Play Fantasy Proleague! It's fun, easy, and makes watching Proleague much more exciting. You don't need to spend any time on managing your team during the season if you don't want to. If you don't fully understand the rules, don't worry. The basic thing to remember is, pick players for your "Main Team" that you think will do well, and pick players for your "Anti Team" who you think will do poorly.
New Scoring
Player Scoring: Regular Game Win: 4 Points Regular Game Loss: -2 Points Ace Match Appearance: 2 Points Ace Match Win: 4 Points Ace Match Loss: 0 Points 3-Game Win Streak: 2 Points 6-Game Win Streak: 3 Points 9-Game Win Streak: 4 Points Your Player's Team Wins: 1 Point Your Player Doesn't Play: 1 Point (for 3-0 or 0-3 score)
Removed lineup appearance point and streak break point
Win and loss values are doubled
Ace Selection still worth 2 points
Streaks still worth 2/3/4 points for 3/6/9 games
Your player's team winning still worth 1 point
Team scoring modified
Analysis The big difference are that there no longer is a lineup appearance point. This means that for your Main Team, picking players that win (rather than that just play often) matters a lot more. It also means that Anti-Team is no longer a hunt for players who do not play (though this is certainly a possible strategy). Thus, your Anti Team could actually be positive if you pick many losers.
Player Scoring: Non-Ace Lineup Appearance: 1 Point Game Win (Ace included): 2 Points Game Loss (Ace included): -1 Points Ace Match Appearance: 2 Points 3-Game Win Streak: 1 Point 6-Game Win Streak: 2 Points 9-Game Win Streak: 3 Points Break Another's Streak: 1 Point Your Player's Team Wins: 1 Point
You choose 6 players and 1 Pro Team that score points when they play well.
You pick 3 players that lose you points when they play well.
Players and teams can be traded between weeks for those valued less than them.
Team Selection
Main Team
Pick 6 players for your Main Team, including a captain who will be a tiebreaker
Pick 1 Proleague team (i.e. STX, CJ, SKT)
You cannot trade your captain (more on trading later)
Your 6 players and 1 Proleague team cannot exceed 30 points in cost
Your Main Team must contain at least one of each race at all times
Anti Team
Pick 3 players for your Anti Team
These players will score points just like Main Team players, but their score counts against you
Your Anti Team must have a value of at least 13 points (minimum)
Basic Team Selection Strategy
Pick players for your Main Team who you believe will exceed their point value from last round (underrated or rising players)
Pick players for your Anti Team who you believe will do worse than they did last round (overrated or slumping players)
Designate as Captain a player who you believe will be a lock to be good throughout the season, because you can't trade him
Trading
Trading Rules
Each week you can trade players (swap a player for someone you don't have)
Every player has a trade value, and you can only trade for players of lower value
You will be limited to a maximum 2 Main Team and 1 Anti Team trades per week
Trades do not carry over if unused
Each time you trade, your team will be assessed a -1 point trade tax
Basic Trading Strategy
Check lineups each week! Players in the lineup, especially twice, are usually worth trading for
Don't make trades just for sake of making trades, as they cost you trade tax points and you may get stuck with a player you don't want
The trade price formula takes into account number of matches remaining -- so players with more matches remaining will have higher prices
You must trade for players with less value, but try to minimize the value loss. For example, if you trade someone worth 30 for someone worth 20, next week you can only trade the 20 for someone less. It's much better to trade the 30 for someone worth 29.
Groups
You will be able to create and join groups so you can compare your results with a smaller subset of the players, for example there might be a Staff Group, a First Time FPL Group, a USA Players Group, or a group created by you with just your friends.
On December 01 2009 05:15 Jyvblamo wrote: How exactly are the player costs going to be calculated? Is it just going to be their trade value rounded to the nearest integer?
Yes, it will be based off Round 1 performance but adjusted using the new scoring system (so its more accurate).
Feel free to calculate player costs right now if you wish -- we'll have a full list out sometime after the Round 1 matches finish tonight.
oh wow that's huge changes, player losing now ain't covered with the lineup appearance :o i really think the changes are good, especially lowering the team scoring a bit.
though choosing a good team is still important as going 2-3 now gives nothing and goind 0-3 still hurts!
i feel like the changes make this even more difficult, definitely requires more skill now!
when does the R2 actually start? like in december or in January 2010?
On December 01 2009 05:20 pripple wrote: oh wow that's huge changes, player losing now ain't covered with the lineup appearance :o i really think the changes are good, especially lowering the team scoring a bit.
though choosing a good team is still important as going 2-3 now gives nothing and goind 0-3 still hurts!
i feel like the changes make this even more difficult, definitely requires more skill now!
when does the R2 actually start? like in december or in January 2010?
Round 2 starts in four days, so signups will be open for 3 days
On December 01 2009 05:24 Hot_Bid wrote: Round 2 starts in four days, so signups will be open for 3 days
FAST TURNAROUND
not much of a break then ;p
but ye the changes are welcome, for example i had GoRush for the last 3 weeks or so just for the heck of it, he could surprise and all, next round he would've gained me like -10? scary thoughts, man it's gonna be hard!
I'm a bit confused, maybe just because it isn't written out or I'm not seeing it--how can the anti-team end up positive? Will you now gain points when they lose?
On December 01 2009 05:37 theqat wrote: I'm a bit confused, maybe just because it isn't written out or I'm not seeing it--how can the anti-team end up positive? Will you now gain points when they lose?
Before, loss was worth -1 and lineup appearance worth 1, so if you picked a player who went 0-10, the best you would get is 0.
But since lineup point is removed, your 0-10 player is now going to score in the negatives, which means if he's on your Anti Team, he'll score in the positives.
Another way to look at it is that Main Team players can now score in the negatives
I really like these changes. Still hoping we can have a bank style trading system somewhere down the road, but I haven't even had the time to play let alone flesh out how I imagine it working.
On December 01 2009 05:37 theqat wrote: I'm a bit confused, maybe just because it isn't written out or I'm not seeing it--how can the anti-team end up positive? Will you now gain points when they lose?
Before, loss was worth -1 and lineup appearance worth 1, so if you picked a player who went 0-10, the best you would get is 0.
But since lineup point is removed, your 0-10 player is now going to score in the negatives, which means if he's on your Anti Team, he'll score in the positives.
Another way to look at it is that Main Team players can now score in the negatives
Oh, interesting. Well, this was my best FPL round yet (140 points wooo) and I intend to do better in this coming round. Bring on the sign-ups
On December 01 2009 05:37 theqat wrote: I'm a bit confused, maybe just because it isn't written out or I'm not seeing it--how can the anti-team end up positive? Will you now gain points when they lose?
Before the change a player could never go below 0 because the worst that could happen was lineup (+1) and loss (-1) = 0. So now that players can get negativ results, they could give you more points if they are in the anti team since minus minus is plus.
I feel bad that I didn't play this round. My favorite players did well this round so that they are high priced now. So for example having flash is probably not beneficial. And I hate having to pick players that I don't like that much.
I just thought about this some more... players' trade values will fluctuate a lot more than before since point ranges are more dynamic. How is the trade value formula going to change, if at all?
It would be interesting if, instead of a maximum cost for the main team and a minimum cost for the anti team, you had a single balance (with the cost for the anti team being subtracted). Then you could gamble by picking more highly priced players for the anti team in order to allow more expensive players also on your main team... with the obvious risk that your anti team might lose a lot of points for you.
On December 01 2009 05:53 okum wrote: It would be interesting if, instead of a maximum cost for the main team and a minimum cost for the anti team, you had a single balance (with the cost for the anti team being subtracted). Then you could gamble by picking more highly priced players for the anti team in order to allow more expensive players also on your main team... with the obvious risk that your anti team might lose a lot of points for you.
We considered this and might add it for a future round, I think there are enough changes in scoring currently between R1 and R2.
On December 01 2009 05:53 okum wrote: It would be interesting if, instead of a maximum cost for the main team and a minimum cost for the anti team, you had a single balance (with the cost for the anti team being subtracted). Then you could gamble by picking more highly priced players for the anti team in order to allow more expensive players also on your main team... with the obvious risk that your anti team might lose a lot of points for you.
We considered this and might add it for a future round, I think there are enough changes in scoring currently between R1 and R2.
Cool, good to know. It would be fun just for the variation. I like the present changes, btw.
Just curious, I know the original trade tax was implemented because people would trade purely for lineup appearance and the tax was meant to negate that, so why is it still there? Extra... incentive to trade well and not make random decision o.o?
Anyway sounds good, picking the sKyHigh of R2 for anti will be major points
something just came to my mind, let's say JD & Bisu both cost 10 points at start, both play 2 games in the opening week, JD going 2-0 and Bisu going 0-2, with the new scoring system the points difference is gonna be enormous= 8 | -4 (not counting teampoints here)..
so now if you pick a player who has a bad start you're gonna be even more stuck with him, making comebacks even harder? as that -4 for Bisu is gonna lower his tradevalue shitloads?
The only thing that isn't great imo is when player A loses his match and player B wins his then player A tops player B in the ace, player A only scores 1 more point A = 5 and B = 4. The 1 point difference is the team victory.
To me the ace match victory should be worth 5 points since it is arguably tougher to win the ace match since it often between the two top players for their respective teams. Also, the ace match is more important than the other ones. Edit: also what pripple is saying has me worried as well since a lot of the fun is trading and improving
On December 01 2009 06:59 pripple wrote: something just came to my mind, let's say JD & Bisu both cost 10 points at start, both play 2 games in the opening week, JD going 2-0 and Bisu going 0-2, with the new scoring system the points difference is gonna be enormous= 8 | -4 (not counting teampoints here)..
so now if you pick a player who has a bad start you're gonna be even more stuck with him, making comebacks even harder? as that -4 for Bisu is gonna lower his tradevalue shitloads?
We realized that this would happen, so what we're going to do is weight it slightly in favor of the previous week's value, so the Trade Values should deviate slightly less than last round.
1. New Scoring (Round 2) 10 pointer going 2-0: New TV = 9.96 10 pointer going 0-2: New TV = 8.32
2. Old Scoring (Round 1) 10 pointer going 2-0: New TV = 9.94 10 pointer going 0-2: New TV = 8.18
3. New Scoring (Round 2) Without Weighting Adjustment 10 pointer going 2-0: New TV = 9.94 10 pointer going 0-2: New TV = 7.48
On December 01 2009 05:37 theqat wrote: I'm a bit confused, maybe just because it isn't written out or I'm not seeing it--how can the anti-team end up positive? Will you now gain points when they lose?
Before, loss was worth -1 and lineup appearance worth 1, so if you picked a player who went 0-10, the best you would get is 0.
But since lineup point is removed, your 0-10 player is now going to score in the negatives, which means if he's on your Anti Team, he'll score in the positives.
Another way to look at it is that Main Team players can now score in the negatives
With this scoring last round, Jangbi's performance at the start (and throughtout most of it) of the round would pwn so many teams
Oooh now losses hurt more... might as well carry dead weights on good teams (Thezerg from SKT1, maybe lol) rather than players that come up often but lose (JangBi, FBH, Killer, yeah...). This also means a lot of people won't be picking members from the ACE team other than RuBy.
I'm in a dilemma whether to keep Stork or not... fanboyism vs reality?
also, will team prices be adjusted retroactively according to new scoring system as well? or just players? I'd assume both teams and players would be adjusted for next round but if you could confirm I'd appreciate it.
imo team wins shouldn't count toward the anti team. It makes it really difficult to pick players since picking a bad player on a good team will end up losing you a lot of points.
On December 01 2009 09:45 integral wrote: also, will team prices be adjusted retroactively according to new scoring system as well? or just players? I'd assume both teams and players would be adjusted for next round but if you could confirm I'd appreciate it.
Both teams and players will be using costs based on the new scoring.
On December 01 2009 10:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote: imo team wins shouldn't count toward the anti team. It makes it really difficult to pick players since picking a bad player on a good team will end up losing you a lot of points.
Player scoring getting doubled and team wins remaining at 1 point is going to offset this; also removing lineup points puts the emphasis on picking players that lose.
On December 01 2009 10:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote: imo team wins shouldn't count toward the anti team. It makes it really difficult to pick players since picking a bad player on a good team will end up losing you a lot of points.
It's an anti-team. It's supposed to lose you points. Oh, sure, if you're really really good you won't lose many, but I don't understand why this is a problem. Other than that it makes things harder, I guess.
On December 01 2009 10:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote: imo team wins shouldn't count toward the anti team. It makes it really difficult to pick players since picking a bad player on a good team will end up losing you a lot of points.
Why?
Team Wins are built into the prices of players, and you know which teams they are on.
There are a few new risks to take to make things even crazier. For your anti-team, you could still pick players who won't see much time, but you could also pick players who will lose a lot for the potential point gain. For instance, Jangbi was +6 this round, but with round 2's scoring he would be at -2. Gorush seemed to have what would now be the worst round. He was +5, but now would be -8. I wonder if the top players this round are going to have any of these type of players on their anti-teams, or if the safer picks will win out. There really weren't thaaat many high priced negative players (and Sangho wouldn't even be negative even though he was 1-5 with no ace appearances - he'd be at an even 0).
