| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2007 02:06:26 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Shanksware above mentioned a handicapping system. How about this as a suggestion?
The difference between a team's average score for the week and the seeding average forms the team's score. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of arbitrary seeding average applied to those individuals or teams who have not entered enough challenges prior to the league starting.
Please note that this idea is very much a 'work in progress'. |
I don't would want an advantage because I am not a good photographer. I want to lose with real difference! but only after to have sold beloved the skin :) |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:12:55 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Rino63:
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
Shanksware above mentioned a handicapping system. How about this as a suggestion?
The difference between a team's average score for the week and the seeding average forms the team's score. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of arbitrary seeding average applied to those individuals or teams who have not entered enough challenges prior to the league starting.
Please note that this idea is very much a 'work in progress'. |
I don't would want an advantage because I am not a good photographer. I want to lose with real difference! but only after to have sold beloved the skin :) |
I would venture to suggest that a handicapping system would not give anyone an advantage, rather, it would favour those whose entries performed better than their norm. Simply levelling the playing field.
This remains only a suggestion, though, not some sort of personal crusade on the issue.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:15:40 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, the best analogy to what we have now is sports leagues, like Pro Football or baseball, to name two examples; and these leagues have found it to be in their best interests to use salary caps or spending limits to restrict any one team's ability to corner all the best talent. The goal is "parity", the "on any given Sunday" scenario, and it works fairly well.
|
Good analogy and a reasoned argument for this system. My biggest concern, as I said above, is that the lower people on a team may be so much lower than the top people that they never get to contribute and just stop trying. Look at your own team. As you said, you are the lowest ranked member (how could that be? ;)), but the difference between your seeded average and the highest is roughly only a point. Of the 20 pictures which contributed to your teams scores in the regular season, you scored one (but a beautiful one it was, eh?). Now exacerbate that seeded average difference by a point and a half or even two points. Are those team members going to feel good about having those superstars on the team when zero of their contributions count for team scores?
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:30:18 PM · #29 |
The outcome of the season will likely not be a surprise. With enough talent, free time, creative skills and money, the winners were probably being chiseled in stone before the season even began.
It's kind of like a football game. Hand-pick the best of the best and pit them against those that try hard. Sometimes the underdogs have some surprises up their sleeves, but generally in any competition, "bought teams" aren't really competing against the masses. The real matches are in the lower ranks, where the skill levels, spare time and equipment are pretty closely matched. Like in the movie "The Replacements", it's great to see a team of passionate members beat the Pros.
I'm on the fence about teams being evenly matched by say average vote received in their profiles, and teams being assembled by passion and camaraderie. Both have their merits. I for one, wouldn't trade a "DPC ringer" for any of the members of Team F/ATE.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:36:54 PM · #30 |
| Should just have a pro league and a semi-pro league. What league your team goes into is based on the average score of team members before the season begins. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:39:18 PM · #31 |
that's what it is now ... with an amateur league
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Should just have a pro league and a semi-pro league. What league your team goes into is based on the average score of team members before the season begins. |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:39:32 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are those team members going to feel good about having those superstars on the team when zero of their contributions count for team scores? |
I've always seen my role on Team 20D as a "backstop"; I can usually (though not this season) be counted on to provide good, strong middle-of-the-road scores to guard against potential total meltdowns among the superstars. It doesn't bother *me* when my scores "don't count", as long as the team does well.
Now, if I wasn't ON the team, or the team was doing poorly, what would I have to be "proud" of? It's been a miserable couple months for me, but by golly WE are a winning team!
R.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:51:08 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Should just have a pro league and a semi-pro league. What league your team goes into is based on the average score of team members before the season begins. |
We do: the A, B, and C Divisions within each conference. I realized that only a few days ago, but it was deliberate that the highest average teams are in A, next in B, next in C.
Doc, I agree with you that forcing teams to have a mix will result in the superstars always being the ones contributing to the score. I certainly felt like I wasn't doing my share until this last week, when I finally contributed another score (note: none of my teammates even hinted at anything like that; this is coming solely from me).
