I thought it would be cool to do a different version of TL's FPL, not something better per se, but different. And fun, I hope.
This is what I imagine.
Step 1: Costs for players are imported from FPL, and to the list is added players from outside SPL. I started this process here.
Step 2: The eight (or whatever number is suitable) team captains are selected.
Step 3: The captains draft their teams, one player at a time, until they all have x (I think 7-9 is a good amount) players on their teams. The collective costs of their players can't exceed y (something like 30-40 I'd suggest).
Step 4: The captains send in their lineups for the first week's games.
Step 5: The games are decided using the following process: Aligulac percentages are recorded, a random number is generated between 0 and 100, victory is assigned.
(I want to make this process better by adjusting the calculation based on score vs each other and form vs opposing race, as provided by aligulac, but for now, I think this is good.)
Step 6: Repeat the process.
I would keep the Aligulac Fantasy Proleague (AFPL) updated in a way like this, if there is interest out there in doing this. Otherwise I'll just do it on my own, because I'm a thorough sc2 nerd.
Is there anyone that would want to be a team captain in the AFPL, then?
Edit:
Captains for now Darkdwarf Pangpootata Grovbolle mouzChase
This is an extremely exiciting idea, however I foresee a problem. In SPL, picking strategy is about who has the higest player ability to cost ratio. But in your proposed AFPL, the picking strategy is about which player has the highest aligulac ranking to cost ratio. In SPL, true player ability is a hidden variable so your choices are based on your inaccurate assessments of player skills, but in AFPL aligulac ranking is not a hidden variable. Hence there is actually a mathematically optimal way to pick players, which makes it less fun. I suggest you just use aligulac ranking for the player costs to make the player picking fair.
Also, you can come up with a formula using TLPD records to give slight advantages for maps that have a large enough sample size of games played (let's say, 50 games). An example of a formula would be to add (WR-50)/2 to a player's chances. So, if lets say A (terran) 55% - 45% B (toss) and the map is PvT favoured 56%, we will change B's chance to 48% and A's chance to 52%. Then we can try to pick a map pool that has a good mix of maps that are balanced, and maps favouring certain races. Of course, the formula is just an example and you can probably find a better one.
This way, there will be 2 points of strategy for lineups: 1) Choosing favourable maps for players 2) Trying to get their best matchups
And 3 points of strategy for player picking: 1) Deciding whether you want top-heavy or balanced teams 2) Deciding whether you want balanced players or matchup snipers 3) Picking players that are actually good in real life so that their aligulac ranking increases as the game progresses
Then we can also have mid-week trades between mutually consenting players.
On January 14 2014 11:34 Pangpootata wrote: This is an extremely exiciting idea, however I foresee a problem. In SPL, picking strategy is about who has the higest player ability to cost ratio. But in your proposed AFPL, the picking strategy is about which player has the highest aligulac ranking to cost ratio. In SPL, true player ability is a hidden variable so your choices are based on your inaccurate assessments of player skills, but in AFPL aligulac ranking is not a hidden variable. Hence there is actually a mathematically optimal way to pick players, which makes it less fun. I suggest you just use aligulac ranking for the player costs to make the player picking fair.
How would you propose to decide matches, if not by aligulac inference (remember the preserved chance for upsets)?
Also, you can come up with a formula using TLPD records to give slight advantages for maps that have a large enough sample size of games played (let's say, 50 games). An example of a formula would be to add (WR-50)/2 to a player's chances. So, if lets say A (terran) 55% - 45% B (toss) and the map is PvT favoured 56%, we will change B's chance to 48% and A's chance to 52%. Then we can try to pick a map pool that has a good mix of maps that are balanced, and maps favouring certain races. Of course, the formula is just an example and you can probably find a better one.
I agree that introducing maps and their slight imbalances would be really good for lineup selection.
