|
Post by Fleck on May 15, 2013 11:46:57 GMT -8
That wouldn't work. Or, at least, I don't think it would work in practice.
In order for the two teams with the first round bye (in a four game playoffs) to not bench any players, they MUST bench both forwards in the 9th game of the season. Unless a team is several points ahead in the standings and guaranteed a #1 or #2 spot, this is dangerous risk to take, and not really in a good "this adds strategy" way. Maybe the #1 team would take a chance on this, since even if it doesn't work out, they're likely to only fall to #2, but the #2 team probably isn't going to risk it. Remember, we're only playing nine games, and if we're using the 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie system, the points spread is going to be very thin. The points separating the best team from the worst is likely to be only a couple. It's very possible that we won't have anyone far enough ahead to clinch the 1 and 2 spots until after the 9th games are over.
The second, and frankly more important reason I don't like the idea of ten teams in the playoffs is because it makes the league irrelevant. Sure, teams are battling for the 1 and 2 spots and trying to get the bye, but those are only two spots. What are the teams on the bottom battling for? If you don't win the first three games off the bat, you might as well say, "fuck it" and bench all your players for the rest of the season. If you don't win, there's no incentive to even try anymore. But if we only bring six teams to the playoffs, then there's something for the very best to keep battling for (the 1 and 2 spot) and even for the worst teams to keep playing for (the 5th and 6th spots in the playoffs). So everyone has a reason to play the season all the way through.
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on May 15, 2013 12:01:43 GMT -8
I think you're approaching this from an all too serious and competitive standpoint. We're playing this for fun, and what wouldn't be fun is having a team not make the playoffs. Especially if none of a particular players' teams made it.
I do get where you're coming from about having a lack of incentives beyond earning the #1 and #2 spots in the league, but I think it would be much better if you got much subtler bonuses beyond being the 'bye' round teams for those who attain ranks 3 and lower. I'm not sure what yet, but maybe something like a higher chance to receive stat buffs from the goalkeeper, scaling down per rank? So, it's at something like 20% chance to get a goalie buff. Earning rank 3 can net you a 30% chance to get a goalie buff for the duration of a game, but can only be used once in a tournament, so you'd have to determine cleverly when to use such a buff. It would also mean that teams that have always dominated may have a greater chance for an upset lose if a team brings out this small buff in a key elimination match.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 15, 2013 17:48:27 GMT -8
Count's "fun" point is what I was going to say, too. Thing is, I don't know if the point spread will actually be as thin as you think. We'll just have to see what happens, but I can see some people *cough me* not getting a single team in the playoffs. I like to use somewhat obscure team builds, which sometimes don't exactly pay off. So if we're only bringing in six teams, that's potentially as low as three players, so it might be Fleck, Fleck, Wyvern, Wyvern, Count, and Count. In fact, since I'm doing probability in my Advanced Math class right now, with only six teams advancing, the probability of all five players making it to the final rounds, assuming all teams are equally likely to make it (which they aren't), is only about --- (Removed because my math sucks). But there are 210 team combinations. If we instead say that 8 teams advance, then the probability of all players being involved in the playoffs is instead --- (Removed because my math sucks). But there are 45 team combinations. This really might be the best solution because it has the same number of rounds as a six-team playoff, but with no bye rounds. It still has league motivation, even though that motivation is "don't be 9th through 12th" and first place is somewhat irrelevant. So Fleck, I get what you're saying, but I just know that there's a reason Loveless is always in the finals. It's the pinstripes. Or...y'know, their superior team build. I think the best team designers here are you and Wyvern, since you both tend to have the top teams. It's a good thing, don't get me wrong. I like weird teams that don't always work well, but I like odd designs and trying to beat top teams with an unconventional design. It's my thing. I'm odd. Anyway, I'm just saying that teams are not independent of each other (and now I get into Statistics!) and it is likely that a player with a good team will be a player with TWO good teams, so six could very easily leave out at least one player. And Count: I think I'd like teams to be on an equal playing field based on abilities, so I'd rather avoid in-game boosts. Something like a bye round is about all the advantage I'd