Also, average main team players are going to suffer greatly. Hyvaa drops from 20 points to 10. Kwanro from 20 to 12. Movie from 20 to 13. Ruby from 24 to 17. It seems like there will be a pretty big decrease in scoring overall due to the fact lineup appearances mean nothing. These players played a lot, which allowed them to put up decent numbers. In this coming round, they would end up losing out to players like 815 who had only 2 lineup appearances but won both, putting him at 17 points.
An interesting case study involves two players who both had 22 points this round: Light, and Action (yes, Action):
Light had 11 Lineup appearances, over double the amount Action had (5). However, Light was 4-5, while Action was 4-0 (with a 3 game win streak of course). Light was able to make up the difference due to having two lineup appearances he didn't actually get to play in, and being on a better team. In round 2, he would not have been so lucky. The new totals:
Action: 25 (+3) Light: 14 (-8)
The interesting thing here is that over half of Light's total is now his team win points (8 of 14). Lineup appearances have now gone from points to possible losses of points. FBH had 9 appearances this round, but lost 6 of them. He was still able to earn his owners 11 points, and if Khan had even been a middling team it wouldn't have been a huge loss for those owners. With round 2 scoring, however, he would have earned a total of 2 points - pitiful.
What can we take from all of this? Well, the biggest thing I see is that when you have a player is more important than ever. Stork on week 6 would be worth 17 points. Stork on week 7 would be worth -2. So you'd have been better off trading Stork for a player who didn't play and whose team lost!
Having players at the wrong times is going to ruin teams (not just due to trade value now), and it's going to be tough to judge what will work and what won't. Personally, I'm probably going to play it safe and try to build a team that won't require lots of trading. There are more points than ever in trading, but due to not having the cover of lineup appearances, it's also a lot more risky.
On December 01 2009 10:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote: imo team wins shouldn't count toward the anti team. It makes it really difficult to pick players since picking a bad player on a good team will end up losing you a lot of points.
Why?
Team Wins are built into the prices of players, and you know which teams they are on.
Does that mean that we lose points every time a team of a member of my anti team wins???
Players who lose are now actually penalized this time around. -1 wasn't that bad in my opinion, now -2 will make people think a little bit harder.
4 wins will be interesting too. I am definitely seeing the potential of 600+ people picking Flash just because he is....Flash.
Less emphasis on team scoring now, none of the huge 8-10 point bonuses for a 3-0 win now. So, I guess that means I don't need to overpay for a great team this time around.
Hopefully I'll be able to break the Top 100 this time. Didn't do good at all in last round.
On December 01 2009 11:40 QibingZero wrote: I'm actually kind of apprehensive, haha.
There are a few new risks to take to make things even crazier. For your anti-team, you could still pick players who won't see much time, but you could also pick players who will lose a lot for the potential point gain. For instance, Jangbi was +6 this round, but with round 2's scoring he would be at -2. Gorush seemed to have what would now be the worst round. He was +5, but now would be -8. I wonder if the top players this round are going to have any of these type of players on their anti-teams, or if the safer picks will win out. There really weren't thaaat many high priced negative players (and Sangho wouldn't even be negative even though he was 1-5 with no ace appearances - he'd be at an even 0).
Also, average main team players are going to suffer greatly. Hyvaa drops from 20 points to 10. Kwanro from 20 to 12. Movie from 20 to 13. Ruby from 24 to 17. It seems like there will be a pretty big decrease in scoring overall due to the fact lineup appearances mean nothing. These players played a lot, which allowed them to put up decent numbers. In this coming round, they would end up losing out to players like 815 who had only 2 lineup appearances but won both, putting him at 17 points.
An interesting case study involves two players who both had 22 points this round: Light, and Action (yes, Action):
Light had 11 Lineup appearances, over double the amount Action had (5). However, Light was 4-5, while Action was 4-0 (with a 3 game win streak of course). Light was able to make up the difference due to having two lineup appearances he didn't actually get to play in, and being on a better team. In round 2, he would not have been so lucky. The new totals:
Action: 25 (+3) Light: 14 (-8)
The interesting thing here is that over half of Light's total is now his team win points (8 of 14). Lineup appearances have now gone from points to possible losses of points. FBH had 9 appearances this round, but lost 6 of them. He was still able to earn his owners 11 points, and if Khan had even been a middling team it wouldn't have been a huge loss for those owners. With round 2 scoring, however, he would have earned a total of 2 points - pitiful.
What can we take from all of this? Well, the biggest thing I see is that when you have a player is more important than ever. Stork on week 6 would be worth 17 points. Stork on week 7 would be worth -2. So you'd have been better off trading Stork for a player who didn't play and whose team lost!
Having players at the wrong times is going to ruin teams (not just due to trade value now), and it's going to be tough to judge what will work and what won't. Personally, I'm probably going to play it safe and try to build a team that won't require lots of trading. There are more points than ever in trading, but due to not having the cover of lineup appearances, it's also a lot more risky.
great examples here, the one with Action & Light is quite alarming!
Yes you can go so wrong with the trades now, think i'll take the safer approach aswell, my tradegain at round1 of -34 could easily be -60 in round 2. Those who take the risks and succeed will gain huge points ofcourse.
I don't like the ace point changes. With the new system, someone who aces but loses gains zero points from it, while winner takes all.
This makes aces from strong teams (bisu, flash, jaedong, effort) even better. They were considered safe picks in the previous seasons and they will be even safer with the changes.
The problem with expensive players was that there were other players with lower cost that could catch up on them (this round: ZerO, Luxury early on, Ruby till week 4, etc) and that was a fun thing, trying to figuring good cheaper choices. Right now it seems "all-in" teams (Flash + 6-7 pter + random fills) will be better than a more balanced team), but who knows!
also are the prices going to be based on the old point system or on this round but with the new one?
On December 01 2009 12:41 IntoTheWow wrote: I like the anti team changes.
I don't like the ace point changes. With the new system, someone who aces but loses gains zero points from it, while winner takes all.
This makes aces from strong teams (bisu, flash, jaedong, effort) even better. They were considered safe picks in the previous seasons and they will be even safer with the changes.
This is a good point, I talked it over with Abydos and we have adjusted the scoring so that Ace Loss = 0 (instead of -2).
The problem with expensive players was that there were other players with lower cost that could catch up on them (this round: ZerO, Luxury early on, Ruby till week 4, etc) and that was a fun thing, trying to figuring good cheaper choices. Right now it seems "all-in" teams (Flash + 6-7 pter + random fills) will be better than a more balanced team), but who knows!
also are the prices going to be based on the old point system or on this round but with the new one?
Prices will be based on the new system, of course.
Heh well I figured if Violet suddenly busted out with 2 wins (ace match and such) on top of being on KT's 10-1, he might be a bit more expensive, considering 8-0 on a 10-1 team with significant ace matches sounds like the ultimate player for this kind of FPL (which would be hazardous to Zero, the previous best player's string of losses).
You probably do have it figured out, just a bit cautious about starting up before the matches. :o
All of a sudden KT/FlaSh/Violet are flavour of the month and kicking arse so us fans who have stuck with them the whole time suffer now by including them in our team again ;(
quick question: do you guys know if there is any change tot he actual format of proleague matches in round2? is it gonna be winner's league style? more matches/less matches or just the same? same maps or new ones?
I have a good feeling about KHAN this round. If january can manage to send out JAngbi in PvP/PvT only, the combination of great/jangbi/stork is almost sure to bring most games against non SKT/KT teams to ace, where Stork can win it.
I'm gonna do so poorly. First time doing it though, so meh. Updated now that lineups are out, I really hate to pick skyhigh because I like both him and CJ, but...speaking of that, I'm kind of sad none of CJ ended up on my team.
I have a good feeling about KHAN this round. If january can manage to send out JAngbi in PvP/PvT only, the combination of great/jangbi/stork is almost sure to bring most games against non SKT/KT teams to ace, where Stork can win it.
Man, I was so close to putting various combos of jangbi/great/fbh in my lineup, thinking "damn they're cheap, I bet they're going to pull out of their nosedives for R2...". As it is I have stork/fbh, they better not let me down. Cartwheel sold me on fbh, stork raging at the last two days of loses sold me on him. Everything's a gamble though, I don't expect to do well.
Well, i never thought about myself as of KHAN fanboy, i just liked this team. So i had stork as captain in 1st round, khan as a team. And even after this epic failure in last round, i still couldn't resist and took stork as captain, and moreover, jangbi and great, khan as a team.
I love fantasy PL. But i still can't "play" it, making my choices calculated or racional - i just put there gamers i like. I got my finger crossed everytime i see them in week lineup. So is this time
Strong feeling that Jangbi gets back to winning and some other solid options. For anti team I picked players that are not doing that well and plays for weaker team.
On December 01 2009 06:59 pripple wrote: something just came to my mind, let's say JD & Bisu both cost 10 points at start, both play 2 games in the opening week, JD going 2-0 and Bisu going 0-2, with the new scoring system the points difference is gonna be enormous= 8 | -4 (not counting teampoints here)..
so now if you pick a player who has a bad start you're gonna be even more stuck with him, making comebacks even harder? as that -4 for Bisu is gonna lower his tradevalue shitloads?
We realized that this would happen, so what we're going to do is weight it slightly in favor of the previous week's value, so the Trade Values should deviate slightly less than last round.
1. New Scoring (Round 2) 10 pointer going 2-0: New TV = 9.96 10 pointer going 0-2: New TV = 8.32
2. Old Scoring (Round 1) 10 pointer going 2-0: New TV = 9.94 10 pointer going 0-2: New TV = 8.18
3. New Scoring (Round 2) Without Weighting Adjustment 10 pointer going 2-0: New TV = 9.94 10 pointer going 0-2: New TV = 7.48
edit: FYI, we're going with #1, not #3
can i get the formula you are using? or is that top secret?
daaaamn all the players i got last season got their points raised so now i can't get a decent team no matter how much they cost i would get flash, violet, movie & kt as a team that left me with 3 points for the remaining 3 players -_-;;
On December 01 2009 09:42 integral wrote: hotbid can you post that formula?
A player's trade value is going to be 2/3 * tv + 1/3 * last weeks tv Where its using unweighted tvs in the calculation
IE. in HotBid's example a 10 cost player going 2-0 (with 2 team wins) in week 1 will have 10 pts and 9.94 tv
So 2/3 * 9.94 + 1/3 * 10 (cost) = 9.96
A 10 Cost player going 0-2 (with 0 team wins) in week 1 will have -4 pts and 7.48 tv
So 2/3 * 7.48 + 1/3 * 10 (cost) = 8.32
So the "expected point gain of a 1 pointer" constant is still the same even though the scoring is different? Won't the average point gain of players be significantly lower than last time due to the new negative points for losses and no points for lineup appearances? Previously in any given head-to-head game the overall point gain per player per game would be 2. (2 points for the victory, 2 for the lineup appearances, -1 for the loss, +1 for the team win = 4, divided by 2 players = 2). Now the overall point gain per game is 1.5 -- 4 points for victory, -2 for defeat, 1 for team win. Without a corresponding change in the constant, player scores and thus prices on average will adjust downward. Except for players that play in ace matches, that is -- maximum point gain on a night for an ace player is now 11 instead of 8.
I'm bad at FPL, and I don't want to engage in it too deeply, because it would just take up too much time -knowing myself-, so this season I just made a team out of my favourite players, and an anti-team out of players i dislike, and I'll found the "no trading" group right away. We shall see.
Idra! yeah! I dunno why he's available as a pick, but why not! Stork is actually my favourite protoss of all time, and if he wins anything I'll be really happy, but I'm hoping that he'll play WoW instead of sc this round. Best is fucking bad, I dunno why he wins.
I guess now the emphasis should be on players that play a lot and win games, so team with 3 stars and 3 players for 0 will kick ass. Picking the right team isn't going to be all that important as the amount of points for wins has been lowered, so it's a lot more efficient to choose better players.
We will see how my thought play out in reality ;P.
On December 01 2009 12:41 IntoTheWow wrote: I like the anti team changes.
I don't like the ace point changes. With the new system, someone who aces but loses gains zero points from it, while winner takes all.
This makes aces from strong teams (bisu, flash, jaedong, effort) even better. They were considered safe picks in the previous seasons and they will be even safer with the changes.
This is a good point, I talked it over with Abydos and we have adjusted the scoring so that Ace Loss = 0 (instead of -2).
Aces from strong teams are the aces on the strong teams because they're really good players. Removing penalties for ace losses doesn't make them less safe picks. There's nothing you can do to make the really good players not be "safe" picks and still make the system reasonable.
This change just artificially inflates the value of "bad" ace players. Sure, the guy's playing ace, that's got to count for something - but it's an automatic +2 with no penalty for losing. Obviously he doesn't get the points for winning, but that's it. In this regard the old scoring's +2 -1 was much more reasonable.
We've got a 6 point difference between the winner and loser of a game. The ace game difference is now only 4 points. (Old system: 3 point difference for a regular game, 3 points for an ace game.) Why not just go with -1 for an ace game loss still? It seems a little more "fair" to me.