My solution to that is to change the scoring system so that everyone's score counts. I really like the idea of handicapping, and it meshes well with some vague thoughts I'd already had about seeing who had improved the most.
I'd give a trophy, for example, to the team that most exceeded its seed average. I don't mean to replace the championship trophy, but in addition to it.
I see DPL as having three goals:
1) Learning through sharing. It seems this happened a LOT, which is great.
2) Encouraging more people to enter. Definitely happened.
3) Competition.
I see no problems with the current setup as far 1) and 2) go; only 3) needs some minor tweaking, and I think the handicapping system would take care of the problems with a forced team structure, random team assignment, etc. because it would still let people be on teams as they choose.
One last thought for the moment. I play Ultimate Frisbee. For years I was in a league where there was a draft (we rated ourselves on skill, stamina, etc.) and the idea was parity. It was great fun, and we all got to know different people each season. But eventually I got tired of having these new friendships break up every season, so I formed a permanent team. We still have the same great attitude of learning, having fun, etc. But now we get to continue those relationships. It's that spirit I'd like to see DPL continue to have.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:53:06 PM · #34 |
As far as using a handicapping system goes, sports like bowling, typically give everyone a handicap number that is 80% of the difference between their average and 200. The theory being that the higher your average, the more difficult it is to beat.
So, if my average is 160, 80% of 40 makes my handicap 32.
If I bowl a 160, I get credit for 192.
A bowler that has an average of 210 doesn't get a handicap. But then again, if they just bowl their average, they still stomp me.
Relating that to DPC, let's say the score to be compared to is 7.0
My average is 5.8136. My handicap would be (7 - 5.8136) * .80 = .9491
DrAchoo has an average of 6.3261 and would have a handicap of .5391.
If I put up an average shot for me, (though I didn't put up anything remotely close to average during the season), I would get a score of 6.7627.
If someone like DrAchoo put up a shot that was their average, it would end up scoring a 6.8652. He would still beat me.
But, it is easier for me to beat my average than it is for Jason. Making the handicap be 80% of the difference up to 7, evens out the playing field quite nicely.
I hope at least some of this made sense.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:55:25 PM · #35 |
One advantage that I can see to having a "ringer" on each team would be their ability to share techniques with the rest of us. The lower members of the team would learn more, and the "ringer" would have an incentive to teach in order to bring the overall team score up.
That said, I'm really fond of my team the way it is and had a great time even though we had a losing record, so I don't feel too strongly either way. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 02:59:49 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
One advantage that I can see to having a "ringer" on each team would be their ability to share techniques with the rest of us. The lower members of the team would learn more, and the "ringer" would have an incentive to teach in order to bring the overall team score up.
That said, I'm really fond of my team the way it is and had a great time even though we had a losing record, so I don't feel too strongly either way. |
Yes, that's a good point.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:01:29 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by shanksware:
I hope at least some of this made sense. |
Sure, in many ways handicapping makes lots of sense. However, for what it's worth, that might be a considerable programming challenge to implement?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:02:34 PM · #38 |
I think everything's fine ... but there could be more searchable statistics for both teams and individuals. This would create a buzz for other things besides the win-loss column.
Individual Average
Individual High Score
Individual Most Improved
Individual Average Placing within the team
Team Average
Team High Score
Team Most Improved
A running top 10 team average with arrows up and down to see at a glance what teams or hot or not.
crap like that
:)
i love stats |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:03:24 PM · #39 |
On a completely different front, I'd like to see greatly expanded stats; in the "old" WPL we had a page where we could see what every team member (from all teams) scored in every challenge, and where we could compare competing teams head-to-head after the results came in to see how close it was.
We don't seem to have that in DPL, or if we do it's well-hidden.
R.
Crossed with Hopper; yeah, like that :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 15:04:11.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:04:07 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shanksware:
I hope at least some of this made sense. |
Sure, in many ways handicapping makes lots of sense. However, for what it's worth, that might be a considerable programming challenge to implement?
