League General Discussion Thread

[Karl7]

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

My understanding that the Gibraltar airbase is still the go to move for the allies. Perhaps I’m missing something.

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 G1 bomber or transport buy prevents SZ92 stack.

If you assume 2 bombers bought, no scramble to 110, all Luftwaffe returning to W Germany/Rome. That leaves:
Ger: 4bomb, 5tac 5ftr
UK: 5ftr 1CV 2CA 2DD

That makes the attack on SZ92 99% +30TUV 6.8 planes remaining.
vs no bombers bought which makes it 83% +14TUV

Is such an attack beneficial for the Axis? On paper, yes. Although such heavy plane losses reduce their options later in the game. I guess Italy could go wild.

JDOW had a move G1 of 2 subs to SZ91, attack SZ110 only. If the SZ106 & SZ91 attacks succeeds, 2that reduces the forces available to SZ92 by a CA & DD. Combine this with a 2bomber buy G1, perhaps the attack is good. Or if the subs in SZ91 aren’t killed (as JDOW did to me once). Hmm.

The threat of buying 1 trn G1 is interesting. If UK blows 15 on AB and then buys 4 dudes for defense with only 1 Ftr in London… that’s not enough to hold?

[Karl7]

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Sealion is off the table since Germany would not buy a fleet G2 w/UK fleet in 92.

except if you’re Karl, in which case Germany would still consider sea lion (yes, you have sea lion’ed my 92 stack in the past lol)

Got to followup on the threat!

[Karl7]

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Sealion is off the table since Germany would not buy a fleet G2 w/UK fleet in 92.

except if you’re Karl, in which case Germany would still consider sea lion (yes, you have sea lion’ed my 92 stack in the past lol)

Got to followup on the threat!

Ok starting my first game of the league this season… Aquitas Veritas has a winning record against me, and that CANNOT BE ALLOWED!

[simon33]

@Karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:

The threat of buying 1 trn G1 is interesting. If UK blows 15 on AB and then buys 4 dudes for defense with only 1 Ftr in London… that’s not enough to hold?

If Germany doesn’t have a CV, can it land on Scotland? Unless the SZ92 stack is destroyed, probably not. Perhaps you’re thinking of a G1 buy of 1bomb 1trn and still taking out the SZ92 stack? Would they then have decent odds to take out London? Probably not G3.

I thought the idea of the TT was to attack Gibraltar - not sure that would work though. Perhaps it’s for a G4 Sea Lion.

[trulpen]

I know change is hard, but I’ve noted some internal and external frustration with the ranking system. It doesn’t really allow for play were opponents have a big gap. Being, say, tier E and playing tier 3 means that the higher ranked player will lose ranking no matter what.

Even though it’s neat and functional, the present ranking system is actually flawed in this respect.

I think that implementing something like the chess Elo-rating system could solve this? I believe the algorithm could be incorporated as it is.

The point of difference is that with Elo a tier 3 could easily play against an E or M player, without the ranking being an issue. The higher player would most likely win, gaining a very small rating increase, but lose a lot if the game was lost. By the same measure the lower ranked player would gain a lot with a win, but lose a little with a loss.

[simon33]

@trulpen That’s arguable. Should mismatched games actually proceed. Of course, you can balance them with bids or some other way.

[oysteilo]

I think @trulpen proposal is a good idea. It is a significant weakness with todays system that high rank players can not play low rank players without going down in ranking. You don’t become a worse player by playing a non ranked or so called bad player if you are tier E or M.

I think administration of todays system is easy, it gives good indication on how good a player is. It is the same players every year who dominate the league/rankings and hence todays system is working. Maybe the elo rating system would generate more league games and maybe you would play other players that you dont play today.

I think @trulpen needs to describe how the elo rating system should be introduced and also how we should go about administrating it. Without any such information todays system will stand as it is not a bad system even though not perfect

[Adam514]

Nothing prevents you from playing unranked games.

[trulpen]

@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Nothing prevents you from playing unranked games.

That is very true, yet more league games means more fun. There’s usually a quality difference between competitive and casual play.

[dawgoneit]

@Adam514 accept for a minus in your points if you loose or win.

[trulpen]

@oysteilo said in League General Discussion Thread:

I think @trulpen needs to describe how the elo rating system should be introduced and also how we should go about administrating it.

Thanks for the input. I’ll try and look into it.

[DizzKneeLand33]

I have one already set up from a few years back when we were doing the TripleA tournament. What is really cool is with Gamer’s rankings we could set people with an initial rating during the provisional rating process. I’m not saying we should do this, just that it’s possible.

I have the whole process in an Access database. It was a modified ELO – chess ratings are based on 0% luck, of course A&A is more than 0% luck and should be adjusted accordingly.