Side note: I feel that overall this new scoring system is going to create an even bigger spread between lucky good and unlucky bad teams and make sticking with the competition much much harder after a bad week. While I understand the rationale behind the changes, I don't like it completely. Trading is too limited to fully adjust for things like good players stuck in set fours (you're hoping they get to play) and other lineup quirks that before were compensated by the lineup points.
Further edit: What I'm getting at is twofold. First, the ideal "dead weight" player has changed from the bad player who is playing (he might win) to the bad player who's not playing (because if he is he might lose). Obviously you don't want any dead weight on your team, but sometimes you have to pick up those 1-pointers.
Second, the middle-of-the-road players now become hugely hit or miss, not to say luck-based. Basically the only option for these guys is to pick the pretty good ones on good teams, and hope. (Partly I'm irritated by the changes because I made by living on these players and now they're huge risks.) The best teams overall - I'm calling it now - are going to have one or two big name players, the team that wins the round, and a bunch of guys who barely play on a good team. Which is lame. Sure, somebody's going to get it right with the 3-5 pointers and run away with the win, but overall meh.
Fantasy proleague is so damn fun, i just spent the entire afternoon carefully picking my team. I was contemplating switching Jaedong for another "1 point less"-player and then add another stronger player, but i couldn't do it because Fantasy becomes 10x more fun when you have your favorite player in the team as well.
emucxg: just sign up again and make a new team. When you submit it will tell you "You already have a team do you want to change it?" or something like that - just hit okay and your new team will be submitted instead.
Here's my team currently, pending revisions, lineups, etc.:
haha ace actually is -1, could make some sick team with 31 points for players only ;p no 9 or 8 point costing teams, almost all the teams are now in a ~3point range..
ouch Sea & Zero 9 point cost, JD still 8 points, so he didn't end up being a super bargain.
i feel like the amount of 5 6 7 pointers is much lower than it used to be, then there is a huge amount of 2 & 3 pointers :o
I'm testing out oov and Doctor.K, they're cheap and just there to sit around and pick up T1 points. Since T1 doesn't send out its playing coaches, they're not gonna lose me points. 10-18 points between the two of them in the round seems reasonable...
I'm gonna be relying on Flash and T1 to score points... and maybe Stork or Best. But with Flash my only player worth more than 5 points, I'm worried I might not be able to make many trades...
I so don't know which one to take... Bisu or Zero... Both will have lots of game. Bisu more stable for win but Zero is a almost certain ACE for every game. :o
I am taking the opposite strategy that happened last time. I'm still a learning newbie, but I feel good about this team. I might still change to maybe fit flash in there, but I think effort can produce similar results and will get the ace more often (worse team + zerg best on most maps + pretty much the only reliable ace option on his team, whereas flash can share w/ violet/luxury), which will make up for his occasional losses in zvz BO's/other losses. My Antiteam is basically people who are sent out often and will lose the majority of their games. I might change it once I look exactly at how the anti system works besides for "you can have a positive anti team", but for now this is good.
My bums won't play much but should rack up some team win points. Then I've got 3 good players that should win & are usually their team's ace (that's why I stayed away from fantasy/bisu, anyway). Khan won't be great but should be better than what they've shown in R1, so I think it's a fair pick at 2 points. The captain choice is just to leave room to trade any of the other ones.
Here's hoping I don't fail spectacularly. My main team this time around is alot diverse team-wise. My anti team was fairly hard to choose. Last round I think got somewhere around 180, so this time i'll aim for the top 100!
On December 01 2009 09:42 integral wrote: hotbid can you post that formula?
A player's trade value is going to be 2/3 * tv + 1/3 * last weeks tv Where its using unweighted tvs in the calculation
IE. in HotBid's example a 10 cost player going 2-0 (with 2 team wins) in week 1 will have 10 pts and 9.94 tv
So 2/3 * 9.94 + 1/3 * 10 (cost) = 9.96
A 10 Cost player going 0-2 (with 0 team wins) in week 1 will have -4 pts and 7.48 tv
So 2/3 * 7.48 + 1/3 * 10 (cost) = 8.32
So the "expected point gain of a 1 pointer" constant is still the same even though the scoring is different? Won't the average point gain of players be significantly lower than last time due to the new negative points for losses and no points for lineup appearances? Previously in any given head-to-head game the overall point gain per player per game would be 2. (2 points for the victory, 2 for the lineup appearances, -1 for the loss, +1 for the team win = 4, divided by 2 players = 2). Now the overall point gain per game is 1.5 -- 4 points for victory, -2 for defeat, 1 for team win. Without a corresponding change in the constant, player scores and thus prices on average will adjust downward. Except for players that play in ace matches, that is -- maximum point gain on a night for an ace player is now 11 instead of 8.
Bumping this from page 7.
Either another thread needs to be created for the attention whores to post their team or spoiler tags need to be included in the copy/paste html. It's impossible to have any sort of discussion about FPL while the pages are spammed with people's teams. Maybe I'm just a grinch but I don't give a fuck who you put on your team -- but even if I did, imagine what a nightmare this thread would be if literally everyone who entered posted their team.
I went with 3 power houses UpMagic and then crappy people :D There isn't anyone ridiculously overpriced this round so anti teams will screw you over more.
I don't think he was that many points last round, and I picked him and he got me the most points of out everything, so I wanted to keep him this round, but I'm a little disappointed he's so expensive now.
On December 01 2009 09:42 integral wrote: hotbid can you post that formula?
A player's trade value is going to be 2/3 * tv + 1/3 * last weeks tv Where its using unweighted tvs in the calculation
IE. in HotBid's example a 10 cost player going 2-0 (with 2 team wins) in week 1 will have 10 pts and 9.94 tv
So 2/3 * 9.94 + 1/3 * 10 (cost) = 9.96
A 10 Cost player going 0-2 (with 0 team wins) in week 1 will have -4 pts and 7.48 tv
So 2/3 * 7.48 + 1/3 * 10 (cost) = 8.32
So the "expected point gain of a 1 pointer" constant is still the same even though the scoring is different? Won't the average point gain of players be significantly lower than last time due to the new negative points for losses and no points for lineup appearances? Previously in any given head-to-head game the overall point gain per player per game would be 2. (2 points for the victory, 2 for the lineup appearances, -1 for the loss, +1 for the team win = 4, divided by 2 players = 2). Now the overall point gain per game is 1.5 -- 4 points for victory, -2 for defeat, 1 for team win. Without a corresponding change in the constant, player scores and thus prices on average will adjust downward. Except for players that play in ace matches, that is -- maximum point gain on a night for an ace player is now 11 instead of 8.
Bumping this from page 7.
Either another thread needs to be created for the attention whores to post their team or spoiler tags need to be included in the copy/paste html. It's impossible to have any sort of discussion about FPL while the pages are spammed with people's teams. Maybe I'm just a grinch but I don't give a fuck who you put on your team -- but even if I did, imagine what a nightmare this thread would be if literally everyone who entered posted their team.
The expected point gain for a 1 point player has been increased from ~4.6 to 5.7 to account for the increased scoring.
On December 01 2009 12:41 IntoTheWow wrote: I like the anti team changes.
I don't like the ace point changes. With the new system, someone who aces but loses gains zero points from it, while winner takes all.
This makes aces from strong teams (bisu, flash, jaedong, effort) even better. They were considered safe picks in the previous seasons and they will be even safer with the changes.
This is a good point, I talked it over with Abydos and we have adjusted the scoring so that Ace Loss = 0 (instead of -2).
Aces from strong teams are the aces on the strong teams because they're really good players. Removing penalties for ace losses doesn't make them less safe picks. There's nothing you can do to make the really good players not be "safe" picks and still make the system reasonable.
Really good players aren't always safe picks; look at Jaedong's performance last round. The high cost associated with them means they have to be winning almost every single game and have multiple ace appearances/wins. As Hot_Bid said we talked it over and after much discussion decided to eliminate the penalty for an ace loss; there were several reasons for this, the main point being that getting selected for an ace match is a big deal and is almost guaranteed to be a very hard matchup.
This change just artificially inflates the value of "bad" ace players. Sure, the guy's playing ace, that's got to count for something - but it's an automatic +2 with no penalty for losing. Obviously he doesn't get the points for winning, but that's it. In this regard the old scoring's +2 -1 was much more reasonable.
We've got a 6 point difference between the winner and loser of a game. The ace game difference is now only 4 points. (Old system: 3 point difference for a regular game, 3 points for an ace game.) Why not just go with -1 for an ace game loss still? It seems a little more "fair" to me.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but this is the way its going to be for this round; everyone knows this and we'll obviously be examining the results from this round closely to refine the system. Fantasy proleague has advanced way beyond the original that Semioldguy presented and every round has been a unique experience. I'm amazed at the participation we've gotten and we obviously can't satisfy all 1500+ people. One of the problems with the system is we have so few performance metrics to go on: wins, losses, ace matches is about it. Look at any other fantasy sport with its 20+ player statistics and the granularity that provides.
Side note: I feel that overall this new scoring system is going to create an even bigger spread between lucky good and unlucky bad teams and make sticking with the competition much much harder after a bad week. While I understand the rationale behind the changes, I don't like it completely. Trading is too limited to fully adjust for things like good players stuck in set fours (you're hoping they get to play) and other lineup quirks that before were compensated by the lineup points.
Further edit: What I'm getting at is twofold. First, the ideal "dead weight" player has changed from the bad player who is playing (he might win) to the bad player who's not playing (because if he is he might lose). Obviously you don't want any dead weight on your team, but sometimes you have to pick up those 1-pointers.
Second, the middle-of-the-road players now become hugely hit or miss, not to say luck-based. Basically the only option for these guys is to pick the pretty good ones on good teams, and hope. (Partly I'm irritated by the changes because I made by living on these players and now they're huge risks.) The best teams overall - I'm calling it now - are going to have one or two big name players, the team that wins the round, and a bunch of guys who barely play on a good team. Which is lame. Sure, somebody's going to get it right with the 3-5 pointers and run away with the win, but overall meh.
Sure there's luck involved, we can only hope to try and limit that as much as possible; look at the constant performance of the former top 10 group though and you can see there is a lot of skill involved too. We appreciate your concerns and feedback and I hope you enjoy this round as much as the previous ones. We're trying our best here to provide a fun activity for all 1500+ players and also something that casual players can enjoy as much as people that strategize and repick their team 20+ times trying to tweak their "perfect" team.
Teams are really protoss heavy this season. I'm guessing the whole emphasis on "players doing better than they did before" is sinking in, but I can't help but think Swarm Season isn't quite over yet.
On December 02 2009 11:16 Abydos1 wrote: The expected point gain for a 1 point player has been increased from ~4.6 to 5.7 to account for the increased scoring.
edit: wait what? increased scoring? did you read what I wrote? Overall points per game will decrease, not increase, because of the -2 for loss and the lack of a point for lineup appearance. Previously the number of points distributed per game was 4, now it is 3. This is decreased scoring on average.
Only ace players will receive more points relative to the previous round.
On December 02 2009 12:54 DavidCanFly wrote: I have a question, so.. does that mean if jaedong wins games they won't count because he is team captain?
I believe being captain is only significant for tie breakers, as in, the captain is just like any other player in your roster, except he is used to decide who leads in rankings when two people have the same total points. Also, captains can't be traded.
Then you will gain points based on if their team wins or not. If they don't play any games, they will never be in the negatives since they don't lose, but they'll never gain you significant points because they don't get the opportunity to win or ace.
On December 02 2009 16:32 DavidCanFly wrote: thanks, but and i have been reading, "Captains can't be traded and are used for a tiebreaker."
does this mean my captain gets no points at all only until it is needed for a tiebreaker? o_o
no he gets points just like any other player. It just means that you can't trade your captain during the season and if you end up with say 200 points and someone else also has 200, then the one with the higher score for his captain will be ranked higher.
Will probably change after first week lineups come out. Ace wins and ace appearances are just worth too much.
Finished top 200 in R1 in my first FPL Kind of got lucky with first picks (but just shows how important your first picks are). BUT, I traded away Zero for Hyuk early in the season and that trade was like -30 points for me near the end; otherwise, may have cracked top 50
The new point system is mehh. Due to the removal of points for lineup appearances and -2 for losses, I predict a lot less trading. It's way more risky to do trading for a medicore player that you think MAY get hot. If they don't get hot or win, you end up losing not only -1 for the trade tax (which was balanced by appearing in the lineup) but now you also -2. However, the teams with high trade gains will most likely always be at the top - high risk high reward.
I predict more anti-team trading, rather than main team trading. There's now potential incentive to trade a no-show player for a heavy, always appearing slump player.
Also, Light on the anti-team seems like a really bad idea. He's really undervalued and does things like randomly go 7-1. FBH has been playing terribly lately, and Leta seems to be coming out of his slump, so he's risky but it makes sense.
