|
|
Post by Druce on Jun 3, 2020 14:08:14 GMT
We have an end date. It may be premature, but lets start discussing ideas for 6.0
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 14:09:36 GMT
first idea is not using the board bk created
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jun 3, 2020 14:09:53 GMT
Regular weighted lotto.
I would aslo entertain some version of a "tiered weighted lotto" or some form of "weighted wheel". These have both been discussed in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Jun 3, 2020 14:11:26 GMT
let eric run a team
don't let him draft or bid day 1 / day 2
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 14:14:32 GMT
Regular weighted lotto. I would aslo entertain some version of a "tiered weighted lotto" or some form of "weighted wheel". These have both been discussed in the past. can you pitch a weighted wheel concept |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jun 3, 2020 14:27:35 GMT
Regular weighted lotto. I would aslo entertain some version of a "tiered weighted lotto" or some form of "weighted wheel". These have both been discussed in the past. can you pitch a weighted wheel concept Lets say for instance, we have 16 teams in the league, so we have 16 total draft picks. We break up the draft into 4 different sections: Tier 1: Picks 1-4 Tier 2: Picks 5-8 Tier 3: Picks 9-12 Tier 4: Picks 13-16 We then use a wheel format so that every 4 years a team gets a pick in each tier. The exact location of the pick, in the tier, can be determined by a number of different factors. A couple ideas: - We do RNG Lottery and assign picks based on "ping pong" balls - We go based on the last years record. So the worst team in Tier 1 gets the #1 pick, but the best record team can only fall to pick 4 - We use some other form that others can suggest. This idea gives some certainty to each years picks, but also provides a little intrigue into exactly how high the pick could be. Tying it to RNG creates excitement around the lottery and whether your team wins the higher pick Tying it to records means a bad team could at least know its going to have a somewhat higher pick. For good teams it means their success comes at a the risk of a slightly lower pick, making team management more important. This could also make the trade market more interesting. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 14:32:01 GMT
i for one will not be participating in 6.0 if wheel is used without substantial rebalancing
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Jun 3, 2020 14:40:17 GMT
i for one will not be participating in 6.0 if wheel is used without substantial rebalancing it's always important to regularly get your wheels balanced |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jun 3, 2020 17:07:00 GMT
I'd love new software for the sole purpose of finding a way for Eric to be able to have a team again, assuming he wants to.
The downside there is that Eric has created a ton of custom templates and HTMs for this software so that we can work with a smaller league and accommodate expansion/contraction and I'm not sure he'd want to do that again with new software.
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jun 3, 2020 17:08:57 GMT
I'd love a new software.
I am fine with a wheel, I am fine with Rookie FA (I think?), and I'm fine with weighted lotto... assuming we weight it ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Jun 3, 2020 17:16:49 GMT
Everyone wants a new software until they realize it sucks
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 17:46:48 GMT
Everyone wants a new software until they realize it sucks it didnt suck, the commish just wasnt good enough to make it work for the league |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jun 4, 2020 16:37:06 GMT
Would it be worthwhile for one of our more active TMBers (Odin, Druce, Delap, anyone else?) to bump that old signup thread to gauge interest in returns for 6.0? If anyone is really interested in coming back (Heebs and IanBoyd have both said as much), it'd be great to have their input.
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jun 4, 2020 16:39:15 GMT
Would it be worthwhile for one of our more active TMBers (Odin, Druce, Delap, anyone else?) to bump that old signup thread to gauge interest in returns for 6.0? If anyone is really interested in coming back (Heebs and IanBoyd have both said as much), it'd be great to have their input. I'll do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Jun 4, 2020 16:40:26 GMT
we'll also need to poll what we want our starting timeline to be as far as players are concerned. i think current nba would be a nice starting point, or late 90s or something
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Jun 4, 2020 16:42:51 GMT
we'll also need to poll what we want our starting timeline to be as far as players are concerned. i think current nba would be a nice starting point, or late 90s or something I really liked what we did for 5.0 because it meant we could have as many real draft classes as possible. Combining super early classes with yet-to-be-drafted players was great because we were still able to include most guys that people were familiar with in actual draft classes. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Jun 4, 2020 16:46:38 GMT
we'll also need to poll what we want our starting timeline to be as far as players are concerned. i think current nba would be a nice starting point, or late 90s or something I really liked what we did for 5.0 because it meant we could have as many real draft classes as possible. Combining super early classes with yet-to-be-drafted players was great because we were still able to include most guys that people were familiar with in actual draft classes. yeah i get what you're saying, but if we're looking for more widespread appeal, starting with current nba would probably net us the most outside interest. we could always double back on those players too |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jun 4, 2020 17:10:27 GMT
I really liked what we did for 5.0 because it meant we could have as many real draft classes as possible. Combining super early classes with yet-to-be-drafted players was great because we were still able to include most guys that people were familiar with in actual draft classes. yeah i get what you're saying, but if we're looking for more widespread appeal, starting with current nba would probably net us the most outside interest. we could always double back on those players too I personally loved the way we did it for the start of 5.0, think that gave us the longevity we needed. I also see Druce's point on getting initial interest, which is often times a big part of the battle. If we did use current NBA we could do a slight tweak to their name to differentiate them from their real life classes when they come up. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Jun 4, 2020 17:12:43 GMT
This isnt exactly a new idea but a statement I wanted to make.