R. |
I sure don't know the specifics of how Langdon has the site programmed, but I wouldn't think so. It really just ends up being an equation.
Us programmers are supposed to be good at equations.
Edit to say I'm sorry for getting out of thread order.
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 15:05:38. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:10:56 PM · #41 |
I think there are lots of good suggestions here and we all realize there are problems with no easy solution, or the solutions bring up new problems.
I'll remind people that there have been superstar teams every season of the WPL/DPL and they have only won once. Despite Brad's vote of confidence, the season end is by no means guaranteed.
So I'll just recap my suggestions and leave it at that:
1) Wildcard system which would expand the playoffs by one week.
2) Continue the stratified Divisions. Team seeded average would dictate which division you went to.
3) Continue to allow teams to form organically. I'll say that whatever "ringer" team Season two has, it will look substantially different from the Hogs. The seven of us are not here just to win every season (I think I speak for everybody). I also suspect a majority will not reform for season two (although we haven't talked about it yet).
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:11:26 PM · #42 |
| I don't know if langdon thought this strong effect of dpl on dpc.... :) |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:19:47 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are enough "superstars" on the site to allow lots of teams to have them. If Hogs did not exist, then we'd merely be talking about the next highest elite teams (of which 20D is one). |
I don't believe that the first statement is true. The Hogs are far and above the other teams (an average score almost 0.4 larger than the next closest team is huge in the DPL structure). And as the Hogs' first playoff opponent (Team Light), the fact the Hogs' lowest submission that counted towards their score is larger than our average is intimidating. Not to mention their lowest scores are pretty much the same as my personal best.
Yet, of the playoff teams in division A, we have the second highest average!
In my mind, the hogs are on a level way above the rest of the teams, but the next level (Light, Critical Mass, 20D, F/ATE, Trigger Happy, etc) has a ton of parity. Team Light had a lot of things go our way to even make the playoffs after losing our first match (we also worked our asses off). It could have easily been another team rather than us that made it to the playoffs.
I'm not excessively concerned about team parity and I think a draft/handicapping/tiered recruitment would suck some of the fun out of DPL. Most of the fun is competing with a team and helping each other -- that doesn't necessarily mean winning!
The main reason I'm not concerned is:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't worry Jeffrey, the Hogs are not necessarily looking to compete each and every season. |
I don't think many uber-teams like the Hogs will be that interested in competing season after season. Yes, they are competitive, but the DPL is a lot of work and then add to that the pressure of being viewed as the dominant team... I think things will balance themselves without outside pressure. Besides, most of the really good photographers on this site are genuinely nice people -- if they feel that they are offending people, they'll figure out a way to compete but not exclude others. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:28:51 PM · #44 |
Interesting that there was none of this drama when DPL was WPL. As far as I can tell the only difference between the two is the name, yet there's been so much angst over WPL's reincarnation it boggles the mind.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:31:31 PM · #45 |
My input on the concerns:
1. Wildcard teams are necessary. Half of the fun of the DPL is seeing your hard work pay off with a playoff spot. But with only one out of each conference going, there's too much chance for bad luck to keep you out. Wildcard spots will reward the teams with high averages which ran up against tough teams in their division.
2. The playoffs need to be faster. Two down weeks between each playoff is excessive, and with wildcard teams, the process needs to be streamlined. How? Not sure. The playoff challenges could be outside normal DPC challenges (and have a shorter voting period) but that would be disruptive to the DPC. You could stack playoffs into consecutive weeks (or every other week) if stats were available sooner.
3. Better stats. Even stats computed at the end of each day, with comparisons to your opponent, would help streamline the process and make it a lot more fun for participants who love to watch stats (like me). That'd also allow playoffs to be consecutive or every other week, because you'd have a good idea of if you were moving on before it was time to submit the next week.
4. Keep the same method of establishing and stratifying teams. This echos what I said earlier, but I think the current system is the right way to keep it friendly and let you maintain friendships. Drafting or mixing teams around will just make people angry. And, if people aren't happy with their team, now is the time to start PMing and form a different team. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:45:50 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
As far as I can tell the only difference between the two is the name |
No.
