2012 League Discussion

[Zhukov44]

I find JWW and DM’s arguments for KISS and simplicity quite convincing.  It seems to be true that both systems ‘would’ produce similar results.  Obviously they’ve put alot of thought into it so I will be fine with whatever they decide.

But……it seems to me that the best objection to JWW’s reasoning above is the ‘hypothetical’ one of a user who was bent on ‘gaming’ the system and only took games against noob opponents that he/she knew he could defeat.  It’s exactly this sort of user (if he/she appeared) that would produce a difference b/w a weighted and non-weighted system.  Since we are (mostly  :lol:) honorable in these parts, and the top players are willing to test themselves against other good players (to a limited extent anyway), there is essentially no difference between the weighted and non-weighted scores.  The potential for an exceptional case is what would make the various proposed extra rules and weighted scoring necessary.

Since we don’t seem to have much in the way of abuses, laisse-faire simplicity seems reasonable.  But if an abuser came along, I could see perceptions changing.

In other words, while previously the abuses have been indirect and more or less unconscious, if someone came along that was ‘directly’ and straightforwardly gaming the system, then Gamer’s argument that “The straight won/loss record has a significant flaw - it punishes players who play tough opponents, and rewards players who bottom-feed” might become more convincing than the KISS principle.

Good discussion all.

[gamerman01]

@JWW:

I certainly don’t want to seem indifferent to players who get “squeaked” out of the playoffs but in both systems three out of the four playoff participants are the same.

It’s just a fun little playoff at the end between the top 4 players.  It’s single elimination, so one unlucky game would eliminate the best player.  So we shouldn’t make too big of a deal out of the selection method.

The fact that 3 of 4 participants are the same is just a testament to the fact that both systems are good.

I like my little strength of schedule calculation a lot, and will use it privately in the future to rank the skills of players.  I don’t care if it’s used by everyone for deciding playoff participants, but I decided to throw it out there for fun and because I think it’s a great idea.

As far as who is going to decide what, isn’t that what you and Darth do?  Darth has already refined my idea by looking at making tiers at 4ths by records.  And as far as your protest that the point system is based on records - that’s really nitpicky.  Just admit the tiered ranking/point system helps identify under-rated and over-rated players, because it quite obviously does.  :-)

If Bold exclusively played the people in the bottom 3rd, he would be about 24 and 2, and everyone would be bowing down to him.

[boldfresh]

@Gamerman01:

@JWW:

I certainly don’t want to seem indifferent to players who get “squeaked” out of the playoffs but in both systems three out of the four playoff participants are the same.

It’s just a fun little playoff at the end between the top 4 players.  It’s single elimination, so one unlucky game would eliminate the best player.  So we shouldn’t make too big of a deal out of the selection method.

The fact that 3 of 4 participants are the same is just a testament to the fact that both systems are good.

I like my little strength of schedule calculation a lot, and will use it privately in the future to rank the skills of players.  I don’t care if it’s used by everyone for deciding playoff participants, but I decided to throw it out there for fun and because I think it’s a great idea.

As far as who is going to decide what, isn’t that what you and Darth do?  Darth has already refined my idea by looking at making tiers at 4ths by records.  And as far as your protest that the point system is based on records - that’s really nitpicky.  Just admit the tiered ranking/point system helps identify under-rated and over-rated players, because it quite obviously does.  :-)

If Bold exclusively played the people in the bottom 3rd, he would be about 24 and 2, and everyone would be bowing down to him.

bowing down to me?  :lol: that might be fun but I’d much rather have the challenge of playing the best.  of course that may mean I never make the playoffs if there is no strength of schedule modifier, but that’s ok with me - as Gamer said, one really unlucky game can knock the best player out of the playoff anyway, as was clearly shown when he lost last year’s '42 league final.  i will go on accepting all the games the top players will play me but of course i’d like to see a strength of schedule modifier because one would think it would encourage top players to challenge top players. whatever can encourage that i’m for.

[Zhukov44]

Since we’re having such a good discussion, let me throw another idea out there.

What about 2 game series where players each play both sides with the same bid?

I’ll bet that most of the top players in the league have played Axis more than Allies (the notable exception being LL and to a lesser extent myself).  Conversely, most of the players at the bottom have no doubt chosen Allies more than Axis.