Anti Team 3 Anytime 5 Mind 5 Roro Haha season before last Hogil was 7point player on my anti - now he is a 1point bargain (with more P playing this round he should hit a few ZvP's, and will be played reasonably often if Yarnc continues to fail). Also, can't rely on Jaedong for ace appearances so dropped him for first time ever ...and... As always: NO TRADES
EDIT: Did anyone else notice that top 7 players last round are all Terran users?
So Bisu would get 4 points for game 1 win, 2 points for ace appearance, 4 points for game 5 win, and 1 point for team win?
On the other side, sAviOr would get -2 points for game 1 loss, 2 points for ace appearance, and -2 points for game 5 loss?
This might be a bit late for a response but on the savior note, he wouldn't get a -2 for ACE loss (0 points for losing ACE) so in total, Savior would net 0 points that match. Bisu's side seems right though.
I guess I'll follow the trend... my first team atm:
So Bisu would get 4 points for game 1 win, 2 points for ace appearance, 4 points for game 5 win, and 1 point for team win?
On the other side, sAviOr would get -2 points for game 1 loss, 2 points for ace appearance, and -2 points for game 5 loss?
This might be a bit late for a response but on the savior note, he wouldn't get a -2 for ACE loss (0 points for losing ACE) so in total, Savior would net 0 points that match. Bisu's side seems right though.
I guess I'll follow the trend... my first team atm:
I tried to pick players that would appear in the ACE matches the most, since most of the scoring will occur in that single match. I couldn't think of any good Zerg players to take that weren't overpriced, inconsistent, or too expensive to take, so I chose great, who should appear in most KHAN matches. I will change my lineups once the lineups are released.
So Bisu would get 4 points for game 1 win, 2 points for ace appearance, 4 points for game 5 win, and 1 point for team win?
On the other side, sAviOr would get -2 points for game 1 loss, 2 points for ace appearance, and -2 points for game 5 loss?
This might be a bit late for a response but on the savior note, he wouldn't get a -2 for ACE loss (0 points for losing ACE) so in total, Savior would net 0 points that match. Bisu's side seems right though.
I guess I'll follow the trend... my first team atm:
wtf is up with the players numbers... apparently everyone is good now so inevitably we have to put good players in our anti-team. this should be an interesting round with really high anti-team losses.
It feels as if it the players' point awarding has been done better than ever before. Past FPL's have always had a few great picks for low value that everyone would include in their team, but they don't really seem to be there this time around. There will always be low value players which actually will be doing great but they'd be counted as 'surprises' I guess.
Most picked anti player must be skyhigh.. Hope he starts running good again.
So Bisu would get 4 points for game 1 win, 2 points for ace appearance, 4 points for game 5 win, and 1 point for team win?
On the other side, sAviOr would get -2 points for game 1 loss, 2 points for ace appearance, and -2 points for game 5 loss?
This might be a bit late for a response but on the savior note, he wouldn't get a -2 for ACE loss (0 points for losing ACE) so in total, Savior would net 0 points that match. Bisu's side seems right though.
I guess I'll follow the trend... my first team atm:
Is it possible to get a group that only your friends can join? My friends and I want a group for just us, but some random person joined. I guess it doesn't matter too much, but we would prefer it being just us.
On December 03 2009 12:12 gemini24 wrote: I know that there will be lineups posted soon, but does anyone know if there will be any map changes for round 2?
i think i saw in some interview that some maps are indeed gonna change, guess we see them at the lineups then :o
Very risky for people to have Skyhigh and Mind on their anti-teams. Both are young and talented and both have shown they can perform under huge pressure at the highest level. They are both slumping but it's common in every sport for young talented players to break through and slump. Especially so since both are underrated by the point system compared to what they are theoretically capable of.
Jaehoon's got an easy win this week at 2 points, a steal. Stork as captain at 5 points may be dangerous.. I want to see him ACE every week but it depends so much on the rest of Khan's shitty lineup. I'm predicting 4 wins for fantasy this week. Movie's got two ez wins, kal has two ez wins, yarnc might win twice and stx has 1 probable win and one maybe win.
Best isn't playing, ez pick on AT... I'm worried about Roro on my AT though, I don't know who else to choose. Skyhigh sucks. Nuff said.
My ex-roommate joined TL to participate in this. Being a of good spirit, I'm participating for the first time (seriously) ever! Wish me luck, I'll post mine once he's finalized his team. bah edit
Picked players I thought would win this week. EffOrt/Stork/Luxury will be my consistent winners, the rest are players whose value should increase off wins so I can get some good trades from them. Almost picked BeSt but he isn't playing this week
Main Team 8 Effort (captain) [ 2 Games ] - EffOrts ZvP is light years ahead of Violet's PvZ. - EffOrt should beat Canata because of the same reason as above.
4 Light [ 2 Games ] - Light's TvT is solid enough to take care of FrOzean with ease. - Light's TvT against Leta could go either way, I just hope he wins.
3 Movie [ 2 Games ] Although Movie isn't doing so hot against the Zerg recently he should beat both his Zerg opponents this week, even if he does have a little trouble.
5 Stork [ 2 Games ] - Stork is still rock solid at PvP so herb shouldn't even be a challenge to him. - Stork has a shaky PvZ but after seeing who he is actually playing (hero) he should be able to win.
2 Type-B [ 2 Games ] - JangBi is slumping in all MU's except PvP and type-b isn't a P. - type-b vs not very good Zerg (Saint), ezpz.
3 Yarnc [ 2 Games ] - Yarnc has a positive record against Sea, and Sea isn't indestructible ... - Yarnc is playing another Terran this week and since Khan is full of fail they stopped sending FBH and out comes TurN?
5 MBCGame Hero [ 2 Games ] - KT is too expensive for my current player selections and SKT is playing against 2 pretty strong teams, CJ is playing against SKT, so next in line is of course MBC whom I will be switching for KT hopefully after this first week.
Anti Team 3 Anytime [ 1 Game ] - Anytime vs Really ... does anyone NOT know the outcome of this match?
6 Free [ 1 Game ] - Hopefully free loses to RorO because the map is SLIGHTLY Zerg favoured and free only has 1 match this week.
4 Skyhigh [ 2 Games ] - He's going up against Flash the TvT monster. This means auto loss. - sKyHigH's match against fantasy could go either way, so I HOPE fantasy wins.
Main Team 8 Effort (captain) [ 2 Games ] - EffOrts ZvP is light years ahead of Violet's PvZ. - EffOrt should beat Canata because of the same reason as above.
4 Light [ 2 Games ] - Light's TvT is solid enough to take care of FrOzean with ease. - Light's TvT against Leta could go either way, I just hope he wins.
3 Movie [ 2 Games ] Although Movie isn't doing so hot against the Zerg recently he should beat both his Zerg opponents this week, even if he does have a little trouble.
5 Stork [ 2 Games ] - Stork is still rock solid at PvP so herb shouldn't even be a challenge to him. - Stork has a shaky PvZ but after seeing who he is actually playing (hero) he should be able to win.
2 Type-B [ 2 Games ] - JangBi is slumping in all MU's except PvP and type-b isn't a P. - type-b vs not very good Zerg (Saint), ezpz.
3 Yarnc [ 2 Games ] - Yarnc has a positive record against Sea, and Sea isn't indestructible ... - Yarnc is playing another Terran this week and since Khan is full of fail they stopped sending FBH and out comes TurN?
5 MBCGame Hero [ 2 Games ] - KT is too expensive for my current player selections and SKT is playing against 2 pretty strong teams, CJ is playing against SKT, so next in line is of course MBC whom I will be switching for KT hopefully after this first week.
Anti Team 3 Anytime [ 1 Game ] - Anytime vs Really ... does anyone NOT know the outcome of this match?
6 Free [ 1 Game ] - Hopefully free loses to RorO because the map is SLIGHTLY Zerg favoured and free only has 1 match this week.
4 Skyhigh [ 2 Games ] - He's going up against Flash the TvT monster. This means auto loss. - sKyHigH's match against fantasy could go either way, so I HOPE fantasy wins.
Oh wow, almost same team. I'm going Bisu over Effort tho, and SKT1 over Hero. Jangbi instead of Yarnc, even tho it might seem dumb to have both Jangbi and type-b keke. I'm hoping that Jangbi > Kal to make up for his loss (likely) against type-b. ur anti team im hoping RorO loses keke. And then I have Hiya.
Main Team 8 Effort (captain) [ 2 Games ] - EffOrts ZvP is light years ahead of Violet's PvZ. - EffOrt should beat Canata because of the same reason as above.
4 Light [ 2 Games ] - Light's TvT is solid enough to take care of FrOzean with ease. - Light's TvT against Leta could go either way, I just hope he wins.
3 Movie [ 2 Games ] Although Movie isn't doing so hot against the Zerg recently he should beat both his Zerg opponents this week, even if he does have a little trouble.
5 Stork [ 2 Games ] - Stork is still rock solid at PvP so herb shouldn't even be a challenge to him. - Stork has a shaky PvZ but after seeing who he is actually playing (hero) he should be able to win.
2 Type-B [ 2 Games ] - JangBi is slumping in all MU's except PvP and type-b isn't a P. - type-b vs not very good Zerg (Saint), ezpz.
3 Yarnc [ 2 Games ] - Yarnc has a positive record against Sea, and Sea isn't indestructible ... - Yarnc is playing another Terran this week and since Khan is full of fail they stopped sending FBH and out comes TurN?
5 MBCGame Hero [ 2 Games ] - KT is too expensive for my current player selections and SKT is playing against 2 pretty strong teams, CJ is playing against SKT, so next in line is of course MBC whom I will be switching for KT hopefully after this first week.
Anti Team 3 Anytime [ 1 Game ] - Anytime vs Really ... does anyone NOT know the outcome of this match?
6 Free [ 1 Game ] - Hopefully free loses to RorO because the map is SLIGHTLY Zerg favoured and free only has 1 match this week.
4 Skyhigh [ 2 Games ] - He's going up against Flash the TvT monster. This means auto loss. - sKyHigH's match against fantasy could go either way, so I HOPE fantasy wins.
Oh wow, almost same team. I'm going Bisu over Effort tho, and SKT1 over Hero. Jangbi instead of Yarnc, even tho it might seem dumb to have both Jangbi and type-b keke. I'm hoping that Jangbi > Kal to make up for his loss (likely) against type-b. ur anti team im hoping RorO loses keke. And then I have Hiya.
- Bisu isn't as consistent as EffOrt and lately EffOrt is tearing it up. - Like I said, SKT plays OZ and CJ. Both of which are pretty strong teams (despite OZ's record in Round 1). - JangBi's only decent MU right now is PvP and Kal is pretty good at it too (I had JangBi and SKT as well) but when I switched SKT for MBC I had 1 point left so I upgraded JangBi to Yarnc.
On December 02 2009 11:16 Abydos1 wrote: The expected point gain for a 1 point player has been increased from ~4.6 to 5.7 to account for the increased scoring.
edit: wait what? increased scoring? did you read what I wrote? Overall points per game will decrease, not increase, because of the -2 for loss and the lack of a point for lineup appearance. Previously the number of points distributed per game was 4, now it is 3. This is decreased scoring on average.
Only ace players will receive more points relative to the previous round.
does winning streak carry over from round 1? I mean if a player is on a two match win streak and wins his first match in round 2 will he get a point bonus???
ok so if somehow violet wins against effort then those who are gonna pick violet are gonna laugh their asses off cus he's on a seven match win streak and if he wins against effort then it's no.8 and FailHo is an easy win for him. too bad there aren't streak break points.then effort would get some extra points.
On December 03 2009 22:23 BloodDrunK wrote: does winning streak carry over from round 1? I mean if a player is on a two match win streak and wins his first match in round 2 will he get a point bonus???
Never mind, I asked pachi and win streaks don't carry over from Round 1 of FPL.
4 (T)Skyhigh [ 2 Games ] - He's going up against Flash the TvT monster. This means auto loss. - sKyHigH's match against fantasy could go either way, so I HOPE fantasy wins.
Flash +9 Zero +6 Sea +5 Effort +4 Violet +6 Really +1 Jaedong -1 Luxury +1 Bisu +2 free +1 calm 0 fantasy -2 Roro -4 Mind -2 Best -2 Ruby -7 hyun -1 kal -6 leta -5 Action +3 light -8 shine +1 stork -1 upmagic -2 han 0 hiya +1 hyuk -7 hyvaa -10 kwanro -8 movie -7 savior -3 815 +1 Anytime -1 Pure -6 typeb 0
These are the top 35 scorers in Fantasy Proleague and their score differences when you compare the new scoring to old. This list includes the best players in the game, and those with the highest winrate. Already, for just the top 35 players, the total score differential is -42. If I were to add up the differences for all the players, the negative score differential would become even more pronounced.
Overall score is decreased with the new scoring, not increased. Significantly.
edit: just did the math. there were 271 games played last round, 26 of those were ace games. There were 528 regular lineup appearances and 52 ace lineup appearances. Team win points and streak points are the same with both scoring methods, so I excluded them for a simpler comparison.
(271 wins * 4) + (271 losses * -2) + (52 ace lineups * 2) = 646 points awarded for last season's games with the new scoring.
