Big league restructure proposal

User avatar
krazymen
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:10 pm
Battle.net Name: krazymen
Battle.net Char Code: 249
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by krazymen » Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:47 am

Blitz wrote:
krazymen wrote:
Blitz wrote:Why is someone "not signed up in the league" <--- LOL... posting about changes to the league?
i played the league longer than you.

Thank you for your feedback
So because of your experience this entitles you to smurf an entire season and then tell everyone what they should do? No reason to argue with logic like that. If you're not actually smurfing, only you know... then execuse me for my rudeness... but I have my doubts.
wait so thats why you put the quotation marks uh.

I assure you i am not smurfing. If you plan on drafting someone that u think is me, dont do it.

If u want more info pm me.
i dont have any other accounts in sc2.
Bowling trophy (birthday trophy)
Achieved level 105 in starcraft 2
Undefeated in 5v5
self proclaimed director of ironic trophies
User avatar
Rigensis
Posts: 888
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:44 pm
Battle.net Name: Rigensis
Battle.net Char Code: 955
Battle.net Server: EU
Location: rigaLatvia.
Contact:

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by Rigensis » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:11 am

1. Oh, play-offs eligibility rule - yes that has been tough one in past - but the current rules about that are pretty clear now - 1-4th round picks cant play in probe-offs, players from Draft with 6 or less games in zhl and players from Supplemental Draft with 3 or less games can play in probe-offs. With possible exception for players which were not picked in first four rounds and have played 1 or less games in ZHL playoffs. Sounds solid. Better than last seasons.

Tho that rule needs to be updated for the new 13 games per team situation, I guess. Also with the conferences there is no clear middle point in season - previously middle point was when each team has played 1 game with every other team.

I guess now Sup-Draft needs to happen after when in each conference each team has played 1 game with every other team in that conference. Well that depends how the games will be played now. Will it be - first each team plays with every other team in that conference or will they mix already in first rounds of league - that some teams play a game with a team from other conference while others teams from that conference plays with each other? I guess that would be the case with odd number of teams per conference.

2. I don't know friend - 22 ppl have put down their names for season 6 ownership. That is less than EU if we consider the amount of signup but the difference is not huge. And

3. B-walking thread was huge :D and I am not sure if moose b-walking rule was super effective.
Lagging discussion - I don't remember - did that discussion yielded that you guys have 1 caster and that no benches are used?
No idea what is that maha`s thread.

4. Ask Teroh. He has been active with every other announcement. Maybe forgot.

5. Sure. Those people who run leagues or other stuff is always open to good solid solutions.

6. Commish postponing a game at the time when it should be played because one team can't get full line-up would make the other team raging - they are here to play, they managed their times to be here at the start of game. In that situation the most fair solution would be forfeit that team with not players. Giving goals as a reward is very unsportsmanlike.
Sport is not a circus - if team needs to use a remake to get in best shape then they should be allowed to do that once.
User avatar
krazymen
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:10 pm
Battle.net Name: krazymen
Battle.net Char Code: 249
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by krazymen » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:37 am

Rigensis wrote:1. Oh, play-offs eligibility rule - yes that has been tough one in past - but the current rules about that are pretty clear now - 1-4th round picks cant play in probe-offs, players from Draft with 6 or less games in zhl and players from Supplemental Draft with 3 or less games can play in probe-offs. With possible exception for players which were not picked in first four rounds and have played 1 or less games in ZHL playoffs. Sounds solid. Better than last seasons.

Tho that rule needs to be updated for the new 13 games per team situation, I guess. Also with the conferences there is no clear middle point in season - previously middle point was when each team has played 1 game with every other team.

I guess now Sup-Draft needs to happen after when in each conference each team has played 1 game with every other team in that conference. Well that depends how the games will be played now. Will it be - first each team plays with every other team in that conference or will they mix already in first rounds of league - that some teams play a game with a team from other conference while others teams from that conference plays with each other? I guess that would be the case with odd number of teams per conference.

2. I don't know friend - 22 ppl have put down their names for season 6 ownership. That is less than EU if we consider the amount of signup but the difference is not huge. And

3. B-walking thread was huge :D and I am not sure if moose b-walking rule was super effective.
Lagging discussion - I don't remember - did that discussion yielded that you guys have 1 caster and that no benches are used?
No idea what is that maha`s thread.

4. Ask Teroh. He has been active with every other announcement. Maybe forgot.

5. Sure. Those people who run leagues or other stuff is always open to good solid solutions.

6. Commish postponing a game at the time when it should be played because one team can't get full line-up would make the other team raging - they are here to play, they managed their times to be here at the start of game. In that situation the most fair solution would be forfeit that team with not players. Giving goals as a reward is very unsportsmanlike.
Sport is not a circus - if team needs to use a remake to get in best shape then they should be allowed to do that once.
1. that is not a clear and easy to enforce rule in my mind. With my format instead of counting every game someone played all you would have to do is look if hes probe or not. The new lock in rule is a great example of a simplified rule, they tried to make it that you had to play 50% in the position you were locked in before. Now its 100% and a choice. Much easier to enforce, much easier for owners and especially easier for players.

