FCL - General Discussion
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Funkypool Clan League Management.
Back to Forum List.
13:31 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link] If this was to happen , surely the other players would leave the clan, either boosting another clan or making their own , which is more competition for all either way ?
good point Sarah
In this example, Pro's could just pick dvz, beenjammin, miss_harriet and tinie every single fixture. Ash would pick legend_pot, _fresh_, hoolahoop and baumers every fixture. It would be monumentally boring and painful for the vast majority of other clans.
good point Sarah
15:38 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
I'm not sure what the whole rule set is, but personally, I think it should be like this;
16 Players in each team
standard
Play each team 4 times
smaller sets means more fixtures to be played
5v5 fixture
Plenty of movement for subs, helps lower teams
Enter 2-3 players for each game type, and randomize
Fixtures random (No 'best players only fixtures)
You can draft a player in to sub in (if they haven't played in that fixture fot a different team)
Scrap the 1 month wait
Helps the new people, they won't lose interest
There is;
FCL
FBL
Grand slam cup
(I think there is one more)
Now, if there were smaller fixtures, that would compensate for the amount of competitions there are, but if you decide to keep the large fixtures, I'd get rid of one of the competitions
For me, the larger teams are established, there needs to be a system to help the smaller teams, without boring the larger teams. I've seen plenty of smaller teams disband after 1-2 seasons, some don't even get going.
Obviously getting more people on the site would help vastly, but baby steps... if we improve clans and get them all active, then the numbers won't improve as such, but activity will.
I am unaware of all the rules, as I've stated, so i'm not completely sure what else to change, however reading through the comments, these seem to be the main reasons.
Thoughts?...
16 Players in each team
standard
Play each team 4 times
smaller sets means more fixtures to be played
5v5 fixture
Plenty of movement for subs, helps lower teams
Enter 2-3 players for each game type, and randomize
Fixtures random (No 'best players only fixtures)
You can draft a player in to sub in (if they haven't played in that fixture fot a different team)
Scrap the 1 month wait
Helps the new people, they won't lose interest
There is;
FCL
FBL
Grand slam cup
(I think there is one more)
Now, if there were smaller fixtures, that would compensate for the amount of competitions there are, but if you decide to keep the large fixtures, I'd get rid of one of the competitions
For me, the larger teams are established, there needs to be a system to help the smaller teams, without boring the larger teams. I've seen plenty of smaller teams disband after 1-2 seasons, some don't even get going.
Obviously getting more people on the site would help vastly, but baby steps... if we improve clans and get them all active, then the numbers won't improve as such, but activity will.
I am unaware of all the rules, as I've stated, so i'm not completely sure what else to change, however reading through the comments, these seem to be the main reasons.
Thoughts?...
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
15:55 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
There's two kinds of people....
- Those that join a clan for themselves to have competitive games (or for a bit of fun) and don't really care about standings etc.
- Those that join a clan to be part of a team and do care about standings/matches etc.
In my opinion - if you start to randomise fixtures you are starting to alienate both sets of players. At the moment we have "fun" clans and more "serious" clans where players can choose somewhere that fits their motives. If fixtures are randomised and teams lose their control over who plays what their identity will be compromised.
- Those that join a clan for themselves to have competitive games (or for a bit of fun) and don't really care about standings etc.
- Those that join a clan to be part of a team and do care about standings/matches etc.
In my opinion - if you start to randomise fixtures you are starting to alienate both sets of players. At the moment we have "fun" clans and more "serious" clans where players can choose somewhere that fits their motives. If fixtures are randomised and teams lose their control over who plays what their identity will be compromised.
16:16 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
The match up you post here is more likely to produce an upset than the current 8v8 as there is no doubt that pros strength in depth is better than fearless knights when the number of games increase. If both teams kept playing the same players in most games I would imagine that a few players would move clans which would be for the better for all teams.
The top clans will always look to oppose anything that may upset the status quo. The leagues are in decline and something needs to be done to try and get interest and enjoyment back in them.
Even this season professionals would have either folded or incomplete several games that would have had a huge impact on the league if rules had not been relaxed. When a team who has the pick of the players on here struggles it is clear that there is an issue and how the smaller teams are meant to survive it is a miracle that we have not had more fold, it is probably just down to a few players that have moved clans to firefight the gaps which again is a relaxation on the rules to prevent bigger issues.
