2012 League Discussion

[DarthMaximus]

JWW and I have gone over potential changes and are gearing up for the new league year.

Some changes that JWW and I have already agreed to are:

8 games for playoffs, 4 different opponents
72 hours per turn
Bump Rule - up to 3 warnings can be given for a delay of the 72 hr rule by posting bump after each 72 hr period.  On the 4th “bump” it is a defualt.
14 VC for all games.
Top 4 for playoffs

I think most of the other stuff is pretty much the same, but I’m willing to revisit some rules or make additions.  So now is your chance, all topics are on the table (length of games, picking opponents, carryover games, playoffs, etc.)

Thoughts?

[Guest]

Are you guys planning on AA50 games or do I need to try to learn the new one?

[DarthMaximus]

Yep, this is for AA50-41.

[Yoshi]

I believe 8 games as a minimum is better than 10.

Last year, playing 10 games plus the tournament (5 more) + the final, that was 16 in a year, and was taking me a little too much time (which is why I did not play the league this year).

[LuckyLindy]

How about random selection of opponents?  Whoever says they want a league game gets randomly matched with another player from the league pool with a dice roll.  The player they are matched to can either accept the game or not.    This would eliminate the ability to choose only weak opponents and adds some excitement.  Also, I think you should not be able to play a player a second time until you have played at least 8 different opponents.

And clear rules on what happens at the end of the year games, ie do they roll into the next year or are they decided by some predetermined criteria at the end of the league year.

I’m sure I will think of more  :-)

Cheers

[LuckyLindy]

@LuckyLindy:

How about random selection of opponents?  Whoever says they want a league game gets randomly matched with another player from the league pool with a dice roll.  The player they are matched to can either accept the game or not.    This would eliminate the ability to choose only weak opponents and adds some excitement.  Also, I think you should not be able to play a player a second time until you have played at least 8 different opponents.

And clear rules on what happens at the end of the year games, ie do they roll into the next year or are they decided by some predetermined criteria at the end of the league year.

I’m sure I will think of more  :-)

Cheers

Oh, and you shouldn’t be able to take another game if you refuse to play a given player.  In other words, if Yoshi is matched to me and I refuse to play, I cannot play another player until I have taken on Yoshi.

This way you would have a real league where no one has the ability to avoid the tougher opponents and make a playoff.  You might get lucky and not get matched to a tough opponent, but if you can’t play a player a second time until you play 8 different opponents, it becomes much less likely you can avoid the better players.  Then you have a setup similar to real league environments where there are limited games, such as the NFL.

Cheers

[Yoshi]

Why are you trying to avoid me ?  :-D

:lol:

[LuckyLindy]

@Yoshi:

Why are you trying to avoid me ?  :-D

:lol:

:lol: I’m not, but I want you to be in the league and I would guess some would avoid you so it might be tougher to get games for you as well.  But if you can get into the playoff by avoiding tough players something’s wrong, right?

[Yoshi]

yeah I got your point, was just kidding :)

But more seriously, I think you also should be able to play an opponent of your choice. If you want to play against someone, and the other guy also want, why should it be forbidden ?

Maybe you could put 3 or 4 random ones, and the other free ?

Anyway, the playoff is here to deal with the “I play only weak” problem

[DarthMaximus]

Yeah we really like the shift down to 8 games.  Even looking at the last standings JWW posted, we had a few at 8, but we’d like to avoid the mass scramble we are seeing this year with everyone trying to get to 10 in the last minute (myself included).  I have like 6 games going now I thought would be done by Nov. 1 and its likely all won’t be.  Defintiely too much to try and get to 10 with tournaments and other versions out there.

In terms of scheduling, we like to keep things simple.  Look for a game, find opponent, and play.

