| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2010 02:45:33 AM · #51 |
| I'm interested but I doubt anyone will pick me for their team. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 02:53:50 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Delta_6:
I'm interested but I doubt anyone will pick me for their team. |
Now that's the spirit! I tried postive thinking too. But just as I thought before I tried it; it didn't work! :P |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 05:05:41 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Hah. And here I already have a team half-formed... You're telling me it's not gonna work that way this time? Sigh...
R.
ETA: Actually, I see it's not set in stone. My own vote is to keep it the way it was for now, there was a lot of camaraderie developed. But maybe strongly encourage captains, or even require them, to include team members of varying abilities; I'm doing that myself, so far.
R. |
You right it's not set in stone. I looking for suggestions.
I think the last time I ran the WPL Captains were able to choose there own team (or at least the first four participants) and then they picked from the sign up pool to get the remaining two team members.
It's been so long ago!
I'm in favor of what the everyone agrees on.
Scott |
I enjoyed the camaraderie as well, but I actually only new a couple of my old team mates before we got started. I do like the idea of forming a partial team, then choosing the remainder of your team from a pool. That way, there is at least some sort of balance between the teams. Didn't we require that 5 scores be counted each week? If that's the case, allow the captain to chose 3 team mates prior to the draft. That way the teams have a dependable, hand-picked base formed, but every week isn't a near-guaranteed win for any certain team.
Anyway, there are my thoughts for now.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2010 05:14:38 AM · #54 |
| I am interested in participating. If any captain wants me to their side let me know. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 05:56:50 AM · #55 |
I think I would be interested to take part, although Im scared to say that in case I was left until last pick!
I shall eagerly await the signup thread |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 08:03:33 AM · #56 |
I think it would be more useful and community developing to have a sort of auto draft. You pick your captains and lets say for the first 3 teammates, they draft themselves and then for the remaining 3 it's autodrafted and the team is just assigned someone. It allows players who don't know many people to still end up on a team...it develops comraderie...and it helps the teams build up lower averaged players. And you don't have teams that dominate because they picked up all the 7+ scorers. (means better competition).
Message edited by author 2010-01-13 08:03:49. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 08:08:30 AM · #57 |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 08:30:14 AM · #58 |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 09:00:45 AM · #59 |
| Nice looking site, Scott. I take the description to mean that non-members can play, though they'll only have one eligible score each week? If so, put me on the interested list. I wonder if my old DPL team would want to play... |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 09:03:25 AM · #60 |
| Sounds like fun! I'm interested too. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 10:30:52 AM · #61 |
| I'm glad that this is making a return, count me in!! |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 12:31:09 PM · #62 |
My opine on the draft, if you can't dodge em join em.
Since this is a score-based league then rank combatants players by average score. Set the players into pools of equalish score. Assuming 8 players per team make four pools from which to choose.
During the draft, either manually or automagically, captains choose from the same pool until that pool is exhausted then move to the next pool.
This method will relatively evenly distribute score-ability across teams. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 01:08:55 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
My opine on the draft, if you can't dodge em join em.
Since this is a score-based league then rank combatants players by average score. Set the players into pools of equalish score. Assuming 8 players per team make four pools from which to choose.
During the draft, either manually or automagically, captains choose from the same pool until that pool is exhausted then move to the next pool.
This method will relatively evenly distribute score-ability across teams. |
I like this idea. I was thinking if you could do the draft order based on average score of players (lower team averages draft first) it would make it fair. That would be complicated though because you would have to calculate averages before each round of the draft.  alfresco's idea is much more simple.
Whatever is decided I'll be on board... |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 01:41:03 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
My opine on the draft, if you can't dodge em join em.
Since this is a score-based league then rank combatants players by average score. Set the players into pools of equalish score. Assuming 8 players per team make four pools from which to choose.
During the draft, either manually or automagically, captains choose from the same pool until that pool is exhausted then move to the next pool.
This method will relatively evenly distribute score-ability across teams. |
Way back in the beginning, I had suggested a semi-draft, in the sense that the contestants be divided into A, B, and C groups based on scoring average, and that each team be allowed no more than 2 A's and required to have at least 2 C's amongst its 7 players.
It seems to me that an actual, live "draft" is an unwieldy concept, but the above would be easy enough to implement.
R. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 01:51:47 PM · #65 |
| I agree with the idea that a real draft would be practically impossible. It would take forever knowing that people live across the globe in different time zones. Could you imagine having one team select, waiting for their answer, then go to the next team, and so forth. Repeat 112 times. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 01:57:16 PM · #66 |
| This was a HUGE ball that Langdon dropped. The best part was the private forum. It accelerated the sort of learning and knowledge-sharing that happens at DPC. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 02:27:58 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
This was a HUGE ball that Langdon dropped. The best part was the private forum. It accelerated the sort of learning and knowledge-sharing that happens at DPC. |
As a software engineering, I can only guess that Langdon stayed up 72 hours straight madly writing code for DPL, and now he can't remember how any of it works. As a husband, I also know why he can't spend the time to figure it out again.
