|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 6, 2017 6:47:52 GMT -5
While I don't really want to restrict anyone from drafting people they want, I can say from a booking perspective, the teams with smaller roster sizes are becoming increasingly difficult to book consistently. When the league is closer to the same number of fighters, balancing fights is easier.
I would like more input and feedback from people about fights. This season, I have tried to balance total fights across the league. But that was difficult with teams like Ducks and Rattlesnakes, since they have smaller teams. I used to go by fighter totals, rather than team totals (so, like, a year-end goal of 3-4 fights per fighter, instead of 55 fights per team).
I know in the past there have been complaints about people not getting enough fights per card as others, which is the trade-off for the "per fighter" booking. If you have a small team, sometimes it will just happen that you don't have a fighter on a card.
Conversely, if I book for team totals, at the end of the season, some teams will have an average of 3 fights per fighter, while others will have an average of 6.
What do people prefer?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Sept 6, 2017 7:07:42 GMT -5
Is there a math calculation from a booking standpoints that would make it make more sense if everyone had the same roster total?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 6, 2017 7:39:03 GMT -5
There probably is, but I do not know the magic number. The slightest difference in team size seems to make a big difference in results though. Like, I didnf't think much of Ducks roster size, because he has balance, but he and Rattlesnakes are both more difficult to book for. Rattlesnakes probably moreso, since he had 1 HW and 1 BW much of the season. That really limits my booking options (more than just the numbers imply). Their total rosters are 12 and 11. Many of the teams at 16, I not only have no problem getting them fights, but often need to hold back, or they would have 4-6 fights per card.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Texas Rattlesnakes on Sept 6, 2017 14:17:52 GMT -5
I'm confused how you're going to make a minimum if we elect not to draft someone. I personally don't want anymore projects at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 6, 2017 14:44:44 GMT -5
I'm confused how you're going to make a minimum if we elect not to draft someone. I personally don't want anymore projects at the moment. We can just make the rule, like I did for the roster maxes, or we can make it something like you must have more than 12 fighters to be eligible for the Grand Prix. Regardless, though, I think I would prefer to go back to just booking fights per fighter, isntead of worrying about team totals. But in doing that, I would basically be asking the league as a whole not to complain when they have 11 fighters on their team and don't get a fight sometimes, or if they have 17 fighters and thier favourite guy has not fought in 10 events. Those are the consequences of doing "fighter-totals over team totals" booking. |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Sept 6, 2017 17:11:18 GMT -5
i dont think i understand this about moving roster increase to 1 additional fighter per team i do want a new female fighter but she would def be a yuge project fighter
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 6, 2017 17:55:08 GMT -5
i dont think i understand this about moving roster increase to 1 additional fighter per team i do want a new female fighter but she would def be a yuge project fighter I understand what you want to do. And I will come back to your suggestion. But what I am sying here in this thread is the difference between your team, with 17 fighters, and Rattlesnakes team, with 11, has a huge impact on how easy booking fights is. Unless everyone just accepts that if you have more fighters, your fighters will fight less, and if you have fewer fighters, you will have fighters on fewer cards (or perhaps cards where no one on your team is on the card). |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Sept 6, 2017 21:13:11 GMT -5
Even with a larger team, I was finding a number cards where I had no fights as well. I think I'd prefer fights per fighter as opposed to 55 per team though.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Sept 6, 2017 23:09:54 GMT -5
Even with a larger team, I was finding a number cards where I had no fights as well. I think I'd prefer fights per fighter as opposed to 55 per team though. GIVE PHX LESS FIGHTS AND ME MORE... FEED ME MORE |
|
|
|
Post by The Texas Rattlesnakes on Sept 6, 2017 23:22:12 GMT -5
Even with a larger team, I was finding a number cards where I had no fights as well. I think I'd prefer fights per fighter as opposed to 55 per team though. I'd have to disagree here. I prefer fights per team to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 6, 2017 23:48:47 GMT -5
Here's my problem: I want to make everyone happy. And for the most part, people are happy when their fighters fight. But I do not think it is far and balanced when, at the end of the year, a team of 10 well-developed fighters have 6 fights each, and a team of 10 well-developed fighters + 7 project fighters have 2 each. When you are looking at year-end standings, it creates a win percentage that is not fairly indicative of team quality. It's like if you have a sports team, and instead of playing your full line-up, you only play your superstars, they get double the playing time, and obviously, as a result, your team does better than people who balance their team.
In an ideal world, we would set a number, and everyone would have that number of fighters. Then we can do both. But I don't want to force people to take people they will neglect, nor do I particularly want to restrict people from taking people at drafts and such.
For the purposes of keeping things fair, (and, lets be honest, much easier for me), I think unless there is serious backlash, the thing to do is go back to per-fighter totals. It will mean some teams will have far more total fights, but it makes booking easier, and it also gives a fairer spread of team success at the end of a season.
As I said, unless we pretty much unanimously agree to a specific roster number, which will never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Texas Rattlesnakes on Sept 6, 2017 23:57:14 GMT -5
Let's bring back fighters in danger. That will cancel the neglect aspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Camp Cannon on Sept 7, 2017 2:42:15 GMT -5
Let's bring back fighters in danger. That will cancel the neglect aspect. wo dont need fid too many project fighters on my team when i mistly consider upgrading my woman |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Sept 7, 2017 7:29:19 GMT -5
Let's bring back fighters in danger. That will cancel the neglect aspect. It didn't really too much before, towards the end of it that is anyways... Mostly because most teams didn't or don't neglect their fighters. We really only had Cannon lose a fighter to FiD, whom, in effect, it was designed and implemented for since he was only upgrading women for 3+ seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Sept 7, 2017 7:32:16 GMT -5
I would be alright with everyone having the same roster size.
|
|
x8 
Have 9 points in celebration of this monumental achievement!