Moderator: mjparrett
V wrote:Seeing as we might need mhsmith0 to do next year’s league 1 fixtures for us (on behalf of mjparrett) may I ask a couple more league 2 participants to step it up, considering mhsmith0 is currently in 5th position & promotion could be considered most inconvenient.
nanooktheeskimo wrote:If the schedule is a multi-year setup, what is the point of having seasons a year long?
boldblade wrote:rd45 wrote:In reply to the OP - so far, based on the caution & draw-mongering that seems to be the early pattern, I completely agree that relegation-avoidance is probably driving too much aversion to risk. We need to give it a whole season, because there's a chance that the later games break that pattern in the way that Nanook said. But, it's also entirely possible that those few players who are desperate for a late win (and motivated enough to do anything about it) will anyway be trapped into dull drawn end-games with mid-table players who are doggedly defending their carebear points. If that's how it turns out - then we need a total re-think on the scoring. Zero for a loss, one point each for any size of draw, 10 points for a solo? Anyone who solos any of their games is automatically promoted, with a matching no. relegated from the division above?
I agree the whole season should be played before changes are decided on with certainty. But I am glad we are talking about some solutions now. Personally, I do believe an entire change to the scoring is needed. But the reason I brought the idea of this post up is that I think it could have some of the same effects and I expected it to be much easier to swallow for all involved. I'm still frustrated with the nature of how this discussion has progressed because the idea still seems largely to be weighed against the outcome folks like myself, GPD and rd45 are looking for instead of the value of the change itself. At least the last page or so of comments have mostly covered the one issue people have with lowering the number of relegations. And I do appreciate the mathematical folks chiming in to discuss how such an issue would be addressed.mjparrett wrote:No-one really answered my point earlier (or discussed, as it certainly isn't a question that has one answer); is a solo and 3 losses definitely better than 4 3-way draws? I would love to hear one of the solo only types (rd45, GPD, boldblade it seems?) answer/argue this. I know I am being awkward for the sake of it, but one solo doesn't necessarily make you a good player. The 3 losses is possibly more a true indication of your skill. Someone with 4 3-way draws might be timid, might be a carebear, or might lack the true tactical awareness of how to turn them into solos, but is undoubtedly a decent player who gets the game and is capable/clever at building alliances and stabbing to reduce the number of players.
In my opinion yes but that will come as no surprise. I find it interesting you are willing to discount the single solo as it may have been against the lesser players of the league but don't consider that you should also discount at least one of the draws for the same reason. Not only that but assuming both players considered would have wound up in one of the four games with lesser league players then wouldn't the one with the solo victory be better when he soloed against them and the other was unable (or unwilling)? Now, I would agree that avoiding elimination in 4 straight games is impressive and should be rewarded. But is it equal to a solo win? No. Now, I must admit I disagree with rd a little in that I do think there is probably a number of draws that might be worth a solo. Maybe 7, idk I would have to think about it more. But, at the same time if you are in 7 straight draws and never once had the chance to solo I find that quite unlikely and instead think you simply lacked the balls to take one that was available to you. Which I do find problematic but will admit managing to avoid elimination in that many straight games is respectable.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests