Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Blood Bowl (2016 edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Help with alternative league rules rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Liber Malefic
Finland
flag msg tools
Me and some of my friends want to start a league, but the league rules from Death Zone Season 1 really don't meet our needs. The problems are:

- Some of the coaches won't be able to play as often and as many games as others
- Some of the coaches want to attend the league with more than one team, and the amount of teams they have varies

So we would need a league system which would not force a coach to play against his own teams and would not require the same amount of games for each team.

Any ideas?

I understand Bloodbowl 2 the computer game has some sort of an Open League system that's based on challenges, but I have not played that game and I have not been able to figure out how exactly those Open Leagues work and if they would suit our tabletop league needs.

So far I have been thinking about maybe ranking based on averages and matches set by challenges, but I'd like to hear how others have set these kinds of leagues.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Warrender
United States
Rockaway
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oddly enough I was just listening to the Three Die Block podcast where they talk about their league format being an open challenge system. I don't know what their exact rules were but I want to say it was a max # of games and you couldn't play the same team either more than once, or at least not in a row.

Our league pretty much follows the books, but I can understand how that wouldn't work for everyone.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leon Demir
Germany
Bergisch Glabach
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In "The Old Days" of third edition I ran an open league with a kind of ladder system.

We had a big league table with all teams in it, no divisions.
The initial table positions were created randomly.

Teams had to defend their position in the table when playing against a team that had a lower position. If the higher team won, the table did not change. If the lower team won, the losing team dropped and the winning team rose in the table until they met in the middle with the winning team in the higher place (with a team between them in the case of an odd number of places between the teams).

A team could very quickly rise or fall many places in the table, depending on the team played against. The table quickly sorted with the stronger teams on top and the weaker teams at the bottom.

At the beggining of a month each coach was allowed to issue a challenge to another team's coach. If the challenge was not met at the end of the month the match counted as lost for the challenged team. This was almost never used. The players mostly just met at league day and made up pairings that made sense for everyone present.

The System allowed coaches to field several teams (of course coaches were not allowed to play against themselves), new teams were added at the bottom of the table to work their way up and teams dropping out were just removed from the table.

The league tables still counted games won and lost, touchdowns for and against, casulties, completions, team rating and so on, but they were purely informational and did not influence table position. I added a counter that indicated how many times a team had already defended it's current table position, that led to much bragging who was at position one for the longest time.




4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leon Demir
Germany
Bergisch Glabach
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Addition:
While it was not an issue for us, this challenge system can easily exploited in a less friendly enviroment by overloading a team with challenges so it cannot meet all in the end. It might be necessary to regulate the number of times a team may be challenged at a given time. Then the order challenges are issued probably need some rules. Is it better to let the bottom teams begin or the top teams? I don't know.

Regarding challenges, third edition had the concept of a stand-in (don't remember the name exactly, might have been called different).
When a team was challenged the coach of the challenged team was allowed to search a willing (or bribed) coach of a different team to take the challenge for him. This allowed for really underhanded dealings: "You challenged me? Haakons Headtakers are happy to play against you instead."
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liber Malefic
Finland
flag msg tools
Thanks!

Does anyone have a simple method for ranking when teams play different amount of games?

The simplest would be just using averages, but that would be a bit unfair when a team that's played only one match and won has a better ranking than a team that has played ten games and won nine and drawn one.

Ofcourse the ladder system Leon mentioned would eliminate this problem, but are there other simple methods out there (Elo rating type of systems seem excessively complicated for our needs)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel van der pol
Netherlands
Leiden
Zuid-Holland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
papepe wrote:
- Some of the coaches won't be able to play as often and as many games as other
- Some of the coaches want to attend the league with more than one team, and the amount of teams they have varies


1) Make a schedule. Each team can play any other team only twice (home and away). More games are prohibited. This allows coaches with less time to play the same amount of games.

2) I'm assuming that the coaches who want to play with more teams are also the ones who will be playing more games than others? In this case I would split the league into smaller Groups (like the Football World Cup), each with its own ranking. A coach is not allowed to have more than one team in a Group. The Playoffs are played between the winners of each group (and possibly the Runner Up).

For example:
Group A: Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, Player 4
Group B: Player 1, Player 2, Player 5, Player 6
Group C: Player 1, Player 7, Player 8, Player 9
Group D: Player 1, Player 3, Player 10, Player 11

Note that it might result in the same coach having to play two teams against eachother in the Semi-Final or Final; I wouldn't allow this so the better team of a coach can enter the Semi-Finals but no coach is allowed to enter more than one team into the Semi-Finals.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liber Malefic
Finland
flag msg tools
papepe wrote:
The simplest would be just using averages, but that would be a bit unfair when a team that's played only one match and won has a better ranking than a team that has played ten games and won nine and drawn one.


I'm leaning towards just using the standard win-loss ratio averages as the basis for ranking, but giving all teams one "Draw" result before any games are played.

This would ensure that teams with a clean record of more wins have better ranking than a team that has just played one game and won.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liber Malefic
Finland
flag msg tools
The Rating system could be something like this:

Every Win = 1 point, Draw = 0.5 points and Loss = 0 points
Every team gets 0.5 points to begin with (this 0.5 points representing the Draw result given to every team before the games)
Rating is total points divided by the number of games played + 1 (this +1 representing the Draw result given to every team before the games)

Which would mean for example (Win/Draw/Loss):

1/0/0 = 1 point + 0.5 points divided by 2 = Rating 0.75
0/1/0 = 0.5 points + 0.5 points divided by 2 = Rating 0.5
0/0/1 = 0.5 points divided by 2 = Rating 0.25
2/0/0 = 1 point + 1 point + 0.5 points divided by 3 = Rating 0.83
0/2/0 = 0.5 points + 0.5 points + 0.5 points divided by 3 = Rating 0.5
0/0/2 = 0.5 points divided by 3 = Rating 0.167
etc.

I'm no mathematician, but it would seem that in this system the teams would not have to play the same amount of games, still getting a clean record of more Wins would be rewarded with better Rating than just playing one game in the whole league and having a lucky Win.

Does anyone (who maybe is a mathematician) see major problems with this kind of ranking system (for the purposes given before)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel van der pol
Netherlands
Leiden
Zuid-Holland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
papepe wrote:
The Rating system could be something like this:

Every Win = 1 point, Draw = 0.5 points and Loss = 0 points
Every team gets 0.5 points to begin with (this 0.5 points representing the Draw result given to every team before the games)
Rating is total points divided by the number of games played + 1 (this +1 representing the Draw result given to every team before the games)

Which would mean for example (Win/Draw/Loss):

1/0/0 = 1 point + 0.5 points divided by 2 = Rating 0.75
0/1/0 = 0.5 points + 0.5 points divided by 2 = Rating 0.5
0/0/1 = 0.5 points divided by 2 = Rating 0.25
2/0/0 = 1 point + 1 point + 0.5 points divided by 3 = Rating 0.83
0/2/0 = 0.5 points + 0.5 points + 0.5 points divided by 3 = Rating 0.5
0/0/2 = 0.5 points divided by 3 = Rating 0.167
etc.

I'm no mathematician, but it would seem that in this system the teams would not have to play the same amount of games, still getting a clean record of more Wins would be rewarded with better Rating than just playing one game in the whole league and having a lucky Win.

Does anyone (who maybe is a mathematician) see major problems with this kind of ranking system (for the purposes given before)?


Hmmm, it would make it possible to simply stop playing matches after the first 3 or so wins. I would not use an averaging system for equalling playing fewer matches. I would stick to having smaller groups such that each team (not each coach) would play the same amount of matches.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.