I was hostile to the 2-game requirement when it was introduced to the TripleA ladder.  I felt that it violated KISS and it would lead to less interest and ladder games.

BUT at this point I fully concede the 2 game format is a more accurate way to measure overall skill.  The bid is indeterminate and shifting, and when it comes to AA50, people (including experts) have consistently over-rated the Allies’ chances.

I’m undecided whether this idea is a good one but I’ll throw it out there.  In it’s favor, it would lead to more accurate ratings and would encourage people to play both sides more often.

[DarthMaximus]

This is one reason why we’ll probably reintroduce the major and minor leagues.
The players like Bold who go above and beyond and play 15, 20+ games should be rewarded with a playoff.

–--------------------

One thing on potentially gaming the system.  Many of the so called bottom tier players tend not to be regulars or players who for whatever reason leave.  And at the start of the year you don’t know who is going to be active at the end of the year.  Its really really really hard to say these people are bad, I’m only going to play this level of player.  That player may only play 1-2 games and leave before you can play them.

I think the level of play on this board has picked up immensely the past year.  I think we’re pretty good with bid levels (maybe the biggest reason for the increase level of play).  But heres a quick list of regular players (likely to be over 10 games at the end of the year):  Gamer, DD, RD, JWW, Zuck, Bold, OBG, LL, EB, Soul, Max, and myself.  I don’t know if anyone could avoid these players and still get to 8 games.
We probably all won’t play each other due to time, but I think it is hard to pads one’s stats.

---

@Gamerman01:

I like my little strength of schedule calculation a lot, and will use it privately in the future to rank the skills of players.  I don’t care if it’s used by everyone for deciding playoff participants, but I decided to throw it out there for fun and because I think it’s a great idea.

If you refine your system to where you like it, I’d consider a thread titled “Gamer’s Rankings” for you to post your updates.  It of course would have no barring on the League or league playoffs, but I’d consider using it for tourney seeding if one or more of the top 4 don’t return for a tourney or something.

[DarthMaximus]

@Zhukov44:

Since we’re having such a good discussion, let me throw another idea out there.

What about 2 game series where players each play both sides with the same bid?

I’ll bet that most of the top players in the league have played Axis more than Allies (the notable exception being LL and to a lesser extent myself).  Conversely, most of the players at the bottom have no doubt chosen Allies more than Axis.

I was hostile to the 2-game requirement when it was introduced to the TripleA ladder.  I felt that it violated KISS and it would lead to less interest and ladder games.

BUT at this point I fully concede the 2 game format is a more accurate way to measure overall skill.  The bid is indeterminate and shifting, and when it comes to AA50, people (including experts) have consistently over-rated the Allies’ chances.

I’m undecided whether this idea is a good one but I’ll throw it out there.  In it’s favor, it would lead to more accurate ratings and would encourage people to play both sides more often.

My only issue would be time.  Playing only 4 people, would be 8 games already.  We’d like to get 6 different opponets in for variety sake, so that’s 12 games.  That might be too much for PBF.  The benefit of the ladder is you can bang out a game much quicker.  Here a 2 game series played simultanously will lock you down with 2 games for 2-3 months.

Its not a bad idea, just not sure how it would work.  I’d have to think about it for a bit.

[dutchmand]

Really charged discussion gents.  I have been considering sitting out in 2012; I barely had time to get ten games in.  But, I’d like to add a couple ideas to the mix.

The Dutch Plan:

1. The point made about the people with lesser records tending to be new people to the league or people who don’t stick around is an excellent one.  Instead of the leagues being <10 games and 10+ games, pehaps the two leagues should be Veterans League and New Recruits League.  Guys must play in the New Recruits League first and then automatically get bumped up to Veteran’s League if they get at least 5 or 6 games in, regardless of record. The issue would be that there may be a limited number of opponents for this “league”, but we would allow the New Recruits to play any player and report their win without the game necessarily needing to be listed as a league game to count. They just post a completed game on the New Recxruits message board. The point is that we are looking for activity and longevity.  The Veterans could play the New Recruits, but the win-losses would not count in the Veterans League standings.

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

[dutchmand]

When  say the New Recruits automatically get bumped up,  mean that they would become eligible for the season the following year in the Veterans League.

[gamerman01]

@DarthMaximus:

BTW, Gamer in your spreadsheet, does OBG only have 8 losses.  I may have missed something but it looked like the losses were: LL, DD, RD, Soul (2), Bold (2), Billy.

No, he does have 9.  I went back through the results posts, and found that I missed one of the losses he had to Lucky.  I also hadn’t changed it to 2-0 in Lucky’s line.  Both records are correct on my spreadsheet though (and they match JWWs).

[gamerman01]

@DarthMaximus:

If you refine your system to where you like it, I’d consider a thread titled “Gamer’s Rankings” for you to post your updates.  It of course would have no barring on the League or league playoffs, but I’d consider using it for tourney seeding if one or more of the top 4 don’t return for a tourney or something.

Thanks, that would be cool.

Some players might appreciate a different way of looking at the standings……  So yeah, I could update it once a month, and I could list won/loss and percentages for those who like to see it monthly.

[Yoshi]

@DutchmanD:

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

Interesting proposition, but I think that would bring back the tournament problem that some people would prefer to avoid some other for, let say, diplomatic reason. And that may make the league loose some people playing, that I think we want to avoid.

Somehow, that would make the league something really different ; do people want such a change ?

Personally, I don’t really know ; I think that this would make me choose between tournaments and league (since I do not think I would have time for both since it would make 10 to 14 games plus potentially 5 more)

[Guest]

Any idea when the 2012 league will launch?

[gamerman01]

@Yoshi:

Interesting proposition, but I think that would bring back the tournament problem that some people would prefer to avoid some other for, let say, diplomatic reason. And that may make the league loose some people playing, that I think we want to avoid.

Somehow, that would make the league something really different ; do people want such a change ?

Personally, I don’t really know ; I think that this would make me choose between tournaments and league (since I do not think I would have time for both since it would make 10 to 14 games plus potentially 5 more)

Yep, I would be gone.  No mandatory/scheduled games for me.  I would only do free-play, if there was a league schedule.

[gamerman01]

@Ol’:

Any idea when the 2012 league will launch?

I think the cutoff is November 1.  If you finish a game after November 1, it’s a 2012 result.  So the games that are just getting started now are effectively 2012 games.

[Zhukov44]

@DutchmanD:

Really charged discussion gents.  I have been considering sitting out in 2012; I barely had time to get ten games in.  But, I’d like to add a couple ideas to the mix.

The Dutch Plan:

1. The point made about the people with lesser records tending to be new people to the league or people who don’t stick around is an excellent one.  Instead of the leagues being <10 games and 10+ games, pehaps the two leagues should be Veterans League and New Recruits League.  Guys must play in the New Recruits League first and then automatically get bumped up to Veteran’s League if they get at least 5 or 6 games in, regardless of record. The issue would be that there may be a limited number of opponents for this “league”, but we would allow the New Recruits to play any player and report their win without the game necessarily needing to be listed as a league game to count. They just post a completed game on the New Recxruits message board. The point is that we are looking for activity and longevity.  The Veterans could play the New Recruits, but the win-losses would not count in the Veterans League standings.

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

These are good ideas.  Splitting up the league into “Veterans” and “New Recruits” would cut out alot of potential abuses.  Totally agree with that concept.  Even expert online A&Aers with prior TripleA or GTO experience will fumble a bit with Abattlemap eccentricities (see our old friend Cow), so requiring that they get a few games under their belt before entering the main competition protects them as well as us.

#2 is a bit more controversial.  It’s a bit more like GTO’s tiered league format
http://www.gametableonline.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

Some of us are seasonal–we have more time to play A&A in some parts of the year than others.  If there was only 1 required game every month (or 2 months) it could work, but any more requirements could be too much.  Also, some ‘elective’ games ought to count towards the league standings, as long as they are against other ‘veterans’.

[dutchmand]

@Zhukov44:

These are good ideas.  Splitting up the league into “Veterans” and “New Recruits” would cut out alot of potential abuses.  Totally agree with that concept.  Even expert online A&Aers with prior TripleA or GTO experience will fumble a bit with Abattlemap eccentricities (see our old friend Cow), so requiring that they get a few games under their belt before entering the main competition protects them as well as us.