(271 wins * 2) + (271 losses * -1) + (528 regular lineup appearances * 1) (52 ace lineups * 2) = 903 points awarded for last season's games with the old scoring.
It doesn't make any sense at all to increase the expected point gain of a 1-pointer when the total scoring from the previous round has decreased 257 points. 280 if you count streak break points, which are no longer included.
I just built my team. It's much harder this time because you can't fill out your team with cheap chumps who get lineup appearances but rarely win. In the previous seasons, it was these 2-3 pointers who scored decently despite mediocre winning percentages. Then again, the new scoring system opens up more interesting anti-team choices. I'm going ballsy/crazy this season by taking some risks. Let's see if that brings me to the top 100.
If there's any reason for the constant to increase, it's that it was too low in the first place. Average team wins will be 5.5, so the average 1-pointer should be expected to earn 5.5 points over the round -- under the old scoring, anyway.
But now that there's an opportunity for average 1-pointers to lose points, the average 1-pointer should be expected to earn less than 5.5 points. If you further consider that the 1-pointers are 1-pointers because they either play and lose often or they don't play very much, and that the best players don't lose very often at all, the constant makes even less sense. 1 or 2 pointers that play often can expect to end up negative or zeroed out, while 1-pointers that don't play have a chance of ending up 2-pointers just on the basis of their team wins. It doesn't matter that the ones who do play are in the lineup more often because they're better than the other players on their team, they can be expected to do worse in FPL than their teammates who are not playing.
So instead of having jangbi (-2 points last season under new scoring) or baby (2 points) or horang2 (1 point) on my team, I have sair and sungsun and nbs. I don't know these players, I've never even seem them play, I just know they're less of a risk than someone who plays and loses.
On that note, why the hell does jangbi cost 2 points when he ended up negative last season?
Anyway, I don't really like this way of scoring. Starcraft is zero-sum, so if you're not winning you're losing -- but the way I see it, the real accomplishment is just getting to play at this level. Penalizing players for playing games is silly.
Even the mediocre players win like 40% of their games (except for some major slumps from good players who get to play a lot). IMO its way better to take risks than to go for unknow players in fear of losing points... Winning 2 games of 5 is better than not playing at all xd
On December 04 2009 00:43 integral wrote: So instead of having jangbi (-2 points last season under new scoring) or baby (2 points) or horang2 (1 point) on my team, I have sair and sungsun and nbs. I don't know these players, I've never even seem them play, I just know they're less of a risk than someone who plays and loses.
That's a good way to not get negative points but it also basically guarantees you of a middle of the pack finish among thousands of owners. If you want to finish high this season, you will have to pick players you think will win, not just pick players who will "not lose."
On that note, why the hell does jangbi cost 2 points when he ended up negative last season?
Because we adjusted a lot of the costs. Since you think Jangbi costs too much, you're putting him on your anti team right?
Anyway, I don't really like this way of scoring. Starcraft is zero-sum, so if you're not winning you're losing -- but the way I see it, the real accomplishment is just getting to play at this level. Penalizing players for playing games is silly.
How are we penalizing players for playing games? We're simply removing the automatic point for playing. There's no constitutional law stating that every player in fantasy proleague is guaranteed an appearance point.
I disagree -- the real accomplishment is not "simply getting to play." The real accomplishment is winning. And with 4 points to a win and -2 for a loss, players break even if go 1-2 (which probably means they still score, because of ace and team wins). From an owner standpoint, predicting who gets to play is very, very easy. I can predict with about 90% accuracy (as can everyone else) who will be sent by most teams. Especially since I can trade after seeing lineups. But its much harder and more skillful to predict who will win games, especially without the safety blanket of knowing that theres no penalty for just picking players who play a lot (which is easy by just looking at lineups).
On December 04 2009 00:43 integral wrote: So instead of having jangbi (-2 points last season under new scoring) or baby (2 points) or horang2 (1 point) on my team, I have sair and sungsun and nbs. I don't know these players, I've never even seem them play, I just know they're less of a risk than someone who plays and loses.
That's a good way to not get negative points but it also basically guarantees you of a middle of the pack finish among thousands of owners. If you want to finish high this season, you will have to pick players you think will win, not just pick players who will "not lose."
Anyway, I don't really like this way of scoring. Starcraft is zero-sum, so if you're not winning you're losing -- but the way I see it, the real accomplishment is just getting to play at this level. Penalizing players for playing games is silly.
How are we penalizing players for playing games? We're simply removing the automatic point for playing. There's no constitutional law stating that every player in fantasy proleague is guaranteed an appearance point.
I disagree -- the real accomplishment is not "simply getting to play." The real accomplishment is winning. And with 4 points to a win and -2 for a loss, players break even if go 1-2 (which probably means they still score, because of ace and team wins). From an owner standpoint, predicting who gets to play is very, very easy. I can predict with about 90% accuracy (as can everyone else) who will be sent by most teams. Especially since I can trade after seeing lineups. But its much harder and more skillful to predict who will win games, especially without the safety blanket of knowing that theres no penalty for just picking players who play a lot (which is easy by just looking at lineups).
Originally I really liked the new rules for scoring, particularly since anti-team players could gain you points. The only reason I spoke up in the first place was because the "expected point gain of a 1-pointer" constant should change to appropriately fit the new scoring rules, and the only reason I continue to post is because Abydos1 apparently did not understand that the new scoring changes would lead to an average decrease in scores, not an increase. Obviously this impacts the scoring and trade values of players not just this round, but the next round as well -- set too high of a constant for the number of points distributed and player costs will deflate from round to round.
It's only after thinking about this a long time that I'm starting to dislike the new scoring rules. I'm not some conservative who thinks rules should be a particular way just because that's the way they were done before, nor do I feel like there should be some sort of charity giving points to players who lose. My point is that mathematically, 1-pointers who play will on average do significantly worse than their non-playing counterparts. That's what I mean by a penalty for playing. 1-pointers, if they play, are going to lose. Yes, there is a skill in picking players that are going to do well, but the emphasis right now is not on winning but on win percentage.
Also, I really don't understand why you would change a players' cost relative to the previous round. Player initial costs are really important in determining who goes on what team, and if a player did so poorly as to score negative points the previous round they really shouldn't be seeded at 2 points the next time. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily pick and choose which players' costs to change -- you might as well be using a completely different criterion for assigning player costs, like "skill", and do away with math altogether. There would be an uproar if you arbitrarily assigned a player points or inflated their trade value in the middle of the season, it isn't much different to do that in the offseason.
Obviously FPL is still about picking players and making trades and doing all that better relative to everyone else that is playing FPL. I get that. No matter how the scoring and player costs change, everyone's teams are still scored the same. But for all your talk of skill, it's getting pretty annoying trying to play FPL seriously.
On December 04 2009 00:43 integral wrote: So instead of having jangbi (-2 points last season under new scoring) or baby (2 points) or horang2 (1 point) on my team, I have sair and sungsun and nbs. I don't know these players, I've never even seem them play, I just know they're less of a risk than someone who plays and loses.
That's a good way to not get negative points but it also basically guarantees you of a middle of the pack finish among thousands of owners. If you want to finish high this season, you will have to pick players you think will win, not just pick players who will "not lose."
On that note, why the hell does jangbi cost 2 points when he ended up negative last season?
Because we adjusted a lot of the costs. Since you think Jangbi costs too much, you're putting him on your anti team right?
Anyway, I don't really like this way of scoring. Starcraft is zero-sum, so if you're not winning you're losing -- but the way I see it, the real accomplishment is just getting to play at this level. Penalizing players for playing games is silly.
How are we penalizing players for playing games? We're simply removing the automatic point for playing. There's no constitutional law stating that every player in fantasy proleague is guaranteed an appearance point.
I disagree -- the real accomplishment is not "simply getting to play." The real accomplishment is winning. And with 4 points to a win and -2 for a loss, players break even if go 1-2 (which probably means they still score, because of ace and team wins). From an owner standpoint, predicting who gets to play is very, very easy. I can predict with about 90% accuracy (as can everyone else) who will be sent by most teams. Especially since I can trade after seeing lineups. But its much harder and more skillful to predict who will win games, especially without the safety blanket of knowing that theres no penalty for just picking players who play a lot (which is easy by just looking at lineups).
Originally I really liked the new rules for scoring, particularly since anti-team players could gain you points. The only reason I spoke up in the first place was because the "expected point gain of a 1-pointer" constant should change to appropriately fit the new scoring rules, and the only reason I continue to post is because Abydos1 apparently did not understand that the new scoring changes would lead to an average decrease in scores, not an increase. Obviously this impacts the scoring and trade values of players not just this round, but the next round as well -- set too high of a constant for the number of points distributed and player costs will deflate from round to round.
It's only after thinking about this a long time that I'm starting to dislike the new scoring rules. I'm not some conservative who thinks rules should be a particular way just because that's the way they were done before, nor do I feel like there should be some sort of charity giving points to players who lose. My point is that mathematically, 1-pointers who play will on average do significantly worse than their non-playing counterparts. That's what I mean by a penalty for playing. 1-pointers, if they play, are going to lose. Yes, there is a skill in picking players that are going to do well, but the emphasis right now is not on winning but on win percentage.
So pick 1-pointers that don't play, or don't pick them at all. I don't see how this changes anything, because if you pick players "on average" you're going to end up in the middle of the pack. What the new rules do is rewards owners for choosing / trading for 1 and 2 pointers who will break out, and punishes owners who are wrong about it.
Also, I really don't understand why you would change a players' cost relative to the previous round. Player initial costs are really important in determining who goes on what team, and if a player did so poorly as to score negative points the previous round they really shouldn't be seeded at 2 points the next time. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily pick and choose which players' costs to change -- you might as well be using a completely different criterion for assigning player costs, like "skill", and do away with math altogether.
Reasons: 1. Unpredictability of 1-Round Results Before, we used a formula that was split (2/3 cost based on most recent round; 1/3 cost based on two rounds ago). Unfortunately this is the start of the season so "last round" was like half a year ago and thus one single round is not predictive of player value going forward, especially with the variance that comes with matchups in SPL.
2. Diversification of Teams Add to this that while each players cost theoretically should be the same value to your team (ie Jaedong at 8 should be worth the same to your team as Type-B at 2, because Jaedong scores 4x the points), owners almost never diversify picks. Its always the same players being chosen round after round. One goal obviously is to diversify teams -- if everyone has the same team or 80% the same team (JD Flash Bisu etc), then FPL becomes simply about who guesses the right 2-point player. This is not an ideal situation, and thus why we "adjust" players according to the demand of owner choices.
There would be an uproar if you arbitrarily assigned a player points or inflated their trade value in the middle of the season, it isn't much different to do that in the offseason.
We don't set every players value, we only adjust a few of them, for the reasons posted above. For instance, Las Vegas sets betting lines for many sporting events, but does not actually set the line at what they think it will be. They set the line at what they believe people's perceptions are. Jaedong's actual price based solely off PL 09-10 R1 is 6. Last round, almost half the owners in FPL picked Jaedong @ 10. If his value was 6 this round, just about every single serious team would have Jaedong. Add to that Bisu @ 6 (we also adjusted him up), and that essentially makes FPL a 18-point, 4 player team. Do you want 99% of FPL to have Bisu, Jaedong, or Bisu+Jaedong?
The point of this league is to also compete with each other and make PL more interesting. If every single team was the same this would drastically kill the enjoyment value of FPL. Thats why we "adjust" most players. Everyone sees the stats from last time, and diligent owners can figure out pretty easily from last rounds ending Trade Values where the differences are.
Also, since its easy to see which adjustments were made, you can easily just put the adjusted players on your Anti-Team if you believe their values are too high. You are welcome to put Jaedong or Jangbi on your Anti-Team if you feel their prices are not fair.
Obviously FPL is still about picking players and making trades and doing all that better relative to everyone else that is playing FPL. I get that. No matter how the scoring and player costs change, everyone's teams are still scored the same. But for all your talk of skill, it's getting pretty annoying trying to play FPL seriously.
You may think everyone's teams are scored the same so its "fair" but that's not the only consideration we have. It'd be equally annoying to play FPL if 90% of the owners had the same teams. You can only make so many teams with 6+3 slots, especially if there are "easy" picks. This round, there will be greater diversification of choices because of the adjustments we made (less "easy" picks), and thus that increases the skill factor and enjoyment factor of FPL.
Bottom line is, would you rather have Jaedong at 6 or 8? For your team personally maybe he's better at 6, but for FPL overall? Would it really be good if 95% of the teams had Jaedong? Its not like we made him cost 12 -- plenty of people will stick pick him.
I enjoy this team a lot, but it took a bit of fiddling with to get it right. Mostly, I just really like the anti-team. I don't think Sea is bad, just that 9 points is too high of a price - he's probably more like a 5 or 6 point player. Really is almost certainly a better player, for example- too bad I didn't have room for him on my main. I laughed when I saw that hydra was a 3 point player, but I'll probably swap him out for anytime the second he has a zvz in the lineup.
