekly but a trade would have to be used up to change teams. I'm just coming up with this idea off the top of my head so excuse me if it is incoherrent. This choose an NBA team feature would make fantasy players have a bigger grasp on the NBA instead of just individual players. Schedules, opponents, injuries, hot and cold streaks would all have to be considered. What do y'all think?
Thanks for your time! :)
|
| 40 | Janitor
ID: 35872511
Tue, Sep 25, 12:32
|
By the way, when is the league going to be up?? I can't wait to start setting up my roster! Thanks.
|
| 41 | mr g
ID: 15311150
Tue, Sep 25, 23:22
|
give me five for all baksetball it will be simple, football 1 qb 2 rb 2 wr or te, baseball 2p 1inf,2of, hockey no Q, pleaseeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it will make things moreinstring,
|
| 42 | Choller
ID: 527181012
Wed, Sep 26, 09:07
|
My opinion
1)First of all, please no pay games, a lot of non-us people can't do this.
2)A wild card option would be nice (u will have to increase the starting salary though hehe). Note, only 1 wildcard in total, otherwise this will turn into a deuces wild game.
3)Bonus for triple double and small bonus for Double Double
4) Trades are ok, i think it's fun being forced to keep a injured guy, makes it more like real life. Having 5 trades will likely to keep the rosters the same, since everyone will be making the same move, just because they can.
And when is it opening up.... i can't wait ;)
|
| 43 | Fool Sized Cahuna
ID: 18192416
Thu, Sep 27, 10:30
|
I would like a wildcard added with no more cap space and no more trades.
By the end of the season it seems like we have more money than we can use. I can not tell you how many times I have wanted a player that will not fit into my lineup. Ex. I have Garnett, Weber, Duncan and Malone at forward. I would like to have another forward on my team; however, there is no way I can part with the forwards on my roster.
A few years ago most of the best players were at center. If you had Oneal and Olajuwon at center, you could not get rid of them; however, Mourning was probably the 4th or 5th best player in the game. A wildcard spot would accomodate this problem.
|
| 44 | bc2625
ID: 14114750
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 01:47
|
buying trades is not fun...It ruins the game and should be eliminated
|
| 45 | peebee
Donor
ID: 251043020
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 04:34
|
I would concentrate on old fashioned things like
customer service ...... yes i am bitter about it.
|
| 46 | Heather
ID: 5610151611
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 08:01
|
Check out the gravity thread. There are some good ideas in it that would help increase roster differentiation.
|
| 47 | Farn
Sustainer
ID: 451044109
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 08:08
|
why are we randomly butting threads that are 3 years old? :)
|
| 48 | Jumpin Jezebels
ID: 1610338
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 10:43
|
->39 Janitor
I think you are onto something by putting those concepts together. I like the idea of adding each NBA team as a unit, with all different prices based on the regular price formulas. This could be the 11th spot on a roster, and points could be awarded based on total points scored minus total points allowed, win versus loss, # of team rebounds, home attendance (wouldn't this be fun to own the hawks during a home stand when the Lakers, Cavs, and Spurs come to town, plus make watching the schedule even more challenging?),
I don't post much, but this is the one time I feel like I have something to say. I have been playing Smallworld (I just can't call it TSN) Hoops since before the days of the "click the pig for $10k" and I can't wait every season to play. However I had to sit out last year because of the price increase to play prohibitted me from bringing in my friends for recreational fun. This year I have more people working for me and I basically forced them to play (I even paid for a few of them myself), but I could have had two times as many if the price was lower. Personally I want to play against the best in the world, so I want to be in the "Ultimate Game", but the guys I play with in my division are all my friends and family, who can't justify paying $17.95 to play.
Because of the cost, there are only 5000 teams (and I would venture to guess less than 1000 total individuals, but I am sure RSF can figure that out :) and it doesn't really make for an interesting price fluctuation and doesn't give the other guys in my division much hope to compete against the world's best. The price fluctuations are way to predictable, because everyone in this league are all experienced at watching schedules, injuries, suspensions, etc. and there isn't much "chance" left in the game.
I have a team in the free game and it is much better for price increases and makes the game more interesting with over 200,000 teams. You watch the inexperienced people continue to push up Baron Davis' price over a 1-in-5 stretch and you can't explain or predict it, but it makes it more interesting. However I absolutely abhor the idea of paying real $ for more trades, since it becomes a "you have to buy the maximum trades to compete overall" league.
I am suggesting that this could be solved by creating a 3rd league type or revising the price on the Ultimate game, that is only $5-$10 to play, prizes can be much lower if needed, but the rules are the same as the Ultimate League. Personally I would think the $ brought in by lowering the price would exceed the total brought in by the $19.95 league, and you could just limit division prizes to those divisions with 25 teams or more perhaps.
