HTs on Global/League system
|From:||HT-Tjecken||(?) as reply to (?)|
|I will not go in to details, but there are some really good reasons why we can't change the series system without doing a total redesign. A total redesign is not something we plan to do as it will be very time-consuming. Very. Or in other words so very time-consuming that it's in fact impossible.|
|From:||HT-Tjecken||(?7831771.36) as reply to (7831771.1)|
|To: Everyone||18.01.2007 at 16:37|
|Reply to (7831762.877)
What do you think about increasing the number of teams in the same group? It will be more realistic and (In my opnion) more fun to play against a bigger number of teams.
This questions/suggestion comes from time to time. The main reason behind having “just” 8 teams in each group is that it gives excitement to all or close to all in that group during the whole season. You’re always close to leading/having to qualify/escape degradation and so on. With more teams in the group there would be more “safety” but also a risk of boredom if you’re kind of stuck in the middle not close to either end of the table, or perhaps if your stuck in the bottom you’d be that for more weeks. This could of course be tweaked by changing the number of team promoted and so on.
We also have to take in consideration how long a season should be. Extra teams means longer season, at least 4 weeks extra for 2 extra teams per group (and there would be at least 2 since odd numbers wouldn’t be a very good idea ) and that would have implications for new managers for instance. For a new manager taking charge of a team in the bottom of his group table I think every extra week until the new season, and a fresh start on “equal” terms, counts.
Here you might object saying that the tempo could increase, meaning we play 2 league matches every week instead of 1. But, we’re quite happy with today’s tempo, it’s part of the Hattrick concept that you don’t have to log in every day to enjoy the game (but that there are things to do everyday if you like to, like watch a match, youth pull, use the conferences, keep an eye on the transfer and so on).
To every problem there is of course a solution and it might seem as I’m just pointing out the downsides (and I guess I am…) but I wanted to show some of the things that we need to take into consideration. Every (suggested) change has it’s up- and downsides and we have to think about how the change effects other things, what the change would “cost” (in time and effort) and what it would bring to the game. These and more technical things like re-writing a whole lot of code makes a change like the one you suggested quite a big one. I guess we shouldn’t say it’ll never ever happen but it doesn’t seem likely looking back at earlier discussions about this.
|From:||HT-Tjecken||(?7831771.101) as reply to (7831771.1)|
|To: Everyone||23.08.2007 at 17:25|
|Reply to (8995830.365)
Would it be possible to change the team assignment routine into a system that encourages retention rather than discourages it? For example, using a "horizontal fill" in the lowest division where new teams are assigned evenly across the division instead of the "vertical fill" where new teams are all assigned into the same series at the same time? The vertical fill system has made it devastatingly difficult to retain new players in the US for years.
It's technically possible and also something we should absolutely consider. The first time in a game is very important, if you think it's dull (for whatever reason) you'll hardly stay for long. I would also like to discuss this issue with the community to hear what you think about this, especially the part of it leagues should be filled "vertically" or "horizontally", because I see pros and cons with both.
|From:||HT-Tjecken||(7831771.111) as reply to (7831771.110)|
|To: Everyone||13.09.2007 at 22:44|
|Reply to (8995830.502).
What do you intend to do with the promotion/relegation system? Income doesn't encourage managers to play in higher leagues. They prefer to stay in lower leagues, because they know, that only there they can continue their winning streaks and receive better income. There should be higher attendance in higher leagues, even if the team is not doing so well and it stays on 5th, 6th or 7th place. But here it is, sadly, not the case. It is better to play in a lower league on places 1st-3rd. Rewards (promotion bonuses) are peanuts.
I know the myth says so, but you are in fact wrong. Generally playing in a higher division give more income (even if you end up in 7th place) than playing in a lower divison.
This was also proved by the community here in global (originally from Germany if I recall correctly though) some months ago, so this myth is busted. I can't find the thread right now, but hopefully someone can help me point it out (send me a HT-mail if so) so I can paste it into this message.
Here's the study (thanks for the link Jestar!): (9283980.257)
|From:||HT-Tjecken||(7831771.131) as reply to (7831771.1)|
|To: Everyone||16.11.2007 at 18:06|
|Reply to (10070922.28)
As a follow up to question one in this post (10070922.17) by Boingo:
Now for the question:
I think that particular thread on global contained a lot of good opinons and ideas, which we certainly will consider. I can't (as you may understand) promise any changes (or when they'll happen), but I can say that it really catched my interest. This fall we've had work up to our necks with the conversion work, which demanded us to focus on only that. I hope that we anytime soon will have time to sit down and see if we can improve the filling system in any way, because there are some good examples of when the current system isn't the best even if does the trick in many leagues.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.1) as reply to ()|
|To: Everyone||15.07.2008 at 15:13|
|Around this time a new My Hattrick message will be released about the distribution of teams to new users. The way it was being dealt with until now, many users played in a league with no human opponents, which we think spoiled the fun for many managers and therefore left the game. We think we now have a much better system in place, which will drastically reduce the number of managers who are being 'forced' to play against bot teams only.|
|From:||HT-Johan||(11609400.4) as reply to (11609400.2)|
|To: Proeme||15.07.2008 at 15:21|
|i see you are going to make something to avoid BOT's from promoting. Best human teams will promote instead.
How is 'best human team' decided? Cuprank?