I would completely disagree, the top two clans welcome competition and anything to make the leagues more of a challenge.
Pros have struggled for several seasons with patchwork captaincy, with players taking over who would not have if it wasn't necessary. That's not too dissimilar to other clans usually at the other end of the spectrum. Other clans have been comfortable for seasons and have no issues even being lower down the pecking order. If we didn't start with the clans that folded (and only teams who could manage two teams in SL chose that) I don't believe any clan would have struggled.
SL is my favourite league because anyone can win. Yet most of the time it is still Pros vs Uprising that decides big SL titles. Despite only 30 frames per match no one has beaten either side. The competition comes lower down, Revs surprised everyone and every side was capable of beating another.
For more unpredictability, go back to the old FCL format of race to 3 in each type. That reduces the biggest possible win from one matc so all the games are closer.
In this example, Pro's could just pick dvz, beenjammin, miss_harriet and tinie every single fixture. Ash would pick legend_pot, _fresh_, hoolahoop and baumers every fixture. It would be monumentally boring and painful for the vast majority of other clans.
The match up you post here is more likely to produce an upset than the current 8v8 as there is no doubt that pros strength in depth is better than fearless knights when the number of games increase. If both teams kept playing the same players in most games I would imagine that a few players would move clans which would be for the better for all teams.
The top clans will always look to oppose anything that may upset the status quo. The leagues are in decline and something needs to be done to try and get interest and enjoyment back in them.
Even this season professionals would have either folded or incomplete several games that would have had a huge impact on the league if rules had not been relaxed. When a team who has the pick of the players on here struggles it is clear that there is an issue and how the smaller teams are meant to survive it is a miracle that we have not had more fold, it is probably just down to a few players that have moved clans to firefight the gaps which again is a relaxation on the rules to prevent bigger issues.
I would completely disagree, the top two clans welcome competition and anything to make the leagues more of a challenge.
Pros have struggled for several seasons with patchwork captaincy, with players taking over who would not have if it wasn't necessary. That's not too dissimilar to other clans usually at the other end of the spectrum. Other clans have been comfortable for seasons and have no issues even being lower down the pecking order. If we didn't start with the clans that folded (and only teams who could manage two teams in SL chose that) I don't believe any clan would have struggled.
SL is my favourite league because anyone can win. Yet most of the time it is still Pros vs Uprising that decides big SL titles. Despite only 30 frames per match no one has beaten either side. The competition comes lower down, Revs surprised everyone and every side was capable of beating another.
For more unpredictability, go back to the old FCL format of race to 3 in each type. That reduces the biggest possible win from one matc so all the games are closer.
16:23 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
How many people are actually in favour of 4v4 fixtures?
I'm guessing there will only be a small minority. If anything this will cause a lot of people to quit clans imo. It won't gain more interest that's for sure as the sites completely dead.
I'm guessing there will only be a small minority. If anything this will cause a lot of people to quit clans imo. It won't gain more interest that's for sure as the sites completely dead.
17:16 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Clans were struggling to complete 8v8 fixtures this season, including your clan, captains asking clans for subs and being told we don't have any, we need a format that can be completed with less players, without this change clans will fold, looks like 2 clans are folding after this season, with less players needed there's a chance we could save them clans and possibly see new clans created eventually, it's near impossible to put a clan of 16 together from scratch now and it puts people off, where with smaller numbers needed it might encourage people.
When I started playing clans there was always at least a couple of clans that struggled to complete fixtures. Underdogs and Fighting Eagles for example. Back then, as it is now - the reason was not because there wasn't players available to recruit.
How about a friendly wager? I bet you £100 that after these changes, clan participation numbers do not increase beyond the level we started this season with? OR I bet you that I can set up a brand new clan with 16 players, without taking any from Uprising? I would take either bet with supreme confidence.
I'd like to see you create a new clan of 16 without forcing other clans to struggle or fold, or how about a clan of non current clan players and last a season.
Clans were struggling to complete 8v8 fixtures this season, including your clan, captains asking clans for subs and being told we don't have any, we need a format that can be completed with less players, without this change clans will fold, looks like 2 clans are folding after this season, with less players needed there's a chance we could save them clans and possibly see new clans created eventually, it's near impossible to put a clan of 16 together from scratch now and it puts people off, where with smaller numbers needed it might encourage people.