#2 is a bit more controversial.  It’s a bit more like GTO’s tiered league format
http://www.gametableonline.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

Some of us are seasonal–we have more time to play A&A in some parts of the year than others.  If there was only 1 required game every month (or 2 months) it could work, but any more requirements could be too much.  Also, some ‘elective’ games ought to count towards the league standings, as long as they are against other ‘veterans’.

Perhaps a hybrid.  6 scheduled matches and then 4-8 “free choice” matches. Or 20 if you are Boldfresh.  Some structure and some free agency combo might kill 2 birds.

[DarthMaximus]

I’ve actually though about two divisions before (I like new recruits and veterans titles), but I can’t think of a way to make it work seemlessly.

A big plus for the league is you can play anyone any time.  You can play 1-2 games or you can play 10-15.  I think I have a good feel for who would play in the Vet league, but even I’m not sure if I could commit to a set schedule or number of games.  I played 23 league games in 07, then only 8 in '08.  Last year I hardly played and this year I was around 12-13 games.
I certainly think it has appeal, just not quite sure how it would work and I don’t really want to force people to play if they’d prefer not to play each other.  ie bad experiences in previous games.
Sometimes its inevitable (tourneys, league playoffs, etc.)  but I think the league regular season can be a little more relaxed in terms of who you want to play.

[Jennifer]

Just an update, we’ve also decided to have a Global 1940 league.  Whatever rules are posted as “official” on January 1, 2012 will be the rule set used for the AAG40 league.  If Larry posts another ruleset later, then DM, myself, etc can discuss if the changes are significant and warranted and alter the “official” ruleset accordingly at that time. (I doubt there will be a change, Larry seems pretty intent on making sure the Christmas sales go out with the best possible ruleset.  Hence why I gave that specific date.)

As for Veteran/Newbie league, I don’t like artificial labels.  You should rise or fall based on your skill, not on any other factor.  I remember getting a trophy when I was 8 even though there were adults in the tournament. (Chess Tournament, yes I was a geek, deal with it.)  It was due to winning games, it had nothing to do with whom I played or did not play.  Now, that was a tournament and the opponents were picked for you, but the basic principle applies.

I also hear the argument about # of games shouldnt be the determining factor.  I agree.  It’s rather unfair if you play 30 games, win 50% and beat someone who played 12 games but won 100% of the games.  I sorta like the point system described pages back, but I’d add my own tweaks too it:

If you win:

1 Point if your opponent won 0-25% of his or her games.
2 Points if your opponent won 26-50% of his or her games.
3 Points if your opponent won 51-75% of his or her games.
4 Points if your opponent won 76-90% of his or her games.
5 Points if your opponent won 91-100% of his or her games.

You cannot lose points no matter what.  Your points are “awarded” at the end of the league year so that you can equalize how many points someone would get for, say, beating Commander Jennifer in a game that way someone does not get 5 points for beating me one week and 1 point for beating me the next week.    Since it’s awarded on a percentage win ratio, the veterans will be worth more points and thus draw more fire from the lower echelons, while the rookies won’t get picked on just because they are weaker players. (Do you want to play someone 3 times to get 3 points or one person 1 time for 5 points?)  However, no one is worth no points, so there is value in playing everyone!

[gamerman01]

@Cmdr:

I also hear the argument about # of games shouldnt be the determining factor.  I agree.  It’s rather unfair if you play 30 games, win 50% and beat someone who played 12 games but won 100% of the games.  I sorta like the point system described pages back, but I’d add my own tweaks too it:

If you win:

1 Point if your opponent won 0-25% of his or her games.
2 Points if your opponent won 26-50% of his or her games.
3 Points if your opponent won 51-75% of his or her games.
4 Points if your opponent won 76-90% of his or her games.
5 Points if your opponent won 91-100% of his or her games.

You cannot lose points no matter what.  Your points are “awarded” at the end of the league…

Thanks for your input, Jenn, but can you explain how your point system doesn’t reward the people who play more games?  If you don’t lose points for losses (don’t understand the rationale there - would just make everyone want to play the best players all the time), then don’t you just get more points the more you play?  Or are you dividing by the number of games played?  (I can only guess, because you didn’t fully explain, I don’t think)

Anyway, seems to be a lot of sentiment here to stick with straight win percentage (I don’t strongly disagree), but I will post the points standings regularly, as an aside, just for fun.

[Yoshi]

The dividing by the number of games played options may be interesting