It will probably be decided in the same way that teams in higher divisions are granted promotion spots when not all the winners can be guaranteed one, that is by points and goal-difference. (Teams up there have a list that is updated every week where they can see how they are positioned for a promotion slot)
I say probably because this seems logical and reasonable development-wide, but we haven´t started the implementation for that yet so we might find there is a better way to do it still. What we did this week was simply change the way new teams enter the league structure.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.20) as reply to (11609400.9)|
|To: jacek_BTL||15.07.2008 at 15:21|
|Will the "extra promotions" really be "extra promotions", or "less demotions". What I mean is: suppose there is a bot that won a div II and has enough points to autopromote. There are also some human controlled teams around:|
Which of these 4 teams will get the bot's div I place?
We haven't implemented that yet, so every option is still a possibility, but we'll most likely opt for an easy solution such as not having a human-owned team relegate when the team it is supposed to replace, is a bot team.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.24) as reply to (11609400.10)|
|To: Dr_Death||15.07.2008 at 16:05|
|Have you eventually considered taking the league ranking for cup qualification? This would also exclude Bots and ownerless teams from participating in the cup, while more human users would be qualified (at least in "saturated" countries). But I guess you heard this before...
(Might be a bit off-topic, but it is at least related because it also deals with the problematics of ownerless teams)
We consider this an option for the future, but such a thing won't happen any time soon.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.30) as reply to (11609400.29)|
|To: STAR-ter||15.07.2008 at 16:17|
|Do you also plan to clean all the bot teams from the higher leagues, as you did a few seasons ago?
We might do that in future if we think that is necessary, but at this point we neither have decided it to be necessary nor when we want to do such a thing.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.32) as reply to (11609400.21)|
|To: ElGranma||15.07.2008 at 16:27|
|2 question:is there a repationship with this? (11553658.1)|
do you think you'll use this way of changing rules or whatever in the future?
Your first question I can answer with an easy "yes". If you mean with your second question if we also in future ask for your opinions, I can also say "yes", because your opinions do matter to us.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.37) as reply to (11609400.34)|
|To: SC_Praia||15.07.2008 at 16:54|
|According to this new system, all the 5 active teams have a guaranteed promotion, right?
Only if they ended at the first position in their series and win their qualification match if they have to play one.
Does that mean that 3 bots will still promote directly, even if active teams are being relegated from 2nd division?
We don't want bot teams to promote, so more logical would be to let the teams who were supposed to relegate, stay in the same series as they were playing in.
Another example: if II.1 have 7 active teams, II.2 have 6, II.3 have 5, and II.4 have 7, how will be the series filled???
We will first fill the series in division III because all series in division II have 4 or more active teams.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.41) as reply to (11609400.40)|
|To: Lou_Dog||15.07.2008 at 17:08|
|We don't want bot teams to promote, so more logical would be to let the teams who were supposed to relegate, stay in the same series as they were playing in.
And what if these teams (who are supposed to relegate) are bots as well? You simply take another (human) manager from another league? Are you (the programmers) aware that this probably need a complete rewrite of the pro-/demotion process?
Seriously: It again feels that you again throw a MyHT in the ring without even thinking about the consequences and problems. No solutions, just "we´ll see".
Easy solution is to let both bot teams stay where they are. I agree the MyHT message is not clear in that.
|From:||HT-Aartspam||(11609400.90) as reply to (11609400.87)|
|To: seadogs64||17.07.2008 at 10:04|
|From:||HT-Johan||(11609400.94) as reply to (11609400.93)|
|To: jimrtex||27.07.2008 at 13:33|
|1. Prefer the lowest division for the new teams. It is huge team strength difference between the bottom division and the 2nd last division.
Getting team in the 2nd lowest division just means that team will have a lot harder time developing when losing most of matches. It is a lot easier to improve team in begin if getting some match victories to improve fans mood and incoming.
They will only fill the 2nd lowest division to 4 teams, though in most cases they are already above that level.
If there are series in the 2nd lowest division that have fewer than 4 teams, it generally means that the country doesn't really need the lowest division. These near empty series are typically in the high-numbered series for the division. For example, Finland VIII.1023 has 4 active teams, and even it would not get new teams. If it had one or two teams, then it could get new teams. But in such a case, it really isn't that hard for new teams to compete, since there will likely be other new teams, and 4 bots.
Finland almost has enough teams to fill 8 divisions. But from now on, most teams will be placed in the 9th division. Over time, this will mean that the series in the 8th division won't be quite full (bots relegating up from 7, teams being abandoned). But the 9th division will have bunches of series with 4 relatively new teams battling for the two promotion spots.
We originally meant to only fill in the lowest division, but there is a reason for a partial fillnd lowest, and that is that those divisions are quite plagued today by "loneliness". This way, we direct new teams to the second lowest divisions, but in the relatively near future, the active teams will find it easier to promote and there will be a natural "filling up" of the second lowest division from the lower one. At this point, the filling mechanism will stop distributing new teams to the 2nd lowest and concentrate on the lowest. We would have solved the 2nd lowest division loneliness eventually anyway, but this way we will hit it in two placs simultaneously. It seemed a bit odd to only focus on the lowest division, where it might be more natural to see bot teams than higher up in the system.
|From:||HT-Johan||(11609400.96) as reply to (11609400.95)|
|To: Lindergood||27.07.2008 at 14:52|
|How about this then:
assign a number to each division's place, for instance in Sweden, Allsvenskan would hold the ranking numbers 1-8, div Ia 9-16, Ib 17-24 and so on. Then, after each season, the cup ranking numbers is used to fill the divisions. Bot-teams are immediately removed downwards, and there could be some interresting shuffles in the divisions, as one would not have to play the same 4 teams for many seasons...
Bot-flushing is something thoroughly more complicated to do - we would like that to be automatic, but there are reason for it not being so - we have done it manually in the past and may do it again in the future.
But we do have the intention to improve this, it is just that for the moment we focus on where to put new teams :)