League Discussion Thread...
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Funkypool Clan League Management.
Back to Forum List.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
18:51 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
There is a fatal flaw to the Golden Cue. That is that players in the best clans have on paper an easier set of games and therefore better chance of winning it simply because they arent required to play anyone from their own clan.
For example in Division 2, there are 2 teams well above the rest. Players outside of the top 2 clans have to play up to four matches against players from MVP and Snooker Squad. Whereas clearly MVP only play two against SS and likewise SS two against MVP.
Re discussion points - there is still the idea that myself and zante were debating two pages ago.
For example in Division 2, there are 2 teams well above the rest. Players outside of the top 2 clans have to play up to four matches against players from MVP and Snooker Squad. Whereas clearly MVP only play two against SS and likewise SS two against MVP.
Re discussion points - there is still the idea that myself and zante were debating two pages ago.
18:53 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
Golden Cue:
That flaw exists everywhere though. van Persie and Rooney (for example) score more than others because they play on better teams.
That flaw exists everywhere though. van Persie and Rooney (for example) score more than others because they play on better teams.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
18:56 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
The Golden Cue isnt always guarenteed to go to a member of the strongest clan, am i right in thinking that a few seasons ago it went to rapid_pot, a player in evolutions who had to play against untouchables and TFS among others in the Cup.
Its mainly about how lucky the draw is and also gives players a chance to aim for something individual wise if they dont fancy the individual league/cup.
Its mainly about how lucky the draw is and also gives players a chance to aim for something individual wise if they dont fancy the individual league/cup.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
19:00 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
That is tenuous
Its not about what could happen or what might have happened in the past - its just about pointing out the flaw.
If you want a real challenge take the top 4 or 8 in list and then have them play off.
Its not about what could happen or what might have happened in the past - its just about pointing out the flaw.
If you want a real challenge take the top 4 or 8 in list and then have them play off.
19:08 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
true but dvz and seb was near top of golden cue with around 78% before they played but because seb lost 9-6 he went below 70% for the first time this season and dvz stayed around where he was, to go up percentage you need major scores (e.g. 11-4 or above), frames required to be featured i think could be raised to like from 70 to 80 or 90 as a few people has gone over the 100 mark (a couple even over 150).
remember though more games you play the better or worse it can be for you.
i still think frames percentage is the way to go
chris said:
There is a fatal flaw to the Golden Cue. That is that players in the best clans have on paper an easier set of games and therefore better chance of winning it simply because they arent required to play anyone from their own clan.
true but dvz and seb was near top of golden cue with around 78% before they played but because seb lost 9-6 he went below 70% for the first time this season and dvz stayed around where he was, to go up percentage you need major scores (e.g. 11-4 or above), frames required to be featured i think could be raised to like from 70 to 80 or 90 as a few people has gone over the 100 mark (a couple even over 150).
remember though more games you play the better or worse it can be for you.
i still think frames percentage is the way to go
19:14 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
If you want a real challenge take the top 4 or 8 in list and then have them play off.
no point then as its like a mini league, golden cue is designed to see who is the most consistent throughout the season, if you add a knockout to golden cue it may as well be the individual league as thats basically what it would be
chris said:
If you want a real challenge take the top 4 or 8 in list and then have them play off.
no point then as its like a mini league, golden cue is designed to see who is the most consistent throughout the season, if you add a knockout to golden cue it may as well be the individual league as thats basically what it would be
19:17 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
There's a big difference though. When united play arsenal, everytime van Persie scores, it doesn't limit the potential Rooney can score (in clans this occurs when player A wins a frame, that is one less frame that player B can win)
Theres a few other points I could go into depth about this, but it just seems to go off topic and be quite confusing so i'll leave it there
I do like the suggestion of a golden cue playoff, but that may be extra games players don't want to play (and is crossing into individual league territory). I mentioned a few seasons ago about something a little similar using the top few players of each individual league (either having a 3 vs 3 between the top 3 players of each league, or a league of the 3 winners with 1 regular clan game to play against the other 2)
whocares8x8 said:
Golden Cue:
That flaw exists everywhere though. van Persie and Rooney (for example) score more than others because they play on better teams.
That flaw exists everywhere though. van Persie and Rooney (for example) score more than others because they play on better teams.
There's a big difference though. When united play arsenal, everytime van Persie scores, it doesn't limit the potential Rooney can score (in clans this occurs when player A wins a frame, that is one less frame that player B can win)
Theres a few other points I could go into depth about this, but it just seems to go off topic and be quite confusing so i'll leave it there
I do like the suggestion of a golden cue playoff, but that may be extra games players don't want to play (and is crossing into individual league territory). I mentioned a few seasons ago about something a little similar using the top few players of each individual league (either having a 3 vs 3 between the top 3 players of each league, or a league of the 3 winners with 1 regular clan game to play against the other 2)
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
19:24 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
Depends on what you call demonstrating consistency James.
