[PSL 6] Week Two

[DoubleJ]

Just now, DoctorPBC said:

Intentionally losing/tieing to gain a potentially huge power spike midseason

Considering the length of the season, intentionally losing really isn't that safe of a bet. While you gain an advantage at midseason, losing 2 or 3 weeks early on means you absolutely have to win in the second half of the season. Adding in the factor of there being 10 tiers, it's really hard to say that adding one or two good players at midseason is really gonna propel you into playoff contention and a possible championship if you lost early on. 

 

Everyone gets 5k toward midseason, whether they keep those credits is up to them. Then, losses award only 2k credits which means there will still be competition between losing teams to snag players and its really likely that "game changing players" will go for max credits just so losing teams can ensure they improve. The best case scenario is for losing teams to try and snag multiple tier 2 midseason players like what TheFireLion did last season, to bolster their entire roster rather than just one spot out of 10. 

[Arimanius]

Me an pipe in 10

[DoubleJ]

To add, intentionally losing is something that is really, really going to burn out a manager's team. With the added accolades of awarding sigs and cash to the best players of each tier, players would be sacrificing a lot just to let their manager pick up a player that might replace them. It's really a toxic idea for an event that has such a long duration and the players would really have to trust their manager just to throw week in and week out. 

 

 

tl;dr No one in their right mind would lose intentionally in the PSL just to add one or two players at midseason

[SejuaniSupport]

Me vs roy 5 mins

[fredrichnietze]

1 hour ago, DoctorPBC said:

 

it was fully sussed out that no trade backs would happen, so I tried to off him to any of you poor saps.

uguu move

[DoctorPBC]

1 minute ago, fredrichnietze said:

uguu move

Unlike you I am actually trying to win

[Rendiz]

41 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

tl;dr No one in their right mind would lose intentionally in the PSL just to add one or two players at midseason

I would.

[Arimanius]

pipe won with the biggest bullshit hax but won at the end

[Toast]

3 minutes ago, Rendiz said:

I would.

but you already lose a lot so no problem there

Edited October 8, 2016 by Toast

[gbwead]

1 hour ago, Moetal said:

Your fault for buying the said player then.

 

With that logic, there should not even be a midseason.

[Rendiz]

Just now, Toast said:

but you already lose so no problem there

Haven't even played. Been benched for 2 randoms that no1 has heard of

[Toast]

4 minutes ago, Rendiz said:

Haven't even played. Been benched for 2 randoms that no1 has heard of

that's true

[DoubleJ]

2 minutes ago, gbwead said:

With that logic, there should not even be a midseason.

We discussed it and I was in favor of it, but honestly it offers a bit of excitement and keeps managers involved throughout the season (as well as players). It's a necessary evil. 

[Takens]

Takens VS GymLeaderGaryy

6:12 PM MDT

Edited October 8, 2016 by Takens

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

We discussed it and I was in favor of it, but honestly it offers a bit of excitement and keeps managers involved throughout the season (as well as players). It's a necessary evil. 

A manager has an inactive player. It is the manager's fault for buying this player and therefore he will not be compensated in any way.

A manager's team is losing. It is the manager's fault for buying all the losing elements of his team and yet he will be compensated every week.

This imo is inconsistent.

 

One could argue that having an inactive player will make it more likely for the inactive player's team to lose and therefore get compensated every week. However, there is a huge disconnect between the credit loss on an inactive player and the credits gained by losing every week.

[EricTheGreat]

It is a risk that the managers take when buying a player at the beginning of the season. I haven't paid much attention to other teams, but I think Zebra did a great job. He drafted reliable players who he talks to and knows play PokeMMO if not showdown regularly. No one knew if Btoooom would even show up to his matches and Zebra knew the risk. He had a backup plan if he didn't, but he shows up and get some matches done relatively quickly. I'm sure Zebra even contacted him prior to the draft, and I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it looks like that wasn't done prior to the trade of Enrique

[Arimanius]

30 minutes ago, EricTheGreat said:

It is a risk that the managers take when buying a player at the beginning of the season. I haven't paid much attention to other teams, but I think Zebra did a great job. He drafted reliable players who he talks to and knows play PokeMMO if not showdown regularly. No one knew if Btoooom would even show up to his matches and Zebra knew the risk. He had a backup plan if he didn't, but he shows up and get some matches done relatively quickly. I'm sure Zebra even contacted him prior to the draft, and I'm not one to jump to conclusions but it looks like that wasn't done prior to the trade of Enrique

still that doesn't make gb's point invalid

[DoubleJ]

10 minutes ago, gbwead said:

A manager has an inactive player. It is the manager's fault for buying this player and therefore he will not be compensated in any way.

A manager's team is losing. It is the manager's fault for buying all the losing elements of his team and yet he will be compensated every week.

This imo is inconsistent.

 

One could argue that having an inactive player will make it more likely for the inactive player's team to lose and therefore get compensated every week. However, there is a huge disconnect between the credit loss on an inactive player and the credits gained by losing every week.

And also the difference between the cost of players during the draft and during the midseason. 

[EricTheGreat]

To my understanding, this is also very similar to how in sports, you can't tell if a star player will play well, get injured, or even suspended. That player could be the difference between a win and a loss. The team should have a backup player just in case the worst scenario happens, just like you should in PSL. The worst team gets the best draft pick. The losing team gets the most credits at mid season. You don't see teams purposely lose in the regular season to have a good draft pick. 

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, DoubleJ said:

And also the difference between the cost of players during the draft and during the midseason. 

That doesn't change the fact that teams that lose might not lose for the same reasons and yet they get the same amount of credit. 

 

[SejuaniSupport]

I won.

[DoubleJ]

3 minutes ago, gbwead said:

That doesn't change the fact that teams that lose might not lose for the same reasons and yet they get the same amount of credit. 

 

That's true, but they still lost. Is there a real difference between drafting a dead player vs drafting a bad player? I am not in the place to award a subjective bias to either. A loss is a loss, regardless of how you got there. A manager can only do their best to ensure they select active, quality players when they make their draft and put forth their best effort to keep those players interested in playing week in and week out. 

[gbwead]

Just now, DoubleJ said:

I am not in the place to award a subjective bias to either.

That is why midseason is cancer and will always advantage teams more than others.

[DoubleJ]

Just now, gbwead said:

That is why midseason is cancer and will always advantage teams more than others.

Ummm... that's kind of the point. The midseason draft is supposed to give an advantage to teams. With my system though, it might actually give the advantage to the bad teams and help even the playing field. 

[gbwead]

5 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

Ummm... that's kind of the point. The midseason draft is supposed to give an advantage to teams. With my system though, it might actually give the advantage to the bad teams and help even the playing field. 

However, you just agreed that teams that lose for different reasons will get the same kind of advantage in the end. Midseason draft is never fair. 

Edit: It is even less fair when you consider the sign up biais for the midseason.

Edited October 9, 2016 by gbwead