I have some doubts about the main team, though. Ameba I picked because I feel like he is the only 1 pointer likely to win points if they get played rather than lose them. Light is consistent, been playing really well. Same thing for Stork and Violet. Type-B/Shine are both zergs who have lots of potential, and deserve to be the go to players on both of their teams rather than the backups they currently are.
Crap, not sure at all if Im gonna go with 'Jaedong & sKyHigh' or 'Sea & Movie'... Any suggestions? (It's either of the two choices, Im not taking anything else.)
On December 04 2009 00:43 integral wrote: So instead of having jangbi (-2 points last season under new scoring) or baby (2 points) or horang2 (1 point) on my team, I have sair and sungsun and nbs. I don't know these players, I've never even seem them play, I just know they're less of a risk than someone who plays and loses.
That's a good way to not get negative points but it also basically guarantees you of a middle of the pack finish among thousands of owners. If you want to finish high this season, you will have to pick players you think will win, not just pick players who will "not lose."
On that note, why the hell does jangbi cost 2 points when he ended up negative last season?
Because we adjusted a lot of the costs. Since you think Jangbi costs too much, you're putting him on your anti team right?
Anyway, I don't really like this way of scoring. Starcraft is zero-sum, so if you're not winning you're losing -- but the way I see it, the real accomplishment is just getting to play at this level. Penalizing players for playing games is silly.
How are we penalizing players for playing games? We're simply removing the automatic point for playing. There's no constitutional law stating that every player in fantasy proleague is guaranteed an appearance point.
I disagree -- the real accomplishment is not "simply getting to play." The real accomplishment is winning. And with 4 points to a win and -2 for a loss, players break even if go 1-2 (which probably means they still score, because of ace and team wins). From an owner standpoint, predicting who gets to play is very, very easy. I can predict with about 90% accuracy (as can everyone else) who will be sent by most teams. Especially since I can trade after seeing lineups. But its much harder and more skillful to predict who will win games, especially without the safety blanket of knowing that theres no penalty for just picking players who play a lot (which is easy by just looking at lineups).
Originally I really liked the new rules for scoring, particularly since anti-team players could gain you points. The only reason I spoke up in the first place was because the "expected point gain of a 1-pointer" constant should change to appropriately fit the new scoring rules, and the only reason I continue to post is because Abydos1 apparently did not understand that the new scoring changes would lead to an average decrease in scores, not an increase. Obviously this impacts the scoring and trade values of players not just this round, but the next round as well -- set too high of a constant for the number of points distributed and player costs will deflate from round to round.
It's only after thinking about this a long time that I'm starting to dislike the new scoring rules. I'm not some conservative who thinks rules should be a particular way just because that's the way they were done before, nor do I feel like there should be some sort of charity giving points to players who lose. My point is that mathematically, 1-pointers who play will on average do significantly worse than their non-playing counterparts. That's what I mean by a penalty for playing. 1-pointers, if they play, are going to lose. Yes, there is a skill in picking players that are going to do well, but the emphasis right now is not on winning but on win percentage.
So pick 1-pointers that don't play, or don't pick them at all. I don't see how this changes anything, because if you pick players "on average" you're going to end up in the middle of the pack. What the new rules do is rewards owners for choosing / trading for 1 and 2 pointers who will break out, and punishes owners who are wrong about it.
I'm just pointing out the pattern. Excluding team wins, 1-pointers that play will do worse than 1-pointers that do play. Obviously I'm adjusting my team accordingly, I've already mentioned that. The reason I even have 1-pointers on my team is because this season rewards win % and ace appearances -- not necessarily winning -- so I've gone with what I think are the "most guaranteed" win % players who will show up in the most ace matches. Picking 3 top players leaves me with 8 points left over to distribute between a team and 3 other players. If you see no problem with no-name no-skill players earning more points than players that actually get the opportunity to play, I guess we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
Also, I really don't understand why you would change a players' cost relative to the previous round. Player initial costs are really important in determining who goes on what team, and if a player did so poorly as to score negative points the previous round they really shouldn't be seeded at 2 points the next time. It's ridiculous to arbitrarily pick and choose which players' costs to change -- you might as well be using a completely different criterion for assigning player costs, like "skill", and do away with math altogether.
Reasons: 1. Unpredictability of 1-Round Results Before, we used a formula that was split (2/3 cost based on most recent round; 1/3 cost based on two rounds ago). Unfortunately this is the start of the season so "last round" was like half a year ago and thus one single round is not predictive of player value going forward, especially with the variance that comes with matchups in SPL.
2. Diversification of Teams Add to this that while each players cost theoretically should be the same value to your team (ie Jaedong at 8 should be worth the same to your team as Type-B at 2, because Jaedong scores 4x the points), owners almost never diversify picks. Its always the same players being chosen round after round. One goal obviously is to diversify teams -- if everyone has the same team or 80% the same team (JD Flash Bisu etc), then FPL becomes simply about who guesses the right 2-point player. This is not an ideal situation, and thus why we "adjust" players according to the demand of owner choices.
Team diversification is mostly limited by the lack of slots for players and the limited number of high-cost players relative to the number of low-cost players. Right now there are 23 players 4 points or higher, and 179 players 3 points or lower, the vast majority of those being 1-pointers. People pick the same players because there aren't that many players. Gotta get to 30 somehow, and you're not gonna get 30 with all 3-pointers. You'd see a lot more diversification if the number of players you could pick were increased (e.g. to 8), but just adjusting the costs of cheaper players won't necessarily impact diversification much.
There would be an uproar if you arbitrarily assigned a player points or inflated their trade value in the middle of the season, it isn't much different to do that in the offseason.
We don't set every players value, we only adjust a few of them, for the reasons posted above. For instance, Las Vegas sets betting lines for many sporting events, but does not actually set the line at what they think it will be. They set the line at what they believe people's perceptions are. Jaedong's actual price based solely off PL 09-10 R1 is 6. Last round, almost half the owners in FPL picked Jaedong @ 10. If his value was 6 this round, just about every single serious team would have Jaedong. Add to that Bisu @ 6 (we also adjusted him up), and that essentially makes FPL a 18-point, 4 player team. Do you want 99% of FPL to have Bisu, Jaedong, or Bisu+Jaedong?
The point of this league is to also compete with each other and make PL more interesting. If every single team was the same this would drastically kill the enjoyment value of FPL. Thats why we "adjust" most players. Everyone sees the stats from last time, and diligent owners can figure out pretty easily from last rounds ending Trade Values where the differences are. You are welcome to put Jaedong or Jangbi on your Anti-Team if you feel their values is too high.
Obviously you're exaggerating to make your point about diversification, but I'm not impressed. The highest %-owned players last season were: Jaedong 47%, Iris 43%, Jangbi 34%, Movie 33%, and skyhigh at 28%. If you want to include both/or percentages with only 23 players above 4-points I think that's a little disingenuous... how much can be attributed to player costs and how much to fanboyism or bandwagoning based on recent results? Isolate the variable of player cost and your diversification argument would be a lot stronger.
Obviously FPL is still about picking players and making trades and doing all that better relative to everyone else that is playing FPL. I get that. No matter how the scoring and player costs change, everyone's teams are still scored the same. But for all your talk of skill, it's getting pretty annoying trying to play FPL seriously.
You may think everyone's teams are scored the same so its "fair" but that's not the only consideration we have. It'd be equally annoying to play FPL if 90% of the owners had the same teams. You can only make so many teams with 6+3 slots, especially if there are "easy" picks. This round, there will be greater diversification of choices because of the adjustments we made (less "easy" picks), and thus that increases the skill factor and enjoyment factor of FPL.
Bottom line is, would you rather have Jaedong at 6 or 8? For your team personally maybe he's better at 6, but for FPL overall? Would it really be good if 95% of the teams had Jaedong? Its not like we made him cost 12 -- plenty of people will stick pick him.
This part just annoys me, apparently the only issue you have with what I wrote is that I talked about adjusting player costs, because the rest of it you don't address. Would you care to address the issue of the constant used to determine trade values being inaccurate and causing deflation?
As far as I'm concerned my main point hasn't even been addressed: at the end of the round unless something is changed the point distribution will be totally fucked up. Top players with no losses and with ace appearances will be miles ahead of 4 and 5 point 50/50 players that with 10 lineup appearances would come in at 10 points + team wins. All players have to exceed 33% winrate to break even with their teammates who don't play -- which 12 of 25 1-pointers that played did not do, 12 of 26 2-pointers did not do, 9 of 14 3-pointers did not do, 4 of 12 5-pointers did not do, and which 2 of 4 6-pointers did not do. This is a significant change to the scoring that obviously impacts player choices as well -- there are a lot of low win % players that are not going to be earning any points next round. If you're concerned about team diversification you should be concerned about this, because if you're not an idiot you'll take your chances with a high cost high win% player over two lower cost lower win% players. On second thought, this is actually good for diversification; owners who really understand the new scoring will be picking up a lot of players they've never heard of before to fill out the other half of their Jaedong/Effort/Bisu/Flash (pick any two) teams.
A simple "hey you make some good points about the new scoring system" would make me feel a lot more heard. Right now even the most basic thing I pointed out, that overall points will decrease with the new scoring, hasn't even been acknowledged -- despite Abydos1 having already apparently increased the value of the constant instead of decreasing it.
This thread has been really annoying, having to bump my own posts through the spam so someone acknowledges them and whatnot. Just thought I would say that in case it impacted how you perceive my tone right now.
So this doesn't get reiterated, I understand why you adjust player prices based on demand, I just don't agree. It just seems pretty arbitrary to me given the limited player pool. Plus, many of the adjustments made are due to the increase of the constant used to calculate value and relative decrease of the point costs. Almost everyone is cheaper than they should be with the new constant being too high relative to players' expected point gain. With an accurate constant and purely based on the last round results, flash would be 12 points, zero would be 11, and sea 10.
Also, just for clarification, I didn't mean to make it sound like only 3-pointers will be doing poorly next round because so many did so poorly last round, that would be retarded. What I meant to say was, there are a lot of low win % players that are not going to be earning any points next round. gonna edit this into the other post since it can be misinterpreted.
To answer you on the 50-50 10 lineup appearance guy versus the teammate that doesnt play: you realize that you are playing FPL to gain points not avoid losing points right? If a player does not play he may earn the same points as someone who goes 3-6, but its NOT the same thing because someone who doesn't play gives you no opportunity to gain points.
I understand your argument that this might lead to people going for one or two of the 8+ guys and the rest 1-pointers that don't play, but that is not without risk. High Win% people are by no means locks. Jaedong, Bisu, and Leta all did very poorly, dropping ~3 or more points in price. Last round, two very low cost players (Sea and Zero) more than tripled their cost, and several midrange guys (like Luxury, Violet, Free, etc) also had large gains. The skill is NOT in predicting who will get 9 or 10 appearances, that is easy. It's predicting the guys that will go 7-2 over 4-5.
As for diversification, I think we can all agree that Jaedong, Iris, Movie, Jangbi were farrrr to prevalent, even if you factor in that Jaedong was only one of two 10 pointers. The other three cost 2 or less, so if we had no diversification issue, they "should" be picked in somewhat equal amounts with other 1 and 2 pointers.
I'll let Abydos answer the factor question and why the number is higher than 4.6 this time. As for you getting annoyed or frustrated, remember that we are a) trying our best and b) all trying to have fun here. There is no need to get angry about something like this, especially with how we discuss it. I'm not trying to offend you and I don't see where you're getting that, obviously we're reading and considering your posts because I'm taking the time to respond to them.
This is more of an experimental round with new scoring; we're aiming to make Fantasy a skill game but not completely a skill game. There must be a factor of luck for casual owners to enjoy playing. In fact, I'd argue there must be a relatively significant factor of luck.
On December 04 2009 09:41 Hot_Bid wrote: [...] you realize that you are playing FPL to gain points not avoid losing points right?
As far as I can tell I'm not an idiot and I realize that I'm playing to gain points and not lose them. But when points are zero sum, not-losing-points and gaining points amounts to the same thing. I don't know why you would say something like that except if you are operating on the assumption that I'm an idiot; maybe you're used to being more intelligent than most of the people you talk to, but I don't really appreciate the implication. FPL is ultimately a crapshoot and a silly game that doesn't indicate or mean anything, so no I'm not raging over here, it's just I'm not sure why I'm doing all this math and analysis if it's not addressed with the same level of thought I put into it.
You're correct that cost is not a predictor of results -- players will exceed their cost, but I cannot predict who those will be and those players might be the ones that I have picked just as well as they might be two random 3-pointers. That's why I'm going with the strategy that maximizes win% and likelihood of ace appearance per cost. If you want to play the "you never know" card you have to acknowledge it goes both ways. It's foolish to take a risk that statistically does not reward you unless you are confident that that player will defy the odds. Find me a 1-pointer that's playing this week with above a 33% winrate in their matchup and that isn't playing an A or S-class player and I'll put them on my team.
