| 0 |
Subject: An idea for next year's TSN Ultimate game
Posted by: Butt Monkey
- [13047411] Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 15:16
Do you guys think it would be beneficial to have certain players listed as more than one position? For example, some people consider Paul Pierce a guard, some consider him a forward. I know he has appeared in boxscores as both this year. I think that adding the choice to put these "multi-position" type players at either position might add an interesting dimension to the game.
There would of course have to be limits, like a player would have to had played 5 or 10 games at a given position to qualify. This idea is of course not without it's problems/difficulties. This type of positioning is done in Sandbox Fantasy Baseball, but the positions in baseball are more defined. Some teams run 3 guard sets or three forward sets. How would you make the destinction? Or would a player qualify if filling in for an injured player at their position? For example, Lee Nailon for Wesley and S. Walker for Shaq (both examples of Forwards in the TSN game now playing different positions, at least on occassion). Kurt Thomas playing center (at least being classified as the C on the boxscore) when Camby is out is another example.
This change could be a good thing because it would allow for more differentiation between the TSN teams and allow a lot more combinations. With the current price changing formula, it could potentially make it harder to make money (with trades being more spread out over more players). It is not my desire, however, to completely revamp Ultimate or harm it in any way. It's a great game!
Let me know what you guys think?
-BM |
| 1 | smartone
ID: 29135714
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 16:51
|
1. There is some sense in your idea BUT I am afraid that implementing it is too hard and I am doubtful if it would add more value. TSN is a pretty tough game right now and its rigid non-flexible-always-on-10-player-roster structure is the challenge that we face every day. Why shall we make the game easier?
2. My idea for improvement is the pricing. I am new to this msg board so pls excuse me if this opinion has been discussed before. BUT... ;-) well, I think that the price movement depend ONLY on the result of the trades and it hardly reflects the performance of the players, hence, why does Pau Gasol, Kirilenko etc remain so so so cheap (yeah, their prices do go up, but still very slowly) --- and --- why Shaq's price hardly changes?
so here is my explanation: there are more than 5000 teams in the game, BUT (yeah, call me Mr BUT-man) I would guess that at least 50% are not active anymore (this is the situation in my division that I lead by more than 2000 points.....). These non-active teams (I can easily identify them since they hold 'obsolete' and injured players for a long time) are being calculated for various 'price changes' algorithms that TSN is doing, however, they do NOT reflect the reality. Therefore...
MY IDEA IS NOT TO CALCULATE THE ROSTERS OF THE NON-ACTIVE TEAMS (and it is pretty easy to define a non-active team)
that's my first blurb on these boards and I would love to hear any comments... thanks for reading
|
| 2 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 16:55
|
They are in effect not calculated because they are not making any moves. No buys and no sells equals no effect on price changes.
|
| 3 | Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 16:58
|
...except gravity, Ender.
-BM
|
| 4 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:00
|
Gravity has nothing to do with it unless the number of teams as a whole is part of the formula, or by some chance enough inactive teams hold a specicific player in enough numbers to prevent gravity affecting that player's price. I don't think either scenario is very likely.
|
| 5 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 46046416
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:01
|
Ownership prevents gravity though. GP has avoided gravity because he was on a very large % of opening day rosters due to early schedule. When it went south in NOV/DEC the price stayed up because dead teams held on.
|
| 6 | DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:08
|
I agree with Culdeus, same could be said of some Indiana (JermO comes to mind) players.
|
| 7 | Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:10
|
smartone,
I guess you could say that making this change would make it easier (i.e. more options to choose from), but you could also say that it would be harder (i.e. more competitive) for the same reason.
Broken down, you win by picking the right players. With more options to choose from, it makes for more diverse rosters. Would you have Kurt Thomas on your team as a center or a forward? And what about your opponent? If you have Kurt Thomas as a Forward, maybe you don't have an open roster spot for Garnett, BUT if your opponent has Thomas as a center, maybe he does have a spot for Garnett.
It's all about opportunity cost (I know, a boring economics term), and I realize that the game is already about that, but this suggestion just adds a twist.
-BM
|
| 8 | Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:27
|
That's interesting to note. Does anyone know at what point gravity does not take effect when people are holding? I was under the impression that gravity took place if there was insignificant buys or sells on a particular player regardless of how many teams had that particular player.
-BM
|
| 9 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 46046416
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:37
|
That question is right up there with the meaning of life in the average gurupie's book.
|
| 10 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 119491116
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:46
|
The Seattle and Indiana thing is pretty interesting.
|
| 11 | AHSbball05
ID: 571039718
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 18:46
|
that is very interesting......you are right about seattle and indiana with gp and jermo and them.........i definately think they should find some way to change that for next year.....otherwise the people on the dead teams will never fall into gravity. i think tsn has to find some way to counter this.
|
| 12 | RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 35928913
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 20:13
|
Gravity is based on ownership only. Daily Buys/Sells only trigger gravity when the set point is reached (IN gravity if below that point, OUT of gravity if above).
With about 6600 total teams (forget how I calculated that number) I think I figured gravity's break point to be at 2% (or around 140ish teams). Whether it is a percentage based number (2% ownership on all teams) or a specific flat number (say 145 teams), I don't know.
|
| 13 | Butt Monkey
ID: 21342922
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 23:10
|
So gravity is based on ownership of a player, not on whether he is being actively traded? So if a player is owned by 2% of teams he cannot be in gravity? Are you sure?
What do you guys think of the original idea/question?
-BM
|
| 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?)
|