Dir auch viel Spaß und viel Glück.
Scrambelst du ?
39181-01-germany-b-1.tsvg
2012 League Discussion
-
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)
-
Any idea when the 2012 league will launch?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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=52Some 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’.
-
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=52Some 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.
-
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. -
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!
-
@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.
-
The dividing by the number of games played options may be interesting
-
Gamer,
Well, for one, you might not know who is a 5 point opponent or a 4 point opponent. Granted, you’d be able to track the number of wins/losses and have some idea of who is “upper level” and who is “lower level” but until the end of the year, when the percentages are official, you’d only be able to guess.
For instance, in Febuary you could play someone with 7 wins 0 losses who is, literally, a 5 point opponent at the time. But if that opponent then loses 28 more games and wins no more games by the end of the season, their status is 7 and 28, or 20% win ratio thus they are reduced to a 1 point opponent. Likewise, if you go into March with a record of 0 wins, 9 losses then win 31 games and lose 1 more game you are 31 and 10, or 76% making you a 4 point opponent, when it looked like you would be a 1 point opponent.
Basically, the idea is to have uncertainty. Is your opponent going to be worth more or less points? But it also rewards you for beating the stronger players at the end of the season. Hopefully, the outcome will be that everyone has an equal chance of playing everyone else since no one knows who will be worth more points than someone else is.
The idea behind not losing points for losses goes with the rationale of why should you lose points? You are awarded points for winning! The number of points you win is determined by the number of wins against harder opponents and the number of over all wins.
Example:
1) Player A beats Player B. Player B has 10 Wins, 1 Loss and is worth 5 Points. As Player A only played Player B, then Player A ends the season with 5 Points.
2) Player C beats Players D-J (7 players) all of which had 0 Wins and 1 Loss at the end of the season. Thus, Player C earned 7 points.
3) Player Z beats Players X and Y both of which had 4 Wins, 1 Loss at the end of the season. Thus Player Z earned 8 points and won the league.While Player C played the most games and got the most wins overall, he still lost because he didnt play tough enough opponents to garner enough points to beat Player Z. Player A played one of the best players (ratio wise) but had the least amount of points because he did not play enough games to get points. Player Z won because Player Z played against moderately skilled opponents, not trying to snipe the weak players, but not trying for Hail Mary games against really tough opponents either. In this way, Player Z was able to earn enough points to win, while not playing so many games and risk distraction.
-
Yes, that’s what I was talking about before you posted the first time - a basic (less tiers than 5) point system.
However, I (and others) find it strongly distasteful that more wins leads to more points, and the number of losses is irrelevant. Also, we have a minimum of 8 (proposed) games to qualify, so none of your players A, C, or Z would qualify. Thus you don’t have the “hail mary” one game winner who makes our playoffs. Gotta go - don’t have time to explain more, but thanks again for your input.
It sounds like we’re heading towards a straight win %, with a side-show of my point rankings on a separate stickied thread (hopefully), so I don’t think anyone’s really looking for an elaboration of a point system at this point. (I understand that you, like me, like to explain lots of complicated stuff and numbers :-))
-
Yes, that’s what I was talking about before you posted the first time - a basic (less tiers than 5) point system.
However, I (and others) find it strongly distasteful that more wins leads to more points, and the number of losses is irrelevant. Also, we have a minimum of 8 (proposed) games to qualify, so none of your players A, C, or Z would qualify. Thus you don’t have the “hail mary” one game winner who makes our playoffs. Gotta go - don’t have time to explain more, but thanks again for your input.
It sounds like we’re heading towards a straight win %, with a side-show of my point rankings on a separate stickied thread (hopefully), so I don’t think anyone’s really looking for an elaboration of a point system at this point. (I understand that you, like me, like to explain lots of complicated stuff and numbers :-))
I look forward to this, should add some extra flavor to the league :-) Thanks Gamer
Cheers
-
Well Gamer, I mean, you can easily just multiply by virtually any number you wanted and get the same ratios and points to assure yourself of the 8 game minimum. I just wanted to point out the basic theory on how it would work.
That said, negative points for losing is going to be abused. People will just stop playing games and only aim for targets they are almost certain of beating to maintain their points. That means many people will be denied games, not because the other person is busy, but because the other person does not want to risk their points losing to you. That runs counter to the whole concept, at least in my opinion. What’s worse is that best players are going to receive very few, if any, challenges because people don’t want to lose what little they have earned. Extrapolating from here, you can see that one years winner will most likely have no games next year and be unable to win.
If you gain nothing but lose nothing if you lose, then some players will challenge the top ranks merely for the challenge of it. Even if it’s ratio based, a player with 20 games might challenge the best player in the league not because he needs points, but because a loss only drops him to 95% rating and that’s not enough to negate the learning experience from playing the better player (in the challenger’s mind.) however, because the challenger has a good ratio, the better player might accept the challenge for the points.
-
No, you don’t understand my system, apparently. If you challenge a really good player, you will lose 1 point if you fail to win, and you will gain 3 points if you do win. Also, you can always earn more points - there is never a point where you have enough and can just quit. So from what I read, you don’t understand my system at all. Just go back and look at my earlier posts where I explain exactly how I calculated points.
Using my system, I have 17 points. I could get to 18 points by playing and beating a lower tier player (but I would lose 3 points if I lose), get to 19 points by playing a middling player, and get to 20 by beating one of the top tier players. I lose only 1 point for losing to a top tier player. Doesn’t this make sense? Don’t you agree that the minuses you point out about losing points do not apply to such a system?