Now, I could see no duplicate play until you play 6 (or 8 ) different people first.  That might be something to consider.  But the one drawback is number of active players at any given time.  Activity comes and goes throughout the year.  It seems like we have a good pool of active players but some might only play 1 game at a time.  So for those that like to have 3-4 games going at once it might be tough (at times) to find players if we go 8 different playes before you can do rematches.  But maybe we bump the minimum requirements to 8 games played against 6 (or 8 ) different opponents.  You can still do rematches at any time, but at least you’ll have to face off against 6 (or 8 ) different people.

[Yoshi]

8 games with at least 6 different opponents sounds good indeed (8 different opponents may be a little too much ; then you could have situations like "I’d love to play you again but I need only different opponents)

[666]

@DarthMaximus:

Yeah we really like the shift down to 8 games.  Even looking at the last standings JWW posted, we had a few at 8, but we’d like to avoid the mass scramble we are seeing this year with everyone trying to get to 10 in the last minute (myself included).  I have like 6 games going now I thought would be done by Nov. 1 and its likely all won’t be.  Defintiely too much to try and get to 10 with tournaments and other versions out there.

In terms of scheduling, we like to keep things simple.  Look for a game, find opponent, and play.

Now, I could see no duplicate play until you play 6 (or 8 ) different people first.  That might be something to consider.  But the one drawback is number of active players at any given time.  Activity comes and goes throughout the year.  It seems like we have a good pool of active players but some might only play 1 game at a time.  So for those that like to have 3-4 games going at once it might be tough (at times) to find players if we go 8 different playes before you can do rematches.  But maybe we bump the minimum requirements to 8 games played against 6 (or 8 ) different opponents.  You can still do rematches at any time, but at least you’ll have to face off against 6 (or 8 ) different people.

We should simply limit the amount of multiple games per opponent to TWO. We then have the current weighted scoring systems for ties and hopefully this simply resolves this perceived fairness issue.

[gamerman01]

I’ve been thinking about league rules as well.

I am strongly opposed to the idea that you can’t play a 2nd game with someone until you’ve played several different people.
I am opposed to reducing the maximum between two players from 3 games to 2.
I am in favor of reducing the minimum # of games to 8.
I hope that if there is mutual agreement between players before G1, that the 72 hour rule could be relaxed.  Some players probably play mostly on the weekends, and I wouldn’t want them to feel deterred from the league.
I am in favor of players choosing their opponents.
I am strongly opposed to mandatory league matchups.  I enjoy tournaments, but have pretty much sworn I won’t play in another, because I keep getting matched up against players I don’t get along with.  I don’t want this to happen in league play also.
If there is to be a small tournament at the end (like the playoffs of major American sports), I would like to see it expanded to 8 players from 4.
I think a simple check for “strength of schedule” should be done.  For example, you are ineligible for the playoffs if you have 0 wins against league opponents with > .500 win percentages.  With this rule, I would be squeaking into the playoffs this year, because I have only defeated 1 player with > .500 win percentage.  Just an idea.  Another example is to make it ineligible if you have < 3 wins against a > .500 opponent.  The strength of schedule issue could be addressed in other ways, too.  This is just an idea, but I think it’s a good one.

I keep a spreadsheet matrix of all league results - who has played whom.  It is very easy to check strength of opponents using this spreadsheet.

[Zhukov44]

Couple thoughts for better league rules.

1.  I don’t think a strength of schedule formula would be too difficult to implement if we can come up with one that would work well with an Excel spreadsheet.  The standings would only need to be updated a few times a year, so that’s only a few math problems to solve per year.  Maybe a statistics whizz could volunteer to help administrate the league and carry out the math?

2.  I agree with Luckylindy that there needs to be a deadline ( I propose Aug.1 or Aug 15) where all league games started up to that point count for the league.  We could set up a committee to adjudicate games that are definitely not even, and the ones that are too close to call would be adjudicated as draws.  This is only fair to players who start games for one year’s league and don’t necessarily intend to compete in the next year’s league.