Really loved the way we handled the Creation draft. The process, profiles, prospects and contracts all seemed fair and easy to get through.
Would strongly vote we replicate it for 6.0.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 4, 2020 19:22:26 GMT
if we're doing a draft for creation i definitely anticipate imitating the creation draft process we used for 5.0, except i will want there to be a significant number (50?) of actual profiles. when we get closer i will be enlisting GMs for writeups
i don't think iteration longevity is that crucial an issue. i think older gms are justifiably gun shy after the difficulties with 2.0 3.0 and 4.0, but i think the start and end of 5.0 demonstrate that iteration turnover doesn't have to be such a disaster. with that in mind, i would like to start with multiple time-separated real classes so from the jump the league looks like it will throughout its life time.
we had 450 players for 29 gms to start 5.0, i think that 14 players * however many gms we have is plenty, and since we have about 40 players per class that means for a 20 GM league we'd be using 7 classes. i don't think cutting the iteration's lifespan by 4 months is a major flaw, and i like that better than using novelty players. on that topic, i think reusing players has always been a disaster and for good reason so i would stay far away from that
as for which classes, i think the most recent class, one major class from the 00s 90s or 80s and one medium class from each of the other decades that doesn't have the major, one major class and however many more other classes we need from before that.
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Jun 4, 2020 19:39:21 GMT
if we're doing a draft for creation i definitely anticipate imitating the creation draft process we used for 5.0, except i will want there to be a significant number (50?) of actual profiles. when we get closer i will be enlisting GMs for writeups i don't think iteration longevity is that crucial an issue. i think older gms are justifiably gun shy after the difficulties with 2.0 3.0 and 4.0, but i think the start and end of 5.0 demonstrate that iteration turnover doesn't have to be such a disaster. with that in mind, i would like to start with multiple time-separated real classes so from the jump the league looks like it will throughout its life time. we had 450 players for 29 gms to start 5.0, i think that 14 players * however many gms we have is plenty, and since we have about 40 players per class that means for a 20 GM league we'd be using 7 classes. i don't think cutting the iteration's lifespan by 4 months is a major flaw, and i like that better than using novelty players. on that topic, i think reusing players has always been a disaster and for good reason so i would stay far away from that as for which classes, i think the most recent class, one major class from the 00s 90s or 80s and one medium class from each of the other decades that doesn't have the major, one major class and however many more other classes we need from before that.
How will you handle the ages of the players? take a histogram of the ages in the league now and match to it? will you keep players in the same draft class in creation the same relative age to each other?
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 4, 2020 21:30:59 GMT
if we're doing a draft for creation i definitely anticipate imitating the creation draft process we used for 5.0, except i will want there to be a significant number (50?) of actual profiles. when we get closer i will be enlisting GMs for writeups i don't think iteration longevity is that crucial an issue. i think older gms are justifiably gun shy after the difficulties with 2.0 3.0 and 4.0, but i think the start and end of 5.0 demonstrate that iteration turnover doesn't have to be such a disaster. with that in mind, i would like to start with multiple time-separated real classes so from the jump the league looks like it will throughout its life time. we had 450 players for 29 gms to start 5.0, i think that 14 players * however many gms we have is plenty, and since we have about 40 players per class that means for a 20 GM league we'd be using 7 classes. i don't think cutting the iteration's lifespan by 4 months is a major flaw, and i like that better than using novelty players. on that topic, i think reusing players has always been a disaster and for good reason so i would stay far away from that as for which classes, i think the most recent class, one major class from the 00s 90s or 80s and one medium class from each of the other decades that doesn't have the major, one major class and however many more other classes we need from before that. How will you handle the ages of the players? take a histogram of the ages in the league now and match to it? will you keep players in the same draft class in creation the same relative age to each other?
players in the same draft class will be the same relative age |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jun 4, 2020 23:36:29 GMT
All rookies. All young. Why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 4, 2020 23:43:58 GMT
All rookies. All young. Why not? i'd rather have some medium and olds mixed in, i think it's better |
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jun 4, 2020 23:46:24 GMT
Sure that’s fair I suppose. But all rookies is fun too. No shortened careers.
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Jun 4, 2020 23:50:30 GMT
Sure that’s fair I suppose. But all rookies is fun too. No shortened careers. Yeah but it would make it harder to compare stats from the era where everyone in the league are young rookie scale players. So you lose either way in that respect |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Jun 4, 2020 23:56:02 GMT
All rookies would be an amazing way to start 6.0, i think
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 5, 2020 0:33:34 GMT
Sure that’s fair I suppose. But all rookies is fun too. No shortened careers. #justice4gallatin |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Jun 5, 2020 0:34:04 GMT
Everyone could have a scouting budget for the creation draft
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 1:02:29 GMT
i would prefer fake players
|
|