Example only - MVP player winning 1 game and losing 1 game against SS players then winning all other 8 games against the others by huge margins? Or someone from one of the other 4 clans winning every game but by lower margins (especially the 4 tough games with MVP & SS players)?
Example only - MVP player winning 1 game and losing 1 game against SS players then winning all other 8 games against the others by huge margins? Or someone from one of the other 4 clans winning every game but by lower margins (especially the 4 tough games with MVP & SS players)?
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
20:08 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
Obviously the guy who is winning 8 games out of 10 by huge margins should be winning the golden cue
20:37 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
maybe do 2 golden cues
1 of frames percentage like it is now
1 on match percentage
if 2 people are the same on frame % then whoever played most frames should win, if still same then should be frames won what decides.
if 2 people are the same on match % then whoever played most should win, if still same then should be frames won what decides.
or could have it as a tie
anyway having 2 golden cue solves the scenario chris described, just for the record though i am against a knockout for golden cue. you will find out best player through individual league
1 of frames percentage like it is now
1 on match percentage
if 2 people are the same on frame % then whoever played most frames should win, if still same then should be frames won what decides.
if 2 people are the same on match % then whoever played most should win, if still same then should be frames won what decides.
or could have it as a tie
anyway having 2 golden cue solves the scenario chris described, just for the record though i am against a knockout for golden cue. you will find out best player through individual league
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
20:43 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
< against both ideas, i think the golden cue needs to be left alone.
22:11 Thu 19 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
A clan has 16 players, if a player deactivates or leaves game and won't finish. I would prefer to play any of the other 15 members of the clan to get the game completed. If i am 5-0 up and then lose the next 10, so be it the other clan would deserve the 10-5. I would prefer to complete the game than sit and wait to get a 15-0 default victory. Only thing we would need to change is would be allowing a sub at any point even after a game has started.
Everyone is concerned about tactical subs etc, if i play for Clan A, it shouldn't matter who i get from Clan B to play even if i have to play 3 different players to get game completed. They can sub anyone in as i would prefer this to winning points for nothing.
chris said:
Was thinking about games which start but where one player leaves and then either never returns, deactivates, is banned, or just refuses to play any more.
The rules are currently that the remaining games go to default. Although in theory they might not, in reality usually one player is awarded all of the remaining unplayed racks.
There have been discussions about allowing another player in to finish off the remaining games. I think it was generally agreed that was not ideal and was open to abuse in that any player losing could just leave to be replaced by a potentially 'better' one who might turn the game around.
How about if a replacement player was allowed to finish off any remaining games but was unable to score any points for the team. For example Player A leads Player B 6-1. Player B quits and deactivates or gets banned maybe. Another player can now come and replace Player B and finish off the remaining 8 racks. If they were shared 4-4 then the final score would be 10-1 to Player A.
The advantage is that the team whose player quit still suffers the penalty of not being able to score but has the opportunity to lessen the penalty they suffer in the overall match by stopping the opposition taking, in effect, what would otherwise have been a 'free' 8 points in a 14-1 default score. It is also fairer to the other teams in the division for the same reason and, as a bonus, reduces the work for the default panel. It probably could still be abused, but in my opinion, arguably only to a very limited level.
Additionally the player who quits having started a match should be removed from the league. Cant remember if that happens anyway but in any case thats a separate discussion point.
The rules are currently that the remaining games go to default. Although in theory they might not, in reality usually one player is awarded all of the remaining unplayed racks.
There have been discussions about allowing another player in to finish off the remaining games. I think it was generally agreed that was not ideal and was open to abuse in that any player losing could just leave to be replaced by a potentially 'better' one who might turn the game around.
How about if a replacement player was allowed to finish off any remaining games but was unable to score any points for the team. For example Player A leads Player B 6-1. Player B quits and deactivates or gets banned maybe. Another player can now come and replace Player B and finish off the remaining 8 racks. If they were shared 4-4 then the final score would be 10-1 to Player A.
The advantage is that the team whose player quit still suffers the penalty of not being able to score but has the opportunity to lessen the penalty they suffer in the overall match by stopping the opposition taking, in effect, what would otherwise have been a 'free' 8 points in a 14-1 default score. It is also fairer to the other teams in the division for the same reason and, as a bonus, reduces the work for the default panel. It probably could still be abused, but in my opinion, arguably only to a very limited level.
Additionally the player who quits having started a match should be removed from the league. Cant remember if that happens anyway but in any case thats a separate discussion point.