Sorry for the rambling, probably a discussion that many people have already had but this seemed like the best time to voice my opinion. I think that the game is one of the best things going today on the Internet, and it isn't hard to get non-NBA people excited about it with the price fluctuations and the ability to own every player.
|
| 49 | Jumpin Jezebels
ID: 1610338
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 10:44
|
I just realized this is an old thread.... funny. When this was going the game was still free.
|
| 50 | CJ @ Work
ID: 35104577
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 11:09
|
Bernie H.
Please go read the Gravity Thread. I have to beleive that topic is a great place for some improvements for next year. Or even this year if something could be adjusted. At least post the mention of Gravity in the rules so I know when a player is so far in gravity..I better not pick him up for I will lose 30K a day till he hits 500K. Gravity Idea?
|
| 51 | Jeddi
ID: 21557114
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 13:14
|
Instead of messing with gravity, just increase the size of price changes. That will make trades more valuable because if you have an injured guy and no trade, you could lose a lot of money, more than you would now.
|
| 52 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 13:17
|
Actually, we've been that route. The problem with greater price sensitivity is that roster inflation is greatly inreased as well, and the wealthiest teams are able to afford all-star rosters much earlier in the season.
|
| 53 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 141046261
Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 13:19
|
Yeah, it got to be pretty stupid at times, with guys having roster increases of over a million a day.
pd
|
| 54 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Sat, Dec 06, 2003, 20:33
|
The game loses a lot when everyone can afford a team of 100% all-stars and price is no object. So keep slow the rate of inflation: make it possible but not easy.
I would suggest that you look at the Gravity Ideas thread. I think gravity should stop, once a player reaches a certain rank in value - say the top 20% perhaps, or maybe the top 30% - in pts/game/$$. Once the player has become a good value, then you shouldnt keep dropping (from gravity) the price. And the continued price drops actually DISCOURAGE people from grabbing an overlooked high-value player - which is the opposite of what gravity was intended to do (which is, to ENCOURAGE more diverse roster choices.)
|
| 55 | WonderB
Donor
ID: 241053812
Sun, Mar 07, 2004, 14:53
|
i have a current game improvement. no fundamental change.
currently, we can trade a player for a 'like position' player with the single move trade. no possibility of having an invalid roster.
can we have the same thing when we need to switch a players position.
lets say if the indicated trade position is blocked then the system askes if there is a player you want to move. if yes then a movement screen comes up and then trade and movements are all done at the exact same time.
no possibility of an invalid roster.
i haven't read this whole thread so if this has been raised already then i second the motion.
|
| 56 | Blooki
ID: 1561512
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 16:20
|
Based on my 4 years of experience with this game, it always seems that there are numerous options at the F slots and not enough at the G and especially C slots. So it got me thinking a bit, what if blocks and steals were bumped up to 3 TSNP instead of 2.5 TSNP?
Pros
* 11 of the top 15 shot blockers are C eligible and 12 of the top 15 pickpockets are G eligible. While Fs get their fair share of these 2 stat categories, I think this would be a small step in the right direction in terms of evening out the attractive options across positions.
Cons
* If it ain't broke, don't fix it? The current TSNP formula seems to have been working for years and while this change would be rather minor there may be negative repercussions that will only be seen after it's too late.
* Steals and Blocks are probably the most inconsistent statistics per player per game. While the TSNP would average out, the element of luck would go up dramatically if a manager were to pick up a player who has a big night in one or both of these categories. Then again, the same can be said about triple-doubles.
Another idea I've mulled over was making 3-pointers made worth 1 TSNP in addition to the 3 TSNP you would get from the normal 3 points. While this would help Gs compete against Fs, it still leaves the C spots a mess.
|
| 57 | CJ@Work
ID: 35104577
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 17:10
|
One of my favorite sayings "If it ain't broke, don't fix it? "
Problem is Blooki...IT IS BROKE!
And here is why.....Players like Walker, Yao, and early in the season those players that were doing great TSNP wise but were dropping in price 30 K each day. TSN needs some kind of leveling system in accordance with production by the player. Also a way to weed out the % of teams that are DEAD. and do not allow a player like Malone to go down in price when he should be.
|
| 58 | Great One@ Work
ID: 40150137
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 17:44
|
That would still work against Guards - being very general here but - Guards get steals, Forwards get steals AND blocks, Centers get Blocks...
seems like the forwards benefit because they get a little bit of each.
(Like the color chart with two circles of red and blue and purple where they overlap... thats how I picture the distribution of Steals and Blocks to guards, forwards, and centers... wow thats a third grade visual! Now I will bring out a parachute and we will all stand in a circle holding it and do crazy tricks...)
|
| 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?)
|
|