[farmboy]

I think it is a good idea to make sure that people don’t have too much trouble finding opponents to play. That is both in the interests of some players individually but it is also in our collective interest. If some players, and especially new players, have difficulty finding opponents, than we will have trouble keeping people in the league and getting new people to join.

I don’t think mismatched games are necessarily a problem. It may be less interesting for the better players but it is a good learning experience for newer players and helps them become more competitive in the long run.

At the same time, I don’t want to add to the work of those who manage the league. So I would support an ELO system if it can be implemented in a way that doesn’t add to Gamerman’s work.

If that is too complicated, another option is just to score tier 3 the same way as tier 2. M and some E ranked players would still lose score in those games, but they would lose less, and everyone else would still go up.

Also, its worth noting, with new players at least, that losses to E and M players increase their average. There is a very good chance that players who start out at tier 3 will end up at tier 1 or 2 by the end of the year, and the more losses they have to E and M ranked players the more likely that is. So there is less of a disincentive than might appear at first.

[dawgoneit]

@farmboy yeah, but that goes along with (like you said) keeping new players. Would help to make your support donation goal. i don’t think it met last year.
i no i’m not a good player. but i’ve paid for years and i have played maybe 2 games with the top players. wouldn’t mind a couple more just for the experience. would more top players play new players and not so good of players if they were not worried to drop in they’re rankimgs?

[Tizkit]

I’m definitely on board with a change to the scoring system. The current system creates a large barrier to entry for new players and fragments an already small community.

I actually brought this up about 9 months ago with one potential solution. (hopefully links work as they are mid thread)
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/314
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/319

As a potential simpler solution, my suggestion was to allow games to be scored as a Tier 1 vs Tier 1 game if the players choose to play with a standardized handicap bid. (on top of the normal bid for choosing sides)

This would allow higher tier players to maintain their tier while playing against tier 2/3 players if they maintain a high enough win rate. The handicap bid going to the lower tier player would also help shrink the skill gap and hopefully make the game more interesting for the higher tier player.

Most importantly, this could be completely ignored by anyone who wants to just stick with the way things are and only applies to people who choose to play with the handicap. We want to encourage new players but not alienate people who are enjoying the league as it is now.

I’m not attempting to compete with the ELO system as an option, I’d be fine with that if it’s easy to implement. I’m just thinking this would be a less disruptive bolt-on to the existing system.

[majikforce]

@farmboy I have never been one to care about my ranking. I know what my skill level is. It may not necessarily be that the upper tier players care about a ranking as well, there is something to be said about taking on a challenging game. It does take time and effort to play this game even online and if the competition does not challenge you it may be a deterrent to picking up some games. Do you think Lebron James really wants to play you in one on one and enjoy it?

All that being said I do think the upper tier players owe it to the league to play some lower tier players and coach them up somewhat. I have always tried to play newer players and help them out a little bit. As a group its in our best interest to have as many good payers as possible to keep competition alive. I have slimmed my games down for a time but I would be willing to open 1 or 2 slots for a new or lower tier player. PM me if you want a game.

[trulpen]

That’s very true. Majik was the first to welcome me to the league by accepting games, and was very patient with me. That’s a good mind-set. Still I believe ranking might matter more to others. Also remember when I got my butt kicked by koala who only played one game last season and therefore counted as tier 3 while clrarly being atleast E. Didn’t feel right. 🙃

[farmboy]

@majikforce

I think I could give Lebron a competitive game one on one. We are talking Axis & Allies right? :)

I do tend to prioritize higher ranked players (tier 1 and above). Its partly because I want challenging games and the more challenging players are typically higher ranked but it is also that I’d like to make it to the final 8 playoff and the way scoring works discourages me from playing players below tier 1 if I’m anywhere on the edge. I’m not sure if the issue is solved by a scoring change, but I’m open to the ideas other here have posted. Right now, I’m happy to play players in tier 3 or 2, but as we get closer to the start of the next playoffs, with the existing scoring, I will start to focus on players in tier 1 and up to improve my chances of making it.

[oysteilo]

I think it was mentioned by @farmboy to award 5 points to wins against tier 3. I think that is a good suggestion. Also you could remove the 3 game cap, so you have a rating after 1 game, it also means you would earn 5 points if you beat an unranked player:

A win against an unranked, tier 3 or tier 2 is awarded with 5 points. By removing the 3 game rule before you are ranked you also make it easier for new players to find opponents and also the player welcoming the new player is awarded with points (if he wins) in case the new player just leaves.

It means especially tier 1 and tier E will have an easier time maintaining their ranking, but does that really matter? There will also be more tier 1 and tier E players which in turn will benefit tier M players as well

[dawgoneit]

@oysteilo i like that idea