actually like to give any teams, especially since the top teams already have the advantage of being the best teams. ...Also it means more programming for me If we do 8 teams in a playoff, then the big advantage for winning the league would be that you'll play a shitty team in the first round. I'm going to use the seeding methods that challonge.com offers, so playoff teams WILL be paired based on their league rank. So that's about it for league advantages, but that's kinda how real sports work, too. Or, perhaps the advantage is the "Home Field Advantage" we discussed before and during playoffs, we'll publicly announce our line-ups and the person with home field advantage (higher standing in the league) will get to announce their line-ups AFTER the visitors announce theirs. And now I'm out of ideas. Time for me to modify my teams. GO GRIZZLY BEARS AND T&M! P.S. I've only received Fleck's revised team builds so far. If you're revising, I've gotta have the revisions by Saturday, otherwise your character builds are locked, and I don't think everybody adheres to current league rules of "no two players the same," so there'll be some DISQUALIFICATIONS! MWA HA HA HA HA! PM me the builds, guys. EDIT: Dammit, I suck at probability. I'm working on the official probability of 6 vs 8 teams.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on May 15, 2013 21:41:59 GMT -8
... so playoff teams WILL be paired based on their league rank. So that's about it for league advantages, but that's kinda how real sports work, too. Ha, take that, American football! Bob doesn't think you're a real sport! Hooray for hockey and basketball! I like the idea of pairing based on league standings. I think we can (and should) use that, regardless of however we decide to structure the playoffs. Anyway, here's my last word on the playoff structure. I don't have a be-all, end-all "we should go with my idea because of ____," because there really isn't a hard and fast reason why any of us should go with any playoff structure, other than personal preference. So here's my preference. I would refute Count's claim that I'm being too serious, because this IS fun for me. I like winning. I like building the best teams. I like thinking about the stats and the numbers and trying to work them to my advantage. And I like when my efforts are rewarded with playoff berths and bye rounds and whatever. When we do things like "everyone gets into the playoffs," that diminishes the fun for me. And I would get really depressed if I put all this thought into teams and then someone was like, "LOL! I built my goalie to have 500 END and no CA!" Of course, I'm exaggerating. And I know you guys are putting a lot of work into this (especially our esteemed programmer, Bob). But my argument is this: we're ALREADY playing a pointless game for no reward, and I don't see any reason to lower the rewards even further for the sake of inclusiveness. If you deliberately build a bad team, I cannot comprehend why you would expect to be brought up to the level of the best teams in the game. I'm as Liberal as they come in real life, but even that seems mind-boggling to me. To me, it's insulting to all of us, and the months we've spent arguing about this, and the hours Bob has spent programming, for us to not treat this like a real, legitimate game with stakes and consequences. Yes, it's for fun. And yes, we shouldn't take this too seriously. But I'd like to take it a little seriously, at least. Anyway. I still advocate a 6 team, 3 round playoff system (now with pairings based on league standing), because it gives us a reason to play, and to play our best. If you guys still object, then I won't say any more on the subject. Whatever you guys want to build is fine.
|
|
|
Post by Juice1300 on May 15, 2013 23:29:27 GMT -8
I can see some people *cough me* not getting a single team in the playoffs. I like to use somewhat obscure team builds, which sometimes don't exactly pay off. I'm totally the same way! I don't play to win, and therefore totally... don't win xD
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 16, 2013 6:12:20 GMT -8
Well...careful wording there, Juice. I DO play to win, I just don't use typical team builds. In fact, I kiiiinda cheated because I knew Fleck was rebuilding Loveless anyway, so I simmed a quick "what if" against them with one of my teams. All I did was move one player to a new spot and while my team didn't win, they did effectively shut Loveless down. The whole game was a big fuck-all in the middle. P.S. I think Loveless still won with a shot in the last few seconds, but I can't remember. I just wanted to see what a difference a team arrangement could be. Also, it might mean I need to re-examine the ability to get out of a cluster-fuck situation. But...yeah. Sorry, Fleck! It was just a test! No more cheating, I swearz!
But anyway, I build my teams to win, I just don't build the typical build. I don't in regular blitzball, either. I build a tackle-heavy team so that I can steal the ball, but tend to lack in shooting ability. Granted, I use Linna, who is both tackle AND shot, so I'm fine, but still!
