Just wondering what people would think about placing certain restrictions on the number of games you can play with a particular team for certain periods of time in the champ ladder, in order to try and even the playing field a bit overall, and more specifically, to address the early grinder advantage.
I thought a couple of things that might be interesting are:
1) A cap on the number of games per X period of time with any specific team.
This could work a couple of ways. I imagine there are restrictions imposed by the flexibility, or lack thereof, of the administrative tools in the game, and the time the admins have available to devote to the ladder, but I think an ideal situation would be something where you have a progressive cap system that allows for a few more games each week of the season.
So it would start out like: 7 games allowed per team in week 1. Then 10 games week 2. 15 week 3. And so on.
This way you can still start a team later in the season and have a chance to grind your way into the playoffs, but it also removes the advantage for people who are able to somehow pump out like 40 games in the first week (sounds like an exaggeration, but Ive noticed one or two coaches in particular are actually doing this over the past few seasons, with kill teams, which definitely puts them at an advantage).
You would still be able to play as many games as you want as a coach. You'd just have to start a new team after hitting your cap for that week if you want to keep playing. This would also encourage a diversity of races in the game, since the heavy players would have more teams going and are more likely to spread it around a bit in terms of race, instead of just trying to grind out their 40 games with their favourite race before they move on to something else.
A more simple way to do it would just be to cap it for the first half of the season. Say 10 games per week for the first 2-3 weeks, then remove the cap. Still basically accomplishes the same goal, and might be a little easier to manage.
Obviously all these numbers are just random numbers Im throwing out there and could be tweaked as appropriate, but just wondering what admins and players think of this?
2) This idea is much more simple - maybe cap the total number of games a team is allowed to play in champ. This is much less of a problem than the first issue, but still, its a little disheartening to look at the ladder and see the top chaos team with about 70 games played and a team full of clawpombers. I know the current points system sort of includes diminishing returns past game 42 or so, which naturally curbs players away from doing this. But if you have a good enough record going, or no challengers near to your record, you can really just rack up the development whereas the other team are going to dis-incentivized from doing the same if they are in competitive races and dont want to risk losing their spot.
Its a problem in the sense of giving that team an advantage for playoffs, and also just making it very difficult for people who cant grind out that many games to match them. Even with the diminishing points system, you are still getting positive points for wins, and the team is so developed at that point that you're gonna rack up a ton of concedes and easy wins, making it very difficult for someone to make a late run and catch you when they can only afford to play ~30 games or so.
I feel like a cap of 50 games or so would be easy enough to implement and would prevent the uber teams from popping up. What does everyone think?