|
Braavos36379 Posts
Ver's idea is good, we'll discuss that.
Not sure about the changing of trading, because frankly, it is about picking who wins. Those who pick KT are either smart or lucky, and tbh it should be rewarded. You could've traded Woongjin for WeMade or MBC in Week 1... but didn't. Many people could've traded for Luxury... but didn't. Yes, its critical to get off to a good start, but that's what fantasy is about. Picking good players.
If you look at the total owned, only 280 teams have Flash, 180 have Luxury. Look at the top chosen players:
890 Iris
794 Jaedong
773 JangBi
533 YellOw[ArnC]
486 sKyHigh
466 Bisu
463 Movie
These players are all performing below their current prices, and their owners should really feel the hurt for it. Trading from behind is hard -- that's just a fact. But is it really something we want to change? Coming back from a bad two weeks should be extremely hard. Picking the correct players is what fantasy is about, and if you don't pick the right players -- well that's the problem. Allowing easier player movement from bad to good players completely devalues making the right choices, especially when theres no cap on how many owners can "own" the good players.
|
On October 23 2009 13:08 Hot_Bid wrote:
Ver's idea is good, we'll discuss that.
Not sure about the changing of trading, because frankly, it is about picking who wins. Those who pick KT are either smart or lucky, and tbh it should be rewarded. You could've traded Woongjin for WeMade or MBC in Week 1... but didn't. Many people could've traded for Luxury... but didn't. Yes, its critical to get off to a good start, but that's what fantasy is about. Picking good players.
If you look at the total owned, only 280 teams have Flash, 180 have Luxury. Look at the top chosen players:
890 Iris
794 Jaedong
773 JangBi
533 YellOw[ArnC]
486 sKyHigh
466 Bisu
463 Movie
These players are all performing below their current prices, and their owners should really feel the hurt for it. Trading from behind is hard -- that's just a fact. But is it really something we want to change? Picking the correct players is what fantasy is about.
my team has Iris,Jaedong,JangBi,YellOw[ArnC],sKyHigh and Movie.
so.....
|
Braavos36379 Posts
hehe that means that aside from being really bad at picking players, you had 0 chance to win because everyone had those players
having popular picks has a downside too, and that is guaranteed mediocrity if everyone has the players you do. of course, sometimes having a player is absolutely necessary for being in the top 10 (like Lux this round).
|
My thought wasn't that trading should change at all, but that changing the team scoring would solve both problems - sorry if I wasn't clear enough about that. I was just surprised at how drastically two similarly priced teams could move (as far as trading is concerned) after just the first two weeks.
|
My team started with 4 of those "underperformers" -_- (Jaedong, Yarnc, Movie, Iris)
There's almost no way I can get anyone that actually plays for Movie/Iris, I traded Yarnc away for Midas (AFTER Midas's epic win over Leta, sigh). Jaedong... he'll pick it up.
|
It just seems like when you own players who haven't performed that well in the first two weeks, you are basically locked in for the rest of the round unless you somehow trade for an unknown player who breaks out. For example, right now I have Effort and Jaedong, which I don't want to trade since there's nobody really significantly better points-wise beneath them. On the opposite side, I have Iris, Jangbi, and Movie, who have done crap and the only players I can get for them are players who don't even play.
This may also be because I chose either high value players or low value players. Maybe next round, I'll choose all middle tier players to open up some more options as far as trading is concerned.
|
Braavos36379 Posts
On October 23 2009 15:22 gunsharp wrote:
It just seems like when you own players who haven't performed that well in the first two weeks, you are basically locked in for the rest of the round unless you somehow trade for an unknown player who breaks out. For example, right now I have Effort and Jaedong, which I don't want to trade since there's nobody really significantly better points-wise beneath them. On the opposite side, I have Iris, Jangbi, and Movie, who have done crap and the only players I can get for them are players who don't even play.
This may also be because I chose either high value players or low value players. Maybe next round, I'll choose all middle tier players to open up some more options as far as trading is concerned.
Well, there's a reason people picked Iris Jangbi and Movie. Everyone thought they'd do really well, and they didn't. I don't see why trading should bail you out of picking bad players when its on the owner to pick players that win. That's the risk inherent with picking low cost players.
|
Braavos36379 Posts
People need to remember that the first two weeks, for most teams, is 4/11 games, or 36% of the entire fantasy season. When someone complains "I have no trading options when my players do bad for the first two weeks!!!" That's like saying "yeah my players did poorly for the first 1/3 of fantasy proleague, and it's hard to come back." It's like, well, duh.
|
United States7488 Posts
On October 23 2009 15:22 gunsharp wrote:
On the opposite side, I have Iris, Jangbi, and Movie, who have done crap and the only players I can get for them are players who don't even play.
This may also be because I chose either high value players or low value players. Maybe next round, I'll choose all middle tier players to open up some more options as far as trading is concerned.
Choosing players that cost only one or two points is a big risk, because you aren't going to have trade options for them as they are costed in such a way because they didn't score points last round. If Iris or Movie score 5 points all season from just team wins, then they were at least worth the 1 point you spent to put them on your team.
Even a lot of the top teams have a player like Movie on their team.
|
I like the idea given by ver, with giving more points for team if you "dare" to get expensive AT. It can be added a condition like AT cost must be higher then 40% ? of ur team cost, maybe you can even remove the 30 and 13 limits. Lets say in in AT you have only 3 players - each worth 1 point you can have ur team value around 7 or 8 points.