I still advocate for an 8-player tournament. I'm okay with trimming some fat based on the tournament, but it seems silly to me to have a bye round when we can stick actual teams in there. More teams means more chance for upsets which means more interesting. And a tournament with base 2 number of players makes the most sense to me. Again, advantages for winning the league are that you'll go against low seeds in the beginning of the tournament, so there are theoretical advantages to placing high in a league.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on May 16, 2013 11:13:58 GMT -8
Alright, 8 team playoffs (with pairing). It still keeps the playoffs 3 rounds long and has some advantage for higher placements in the league, which is the most important part anyway.
But since I am physically incapable of allowing other people to have the last word in an argument, let me throw one more passing bomb before I submit to... *shudder* compromise.
For one: if you played that test game against New Loveless, then don't be getting so proud of yourself. I built the new Loveless to shut you down, and cause clusters in the middle, and produce low-scoring games. The objective for me is not to have "the best team that always wins" but rather "the team that never loses." If you never score against me, I'll never lose. From what you've said of that test game, it sounds like Loveless is functioning according to plan *tents fingers and cackles maniacally while lightning booms.*
For two: in quote/unquote "real sports," one of the major advantages to having tournament pairings based on league or season standings is the human element. People can rise to an occasion and exceed their own expectations. That's what makes underdog stories so interesting, both in movies and in real life. But here we're just dealing with a program. It doesn't know the difference, and responds only to "if this then that" statements and spits out a result, regardless of the stakes. When an underdog team wins unexpectedly in real life, it's a Cinderella story. When an underdog team wins in blitz, it's a statistical anomaly. I don't see the point in getting sentimental about it, and then structuring the game to encourage more anomalies.
3: Especially with the stamina system, a bye round is far, far more valuable than being seeded against the worst teams. I don't know why it seems "silly" to you.
Anyway, 8 teams it is. That's just my logic and my argument.
|
|
|
Post by wyvernxk7 on May 16, 2013 14:00:22 GMT -8
Does a bye-round automatically restore all stamina?
Also, what if we just went with a 12-team tourney, but the top two teams got a bye round and either [the Goers and Aurochs also get byes] or [the number 3 and 4 human teams get byes and the Aurochs play team 5 and the Goers play team 10]?
That way, there's byes, there's incentives to be the best, there's all sorts of things being drawn from what each person seems to want most.
Not to mention, it's a three-game tourney for the best teams and a four game tourney for the worst.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on May 16, 2013 14:32:15 GMT -8
A bye round does not restore any stamina. It's just one fewer game that needs to be played. Restoring stamina would make sense, logically (since the players are all "resting") but it would be too great of an advantage.
It's in all of our best interests to not have a four-round playoffs, even if it includes byes for some teams. No matter what your definition of "fun" is, a four-round playoffs does not fulfill that definition. A four-game playoffs unavoidably forces players to rest in the middle of the playoffs and gives advantages to teams who are structured a certain way. Ultimately, it discourages creativity and unique team builds. Maybe I'll elaborate further on that at some point, but trust me, it's a bad idea for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 16, 2013 17:48:09 GMT -8
Just for piece of mind, Fleck, I didn't use the new data you PM'ed me. I only used Loveless because I knew you were remaking them and they'd won the previous tournament. I also used Thieves 'n Mercs, which is a team I keep going back and forth between whether or not I even want to keep them or if I want to severely remodel them. But I simmed two games against them because I was testing how big the difference would be between certain arrangements (somewhat testing Stamina's effects). I don't remember the scores exactly, but I know that with my regular arrangement, TM lost 1-12 or something crazy, while with a small tweak the game was lost only 0-1...I think.
The point I was testing and am now making is that human error is still an input here. Even though we don't physically control any of the players, we do define how they play. The great thing about my system is that (somewhat accidentally) teams are playing completely differently based on what type of player is in what position. So I don't entirely think this is an issue of hoping for statistical anomaly since there is still some strategy involved. I, for one, plan to watch for the top players in the league and try my best to shut them down. Shifting defense this way or that way based on...stuff.
I guess we'll just see though. I think you're making the assumption that all teams are essentially equal and it comes down to a coin-flip (even if it's an unfair 60/40 coin) and I'm more of the opinion that there are good and bad teams. I expect to see some teams in the league with records like 9-0 and 8-1 and others with 1-8 or 2-7. So we'll see if it's as close as you think or as spaced out as I think. It's ON!
