Rusk
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 13, 2003 - 15:45 |
 
|
Philman, I think you'r hardcap theory is correct ;o)
BTW, what is the OFL prize for the winner and runner up (Beside the glory ;o)? After 17 matches the team might already be over the hardcap, and then a money prize will only be wasted since you have lower your TR (or used for rerolls, but you can only have 8 ;o)
Only a problem if Hardcap is implemented, ofcourse ;o)
/Rusk |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2003 - 15:55 |
|
Glory is the Prize
Havn't heard a boo on tourny prizes at all in a few months. And yes the hard cap is correct as described.
A soft cap would be like baseball where you pay a penalty if you exceed it. |
_________________
 |
|
Niiv
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2003 - 20:18 |
|
hhm...hars cap is taken into account when we face problems of Tr-indifference...
To philman: Isn't there a problem in the losers playing fx a 3 round cup, and the divisional winners maybe just getting 1 extra game? I mean: Some losers might end up having more games than the winners; that seems even more un-just to me.(?) |
_________________
Blood Bowl est salva veritate |
|
PhilMan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2003 - 21:36 |
|
well, the losers would only play an extra 2 games each, as we only take the bottom 1 team from each, but i see what you mean about the div winners only playing 1 game. hmm, maybe if the losers from the first round quater finals played again? then they would all get a minimum of 2 extra games each, thats not a good idea, and could get complicated, but its all i can think of at the moment |
_________________
as a friend once said: 'Willys'
"Best Bar in This Street" |
|
Rusk
Joined: Dec 08, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2003 - 21:47 |
|
I think it's better not to do it then, since it is not really necessary. But I still like the idea of some kind of cup tournament that runs sidelong with the OFL tournament. With 32 teams a Cup tournament would be 5 rounds, maybe that could be fitted into the regular season schedule? It could be setup as a seperate group on Fumbbl, with the same teams as in the OFL....(can the same [T]-team join two different groups?)
It's just more work for the commisioner and it does not solve the "problem" with some teams getting more matches than others, actually it just makes it worse..... but it it would allow teams to meet on a inter-divisional basis.
Maybe that should wait for season 2 ;o)
/Rusk |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 13, 2003 - 22:26 |
|
KISS
Play it out... see what happens... and then cap the top teams if they are overly powerful. Or.. let the weaker teams play a few year 2 pre-season games.
Playoffs should have division winners and possibly two wild card teams, one from each conference. If you do that, the two weakest division winners play the wild cards the week before the real playoffs start. The winners in "wildcard weekend" move on.
(It would suck to finish 11-3 and miss the playoffs because your in the same div as the leagues best team) |
_________________
|
|
Niiv
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 14, 2003 - 01:03 |
|
of course youre right Bunny...but its a bit hard to do the wildcard thing. The thing is, that NFL has got 4 wildcards in all. That way the 4 wildcards play the four weaker divisional winners and the 4 best teams go through to meet the best four divisional winners. The problem is that the very precarious "number of games"-subject would tilt entirely if some of the runner-ups from the divisions could get an extra game before meeting a divisional winner from the top 4 of the league who would then have played one game less...I cant really see the perspedtive in the problem, but it seems a bit troublesome... |
_________________
Blood Bowl est salva veritate |
|
PhilMan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2003 - 11:30 |
|
yeah, thats fair enough bunny, keep the first season simple and maybe introduce some extras next season after seeing how it all gets along. with the wildcard thing, shouldnt there then be 4 wildcards? because if there are only 2 plus the division winners then thats 6 teams going through to the play-offs, which doesnt add up if you do the maths, you need either 4 or 8 to keep it right. in order to prevent one team in a particuler division from preventing everyone else from getting to the playoffs, i like the wildcard idea, but i think that there should be 4 wildcard teams, so then we can play off each wildcard against a divi winner in the quarter finals, i dont understand only having 2 wildcard teams, as that wouldn't add up. |
_________________
as a friend once said: 'Willys'
"Best Bar in This Street" |
|
Niiv
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2003 - 11:59 |
|
It does add up, but no worries...Ive got it all under control  we start the 19 dec. If u havent seen the PM  |
_________________
Blood Bowl est salva veritate |
|
PhilMan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2003 - 20:02 |
|
or if youve seen the new PM, now, but doesnt mater, anyway, when is the OFL site gonna be up, i think thats gonna be really good to have a site dedicated to it and all the fluff and everything |
_________________
as a friend once said: 'Willys'
"Best Bar in This Street" |
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2003 - 21:07 |
|
He said the 19th iirc...
My practice orcs are 10/4/3... Get ready for some pain ladies. |
_________________
Last edited by BunnyPuncher on Dec 15, 2003; edited 1 time in total |
|
Matt_wyeth
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 15, 2003 - 21:24 |
|
Too bad their aren't any rules for a draft. That'd help solve the problem of balancing teams out at the end of the season. |
|
|
BunnyPuncher
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2003 - 01:04 |
|
I'm out of the tourny.
Horrible start, with a RIP. Darkelfs must have been possessed by the spirit of Enjoyment. Either way, had to concede in turn 2 the way the dice were rolling. Hate to drop out but I play this game for fun and I get no fun from trying to ressurect a team from a start like that.
Replace me quick while teams are still near TS100. |
_________________
|
|
banana_fish900
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2003 - 01:16 |
|
If you need a replacement team, let me know I was tossing around the idea of the Nuln Old City Raiders but sat on my hands and you were at 32 teams all of a sudden. |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 16, 2003 - 01:30 |
|
Come on Bunny, i had a game just as bad and am still willing to play it out, aren't you the one who said if anyone dropped you'd personally blacklist them? So you'll be sucky a few more games, you screwed yourself worse by conceding, now you have no money and no spp, had you finished the match you'd atleast have had the money to replace the player and some spp on another member.
Whatever, thats kind of lame imho. The game isn't only fun when you win or have good teams, its all about having a team with character and distinction....FFS he was a 0 spp player, not like he was a 7 skill superstar. The more I think about it, the more it gets lame.
My team had 1 gutter runner get a -MA and i got a total of 1 cp and 1 mvp from my match, plus 80k in gold. My opponent had about 75% luck and I had 49% luck ( was 42% at begining on turn six 2nd half ). My opponent started commenting about my tactics lol.....I was down to 7 on the field to his 10 and he was wondering why i moved my av 7 players away from his chaos dwarves who failed maybe 2 rolls all game. I protected my team, was gonna lose anyways, might as well take the gold and mvp for my time.
Conceding and retiring a brand new team in a league is cheap. Play it out and be a good sport, cause as it rides now, you appear to be a spoiled brat that didn't get what he wanted. Maybe you should just not enter leagues/tournies any more if you don't have the nuts to stick in it. I can understand a real reason, leaving cause 1 player died is weak. |
|
|
|
|
| |
data on the most use...
Search
