| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2012 05:41:21 AM · #26 |
I like the idea, I never participated in the past but I think it would be a great incentive to submit in more challenges and exercise more (and learn!). I also like the idea of the random team based on varying skills.
If a low-average-score-not-paying-registered-user is ever needed in a team, here I am! |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 07:01:45 AM · #27 |
I've never been involved in DPL or WPL, so a couple of queries -
Do team members help each other with entry choices and pp advice etc?
How long is a season?
Just supposing I got into a team and I entered stuff of my frequently crappy standard would I be the team pariah like when I was a kid and couldn't hit the ball?
Just a suggestion to cope with the possibility that sometimes team members would fail to deliver, how about having 5 members, and only the 4 best scores counting?
Or maybe having 1 or 2 emergency teammates (who don't want full on involvement) on call to cover a gap?
I could be interested in this but my husband has a couple of 3 week blocks of vacation coming up (Nov/Dec and Jan/Feb) and I might not be dependable for those times.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2012 08:01:35 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by jomari:
I've never been involved in DPL or WPL, so a couple of queries -
Do team members help each other with entry choices and pp advice etc?
How long is a season?
Just supposing I got into a team and I entered stuff of my frequently crappy standard would I be the team pariah like when I was a kid and couldn't hit the ball?
Just a suggestion to cope with the possibility that sometimes team members would fail to deliver, how about having 5 members, and only the 4 best scores counting?
Or maybe having 1 or 2 emergency teammates (who don't want full on involvement) on call to cover a gap?
I could be interested in this but my husband has a couple of 3 week blocks of vacation coming up (Nov/Dec and Jan/Feb) and I might not be dependable for those times. |
The norm was each team had there own page here which hey could then interact with each other place image and get each others idea |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 08:42:36 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I respect very much your effort  Venser but I think that the way  SDW had set the whole stuff was perfect. We only need 1 or 2 more users per team and some teams more to allow more guys to join the competition. My two cents... |
I didn't know a WPL existed. When doing searches I was looking for the now defunct DPL. I'll be trying to contact SDW later today.
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I built a great friendship with my teammates and we've been waiting for almost one year the beginning of the new competition to be a team again. |
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this manner.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Why not just stay with using the average score? |
Upon further thought, I'll stick to percentile. It's easier to compare across challenges. My idea of using placement was idiotic when I thought about it. It rewards people submitting an all black image to a low entry challenge. At least with percentile they should finish last and their percentile would be 0%, thus negating their contribution.
Originally posted by jomari:
How long is a season? |
In my head, I'm thinking something along the lines of 10-12 weeks. Again, let me see what was done in the past as I didn't know about the WPL. This would also depend on the level of participation obviously as teams shouldn't be so thin they're pointless.
Originally posted by jomari:
Just supposing I got into a team and I entered stuff of my frequently crappy standard would I be the team pariah like when I was a kid and couldn't hit the ball? |
Hopefully your teammates could help you out. Also, every team will have a pariah, as you claim to be. Since I'd be constructing teams as in my initial post, every team should have an "all-star" and someone who could use help. It's kind of the point of the whole exercise, disguising it as a challenge to keep it fun.
I'm out for the rest of the day, but I'll probably try to keep discussions going for another week. That allows me time to read the WPL forums threads, hopefully get in contact with SDW, and work out some logistics on my side. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 10:05:58 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 10:24:51 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 10:33:02 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 10:40:18 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
I really like this idea. Relatively balanced teams should make it more fun folks of all experience and skill levels. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:10:22 AM · #34 |
| I enjoyed this before so may well be up for it again as you get to engage with different members. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:21:40 AM · #35 |
I really liked the structure of the last WPL league and there are only two things I feel strongly about changing and they both address the amount of time one has to invest in participation.
I would like scoring to be based on percentile, this way the current (ahem!) inflated scores of the expert challenge won't force people to have to enter these usually very time consuming challenges. Those who like them could certainly still enter and I would want them to have that fun, but they would no longer have a scoring advantage.