How many teams and people were there in WPL? I'd bet a lot fewer than 72 teams and 500 people. Did WPL significantly increase the number of entries in each challenge? Did teams get private threads? Were there voting restrictions put in place?
In other words, did WPL have anywhere near the impact that DPL has had?
I suspect the reason you're seeing so much discussion is twofold:
1) It's now an official part of DPC
2) The impact is MUCH larger because the number of people involved is so much higher.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 04:02:55 PM · #47 |
Another way of doing the playoffs is to have a DPL madness. Top 24 teams (2 from each division) along with 8 next highest records or averages making 32 teams. Ranked by Avg, 1-32, 1 vs 32, 2 vs 31, 3 vs 30 and head to head win or lose. Then just follow the bracket. 32 has a chance of beating 1 if they work as a team to put the best image out there, but 1 still has the advantage. Anyone can get knocked off at anytime and there'd be more diversity of competing against teams you normally wouldn't face.
If you slim it to 24, the last week would be 3 teams, head to head to decide 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Dunno if this would make things more exciting or not. And there's probably already NCAA brackets coded up out on the net, so might eliminate the waiting periods between playoffs?
Just throwing it out there. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 04:06:55 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
As far as I can tell the only difference between the two is the name |
No.
How many teams and people were there in WPL? I'd bet a lot fewer than 72 teams and 500 people. Did WPL significantly increase the number of entries in each challenge? Did teams get private threads? Were there voting restrictions put in place?
In other words, did WPL have anywhere near the impact that DPL has had?
I suspect the reason you're seeing so much discussion is twofold:
1) It's now an official part of DPC
2) The impact is MUCH larger because the number of people involved is so much higher. |
Plus, when WPL was running there was a LOT of discussion even then that it was a negative as far as DPC goes. It was by no means invisible :-)
What's different now is that DPC admins have ASKED for input as to further refining the DPL model after its beta season. before, those who were suggesting changes to and/or eliminating WPL felt like spoilsports, and so a lot of people laid low I think.
Now it's OK to discuss it, and the discussion is proving very interesting. We all have a chance to offer input into the process now.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 04:12:42 PM · #49 |
I second everything Sting11165 said, implement all of those and DPL would be even better than it already is.
Originally posted by Sting11165:
My input on the concerns:
1. Wildcard teams are necessary. Half of the fun of the DPL is seeing your hard work pay off with a playoff spot. But with only one out of each conference going, there's too much chance for bad luck to keep you out. Wildcard spots will reward the teams with high averages which ran up against tough teams in their division.
2. The playoffs need to be faster. Two down weeks between each playoff is excessive, and with wildcard teams, the process needs to be streamlined. How? Not sure. The playoff challenges could be outside normal DPC challenges (and have a shorter voting period) but that would be disruptive to the DPC. You could stack playoffs into consecutive weeks (or every other week) if stats were available sooner.
3. Better stats. Even stats computed at the end of each day, with comparisons to your opponent, would help streamline the process and make it a lot more fun for participants who love to watch stats (like me). That'd also allow playoffs to be consecutive or every other week, because you'd have a good idea of if you were moving on before it was time to submit the next week.
4. Keep the same method of establishing and stratifying teams. This echos what I said earlier, but I think the current system is the right way to keep it friendly and let you maintain friendships. Drafting or mixing teams around will just make people angry. And, if people aren't happy with their team, now is the time to start PMing and form a different team. |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 07:44:28 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Sting11165:
My input on the concerns:
4. Keep the same method of establishing and stratifying teams. This echos what I said earlier, but I think the current system is the right way to keep it friendly and let you maintain friendships. Drafting or mixing teams around will just make people angry. And, if people aren't happy with their team, now is the time to start PMing and form a different team. |
One option is to consider requiring teams to have less than a certain team average in each division. Hogs would need to pick up free agents to lower their average a bit, teams that did really well in B would move up, etc.
Jack |
|