I like the idea with adding a rule to allow lets say max 2 players from same team (i know this might cause trouble for fanboyism teams but it will make up in the way that contenstant will follow-up more team matches from a week). Also its a simple rule that everybody will understand.
Other suggestions are also good but somehow hard to be implemented because of the level of knowledge or activity (like trading above each week) required from a contestant.
I dont think they idea to reward picking losers in AT will have succes - sinc is vey risky. Most will still go for no LA players.
I think the team point system should be changed - less points - or maybe even abandon team picking...since in all rounds it goes to eighter you have that team or dont.
I suggest to add a Bank system - so lets say if you trade a player for someone below his trade value - you have in bank the differnce which you can spend to make another trade but this time for a higher value.
As a conclusion, I suggest to keep fantasy as simply as possible, meaning no necessary team changes each week and also easy rules to understand
|
Braavos36379 Posts
On October 23 2009 17:32 bugus wrote:
I like the idea given by ver, with giving more points for team if you "dare" to get expensive AT. It can be added a condition like AT cost must be higher then 40% ? of ur team cost, maybe you can even remove the 30 and 13 limits. Lets say in in AT you have only 3 players - each worth 1 point you can have ur team value around 7 or 8 points.
I like the idea with adding a rule to allow lets say max 2 players from same team (i know this might cause trouble for fanboyism teams but it will make up in the way that contenstant will follow-up more team matches from a week). Also its a simple rule that everybody will understand.
Other suggestions are also good but somehow hard to be implemented because of the level of knowledge or activity (like trading above each week) required from a contestant.
I dont think they idea to reward picking losers in AT will have succes - sinc is vey risky. Most will still go for no LA players.
I think the team point system should be changed - less points - or maybe even abandon team picking...since in all rounds it goes to eighter you have that team or dont.
I suggest to add a Bank system - so lets say if you trade a player for someone below his trade value - you have in bank the differnce which you can spend to make another trade but this time for a higher value.
As a conclusion, I suggest to keep fantasy as simply as possible, meaning no necessary team changes each week and also easy rules to understand
Ver's system, your idea of changing AT/MT ratios, the 2player max rule, and bank system all force fantasy and trading to be much more complex.
|
On October 23 2009 15:22 gunsharp wrote:
This may also be because I chose either high value players or low value players. Maybe next round, I'll choose all middle tier players to open up some more options as far as trading is concerned.
My thoughts exactly. Also if you get a 0 pointer i would make him captain instead of a 10 pointer. Because you know you won't be trading that guy unless some miracle happens, and instead you might want to trade the 10 pointer if he is not in the lineup for a week.
|
On October 23 2009 21:07 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2009 15:22 gunsharp wrote:
This may also be because I chose either high value players or low value players. Maybe next round, I'll choose all middle tier players to open up some more options as far as trading is concerned. My thoughts exactly. Also if you get a 0 pointer i would make him captain instead of a 10 pointer. Because you know you won't be trading that guy unless some miracle happens, and instead you might want to trade the 10 pointer if he is not in the lineup for a week.
Good point. I was wondering why some people chose scrubs as their captains.
|
pripple
Finland1714 Posts
nice ideas flying around here, i agree that the teamscoring might affect a bit too much, other than that i like it the way it is, don't see the need to many of these changes.
good luck to y'all, this week is gonna decide a lot (atleast for me)
|
Team scoring is way too high, I agree with all of that. I even picked KT and think that, realistically the team should award about the same amount of points as a player would for the same trade price, and that never seems to happen as they can give 7 or 6 points a game which can other happen for a player who goes ACE and wins twice in a set - which still only gives one higher point than that team winning 3-1 instead.
The anti-team feels very difficult with the first round of the season, as we hadn't really seen any of the principal players in quite a while, there was no real way to tell that the Stars would be slumping this hard, or that Wemade fox/estro would do this well. I don't dislike the system at all for r2-5, it's just that in r1 it's insanely hard.
|
gah.. knew i shouldve traded hyvaa for skyhigh. i gambled too much on hyvaa appearing in ace.
|
That could have gone better. -1 thanks to Justin not losing. Should have traded him, I guess.
|
2 players who i just traded, lost.Plus, Justin on my AT won.Damn, what a great start of new week.
|
On October 23 2009 17:32 bugus wrote:
I suggest to add a Bank system - so lets say if you trade a player for someone below his trade value - you have in bank the differnce which you can spend to make another trade but this time for a higher value.
Hot_Bid could you please give us your thought on this?
I feel that a bank system would significantly increase the opportunities for trading, thus raising the skill level. Right now it is very luck based whether you are able to trade or not. Even if you rightfully predict that a player will do well, you cannot trade for him unless you have a player with almost the exact same value. A bit too low and you can't trade, a bit too high and it's not worth the loss in trading value.
Ofcourse you should be punished if your players do badly, but it feels luck based whether you have just the right amount to be able to trade.
And why give such emphasis on ace games and ace appearences. That is SO luck based it's ridiculous. It's already important to have your player win the ace match (which is a free shot for extra point) as you need the win for the team win points. Why give 2 points for ace match appearance too? It should give 0 for appearance. The chance for extra points for a win is enough!
|
pripple
Finland1714 Posts
On October 24 2009 15:58 Musoeun wrote:
That could have gone better. -1 thanks to Justin not losing. Should have traded him, I guess.
Im on the same boat with you, really thought PianO had it, guess he just never wins :|
on the bright side Kwanro just won his 1st game in PL this season!
i also have Lomo & Anytime on my antiteam who have 1 game each this week, let's see if it goes Lomo>Fantasy & Anytime>great!
oh and Hot_Bid we need your daily blog!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