So consider, if you will, my attempt to build a statistically optimal team with the premises and approach I've laid out in my previous posts. I want to maximize win percentage, win opportunity, and ace match potential. So, I look at not just players' costs but their lifetime win percentage and current ELO across all 3 matchups, and ace match likelihood. This gives me a short list of candidates: Flash, Jaedong, Effort, Bisu. Calm, Sea, Leta, Fantasy, Stork, Zero, and (surprisingly) Violet are 2nd tier candidates. I think Jaedong and Effort will have more appearances and play more ace matches than Bisu will, while not having a significantly worse win rate. But oops -- I can't include Flash because there's no worthwhile team I could select worth 1 point because Oz and Khan's prices were arbitrarily inflated. So now I'm going with Leta and CJ instead of Flash + and another team and it feels like settling for 2nd best for what seems to me like no good reason. Oz would be worth 1 point if costs were accurate. Khan would be -1. Of course I'm going to post about the cost discrepancy.
Lastly, 50% being too high is just, like, your opinion, man. So no we all obviously cannot agree that Jaedong or any of those players were "far too common" the previous round. He won the golden mouse and was generally destroying everything. 50% ownership for a player like jaedong is not a problem to be solved when there are so few comparable players. There's no reason to think everyone would pick a player as long as price accurately reflects the scoring from the previous round. I checked round 3 as well, turns out jaedong had 57% back then. 39% the round after that, and flash was on 51% of teams that round. If you're trying to push percentages lower than what you said was "farrrr to prevalent" in the previous round at 34% for Jangbi and 33% for Movie, you're not going to do it by modifying the costs up one or two points, you're just annoying anal retentive players like me. I'm pretty confident that when the signups are done the number of Jaedong owners will still exceed 33%. If you want to ensure diversification there are other, more effective ways of going about it.
On December 04 2009 09:41 Hot_Bid wrote: [...] you realize that you are playing FPL to gain points not avoid losing points right?
As far as I can tell I'm not an idiot and I realize that I'm playing to gain points and not lose them. But when points are zero sum, not-losing-points and gaining points amounts to the same thing. I don't know why you would say something like that except if you are operating on the assumption that I'm an idiot; maybe you're used to being more intelligent than most of the people you talk to, but I don't really appreciate the implication. FPL is ultimately a crapshoot and a silly game that doesn't indicate or mean anything, so no I'm not raging over here, it's just I'm not sure why I'm doing all this math and analysis if it's not addressed with the same level of thought I put into it.
Its a crapshoot and yet its not. That's what makes fantasy fun. Every fantasy sport -- be it basketball, baseball, football, etc has huge elements of luck but everyone always does ridiculous amounts of analysis about it. I don't know where you think we're not considering things thoroughly, because we've put a tremendous amount of thought and work into the fantasy system. Just because we're not agreeing with your opinion does not mean we're not "addressing fantasy with the same level of thought" as you.
You're correct that cost is not a predictor of results -- players will exceed their cost, but I cannot predict who those will be and those players might be the ones that I have picked just as well as they might be two random 3-pointers.
This is why fantasy is fun. Some people believe that they can predict those who will exceed their cost each round. If you look at results historically, I'm sure some owners have picked several players each round that exceed their cost.
That's why I'm going with the strategy that maximizes win% and likelihood of ace appearance per cost. If you want to play the "you never know" card you have to acknowledge it goes both ways. It's foolish to take a risk that statistically does not reward you unless you are confident that that player will defy the odds. Find me a 1-pointer that's playing this week with above a 33% winrate in their matchup and that isn't playing an A or S-class player and I'll put them on my team.
Exactly this -- sometimes you are confident that a player will defy the odds. And that isn't done by looking at math, its done by watching the games.
So consider, if you will, my attempt to build a statistically optimal team with the premises and approach I've laid out in my previous posts. I want to maximize win percentage, win opportunity, and ace match potential. So, I look at not just players' costs but their lifetime win percentage and current ELO across all 3 matchups, and ace match likelihood. This gives me a short list of candidates: Flash, Jaedong, Effort, Bisu. Calm, Sea, Leta, Fantasy, Stork, Zero, and (surprisingly) Violet are 2nd tier candidates. I think Jaedong and Effort will have more appearances and play more ace matches than Bisu will, while not having a significantly worse win rate. But oops -- I can't include Flash because there's no worthwhile team I could select worth 1 point because Oz and Khan's prices were arbitrarily inflated. So now I'm going with Leta and CJ instead of Flash + and another team and it feels like settling for 2nd best for what seems to me like no good reason. Oz would be worth 1 point if costs were accurate. Khan would be -1. Of course I'm going to post about the cost discrepancy.
They aren't "arbitrarily inflated" because like I stated before, we NEVER solely based price on one previous round. It was always a combination of the last two rounds. Except this time, the "previous round" was R5 which was too long ago. Oz and Khan's value dropped after R1 -- they both performed poorly. Their prices just didn't drop as much as you wanted, because as I said, we don't base everything off one round. Having teams at drastically different prices due to a single round of different performance has not been how we historically handle it.
Lastly, 50% being too high is just, like, your opinion, man. So no we all obviously cannot agree that Jaedong or any of those players were "far too common" the previous round. He won the golden mouse and was generally destroying everything. 50% ownership for a player like jaedong is not a problem to be solved when there are so few comparable players. There's no reason to think everyone would pick a player as long as price accurately reflects the scoring from the previous round. I checked round 3 as well, turns out jaedong had 57% back then. 39% the round after that, and flash was on 51% of teams that round. If you're trying to push percentages lower than what you said was "farrrr to prevalent" in the previous round at 34% for Jangbi and 33% for Movie, you're not going to do it by modifying the costs up one or two points, you're just annoying anal retentive players like me. I'm pretty confident that when the signups are done the number of Jaedong owners will still exceed 33%. If you want to ensure diversification there are other, more effective ways of going about it.
I'm by no means saying that we'll push Jaedong ownership at below 33%. Jaedong's reputation is precisely why we needed to bump his cost up. Jaedong can be doing horribly, cost 10, and still be picked by 50% of teams. If owners are willing to pick him at 10 no matter what, there is NO benefit to having him at 6. None at all. Because that just means an even larger percentage of owners will have him, so why even play fantasy if everyone picks the same team? It becomes even more of a crapshoot. If we adjust prices to a point where people may consider NOT having Jaedong, then we've done our job with the price increase.
You say pushing prices up "only annoys anal retentive owners like you" but this is simply untrue. The fact is, changing player costs definitely impacts % ownership on teams. Modifying a lower cost player's price up will push ownership %s down. Jaedong and Bisu at 6 will put them on the majority of teams, to the point where it will be impossible to be competitive without one or both on your team. Is that what we want? The only way adjusting their prices up would be negative is if the cost is too high so that almost nobody picks them. But as you said, their reputations are so high, they will still get picked even at the higher costs.
Ask yourself, do you think Jaedong is overvalued at 8? Or that Jangbi is overvalued at 2? Are you going to put these players on your Anti-Team at these prices?
Also, I'd like to hear your ideas about how to diversify player ownership without changing costs, because Jaedong @ 6 = autopick for just about anyone trying for Top 10.
Just FYI re-reading one of your previous responses to me, if the constant were appropriately adjusted downward from previous rounds it would be about 3.9 (a 14.6% decrease in the constant to reflect the 14.6% decrease in total points, assuming the same number of streak points and ace matches.) Assuming the constant was accurate in the first place (which it wasn't) and rounding up to 4 -- both jaedong and bisu would be worth 8 points under the new scoring system with the adjusted constant. Flash would be worth 14 and a half.
But since it was inaccurate, let's examine the previous constant in light of the previous round's scoring in order to establish a new constant by subtracting 14.6% from an accurate old constant. Under the old scoring, if we started with a definition of 1-pointers as players that will lose all games they appear in, the score of a 1-pointer would be equivalent to the number of team wins per match. Since each match is zero-sum the average team wins for all teams in 11 matches is 5.5. which would've been an accurate minimum starting point since under the old scoring there is no way to drop below your team wins in score. (The average would be very close to, but not exactly 5.5 -- that not all teams have the same number of players skews the average very slightly in favor of those teams who have more players. Last round this skew was only +8 points from the ideal average of 814 or 1%, which would add + .05 to the constant.)
We have one more thing to address in the old scoring, though, and that's the lineup appearance points. 1-pointers who did not play but appeared in the lineup would earn one more point than a 1-pointer who appeared in the lineup and played and (by previous definition) lost. Now, assuming that there weren't a ridiculously high number of 3-0 games last season, which I think is a pretty safe assumption, we can use the results from last season as a baseline for an appearance point model. Last season 528 points for lineup appearances were doled out, though only 490 lineup appearances actually happened. Considering the distribution of lineup appearances for 1-pointers, 103 of 528 lineup appearances were for 1-pointers. Thus (38 * 103/528)/490 will get our % increase for our expected point gain for 1-pointers under the old system relative to our current 5.5 +- .05 constant. That comes out to .015 or 1.51% or ~.08, which, rounded up, brings the constant to a significantly more accurate 5.6.
Adjust 5.6 downward by 14.6% (recall, this is to reflect the overall % point decrease expected with the scoring changes) and we get ~4.8 for our new constant.
Let's see how much various players would cost with the new scoring and the new constant, rounded to the nearest integer: + Show Spoiler [list] +
Flash 12 Zero 11 Sea 10 Effort 10 Violet 9 Really 8 Luxury 7 Jaedong 7 Bisu 7 Free 7 Calm 6 Fantasy 6 Roro 5 Ruby 4 Kal 4 Leta 4 etc.
As you can see, even with an accurate constant, the point distribution is heavily skewed toward players with higher win percentages as opposed to 50/50. Under old scoring, 11 win flash scores and costs double to a 6 win ruby. Under new scoring, 11-1 flash scores and costs 3.41 times (12.08 to 3.54) as much as 6-7 ruby, who in turn scores 8 points less than a 4-0 action.
I don't think that's a change for the better. At all. You might disagree. I think it's fine to play it out for a season, I've already made my best guess as to who will have the best win% this round, plus it's kind of late to change the scoring again.
The constant does need to be changed though. I haven't even gone into the effect of an inaccurate constant in this post, hopefully it's just already obvious why having a constant that is too high will significantly deflate player costs and trade values midseason.
I would encourage you to check my math in case I made a mistake or overlooked something, but I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Hi. Sorry if this question has been answered before.
How do the player prices affect the player trade values after the first week? What I mean is: are the trade values determined solely based on the player price + first week performance?
Or are the trade values based on the player's trade values at the end of previous seasons? In light of the posts directly above, it seems it might take into account two previous seasons (or is this just the player price?), in which case how are we to determine what a player's actual trade value is at the start?
I'm asking this question because of this: for example, Sea and Zero are both priced at 9. However at the end of season 5 their trade values are 9.87 and 10.53. If I had Zero and he performed slightly worse than Sea in week 1: - if trade values after first week were based solely on price - then I can't trade out Zero to get Sea; or - if trade values were based on something else, say FPL round 5 trading values - then I might be able to trade depending on the numbers.
Hope it wasn't a silly question with an obvious answer. Thanks!
Just because we're not agreeing with your opinion does not mean we're not "addressing fantasy with the same level of thought" as you.
C'mon man, obviously you're not, you didn't even notice that overall scoring was going to be decreased this round when you adjusted the scoring rules. As a result, you guys got the constant wrong too, and now you're adjusting costs upward to deal with the deflation caused by your inaccurate constant. And now you're arguing with me with irrelevant conclusions derived from the inaccurate costs in turn derived from an inaccurate constant and wondering why I'm getting annoyed and don't think you're putting as much thought into this as I am. Okay.
You gotta differentiate between what I'm saying that is my opinion and what I'm saying that is not my opinion. That the statistically best team assuming current players play exactly to their win percentages consists of top players and 1-pointers who do not play is not my opinion. That taking the statistically best approach will make me not-win due to statistical anomalies is unproven, but quite likely. That taking a statistically worse approach will make me not-win is even more likely. What I've been doing is building a model of what scoring looks like based on the new scoring rules, and then applying that model to previous score and game distributions to get a general feel for how this round will play out. When you changed the scoring rules you didn't build this model. And now you keep ignoring or arguing with the model on the basis that it won't win me FPL. That the statistically best model will not win FPL due to the existence of statsitical deviation is a non-sequitur. I can talk in non-sequiturs too: If jaedong gets a game win and an ace match win every game he could score 130 points in a round and end up with a cost of 27. If you didn't buy jaedong you would lose!!1
I don't really want to talk about this anymore, this whole conversation has been somewhat disheartening but I'll wait until Abydos responds before I give up entirely.
On December 04 2009 14:29 lazz wrote: could you post a list of all players who's cost you adjusted upwards/downwards ?
you adjusted flash from 14 to 10? is that true? if so im definitely picking him up
if they had adjusted the constant down 14.6% from the old inaccurate constant flash would've been 14 points, yeah. with an accurate constant flash is worth 12.08 points under the new scoring based solely on the previous round.
edit: you should note that flash's win percentage was ~92% the previous round, ~22% higher than his lifetime average win %. regression to the mean suggests that at some point he will drop to a 70% winrate or below for a while.
Perhaps Flash is just legitimately ahead of the game now? Skill does progress in this game after all. Clearly you can't keep up a 92% winrate, but there is no reason he has to drop as low as 70%. Just watch a few of his games and you would understand.