A clan has 16 players, if a player deactivates or leaves game and won't finish. I would prefer to play any of the other 15 members of the clan to get the game completed. If i am 5-0 up and then lose the next 10, so be it the other clan would deserve the 10-5. I would prefer to complete the game than sit and wait to get a 15-0 default victory. Only thing we would need to change is would be allowing a sub at any point even after a game has started.
Everyone is concerned about tactical subs etc, if i play for Clan A, it shouldn't matter who i get from Clan B to play even if i have to play 3 different players to get game completed. They can sub anyone in as i would prefer this to winning points for nothing.
00:11 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
Only thing we would need to change is would be allowing a sub at any point even after a game has started.
I dont agree to allowing subs after the fixture has started for obvious reasons, your just going to encourage players to leave if they are losing badly, if a player leaves and doesn't finish they deserve a big default loss against them.
I dont agree to allowing subs after the fixture has started for obvious reasons, your just going to encourage players to leave if they are losing badly, if a player leaves and doesn't finish they deserve a big default loss against them.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
00:16 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
The other teams in the league dont deserve it though.
ab_rfc said:
if a player leaves and doesn't finish they deserve a big default loss against them.
The other teams in the league dont deserve it though.
00:38 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
I can just imagine it lol
Player - captain I'm losing 6-0 and playing poor, do you want me to finish or leave.
Captain - if you think your going to lose badly leave and i'll put a sub in because its allowed.
This will happen if you allow subs in once a fixture has started,
Player - captain I'm losing 6-0 and playing poor, do you want me to finish or leave.
Captain - if you think your going to lose badly leave and i'll put a sub in because its allowed.
This will happen if you allow subs in once a fixture has started,
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
00:41 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
As per previous discussion though Player is removed from the League - a big consideration for most players - and replacement player wouldnt be able to score only restrict.
00:46 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
Yeh but using a replacement player is punishing the opponent left behind, hes winning 6-0 and looking forward to a big win because hes on form then all of a sudden the other guy leaves and he might have to finish against a stronger player, are you telling me thats fair ?.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
00:54 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
I think its fairer in the overall scheme of things yes.
No matter what happens the opponent left behind is not going to lose. They can only build on that lead or stay the same.
It still punishes the team whose player left the game because they cant score now. However it does give the rest of the team a chance to at least limit the damage.
Its fairer to the other teams in the division because now there wont be a free gift of all of the remaining racks to one team.
Saves work for the default team and means all points won have been legitimately earned from actually playing pool.
And is still just an option since a team can either choose not to replace the departing player in which case its still almost certain they are going to lose all remaining racks. Or the opposing team can refuse to play the sub in which case it still goes to default but with that refusal taken into consideration probably meaning they wont get all the remaining racks.
No matter what happens the opponent left behind is not going to lose. They can only build on that lead or stay the same.
It still punishes the team whose player left the game because they cant score now. However it does give the rest of the team a chance to at least limit the damage.
Its fairer to the other teams in the division because now there wont be a free gift of all of the remaining racks to one team.
Saves work for the default team and means all points won have been legitimately earned from actually playing pool.
And is still just an option since a team can either choose not to replace the departing player in which case its still almost certain they are going to lose all remaining racks. Or the opposing team can refuse to play the sub in which case it still goes to default but with that refusal taken into consideration probably meaning they wont get all the remaining racks.
01:38 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
Don't agree with the subbed in player not scoring, let them play the remaining frames and gain the points they win.
Player who leaves and chooses not to play remaining games gets punished by removing from league etc.
chris said:
As per previous discussion though Player is removed from the League - a big consideration for most players - and replacement player wouldnt be able to score only restrict.
Don't agree with the subbed in player not scoring, let them play the remaining frames and gain the points they win.
Player who leaves and chooses not to play remaining games gets punished by removing from league etc.
01:45 Fri 20 Jan 12 (GMT) [Link]
i can see positive and negative from this.
Positive - less defaults, action taken to offender, offenders team cannot score
negative - may happen a lot (especially those who rage quit)
If offender cannot gain points from the remaining frames (should be allowed for golden cue but nothing else) then the change could be positive, if offender can get points as normal then its negative and shouldn't happen.
sure it would mean less defaults but theres a limit between less defaults and tactical play which is what i could see happening.
Positive - less defaults, action taken to offender, offenders team cannot score
negative - may happen a lot (especially those who rage quit)
If offender cannot gain points from the remaining frames (should be allowed for golden cue but nothing else) then the change could be positive, if offender can get points as normal then its negative and shouldn't happen.
sure it would mean less defaults but theres a limit between less defaults and tactical play which is what i could see happening.
| Unable to post | |
|---|---|
| Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
League Discussion Thread...
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Funkypool Clan League Management.
Back to Forum List.