=D
ETA: I agree with your statement, though. It was awesome.
Message edited by author 2010-01-13 14:28:12. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 02:52:29 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Nice looking site, Scott. I take the description to mean that non-members can play, though they'll only have one eligible score each week? If so, put me on the interested list. I wonder if my old DPL team would want to play... |
Well, here's one team member that wants to re-up!
|
|
|
|
01/13/2010 02:53:04 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Originally posted by posthumous:
This was a HUGE ball that Langdon dropped. The best part was the private forum. It accelerated the sort of learning and knowledge-sharing that happens at DPC. |
As a software engineering, I can only guess that Langdon stayed up 72 hours straight madly writing code for DPL, and now he can't remember how any of it works. As a husband, I also know why he can't spend the time to figure it out again.
=D
ETA: I agree with your statement, though. It was awesome. |
As a programmer, I hate it when I write code and it only gets used once. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 03:18:35 PM · #70 |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 03:39:48 PM · #71 |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 04:42:00 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Way back in the beginning, I had suggested a semi-draft, in the sense that the contestants be divided into A, B, and C groups based on scoring average, and that each team be allowed no more than 2 A's and required to have at least 2 C's amongst its 7 players.
It seems to me that an actual, live "draft" is an unwieldy concept, but the above would be easy enough to implement.
R. |
I like the idea but I don't think you should just go by the scoring averages on the profile pages as those can be quite deceptive such as in your case. It would be unfair for someone to draft you out of the 5.5 scorers group in addition to those picked in the higher groups. Some kind of adjusted scoring average should be used or at least include more variables in the equation. For example, number of top ten finishes as a percentage of challenges entered? |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 05:33:34 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Way back in the beginning, I had suggested a semi-draft, in the sense that the contestants be divided into A, B, and C groups based on scoring average, and that each team be allowed no more than 2 A's and required to have at least 2 C's amongst its 7 players.
It seems to me that an actual, live "draft" is an unwieldy concept, but the above would be easy enough to implement.
R. |
I like the idea but I don't think you should just go by the scoring averages on the profile pages as those can be quite deceptive such as in your case. It would be unfair for someone to draft you out of the 5.5 scorers group in addition to those picked in the higher groups. Some kind of adjusted scoring average should be used or at least include more variables in the equation. For example, number of top ten finishes as a percentage of challenges entered? |
An alternative is seeding by numbers of ribbons and honorable mentions earned, but that has flaws too. Besides, I have that 5.5 average because that's what I've EARNED... Exactly why wouldn't that be "fair" to seed by scoring average? I am not making an issue of it, I understand your point and have raised it myself int he past, but seriously... When we think about it, where exactly is the flaw?
Is it that "someone like me" can be expected to rise to the challenge, so to speak, and not enter his off-the-wall images during the "season"? Can't that kind of reasoning be applied to everyone? Who the heck knows?
R. |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 05:38:40 PM · #74 |
| How about using average score for 2009? |
|
|
|
01/13/2010 05:41:50 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Way back in the beginning, I had suggested a semi-draft, in the sense that the contestants be divided into A, B, and C groups based on scoring average, and that each team be allowed no more than 2 A's and required to have at least 2 C's amongst its 7 players.
It seems to me that an actual, live "draft" is an unwieldy concept, but the above would be easy enough to implement.
R. |
I like the idea but I don't think you should just go by the scoring averages on the profile pages as those can be quite deceptive such as in your case. It would be unfair for someone to draft you out of the 5.5 scorers group in addition to those picked in the higher groups. Some kind of adjusted scoring average should be used or at least include more variables in the equation. For example, number of top ten finishes as a percentage of challenges entered? |
An alternative is seeding by numbers of ribbons and honorable mentions earned, but that has flaws too. Besides, I have that 5.5 average because that's what I've EARNED... Exactly why wouldn't that be "fair" to seed by scoring average? I am not making an issue of it, I understand your point and have raised it myself int he past, but seriously... When we think about it, where exactly is the flaw?
Is it that "someone like me" can be expected to rise to the challenge, so to speak, and not enter his off-the-wall images during the "season"? Can't that kind of reasoning be applied to everyone? Who the heck knows?
R. |
One of the biggest problems in overall average is with people who've been on a long time and have gotten significantly better. It might be more accurate to look at 2009's average or average of 2008 & 2009. It's easy to dump your info into a spreadsheet and calculate the average. Everyone can be responsible for collecting and posting their own average.
I like Bear's idea of picking from 3 different groups. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:15:13 PM EDT.