2. where did you get that number? Also when I checked without counting the brand new people/trolls there was less than that

3. The rule being effective or not is irrelevant, the thread being huge or not is also irrelevant (actually shows the community cares tho), the end result is just to have more feedback for the people in charge to take a clear decision instead of working on their own.

4. We shouldnt have to ask the commish for that. I think posting it at the same time the owners are posted is reasonable and convenient. I still think 3 is not enough at all. (not blaming anyone for this, just something we have to work on together.)

6. So you are against postponing games but for remakes? Isnt that a bit contradicting. The goals allowed is just an idea to penalise the team that wasnt present and that would be a game in a million, very low chance of actually happening. (kind of a fail safe) and you keep saying the best thing is to have good games thats exactly what that would be for, to not have forfeits. It has nothing to do with a "circus" teams needs to respect the rules, the game start at a certain time, if u have players to play you should play. The only reason the remake rule was implemented was because the game is unstable and its possible for someone to lag, it was not implemented to delay the game in order to get a player that was late in.
Bowling trophy (birthday trophy)
Achieved level 105 in starcraft 2
Undefeated in 5v5
self proclaimed director of ironic trophies
User avatar
Rigensis
Posts: 888
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:44 pm
Battle.net Name: Rigensis
Battle.net Char Code: 955
Battle.net Server: EU
Location: rigaLatvia.
Contact:

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by Rigensis » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:16 am

1. You can just look into stats to find out how many games a certain player has played. It is clear enough for me.
But your way of splitting teams into main and probe is a good idea. But I don't think that the rules for your way would be much easier to implement. For example - LMs will still need to keep up with the players moving from probees and main team. With the current rules - they need to check only before play-offs, with your - that would be weekly task.
As I mentioned - radical step would be to ditch probees. But that would allow to drop all those eligibility rules all together.

2. Same situation is in eu with trolls and new players. Not all owners in last season were from those who said yes in registration form, some owners initially said no for ownership but in talks they were convinced to change the mind. Finding good, capable, trusty owners is not the easiest task.
As for where I get that number - that is secret internet knowledge.

3. Well here you go - community has an impact for the decisions. Having a discussion for every little decision would be counterproductive.
If you want real tough one - try to figure out how is the commissioner for league decided? :D

4. League managers are people who are supposed to help commish. And it is up to commish who he picks for his team. Commish is a person who donates a large chunk of his free time and nerves and brain power for community. In that light - are you really going to criticizes him for not posting his manager team while he is still looking for additions for his team?
Last season there were 6. Teroh is looking for more.

6. What's wrong with rescheduling if both teams agrees more than 48 hours before the supposed game start? Rescheduling 1 hour before supposed game start would be just plain wrong.
Ok - you have been talking about rules that can be easily implemented - and you mentioned that remake rule was for cases when someone is lagging. How would you decide if a team which asks for remake because someone in that team is lagging and not to get a different player in? Commish can decide on that but he won't know the truth tho or he would need to watch the replay. Easier solution is to allow each team to have 1 remake for whatever reason they want and after using that remake they are without any backups.
And there seems to be a new rule - any player who leaves a game will result in his team losing 1 win they got previously and another additional loss.
User avatar
krazymen
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:10 pm
Battle.net Name: krazymen
Battle.net Char Code: 249
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by krazymen » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:33 am

1. Stats are not always up to date, and in my format it would be really easy to keep up with the different players since the announcements would work like the trade one right now

3. What's your point. Why would it be counterproductive I just told you earlier there could be a time limit set by commish. Similar to when moose said "I will be taking my decision in 2 days" about the bitchwalking problem.

4. Please it's not bitching it's about being clear. Theres no reason to just make a thread and say looking for more in the thread and besides it would be a requirement if we stop having owners vote for round

6. Because they would not be able to get someone else in. The lagger would have to fix his issues. Again the rescheduling is a fail safe. I do think we need something better for remakes and reschedule. It's too exploitable right now.
Bowling trophy (birthday trophy)
Achieved level 105 in starcraft 2
Undefeated in 5v5
self proclaimed director of ironic trophies
Counter_This
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:26 pm
Battle.net Name:
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by Counter_This » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:36 am

I like the suggested changes. This works similarly as NHL to AHL everyone has a "farm" team. My few suggested changes are...

Amount of ZHL drafted rounds should be 5 instead of 6.

Need to find a way to get people to sign up for probe owners.
JMoney wrote:reported for spam

i stand idle while a bunch of bonkers stuff goes on in the league, but I won't accept people artificially inflating their post counts
Bravo! LOL
Image
User avatar
Rigensis
Posts: 888
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:44 pm
Battle.net Name: Rigensis
Battle.net Char Code: 955
Battle.net Server: EU
Location: rigaLatvia.
Contact:

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by Rigensis » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:49 am

1. Stats are up to date for the end of regular season.

3. Well sometimes you don't have time to discuss things because the decision needs to be made quickly.
Sometimes you have an issues which requires understanding what the issue is - like the owner pick values.
Sometimes you have an issue when one of 2 teams involved in that issue would not be happy about any decision made. In EU we have had 2 situations like that.
Sometimes you have an issue requires an investigation - like in smurf cases.
Sometimes you have an idea you want to test - like with moose 5 min rule.
Sometimes you have an issue about which majority of community have no interest in.
Sometimes you need to teach owners how to read rules. Ask Moose. Kappa.
There are many of other cases, I guess.