3.  I don’t know if it’s needed but it might be a good idea to have a short discussion in the rules warning against penalties for excessive psychological warfare in a game.  Ie if table-talk gets out of hand, or arguing about stats from biased perspectives, and most of all, excessive dice whining.  For the most part everyone playing here is gracious and honorable, so I can’t single out any one user in this regard.  But in rare instances I’ve noticed the table talk can get out of hand and it can seem like the trash-talker is employing a page out of Sun Tzu’s playbook and attempting to rattle the opponent and goad him into a mistake.  Naturally this is a minor issue so there should be multiple warnings before any overt penalties in such cases.  Of course, if the majority here feel psy warfare is part of the game, then I can understand that, though I don’t necessarily agree.

[Zhukov44]

Some additional remarks on #3 above (I’m overly used to being able to edit forum posts!!).  The intention is definitely not to stifle free speech.  The only intention is to protect the rights of the other user.  What I’d propose is if a user feels the trash talk is getting out of hand, they state in thread that they want a game w/o tabletalk and send a note to mod.  If objectionable table talk continues, the abuser gets a 2nd warning.  If nastiness continues after the 2nd warning, then we can talk penalties.

[gamerman01]

@Zhukov44:

Couple thoughts for better league rules.

1.  I don’t think a strength of schedule formula would be too difficult to implement if we can come up with one that would work well with an Excel spreadsheet.  The standings would only need to be updated a few times a year, so that’s only a few math problems to solve per year.  Maybe a statistics whizz could volunteer to help administrate the league and carry out the math?

Have you seen my league results spreadsheet yet, Zhuk?  I just uploaded it last night.

Another brainstorming suggestion for strength of schedule:
A point system:
(For those meeting the minimum, say 8 games)
1 point for each win (with a limit? say 12 or 14)
1 point for each win against an opponent with minimum (5? 6? 8?) games played and has a winning record.  Or a .600 record.  Something like that.

• 1 point for each loss
• 1/2 point for each loss to an opponent with minimum games played and has a winning record.

Top 4 (or 8) point earners go to playoffs, seeded by points earned.

So player A is 12-2.  He has 4 wins against opponents that have played 8 games and also have winning records.  1 of the losses came to a player who had the minimum threshhold met and was a winning player.  Player A has 14 1/2 points.
Player B is 15-8.  He has 5 wins against winners.  4 losses to winners.  Player B has 14 points.

Just consider the concept.  The weighting of points, minimum games played, and winning percentage that defines a “winning player” or a “quality opponent” could all be tweaked.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

Player B is 15-8.  He has 5 wins against winners.  4 losses to winners.  Player B has 14 points.

Or 13 points if the limit is 14 points for # of wins.  Or 11 points if 12 is the limit for # of wins.  So under my hypothetical system, the maximum possible # of points would be 28.  (14-0 or better, with at least 14 wins against quality opponents)

[Yoshi]

I’m not a big fan of “more you play more you have points”. Here for instance, if you play only 8 games would have a very few chances to go in the playoff, and this just because he didn’t play enough.

We all have a personal life ;)

[gamerman01]

@Yoshi:

I’m not a big fan of “more you play more you have points”. Here for instance, if you play only 8 games would have a very few chances to go in the playoff, and this just because he didn’t play enough.

We all have a personal life ;)

Read it again, Yoshi.  Each loss makes you lose a point, and there could be a maximum.  You do not necessarily get more points the more you play.  If you play 8 games and go 7 and 1 and your 7 games are against mostly quality opponents, you have a very good chance for playoffs.  I’m not sure you’re clear on what you’re rejecting.  Where is your suggestion?

I don’t see the tournament as a big deal, personally.  I’d just as soon not even play in it.  I just like to have league standings and see how I do, and see the records of others.  But my brainstormed system is an improvement on the current one.

I’m definitely not a fan of highest win percentage alone.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

I don’t see the tournament as a big deal, personally.

I mean the playoff at the end.