Edit: Also, this is progleague and not individual league where the competition is more difficult as you advance leaving you more chance to lose.
Would you guys rather have a borderline 2300 ELO players (bisu or jaedong) and an underrated top 25 bargain basement player or two cheap 2200+ players (stork and kal)?
On December 04 2009 16:59 igotmyown wrote: Would you guys rather have a borderline 2300 ELO players (bisu or jaedong) and an underrated top 25 bargain basement player or two cheap 2200+ players (stork and kal)?
Pick ace players
stork has competition with jangbi (although jangbi has been sucking) and kal has fierce competition from calm. id go with bisu/jaedong, but remember that both have their costs have been artificially inflated, if bisu/jd perform as badly in r2 as they did in r1 they would only be worth around 6 or 7 points and you wont make any profit
On December 04 2009 14:29 lazz wrote: could you post a list of all players who's cost you adjusted upwards/downwards ?
you adjusted flash from 14 to 10? is that true? if so im definitely picking him up
if they had adjusted the constant down 14.6% from the old inaccurate constant flash would've been 14 points, yeah. with an accurate constant flash is worth 12.08 points under the new scoring based solely on the previous round.
edit: you should note that flash's win percentage was ~92% the previous round, ~22% higher than his lifetime average win %. regression to the mean suggests that at some point he will drop to a 70% winrate or below for a while.
hehe that's interesting that you're applying regression to pro starcraft. i dont know how much validity it holds.
also remember that flash didnt play many ace matches last round because KT rolled everyone 3-0 or 3-1.
On December 04 2009 16:59 igotmyown wrote: Would you guys rather have a borderline 2300 ELO players (bisu or jaedong) and an underrated top 25 bargain basement player or two cheap 2200+ players (stork and kal)?
Is "rather" based mathematically or otherwise? If you're going by the math you should do a quick calculation of win rate over a significant sample size of time, bisu's win rate in the 08-09 season was 55-15 or 34-8 excluding winner's league if TLPD is correct. Stork was 33-24 and Kal was 35-24. Kal's win rate isn't dramatically different now, neither is stork's, neither is bisu's, so this seems like a decent way to compare, so let's use it:
Bisu's point differential would be 190. Include ace match appearances (6) and team wins (35) and bisu earned 237 points all year. Not going to do streak points.
Stork's point differential would be 84, Kal's would be 92. Include ace matches (kal 9 stork 6) and team wins (33 for STX and 30 for KHAN) and combined your total is 269 points for both players. Kal probably plays less ace matches now because Calm's a beast and because STX is dumb and sends modesty and hero instead, but whatever.
As long as your dude earns 13.5% of Bisu's points (team wins alone would do it as long as they're not on ACE or KHAN) and win rates are roughly comparable to the previous season, go with bisu and the dude.
edit: or jaedong, he was worth 255 points last year.
On December 04 2009 16:59 igotmyown wrote: Would you guys rather have a borderline 2300 ELO players (bisu or jaedong) and an underrated top 25 bargain basement player or two cheap 2200+ players (stork and kal)?
Pick ace players
stork has competition with jangbi (although jangbi has been sucking) and kal has fierce competition from calm. id go with bisu/jaedong, but remember that both have their costs have been artificially inflated, if bisu/jd perform as badly in r2 as they did in r1 they would only be worth around 6 or 7 points and you wont make any profit
Kal is worth 3.54 points based on an accurate scale. Stork is worth 4.375. Right now they both cost 5. Take from that what you will.
Ah nice intelligent reply. The 2 point player is type-b or canata, who performed relatively unimpressively (lack of games?), but statistically I expect them to win at least 50% to high 50%'s of their games.
Shouldn't 34-8 be 116? Stork was 28-16 for 112-32=80. Kal was 28-19 for 74. If those records include ace matches, shouldn't that just inflate the scores by removing loss points?
If they perform the exact same as last season, I'm guessing we'll all perform exactly average, so I'm hypothesizing ELO will be a better predictor than season games and I want to see if it performs above average. I assume that Jaedong will be worth more than 8/9 of Sea or Zero.
Jaedong hasn't been acing, and Bisu's not getting the nod that often, and I'm not comfortable assuming they will always ace. I also personally think that Flash will regress, as hot players tend to, but if I'm going to follow my hypothesis I can't ignore a 2350 ELO.
tossgirl isnt a bad idea at all, if you think STX will win a lot this season
i was briefly flirting with picking up some shitty KHAN 0 pointer, hoping that khan would win a few matches, but instead I just picked up Tazza, lol. hoping he'll beat Jaehoon
On December 04 2009 19:43 igotmyown wrote: Ah nice intelligent reply. The 2 point player is type-b or canata, who performed relatively unimpressively (lack of games?), but statistically I expect them to win at least 50% to high 50%'s of their games.
Shouldn't 34-8 be 116? Stork was 28-16 for 112-32=80. Kal was 28-19 for 74. If those records include ace matches, shouldn't that just inflate the scores by removing loss points?
If they perform the exact same as last season, I'm guessing we'll all perform exactly average, so I'm hypothesizing ELO will be a better predictor than season games and I want to see if it performs above average. I assume that Jaedong will be worth more than 8/9 of Sea or Zero.
Jaedong hasn't been acing, and Bisu's not getting the nod that often, and I'm not comfortable assuming they will always ace. I also personally think that Flash will regress, as hot players tend to, but if I'm going to follow my hypothesis I can't ignore a 2350 ELO.
I just used the percentage wins from all of proleague and included winner's league. Without winner's league picking bisu and jaedong is worse than before relative to stork and kal, stork and kal went a combined 12-13 in winner's league. Bisu's win percentage actually dropped in winner's league, though, from 81% to 75%. Jaedong's slightly increased from 66% to 81%. Obviously Jaedong will ace more, on a worse team with no competing ace player, even though Oz played a lot of its rookies last round.
I'm not really liking any of the anti-team options at the moment. FBH isn't playing, which is fine. I thought about adding BeSt for the same reason but SKT is likely to actually win a match or two. Really and Ruby are just guessing who's going to lose. With so many 2- and 3- pointers in contrast to previous rounds, there really is no hope of having a "good" anti-team unless you guess right.
My main team is okay. Calm seemed cheapest for his probably worth, fantasy and Movie have good matchups this week. Action ditto, and Canata I'm gambling on a little bit. It may change yet again...
Happy with most of it. I think effort is a better pick than flash/bisu/jaedong because he will get to ace more often hopefully. A bit nervous about Saint being awful and Roro or Skyhigh dominating, but we shall see
didnt change my AT. Got Type-b and Movie into my MT and Barracks to get the team full and take the kt teamwin points. I'm not sure about eSTRO as a team or HITE yet, but i think my player setup is final for the first week.
Okay I have a question - First of all: BeSt and HiyA both cost 4 points. Let's say BeSt is on my anti-team this week. Meanwhile, HiyA wins his game against n.Die_soO but loses against Flash. Would I then be able to trade BeSt for HiyA next week if I wanted to?
Edit: I'm asking because I'm not sure if their trade values would allow me to do so.
One more question - DarkElf and Bogus both cost 1 point. If DarkElf loses his match this week, will his trade value become lower than Bogus', or will it still be possible to trade him?
EDIT: Kennigit I might go more all-in than you LOL
On December 05 2009 10:56 KP_CollectoR wrote: Okay I have a question - First of all: BeSt and HiyA both cost 4 points. Let's say BeSt is on my anti-team this week. Meanwhile, HiyA wins his game against n.Die_soO but loses against Flash. Would I then be able to trade BeSt for HiyA next week if I wanted to?
Edit: I'm asking because I'm not sure if their trade values would allow me to do so.
Beta - this team was based on the concept of finding players who overperformed last round compared to their cost this round, paired with a couple aces.
BeSt is included because I needed a Protoss, and he will get playing time eventually.
Efficiency - this team, similar to Beta, is based on best performance relative to cost. However, it avoids extra aces for the sake of getting a good team.
The team I have now? I looked at all these, and said, "Screw it, what if I just pick players I like?" Other than having to pick up KHAN, it's surprisingly strong.
feeling really good about this team. Last season was my first time, and I got sunk because of Sea on my antiteam and a really bad strategy for my main team, which was to take a bunch of SKT players and hope that the points for team wins would add up. They didn't.
Changed for the 1000000 time Just wondering, why are people picking Canata so often when he is up against both Effort and Jaedong in his first two matches? :o especially as a captain... edit: nvm, its just the same dude posting his lineup several times
On December 03 2009 23:34 integral wrote: These are the top 35 scorers in Fantasy Proleague and their score differences when you compare the new scoring to old. This list includes the best players in the game, and those with the highest winrate. Already, for just the top 35 players, the total score differential is -42. If I were to add up the differences for all the players, the negative score differential would become even more pronounced.
Overall score is decreased with the new scoring, not increased. Significantly.
While overall scoring decreased the top player's scoring has increased, thus to keep them around 10 points and actually buy-able the constant had to be increased. The thing is all the new costs are using the new scoring as a basis so with the overall scoring decrease you're seeing an average decrease in player costs too. The 5.7 constant is purely a scaling factor to put player's in the ~0-10 cost range to fit with the 30 main team/13 anti team spending allocation; the one downside to a higher constant a slight loss in granularity in the low cost players which is very minor.
I'm just pointing out the pattern. Excluding team wins, 1-pointers that play will do worse than 1-pointers that do play. Obviously I'm adjusting my team accordingly, I've already mentioned that. The reason I even have 1-pointers on my team is because this season rewards win % and ace appearances -- not necessarily winning -- so I've gone with what I think are the "most guaranteed" win % players who will show up in the most ace matches. Picking 3 top players leaves me with 8 points left over to distribute between a team and 3 other players. If you see no problem with no-name no-skill players earning more points than players that actually get the opportunity to play, I guess we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
1-pointers that don't play are going to have no variance in scoring however someone that does play could be worth 2 or even 3 points if they win a couple. So its a risk/reward situation there.
On December 04 2009 09:06 integral wrote: So this doesn't get reiterated, I understand why you adjust player prices based on demand, I just don't agree. It just seems pretty arbitrary to me given the limited player pool. Plus, many of the adjustments made are due to the increase of the constant used to calculate value and relative decrease of the point costs. Almost everyone is cheaper than they should be with the new constant being too high relative to players' expected point gain. With an accurate constant and purely based on the last round results, flash would be 12 points, zero would be 11, and sea 10.
In actuality almost no one is cheaper than what their pure trade value at the end of last round using the new scoring would be. None of the adjustments made were because of the change in the constant; they were mostly made to offset large drops in cost due to poor performances last round which would normally have been accounted for in our usual weighting based on previous rounds (except as hot_bid said last round was a long time ago).
I really have no idea about this, took a nap and woke up with half an hour before PL started :<. Gonna try my hand at trading this round and see how fail I am
3 815 My zvz sniper has an easy game set up against ggaemo. Also being on KTR will bring in the team point wins.
8 Bisu (captain) The revolutionist is a big favorite for his next two games, and is also on a very strong team, SKT.
1 Sair The most talented 1 point player that belonged to a good team (KTR) that I could find.
4 Shine Is the favorite for his next game. Shine is my sleeper pick. I'm calling this to be his breakout season. If he starts under performing, he will probably be the first to be traded.
5 Stork Stork needs to step up big time. He is probably my biggest gamble, but he has a relatively easy first game lined up against herb (0-3 pvp all time).
2 Type-B My second breakout season prediction. I think type-b is one of the most underrated players in the current scene. He also has the good fortune of playing the 9 game pvz losing streak jangbi.
7 KT Rolster A key part of the team, I expect KTR to continue their domination and rack in the points.
The AT is largely guess work. Picking these three was by far the hardest part. Ruby is on ACE, so there is no way he can improve dramatically. I'm just praying to the fantasy gods on the other two.
Incidentally - although it's way too late to do anything about this now and everyone's doing the same thing so it doesn't matter - there's one issue that's been really bugging me.
The 30 point team is split 7 ways, or roughly an average of 4.29 per player. The anti-team's 13 goes 3 ways, or 4.33 per player. Slightly more, although of course it can't really be improved on. The thing is, a) team scoring has been reduced and b) there are almost no 4-6 pointers relative to previous rounds, and those there are are good players. This is sort of useful for making the main team as you can fill in with more decent players and still keep a good team or 2nd ace.
However, anti-teams have suddenly become a huge game of roulette. Before, you could find "low end" 4- or 5-pointers to fill out an anti-team; now it's a matter of trying to guess who will hurt you least. It's to the point where it might be better to take a probably over-priced player like Zero or Sea and fill in your other two spots with 2-pointers or bad 3-pointers, but I personally can't resist the lure of trying to avoid damage completely. Not that I'm very good at it.
I assume this will eventually correct itself - I don't have the time integral does to actually look at all the formulas - but this round it's been kind of a headache.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/fantasy/proleague/Images/Banner.jpg)
Watch out IntoTheWow!
![[image loading]](http://imgbin.org/images/1006.jpg)
)