I also think the season could be a bit shorter than the last WPL. It's really hard to be sure you can have adequate free time to participate during a very long stretch.
I really don't like to hear talk of splitting teams apart if they want to stay together. Whenever you somewhat randomly place groups of people together sometimes personalities mesh well and sometimes they don't. I feel fortunate to have been on one DPL team and one WPL teams where everyone got along really well and helped motivate each other. And being part of something like that means much more than winning to me even though both my teams did pretty well. I would have been just as happy with these teams had we not finished well as long as the great camraderie was there. So even if some teams with good records reform, winning isn't everything or even the main thing that is great about these leagues. And Allesandro made a good point, the underdogs won last time anyway.
I really don't want to be forced to now compete against former teammates. I had to do that against a couple of my former DPL mates in the WPL and it didn't feel good to me. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:21:41 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
I really like this idea. Relatively balanced teams should make it more fun folks of all experience and skill levels. |
The concept of the DPL/WPL is to reward the work of a TEAM, not individuals. That said, Venser if you choose to assign members to teams, I would suggest assigning them based on score averages only, nothing identifiable to each member, just straight numbers and random choosing by a computer. Otherwise, I don't think I would want to participate unless we can form our own teams again. I particularly do not like the idea of being forced to be on a team I might not like just so you can see what happens. That seems very odd to me.
We were underdogs last year and won the WPL based on teamwork, not the work of any one individual. I think the scoring method worked really well last WPL. I don't think that should change one little bit.
I'm anxious to see where this thread goes and what comes of a possible WPL again, but my preference would be to maintain the our last team, or have captains choose from evenly populated pools. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:30:05 AM · #37 |
Been waiting for DPL myself. Rating by some one's average could be miss leading a little. I'd take Bear Music (many others) on a team in a heart beat. A good example of a average score that doesn't represent the real abilities of a good photographer. I was fortunate to be part of a awesome team last year as the water boy and it was fun. Yet I've been on teams with much less average team scores and we still had a blast. Just my 2 cents....
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
I really like this idea. Relatively balanced teams should make it more fun folks of all experience and skill levels. |
|
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:39:28 AM · #38 |
I came out of retirement for the last DPL, and I'd do the same if there were another one. I'd even re-up my paid membership if that played into it.
ETA... I took special joy in tormenting my team by entering disgusting shots!!!
Message edited by author 2012-09-22 11:42:35.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:50:08 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by ace flyman:
Been waiting for DPL myself. Rating by some one's average could be miss leading a little. I'd take Bear Music (many others) on a team in a heart beat. A good example of a average score that doesn't represent the real abilities of a good photographer. |
Yeah, that's the rub... I enter a lot of "doomed" images in challenges because I'm having fun, so my overall average is middle-of-the pack, but in team play I work a little harder. So average isn't the best way to seed someone like me. But how else can we do it? It's a toughie. Number of ribbons? Then I'm an A player, but what about highly skilled newcomers? I suppose the math wonks among us can come up with a fair way to seed projected performance, but I'm not one of those :-) |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 02:17:31 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I came out of retirement for the last DPL, and I'd do the same if there were another one. I'd even re-up my paid membership if that played into it.
ETA... I took special joy in tormenting my team by entering disgusting shots!!!
|
The very thought of the opportunity to cost Slippy 25 bucks, American, makes me say a big YES to this idea!
|
|
|
|
09/22/2012 03:58:44 PM · #41 |
Couple of thoughts -- I've done both WPL and DPL (though only once each)
1. It actually has been hashed out pretty well over the years, and there's a reason for most of the decisions (and the reasons are good)
2. I would hate to have 4 person teams. 7 person teams were much better. You got to know more people, and there was less pressure on you, because not all 7 scores counted. Both times we had people that couldn't enter during a number of the weeks. If all the scores counted, it would cause a lot of tension in the team if people weren't participating. If you end up with a zero in one of the slots, it's almost impossible to overcome.