First thing there tho is that there are league managers and team owners who can directly express their concerns about things.
Second is that it is not forbidden to start a discussion about any issue you think community should talk and discuss.
Third thing is that Commissioners and League managers are only humans - there are so many things to worry about - following and trying to figure out what each of community`s members thinks would add more time to the commissioner work. And it takes huge dedication and lot of time to be a commissioner. I know that commissioners talk with team managers and other people who can provide good analysis of situation - I know I have, Junky has done that, Moose have done that - plus there always a possibility to get veto`d - like in that trade get veto`d by commish and then his veto was revoked.
Fourth - Commissioners are personalities too - and they have their views on things - no matter of amount of discussions - they might still go with what they think is the best - like I did in clan league not ditching a team with bad attendance from the league and in season 1 of eu draft league ditching a team with bad attendance but in a different circumstances.
And in the end - Commissioners are responsible to make sure that league is successful. If he/she choose to have a large scale forum discussion then it is his/her choice, if not - then again it is his/her choice.

4. To give you a taste how current Owner pick values are currently (well at least - previous seasons) determined.
http://www.zealothockey.net/forum/viewt ... 5&start=21
http://www.zealothockey.net/forum/viewt ... =46&t=1145
Also, LMs and The commissioner votes have bigger impact.
It is not simple owners vote for each others pick value.
So RIP Transparency; tho this is democracy - you find it irritating that the procedure how owner values are picked is not made public - if you find people who share the same desire to see that - you will probably get an answer.

Also - in the rule section of forum he posted his team and stated that he is looking for more. So it is stated and posted.

6. And what if that person who lags can't fix it? 4v3? If that would be the case then people would want to use benches.

Aaaaaanyway, Krazymen, your idea about splitting probe/main team might be implemented in future if you manage to explain it and provide with rules to it. That might be implemented in next season - not in this.

(By the way - in EU Clan league some teams had a farm club - where they could send a player to lower league team or take one of players, and currently in Clan Ladder same principle is used.)

About other things - it is not enough to say
"We need a way to make being an owner exciting, I still havent found a good way to do that"
"Fixing the trading system issue:(this will also help fix the afks issue"
"I dont have a perfect way to "fix" it right now"
"Maybe, reward the team that wasnt missing players by giving them a 1 or 2 goal advantage during the rematch."
"I do think we need something better for remakes and reschedule."
You need to have a solid suggestion how things can be made better.
This thread should not be called "big league restructure proposal" - but rather - "Krazymen`s views on league issues and his suggestions" Kappa.

That is it for me. Please don't report me for spam.
User avatar
l)arkangel
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:50 am
Battle.net Name: Darkangel
Battle.net Char Code: 1457
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Troll City

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by l)arkangel » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:05 pm

Owners incentives: each owner buys in at $10 (if you're too young, steal your mom's credit card). Owner of tassadar cup champions gets $60. Runner up to tassadar cup gets $20. Winner of artanis cup gets $20. (assuming a 10 team league)
*S5 Champion*

Player Profile
User avatar
DerrocK
Posts: 1273
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:46 am
Battle.net Name: Junky
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: EU
Location: Top 1000 EU

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by DerrocK » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:09 pm

Rigensis wrote: About other things - it is not enough to say
"We need a way to make being an owner exciting, I still havent found a good way to do that"
"Fixing the trading system issue:(this will also help fix the afks issue"
"I dont have a perfect way to "fix" it right now"
"Maybe, reward the team that wasnt missing players by giving them a 1 or 2 goal advantage during the rematch."
"I do think we need something better for remakes and reschedule."
You need to have a solid suggestion how things can be made better.
This thread should not be called "big league restructure proposal" - but rather - "Krazymen`s views on league issues and his suggestions" Kappa.

That is it for me. Please don't report me for spam.
ofc it is not enough rig, that is why he is posting this and asking for feedback and discussion of some of the ideas, fixes etc
COTEP W
EZHL S1 W
EU Open W
NA ZHPL S5 W
EUS2 Regular Season W, Commish, AllStar
EU Redline W
EUS6 Commish
Swedish Open 2v2 W
DaGOAT ZHCL Rings: 2
Best Support ZHPL S11
Nº1 EU Forum Poster
Immortals on ice Rings: 3
EUS8 W

Narcissism at its best
User avatar
Cubs
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:59 pm
Battle.net Name: Cubs
Battle.net Char Code: 781
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Big league restructure proposal

Post by Cubs » Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:05 pm

The only incentive that people should need is to win.... Much cooler to create the team that wins rather than just be on it
Image

im the kid thatd jump a kid like you
Locked