Advanced vs. Standard

I've been looking through the rules and FAQ's, and can't find an answer to this, so please humor me.

Is there any difference between Standard and Advanced leagues in terms of actual game play, and card info used?

Thanks,

David

The difference is how many Mythical Points one would get towards one's Manager Ratings.

If you don't know what Manager Ratings are, you're new here

There used to be a number next to everyone's username in league standings, this was the Manager Rating, based on number of leagues won.

Thanks--Yes I remember Manager ratings. Mine could only be expresesed in negative scientific notation.

There is one more level, Tournament. You only see it for the Barnstormers or Players Championship. It cant be created, it has to have SOM go in and manually switch the league to tournament. Of course, like bkeat says, the only benefit to it is more manager rating points for making the playoffs and winning a title.

There is also some kind of belief that new players should go into Standard Leagues for easier competition. Assuming that when the ratings system returns to the game that the levels will be redefined or re-explained by SOM.

You also got points for games won, which benefits players with more teams.
So a player who has 5,000 teams and only wins 70 games per team, will have a better manager rating than a player who only has 50 teams and all 50 win the championship.

You also got points for games won, which benefits players with more teams.
So a player who has 5,000 teams and only wins 70 games per team, will have a better manager rating than a player who only has 50 teams and all 50 win the championship.

Exactly right. I don't understand the demand for the manager rating system to return if it is flawed. I could care less about manager ratings.

Here's hoping that they listen to the cries of the masses and revamp the system.

With a little excel knowledge and some rudimentary math, I used to be able to do some noodling and determine the most EFFECTIVE managers (conversion rate from teams played, to teams in playoffs, as I recall, to teams then winning a championship.

This can also be done by Strat with one extra column, BUT it is not in their interest determining that those who play the most may not, indeed, despite their high rating BE the "best" managers.

But in my case, they kick my asss just as easily

Artie

In my opinion the manager ratings were useless. They served only a couple purposes. They stroked the ego of manager who played a ton of teams and hopefully encouraged them to buy even more teams to stay on top. They were used by many to try avoiding what were perceived the best managers. It is no coincidence you rarely saw some managers in any division other than the west. They had to wait until a league was almost full and then jump in. If they jumped in too soon those avoiding manager with ratings above a certain level would disappear. The only thing that accomplished was something else to make leagues fill slow. And they were used by some to completely avoid the better managers by posting leagues where everyone had to be below a certain number of points, usually that cutoff was within a small handful of points of the person creating the league. Someone with a rating of 495 would say 500 or less. While if you were 940 then the league was 1000 or less.

Standard and advanced designations were meaningless as anyone could create a league as either one. You would even occasionally see one of those 999 or less leagues created as advanced.

I am sure they will at some point bring back manager ratings. I hope standard/advanced is tied to it in some way such that in order to get advanced bonus points you have to compete in a league with at least an average or better combined ratings level. Don't let the league creator designate it. Let the league get rated as standard/advanced according to how good the managers are who join.

Valen,

Well stated, I agree with you 100%

Big Ric