3. I would make one major change to the system, however -- Add a wildcard slot!!. This could change things up quite a bit. The first DPL I was on, it was obvious who was going to win, even though there were a couple of teams that could have taken them on successfully as a wildcard. It really wasn't fun knowing that it was over before it really started.
4. Let people make their own teams. They'll be more interested and have more fun. Again, 7 was a good number, because a couple of teams also had people sign up that didn't end up participating. They had to really give them a couple of weeks before they could see if they could replace them, so scores that don't count during the week is a good thing.
5. If you want to put limitations on the scoring average of the team -- that's fine, but random isn't good. But, as someone else mentioned, averages don't show a lot in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2012 04:15:43 PM · #42 |
I see a few well respected folks who are strongly in favor of choosing teams over random assignments, and from a social perspective it certainly is the way to go. A chance for friends to get together, may be pulling in old friends who have moved on, back to play once more in the old playground. It was certainly fun with the DPL to have the big old names back once more.
The counter argument is that random teams would make it easier to meet new people, to get some rookies mixed in with the old timers and widen the web of social connections. While the first option is more comfortable, I think the second would be better for the community as a whole.
Whichever it pans out, some sort of team averaging would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 04:18:05 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
I really like this idea. Relatively balanced teams should make it more fun folks of all experience and skill levels. |
This is about teamwork ... not about some statistical attempt to create universal team mediocrity. I oppose the randomizing idea. If I am assigned to a team randomly, I would want to think very hard about my random team mates and whether they would commit themselves to the team and the work it requires and the collaboration that creates a great team.
ETA: should have said randomly selected team mates. This is Microsoft Country ... random has a connotation i didn't intend.
Message edited by author 2012-09-22 16:19:28. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 05:52:16 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
I really like this idea. Relatively balanced teams should make it more fun folks of all experience and skill levels. |
This is about teamwork ... not about some statistical attempt to create universal team mediocrity. I oppose the randomizing idea. If I am assigned to a team randomly, I would want to think very hard about my random team mates and whether they would commit themselves to the team and the work it requires and the collaboration that creates a great team.
ETA: should have said randomly selected team mates. This is Microsoft Country ... random has a connotation i didn't intend. |
I like Bear_Music's solution. Commitment and teamwork are big and fun part, but it's great to mix in people of varying experience at the DPC scorability formula.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2012 05:57:56 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Tommy_Mac:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by Venser:
Unfortunately this is the one point I'll be unwavering on. I'll have to construct teams along the lines of my initial post. This will ensure every team should be able to pull roughly the same average in any given challenge. I play a ton of board games, and there's nothing worse when games aren't balanced and a runaway winner situation can occur every game. This is exactly what I'll be trying to prevent by making the teams in this |
This is where you are wrong: last year we were the underdog and at the end we won :) |
I'm with Alessandro on this... Letting people choose their team is the best way to go...if you model this on last years WPL you will truly have a great competition. Forcing people to go here or there...kind of takes the fun out of it. |
A compromise can be accomplished by allowing people to form their own teams but by splitting the pool of potential players into A, B, C groups (like we do in golf tournaments) and allowing a team to have no more than X members from the A pool and Y members from the B pool. |
I really like this idea. Relatively balanced teams should make it more fun folks of all experience and skill levels. |
This is about teamwork ... not about some statistical attempt to create universal team mediocrity. I oppose the randomizing idea. If I am assigned to a team randomly, I would want to think very hard about my random team mates and whether they would commit themselves to the team and the work it requires and the collaboration that creates a great team.