When I started playing clans there was always at least a couple of clans that struggled to complete fixtures. Underdogs and Fighting Eagles for example. Back then, as it is now - the reason was not because there wasn't players available to recruit.
How about a friendly wager? I bet you £100 that after these changes, clan participation numbers do not increase beyond the level we started this season with? OR I bet you that I can set up a brand new clan with 16 players, without taking any from Uprising? I would take either bet with supreme confidence.
I'd like to see you create a new clan of 16 without forcing other clans to struggle or fold, or how about a clan of non current clan players and last a season.
17:24 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
I'd like to see you create a new clan of 16 without forcing other clans to struggle or fold, or how about a clan of non current clan players and last a season.
I already have 7 that aren't in a team next season - I'd be 8, and that's without even trying. You want to put money on this and set some parameters?
I'd like to see you create a new clan of 16 without forcing other clans to struggle or fold, or how about a clan of non current clan players and last a season.
I already have 7 that aren't in a team next season - I'd be 8, and that's without even trying. You want to put money on this and set some parameters?
17:25 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
6vs6 would be okay 4vs4 is way too short a format, teams could easily manipulate and play their better players even more consistently as they already are.
Only way is to draw the players randomly per fixture. So instead of requesting team selection lists, Captains submit a Team Available list and they be drawn from that.
Available list selection be 1-8 and the opposing Captain selects 6 numbers at random to determine who plays. The 2 not chosen are 1st and 2nd subs.
An idea.
1-8 can be in any order btw.
Only way is to draw the players randomly per fixture. So instead of requesting team selection lists, Captains submit a Team Available list and they be drawn from that.
Available list selection be 1-8 and the opposing Captain selects 6 numbers at random to determine who plays. The 2 not chosen are 1st and 2nd subs.
An idea.
1-8 can be in any order btw.
17:25 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Are they in a team now, that's not non current
17:34 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Only one of the 7, and that team won't exist next season - but even you you rule that player out, I could easily fill the team anyway. And even if I failed to fill the team from players on here - which frankly I find unbelievable - then I'd just force my 2 real life pool teams to create accounts and play.
Any captain that isn't too bothered about the quality of player they recruit could do it. I'd hate to leave Uprising for a season to do it, but with a financial incentive and to prove a point - let me know the parameters and lay your stake!
Are they in a team now, that's not non current
Only one of the 7, and that team won't exist next season - but even you you rule that player out, I could easily fill the team anyway. And even if I failed to fill the team from players on here - which frankly I find unbelievable - then I'd just force my 2 real life pool teams to create accounts and play.
Any captain that isn't too bothered about the quality of player they recruit could do it. I'd hate to leave Uprising for a season to do it, but with a financial incentive and to prove a point - let me know the parameters and lay your stake!
17:34 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
What i've been saying, however zante has a point, you would be relinquishing power to your side, and people would quit.
6v6 sounds good though, not too much of a cut
6vs6 would be okay 4vs4 is way too short a format, teams could easily manipulate and play their better players even more consistently as they already are.
Only way is to draw the players randomly per fixture. So instead of requesting team selection lists, Captains submit a Team Available list and they be drawn from that.
Available list selection be 1-8 and the opposing Captain selects 6 numbers at random to determine who plays. The 2 not chosen are 1st and 2nd subs.
An idea.
1-8 can be in any order btw.
Only way is to draw the players randomly per fixture. So instead of requesting team selection lists, Captains submit a Team Available list and they be drawn from that.
Available list selection be 1-8 and the opposing Captain selects 6 numbers at random to determine who plays. The 2 not chosen are 1st and 2nd subs.
An idea.
1-8 can be in any order btw.
What i've been saying, however zante has a point, you would be relinquishing power to your side, and people would quit.
6v6 sounds good though, not too much of a cut
17:39 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
don't mind but do believe the month rule should be scrapped.
Lowering the fixtures may benefit the struggling team which are Unbeatables, I think lowering them may give them more chance of staying on. Pros on 13 now so could possibly survive either way (lowering would be a bonus).
People mention you would choose 5 best, valid point but its no different than now picking the best 8 against teams like Professionals or Uprising (Knights maybe next season), and picking slightly weaker players to play teams like FPD or Revolution (no offence guys). I know its the strategy most teams would use and i would too, not that players not chosen aren't great themselves as they could be.