This way, there will be 2 points of strategy for lineups: 1) Choosing favourable maps for players 2) Trying to get their best matchups
And 3 points of strategy for player picking: 1) Deciding whether you want top-heavy or balanced teams 2) Deciding whether you want balanced players or matchup snipers 3) Picking players that are actually good in real life so that their aligulac ranking increases as the game progresses
I agree.
Then we can also have mid-week trades between mutually consenting players.
On January 14 2014 11:34 Pangpootata wrote: This is an extremely exiciting idea, however I foresee a problem. In SPL, picking strategy is about who has the higest player ability to cost ratio. But in your proposed AFPL, the picking strategy is about which player has the highest aligulac ranking to cost ratio. In SPL, true player ability is a hidden variable so your choices are based on your inaccurate assessments of player skills, but in AFPL aligulac ranking is not a hidden variable. Hence there is actually a mathematically optimal way to pick players, which makes it less fun. I suggest you just use aligulac ranking for the player costs to make the player picking fair.
How would you propose to decide matches, if not by aligulac inference (remember the preserved chance for upsets)?
I think we should use the aligulac inference to calculate win ratios, before we factor in imbalance. What I mean is we should use aligulac ranking for player costs, not SPL player costs, so that players are properly valued.
Also, Zest shall be mine; I can let you take Stats.
I used Aligulac a fair bit to help me make my FPL team. My first impression of this AFPL is that it's overall less complex than FPL (which is fine) but that also it seems like it would be less engaging. Instead of considering players' playstyles and watching the game unfold, you'd be judging players purely by their numbers and watching a number be generated, if I understand correctly. I just think there should be something more unique involved, something to spark one's attention
On January 14 2014 13:19 slowbacontron wrote: I used Aligulac a fair bit to help me make my FPL team. My first impression of this AFPL is that it's overall less complex than FPL (which is fine) but that also it seems like it would be less engaging. Instead of considering players' playstyles and watching the game unfold, you'd be judging players purely by their numbers and watching a number be generated, if I understand correctly. I just think there should be something more unique involved, something to spark one's attention
Drafting team will be fun, as each player can only go to one team so you will be fighting over your favourite players. Also, doing lineups based on the maps and player matchup proficiencies will result in a lot of mindgaming between opponents.
On January 14 2014 13:19 slowbacontron wrote: I used Aligulac a fair bit to help me make my FPL team. My first impression of this AFPL is that it's overall less complex than FPL (which is fine) but that also it seems like it would be less engaging. Instead of considering players' playstyles and watching the game unfold, you'd be judging players purely by their numbers and watching a number be generated, if I understand correctly. I just think there should be something more unique involved, something to spark one's attention
I agree that FPL is more interesting in that way, because you can actually watch the games in a meaningful way. The AFPL as I imagined it is more for those of us who actually get stuck in football manager games and the like.
If you have any good idea on how to improve the system, though, don't hesitate to tell me.
On January 14 2014 17:33 Grovbolle wrote: Looks cool I will play as well if you want to accept me, I can probably help with pulling some data or making lists for you.
Thanks, Grovbolle. Of course you can get in! Concerning the previous discussion of assigning points considering aligulac rank, could you perhaps find a smart process for this?
On January 14 2014 18:49 mouzChase wrote: I would like to join if there is a place left sounds awesome !
On January 14 2014 13:19 slowbacontron wrote: I used Aligulac a fair bit to help me make my FPL team. My first impression of this AFPL is that it's overall less complex than FPL (which is fine) but that also it seems like it would be less engaging. Instead of considering players' playstyles and watching the game unfold, you'd be judging players purely by their numbers and watching a number be generated, if I understand correctly. I just think there should be something more unique involved, something to spark one's attention
I agree that FPL is more interesting in that way, because you can actually watch the games in a meaningful way. The AFPL as I imagined it is more for those of us who actually get stuck in football manager games and the like.
If you have any good idea on how to improve the system, though, don't hesitate to tell me.