But yes, a bye round is a far bigger benefit, but I think the more teams we take into playoffs, the more fun it'll be for everybody. So I said it seemed silly not to use a base two system because that optimizes how many people enter a tournament. And, again, I think the fundamental difference between our logic is that you believe games will be closer than I do. I HOPE you're right because I'd like all teams to be generally equal, but I don't think they will be. Besides, if your team wins the playoffs, it should be by the being the best, not the luckiest. Sure, luck is involved, but sitting on the sidelines and winning? Bah. Bah I say! Like a sheep!
If we really wanted to get crazy with this, we could always setup conferences, too. We all have two teams, so we could make a division one and division two kinda thing, then have playoffs for each division and the division champions face each other in the finals. Then, we could each put one of our teams in one division, then our other in the other division, that way our own two teams don't play each other (unless they're both the champions). That way we can keep a 3-round system and include more players. Granted, right now that'd be two five-team playoffs, which is kind of weird, so we'd have to start at least including Aurochs and Goers. It's an idea for the future, at least. Maybe if more people play or we get anxious and decide to each take on more teams. *shrug* Just thought about making a "shit playoffs" league for any teams that don't make the cut, just so all teams can see how they do, even if they're playing for the trophy covered in rust and shit. Mmm, rusty shit trophy.
Final pointless comment: I think I'd be more inclined to try a more selective playoff series if we make sure the playoffs don't last long. If we have, for instance, Round 1 on Sunday, Round 2 on Wednesday, and Round 3 on Saturday, then that ain't half bad. But if we do a round a week or even as slow as one game per week, then that's where I really have issues with not all teams taking part in it. So I'd personally like playoffs to move at a relatively quick pace, even though we need to allow some time for team adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on May 16, 2013 18:17:52 GMT -8
As far as the "slight tweaks can have major impacts" then that all sounds like good news to me. It proves (or at least suggests) that the stamina system is a worthwhile strategic element of the game and not just a novelty. I was hoping that it would be, but I confess that I had my doubts.
I'm basing my predictions for the points spread based on the last season of Blitz, where we had Loveless, SM7 and Tonberrians tied for first with 15 each and the Dark Knights behind with only one point fewer. That's a pretty crowded top four, and I don't think it's going to be much different this time around. Guess we'll see.
Anyway, I'm alright with an 8 team playoffs for this season. We can make changes next season if we want. And yes, I would advocate a quick progression for the playoff games, rather than one game or one round a week. I would hope that everyone will have a fair idea of what they're planning on doing at the start of the playoffs, so they don't have to make a ton of changes in the middle. Again, we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on May 18, 2013 22:11:59 GMT -8
Mmkay, nobody has submitted any new team data, so I assume you're all using your old data! I'll begin simming matches in a day or two, so get me new team/player data asap if you plan to use a different setup. Otherwise, I'll use the Demo Tournament data. I think everybody met the "no two identicals" criteria, so we're good to go. You'll find the League line-up at challonge.com/blitzleague01If you'd like to use a specific line-up, PM me or post here now. Otherwise, I'll assume you're starting with your default line-up! Check out who you're matched up with. I'll sim the matches on...let's say Tuesday to be posted Wednesday. Or maybe Wednesday to be posted Wednesday. But we'll have Round 1 (all games) on Wednesday, then Round 2 on Sunday. We'll do a bi-weekly update, at least for now. Is good? EDIT: Just noticed our first games and how Count and I are playing with ourselves. Me vs me, Count vs Count. *sigh* Well, it had to happen sometime. . . .
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on May 18, 2013 23:04:40 GMT -8
Looks good. I wish the site went left-right instead of up-down, so that the formatting wasn't so weird.
And don't worry, I'll be keeping track of stamina for everyone. For this first round, I'll just assume that everyone's using their starters. I'll try to post stamina updates as close to Bob's game updates as possible, but because of our different sleep/work schedules, there might be time between. Hopefully it won't matter much.
|
|
|
Post by wyvernxk7 on May 19, 2013 8:47:19 GMT -8
For TME, I would like my lineup to be:
LF - Kuja C - Hojo RF - Deling LD - Mikoto RD - No. 288 G - Julius
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on May 19, 2013 15:32:44 GMT -8
Yeah, my lineups aren't changing as of yet! Full speed ahead with the teams!
|
|