Lets not forget though it would be similar to the 'mickey mouse' cup we used to have which i know Alan hated as MVP struggled to win FCL Cup until their last few seasons, few upsets in that Cup also so not always guaranteed to be top 2 being champions
Higher frames better team will win though normally so if you guys want more 'luck' lower frames to 3 of each but the FCL format is as ancient as me so not sure on tampering
How many people are actually in favour of 4v4 fixtures?
I'm guessing there will only be a small minority. If anything this will cause a lot of people to quit clans imo. It won't gain more interest that's for sure as the sites completely dead.
I'm guessing there will only be a small minority. If anything this will cause a lot of people to quit clans imo. It won't gain more interest that's for sure as the sites completely dead.
don't mind but do believe the month rule should be scrapped.
Lowering the fixtures may benefit the struggling team which are Unbeatables, I think lowering them may give them more chance of staying on. Pros on 13 now so could possibly survive either way (lowering would be a bonus).
People mention you would choose 5 best, valid point but its no different than now picking the best 8 against teams like Professionals or Uprising (Knights maybe next season), and picking slightly weaker players to play teams like FPD or Revolution (no offence guys). I know its the strategy most teams would use and i would too, not that players not chosen aren't great themselves as they could be.
Lets not forget though it would be similar to the 'mickey mouse' cup we used to have which i know Alan hated as MVP struggled to win FCL Cup until their last few seasons, few upsets in that Cup also so not always guaranteed to be top 2 being champions
Higher frames better team will win though normally so if you guys want more 'luck' lower frames to 3 of each but the FCL format is as ancient as me so not sure on tampering
17:53 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
dgeneratio
Scrapping the 1 month rule, which I have always been in favour of, would help massively. We are currently in a predicament where we have to default, we have enough players, but they are not eligible.
Oh... and offense taken
Scrapping the 1 month rule, which I have always been in favour of, would help massively. We are currently in a predicament where we have to default, we have enough players, but they are not eligible.
Oh... and offense taken
18:03 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Only one of the 7, and that team won't exist next season - but even you you rule that player out, I could easily fill the team anyway. And even if I failed to fill the team from players on here - which frankly I find unbelievable - then I'd just force my 2 real life pool teams to create accounts and play.
Any captain that isn't too bothered about the quality of player they recruit could do it. I'd hate to leave Uprising for a season to do it, but with a financial incentive and to prove a point - let me know the parameters and lay your stake!
I'm not a betting man and I'd hate to see Uprising struggle without you but I'd love someone to prove me wrong and set up a clan of 16 current site members that are not in a clan this season and then last a full season.
Are they in a team now, that's not non current
Only one of the 7, and that team won't exist next season - but even you you rule that player out, I could easily fill the team anyway. And even if I failed to fill the team from players on here - which frankly I find unbelievable - then I'd just force my 2 real life pool teams to create accounts and play.
Any captain that isn't too bothered about the quality of player they recruit could do it. I'd hate to leave Uprising for a season to do it, but with a financial incentive and to prove a point - let me know the parameters and lay your stake!
I'm not a betting man and I'd hate to see Uprising struggle without you but I'd love someone to prove me wrong and set up a clan of 16 current site members that are not in a clan this season and then last a full season.
18:06 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Only one of the 7, and that team won't exist next season - but even you you rule that player out, I could easily fill the team anyway. And even if I failed to fill the team from players on here - which frankly I find unbelievable - then I'd just force my 2 real life pool teams to create accounts and play.
Any captain that isn't too bothered about the quality of player they recruit could do it. I'd hate to leave Uprising for a season to do it, but with a financial incentive and to prove a point - let me know the parameters and lay your stake!
I'm not a betting man and I'd hate to see Uprising struggle without you but I'd love someone to prove me wrong and set up a clan of 16 current site members that are not in a clan this season and then last a full season.
It would be tough, but thats where trying to improve the site comes into play, and that's a whole different challenge.
Of course, we all think the same way, we all want nick to relinquish power and let someone else run the site and build it back up, but it's out of our hands, and we have to find a way around that
Are they in a team now, that's not non current
Only one of the 7, and that team won't exist next season - but even you you rule that player out, I could easily fill the team anyway. And even if I failed to fill the team from players on here - which frankly I find unbelievable - then I'd just force my 2 real life pool teams to create accounts and play.