ETA: should have said randomly selected team mates. This is Microsoft Country ... random has a connotation i didn't intend. |
I like Bear_Music's solution. Commitment and teamwork are big and fun part, but it's great to mix in people of varying experience at the DPC scorability formula. |
..I think its fair that they choose who they want on there team experience and creativity is whats needed. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 06:32:58 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Dennisheckman:
That said, Venser if you choose to assign members to teams, I would suggest assigning them based on score averages only, nothing identifiable to each member, just straight numbers and random choosing by a computer. Otherwise, I don't think I would want to participate unless we can form our own teams again. I particularly do not like the idea of being forced to be on a team I might not like just so you can see what happens. That seems very odd to me. |
If it came off as an experiment I was going to run, I apologize. I just saw placing people in fashion close to what I described in the first post as being the fairest for all involved. Looks like there's a lot of opposition to that idea.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I see a few well respected folks who are strongly in favor of choosing teams over random assignments, and from a social perspective it certainly is the way to go. A chance for friends to get together, may be pulling in old friends who have moved on, back to play once more in the old playground. It was certainly fun with the DPL to have the big old names back once more.
The counter argument is that random teams would make it easier to meet new people, to get some rookies mixed in with the old timers and widen the web of social connections. While the first option is more comfortable, I think the second would be better for the community as a whole. |
Your second point is why I suggested the method I did. Again, there's opposition, and probably enough so that I'll figure out a way to get a mix of both so new guard have to mingle with old hat.
Originally posted by Brent_S:
I would like scoring to be based on percentile, this way the current (ahem!) inflated scores of the expert challenge won't force people to have to enter these usually very time consuming challenges. Those who like them could certainly still enter and I would want them to have that fun, but they would no longer have a scoring advantage. |
After further thought, it's going to be percentages. It's the fairest way mathematically. There is no moving me on this position. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:02:28 PM · #47 |
Seems the well connected members are for picking, and the relative newbies are the ones for random assignment...
Maybe that's how you can split up the leagues... the cronies (they chose their teams), and the randoms (randomly assigned teams)... then the winners face off in the super bowl. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:41:29 PM · #48 |
Historically, there have been issues, even WITH peer-selected teams, with some team members not being willing (or able) to participate as frequently as they ought to. This is my main objection to random draws of teams; you're at the mercy of folks who may lose interest if the team's not doing well.
It still seems to me that seeding potential players and limiting how many of the top players can be on a single team, requiring each team to have a couple relative newbies, would be the ideal leveling method this time around.
Message edited by author 2012-09-22 23:41:42. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 12:36:58 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Historically, there have been issues, even WITH peer-selected teams, with some team members not being willing (or able) to participate as frequently as they ought to. This is my main objection to random draws of teams; you're at the mercy of folks who may lose interest if the team's not doing well.
It still seems to me that seeding potential players and limiting how many of the top players can be on a single team, requiring each team to have a couple relative newbies, would be the ideal leveling method this time around. |
I think you need too throw it out there like now too see who would be 100% committed i was watching the last league and some did poorly cause of this . |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:01:00 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Historically, there have been issues, even WITH peer-selected teams, with some team members not being willing (or able) to participate as frequently as they ought to. This is my main objection to random draws of teams; you're at the mercy of folks who may lose interest if the team's not doing well.
It still seems to me that seeding potential players and limiting how many of the top players can be on a single team, requiring each team to have a couple relative newbies, would be the ideal leveling method this time around. |
Let me figure out how to do this in a reasonable manner.
Looking at the last WPL, I don't know who would want to compete in the same division as Drive By Shooters and Team Ephemera. Looking at the participation of the other two teams in that division, looks like they didn't want to either by the end. At least with the team assignments I was proposing, theoretically, it should be really close all the way to the end.
What's the point of having a team, like Drive By Shooters, who would currently have 6/7 members in the top 25 for most ribbons ever. The whole point I was thinking is to have a complete mix of people on teams so hopefully everyone benefits. If Team Ephemera was in any other division, it would have been 10-0 for them as well. The only reason they suffered defeat is because they had two weeks against Drive By Shooters. I see another team won the entire thing, but that was only a one week event. The entire league up to that point was pretty much written in stone weeks out in three of the divisions. Had Team Ephemera been in the other division, it would have been four for four.
Look, if that's what people really want, I apologize for bringing this whole idea up. There'd be nothing I enjoy more than running against ten year olds to boost my ego, but I'm not going to set up others for the same. |
|
