thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
  Posted:
Mar 25, 2017 - 15:06 |
|
dode74 wrote: | This suggests a season of 6 to 14 Competitive matches.
|
"This" may not refer to the "eight or more" bit.
I've seen this comment elsewhere, but where? |
_________________ There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
Catalyst32
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
|
  Posted:
Mar 25, 2017 - 15:12 |
|
Can anyone put into plain English wtf this guy is talking about?
Why is there any need at all for Ranked or Box to have a set number of games per season? |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 25, 2017 - 15:27 |
|
|
mekutata
Joined: May 03, 2015
|
Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 12:08 |
|
Sp00keh wrote: | mekutata wrote: | a quality of R and B is that i can always play there if I have time, based on my personal time schedules. seasons will hurt that. |
what?
ok to be clear, we are talking about season length being -per team-, right?
so once you team has played 20 games, it's the end of that team's season?
in which case, your personal time schedule is irrelevant |
ok, makes (more) sense. |
_________________
|
|
muaddib68
Joined: Apr 27, 2014
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 12:42 |
|
just...im thinking , how long take a 10 000 games round ?? |
_________________ muad |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 18:17 |
|
Well, the poll basically asks whether you are for or against seasons (since an implementation with 10.000 games is completely pointless: Not only will almost no team reach that number - even if one would, it would be able to buy the complete current squad back (without even using treasury). |
_________________ .
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 18:58 |
|
I'm against short/medium/longish seasons, and for very long seasons.
My proposal:
Every 6 games, you may end season.
After 30 games, you must end season.
That'll make seasons still relevant at the high end, and if your team gets tanked after 3-4 matches you don't have to retire it: if you can't rebuild by match # 6, you'll get a free reset. |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Rabe
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 19:54 |
|
Never actually considered it as a reset... that's indeed an advantage the seasons system offers. |
_________________ .
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 19:59 |
|
I get the sense of a deja vu. |
|
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 20:06 |
|
Karnov wrote: | The season should start on the 1/1/20** and conclude 31/12/20**.
One calendar year. Easy. |
2 pages and only one temporal suggestion... this is where the answer lies in my opinion although maybe a year is too long. |
_________________
|
|
JackassRampant
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 20:43 |
|
Those of us who have a lot of teams are not looking forward to 0-game seasons. |
_________________ Lude enixe, obliviscatur timor. |
|
Silent_Hastati
Joined: Nov 04, 2014
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 21:14 |
|
Dalfort wrote: | Karnov wrote: | The season should start on the 1/1/20** and conclude 31/12/20**.
One calendar year. Easy. |
2 pages and only one temporal suggestion... this is where the answer lies in my opinion although maybe a year is too long. |
After each season (defined period of games) each team gets 10k per match played, 5k per TD and Cas, and a fresh 1m gold added to their treasury. From this they must re-purchase their team (not including Fan Factor). Players who have played 2 or more seasons sometimes cost an extra 10k per season played to convince them to stay.
A temporal season is a terrible, terrible idea, as all it does is give teams that play more a massive unrelenting advantage against those that play less, as every single part of the rebuy system is based on games played and individual events like # of CAS and such. The entire mechanic is based around teams having played the same number of games (And even then it's fairly flawed at maintaining parity). A difference of even 4 or 5 games would create a pretty hefty difference as to what TV you could maintain, not to mention how many SPPs on average an individual player could aquire in his career (as players also get more expensive per season they survive).
Theorybowling could even argue that mirror match teams of equal TV wouldn't be equal anymore with those disparities, as the team that played more each season could afford to have more of a stars/scrubs dichotomy compared to someone who has to dump his top guys due to seasonal tv bloat.
It would either have to be based on # of games, or not done at all (which I don't think anyone would truly raise a fuss if the latter happened). The only wrinkle is Majors, but that could just be dealt with by making it so you have to roll a "new season" upon joining the tourney. |
_________________
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 21:43 |
|
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
  Posted:
Mar 27, 2017 - 22:36 |
|
Running 3:1 against seasons.
Seems about right to me.
Seasons are stupid, if you want them go make a league that uses them (or join one which ALREADY uses them).
Leave BRittney alone! |
|
|
keggiemckill
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
|
  Posted:
Mar 28, 2017 - 04:09 |
|
I remember this one time, I had a whole bunch of Gin, and weed, and then started typing random things on the internet. Dictionary..... Hippopotamus.. Junction.... lewd....Frappicinno. |
_________________ The Drunker I get, the more I spill
"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro |
|
|