Any captain that isn't too bothered about the quality of player they recruit could do it. I'd hate to leave Uprising for a season to do it, but with a financial incentive and to prove a point - let me know the parameters and lay your stake!
I'm not a betting man and I'd hate to see Uprising struggle without you but I'd love someone to prove me wrong and set up a clan of 16 current site members that are not in a clan this season and then last a full season.
It would be tough, but thats where trying to improve the site comes into play, and that's a whole different challenge.
Of course, we all think the same way, we all want nick to relinquish power and let someone else run the site and build it back up, but it's out of our hands, and we have to find a way around that
18:53 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
In regards to the current status quo. Pro's are undeniably the best team - and they have had a slight struggle midway through the season. UB's are also a top 4 team that have also struggled. Neither of these teams have struggled for players, they have struggled to sign players good enough to match their respective captains ambitions. Cutting numbers from 8 v 8 will leave both clans just as strong - if not even stronger than before - thus cementing the current status quo. If we stick to 8 v 8 and squads of 16 - these clans (and mine), would eventually have to consider recruiting players less well known, and actually expand the numbers playing in clans. That would also eventually lead to a shifting dynamic of power and see other clans raise to dominance.
18:56 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Saying that though, it would also strengthen the lower teams wouldn't it? Which is what needs to be done in my opinion
In regards to the current status quo. Pro's are undeniably the best team - and they have had a slight struggle midway through the season. UB's are also a top 4 team that have also struggled. Neither of these teams have struggled for players, they have struggled to sign players good enough to match their respective captains ambitions. Cutting numbers from 8 v 8 will leave both clans just as strong - if not even stronger than before - thus cementing the current status quo. If we stick to 8 v 8 and squads of 16 - these clans (and mine), would eventually have to consider recruiting players less well known, and actually expand the numbers playing in clans. That would also eventually lead to a shifting dynamic of power and see other clans raise to dominance.
Saying that though, it would also strengthen the lower teams wouldn't it? Which is what needs to be done in my opinion
19:01 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Saying that though, it would also strengthen the lower teams wouldn't it? Which is what needs to be done in my opinion
How would it strengthen pocket dynamos? They always recruit a full squad and never default. Should they be punished too just for having a competent captain? Which is what it all boils down to. Any captain on here with a bit of gumption can recruit to 16.
There aren't any casual games left to play, so anyone logging in that wants to play funkypool regularly has to join a clan. This fact alone should make it simple to recruit for any captain with a modicum of sense!
In regards to the current status quo. Pro's are undeniably the best team - and they have had a slight struggle midway through the season. UB's are also a top 4 team that have also struggled. Neither of these teams have struggled for players, they have struggled to sign players good enough to match their respective captains ambitions. Cutting numbers from 8 v 8 will leave both clans just as strong - if not even stronger than before - thus cementing the current status quo. If we stick to 8 v 8 and squads of 16 - these clans (and mine), would eventually have to consider recruiting players less well known, and actually expand the numbers playing in clans. That would also eventually lead to a shifting dynamic of power and see other clans raise to dominance.
Saying that though, it would also strengthen the lower teams wouldn't it? Which is what needs to be done in my opinion
How would it strengthen pocket dynamos? They always recruit a full squad and never default. Should they be punished too just for having a competent captain? Which is what it all boils down to. Any captain on here with a bit of gumption can recruit to 16.
There aren't any casual games left to play, so anyone logging in that wants to play funkypool regularly has to join a clan. This fact alone should make it simple to recruit for any captain with a modicum of sense!
19:12 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
Wrong Stu Eagles had one of the best Clans on the site for years,untill the last season were we had a drop in players.
But for 1st 4 years only we was in the top 3 spots only to MVP'S and Snooker Squad.
But for 1st 4 years only we was in the top 3 spots only to MVP'S and Snooker Squad.
19:46 Tue 30 Jun 15 (BST) [Link]
I could probably build a team of 16 for next season quite easily... I, without sounding bias, used to be a good captain and hardly had any defaults. The problem with setting up a clan nowadays is that the status quo, as stated previously, where uprising, pros etc dominate is hard to challenge. Players get tired of losing and any decent players you have, which make the games more competitive, get poached by the top teams once they lose a few players.
| Unable to post | |
|---|---|
| Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
FCL - General Discussion
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Funkypool Clan League Management.
Back to Forum List.