On January 14 2014 17:33 Grovbolle wrote: Looks cool I will play as well if you want to accept me, I can probably help with pulling some data or making lists for you.
Thanks, Grovbolle. Of course you can get in! Concerning the previous discussion of assigning points considering aligulac rank, could you perhaps find a smart process for this?
There are currently 92 players eligible to play in PL according to our DB, that is including HerO and excluding all players turned coaches like Cezanne, Ensnare, CoachPark, OriOn etc.
On January 15 2014 01:01 Grovbolle wrote: There are currently 92 players eligible to play in PL according to our DB, that is including HerO and excluding all players turned coaches like Cezanne, Ensnare, CoachPark, OriOn etc.
I assume you by this mean players on teams already in PL? What about players from outside of PL? I see no reason to exclude them, when we're not relying on the actual PL anyway.
On January 15 2014 01:01 Grovbolle wrote: There are currently 92 players eligible to play in PL according to our DB, that is including HerO and excluding all players turned coaches like Cezanne, Ensnare, CoachPark, OriOn etc.
I assume you by this mean players on teams already in PL? What about players from outside of PL? I see no reason to exclude them, when we're not relying on the actual PL anyway.
I do. I just feel like it would be the most interesting to limit the pool to PL players. Up to you ofc, but I liked the filtering
On January 15 2014 01:01 Grovbolle wrote: There are currently 92 players eligible to play in PL according to our DB, that is including HerO and excluding all players turned coaches like Cezanne, Ensnare, CoachPark, OriOn etc.
I assume you by this mean players on teams already in PL? What about players from outside of PL? I see no reason to exclude them, when we're not relying on the actual PL anyway.
I do. I just feel like it would be the most interesting to limit the pool to PL players. Up to you ofc, but I liked the filtering
I feel that it could be partly a way of differentiating from FPL and partly I think it would be fun for people to use their favorites, regardless of where they play.
Perhaps a good way of narrowing down the pool is PL-players + players qualified for Code A/Challenger (and code S/Premier?
On January 15 2014 01:01 Grovbolle wrote: There are currently 92 players eligible to play in PL according to our DB, that is including HerO and excluding all players turned coaches like Cezanne, Ensnare, CoachPark, OriOn etc.
I assume you by this mean players on teams already in PL? What about players from outside of PL? I see no reason to exclude them, when we're not relying on the actual PL anyway.
I do. I just feel like it would be the most interesting to limit the pool to PL players. Up to you ofc, but I liked the filtering
I feel that it could be partly a way of differentiating from FPL and partly I think it would be fun for people to use their favorites, regardless of where they play.
Perhaps a good way of narrowing down the pool is PL-players + players qualified for Code A/Challenger (and code S/Premier?
I would prefer to narrow it using teams (Like include Axiom/AZUBU/Startale/Acer) or something like that since it makes the filtering easier for me.
On January 15 2014 01:01 Grovbolle wrote: There are currently 92 players eligible to play in PL according to our DB, that is including HerO and excluding all players turned coaches like Cezanne, Ensnare, CoachPark, OriOn etc.
I assume you by this mean players on teams already in PL? What about players from outside of PL? I see no reason to exclude them, when we're not relying on the actual PL anyway.
I do. I just feel like it would be the most interesting to limit the pool to PL players. Up to you ofc, but I liked the filtering
I feel that it could be partly a way of differentiating from FPL and partly I think it would be fun for people to use their favorites, regardless of where they play.
Perhaps a good way of narrowing down the pool is PL-players + players qualified for Code A/Challenger (and code S/Premier?
I would prefer to narrow it using teams (Like include Axiom/AZUBU/Startale/Acer) or something like that since it makes the filtering easier for me.
I have multiple ideas as to how this tournament could be run. Including how to do map-specific stuff, scheduling, game resolvement etc. I however do wish we could keep it to somewhat Proleague like conditions with regards to teams/players.
EPT