Do you understand we’re not even influencing next year’s league (and I note that you have not played any 2011 games, although making such an observation about Yoshi got me into trouble), but that JWW and Darth are just going to go with a win/loss percentage again anyway (which I am totally fine with)?
-
We get back to the same question, Gamerman. Why should a higher ranked player ever take the challenge of a lower ranked player in your scenario? If the answer is, as I suspect, they would not, then you are suddenly forcing lower ranked players to play a lot more games to “catch up” to a higher ranked player so they can play them.
I’d like something where you have no idea how many points you have or dont have until the end of the season, or perhaps at 3 points along the season (April, July, September for example) and that way you have idea if you are playing someone worth more or less points than you and you are not looking for easy kills or avoiding easy kills because you have no idea who the easy kills are in the grand scheme of things.
And this is a 2012 discussion, it has no bearing on 2011. Look at the thread title. :wink:
Percentage is great, and I understand the desire that harder opponents be worth more than weaker opponents, but we need something that would encourage people to play, not punish them. I don’t want to see players refuse to play because someone they will risk losing 3 points instead of 1. It seems counter-productive. If you can GAIN 3 points and not lose anything, then you might have something. But the deal is, no one can LOSE what they have, you can only GET more. Then there would be no excuse for the guy in the number one spot to refuse to play the guy in the number 100 spot.
-
@Cmdr:
We get back to the same question, Gamerman. Why should a higher ranked player ever take the challenge of a lower ranked player in your scenario? If the answer is, as I suspect, they would not, then you are suddenly forcing lower ranked players to play a lot more games to “catch up” to a higher ranked player so they can play them.
You’re completely missing me. If I play the worst player in the league and beat him, I get one point. If I lose, I would lose 3 points, but I would deserve to. I am interested in playing anyone because if I win I gain points. There is always something to gain.
I’d like something where you have no idea how many points you have or dont have until the end of the season, or perhaps at 3 points along the season (April, July, September for example) and that way you have idea if you are playing someone worth more or less points than you and you are not looking for easy kills or avoiding easy kills because you have no idea who the easy kills are in the grand scheme of things.
As would I. But I have a very good idea who the easy and the hard kills are regardless of the system. If I want an easy win, I play player X, Y, or Z. By going by straight win percentage, the leaders of the league have decided that they’re not worried about people going around trying to get easy wins. I don’t completely agree with that (and obviously you don’t either), but they understand that incentive exists and many people don’t care. Hence the 2012 league rankings will probably be straight win/loss percentage (KISS), and my point rankings (which you are struggling to understand) will be a side show.
And this is a 2012 discussion, it has no bearing on 2011. Look at the thread title. :wink:
Yeah, yeah, I know, it got me in trouble before, too (as I already tried to explain). Let’s see how many 2012 AA50 league games you actually play, though, you know? Seems to me you just like to be opinionated (as do I). People like us are annoying. :-D
but we need something that would encourage people to play, not punish them.
For like the 5th time, my system doesn’t punish for playing, it punishes for losing, which I of course think that it should. Rewards for winning (against ANYONE), and punishment for losing (against anyone), but it is weighted.
I don’t want to see players refuse to play because someone they will risk losing 3 points instead of 1. It seems counter-productive. If you can GAIN 3 points and not lose anything, then you might have something. But the deal is, no one can LOSE what they have, you can only GET more. Then there would be no excuse for the guy in the number one spot to refuse to play the guy in the number 100 spot.
There isn’t, you just either aren’t listening to me or you are really thick, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not listening. I am in the #1 spot (literally), and if I play the person in last place, when I win I get another point. So your argument makes no sense - I don’t think you know what you’re arguing against, is the only logical conclusion I can reach.
You’re stubborn, Jenn (as am I). Some will think I’m mean for saying this, but you’re asking for it:
I played you three times in 2010 in league play and destroyed you every time. The 3 games ended in August, September, and October. You quit after 4 rounds, 6 rounds, and 13 rounds (you were really stubborn on that one). As I recall, the outcomes were never in doubt. But yet after playing several games with me (more than these 3), you were still trying to teach me tactics and strategies. So I don’t have a lot of patience when you keep stubbornly arguing and misinterpreting what I am plainly saying, as you are now on this thread. You are the queen of denial. -
One weird point you could have with the “I do not loose point” system : one could have interest to loose games against newbies (people that you are sure will not have a lot of points at the end), so that you percentage decreases, and that you losses against the top player will give less points to the others.
Yes, someone doing that would not have understood that we play for fun, but I’m just pointing out a potential problem in the system :)
-
FYI, we’ll be using straight win % for the AA50-41 league. We think we’ll have enough in place to encourage games and limit/prevent avoiding players.
I will post a thread for “Gamers rankings” provided he is statisfied with his system and uses the same one throughout the year.
So Gamer, we’d need your system before we start getting results for 2012. So we’d proably need it in Nov. Once you have that I’ll put up your thread. We could start with a year end rankings for 2011 once the regular season completes.
I don’t think it is a bad idea to have an “outsider” (non-moderater) do rankings. These will not effect league or league playoffs.–--------------
Final thing we are working on is a series of rules for games to end prior to Nov. 1 (next year’s league not this year). Where if two players prior to start agree to end their game it will come to an end using these rules. They will be simple and basic and will not require JWW or I to figure out who is winning.
So be warned. Muhuhahahahhahaaha! :-D
Final rules for 2012 should be up later this week.
-
I will post a thread for “Gamers rankings” provided he is statisfied with his system and uses the same one throughout the year.
So Gamer, we’d need your system before we start getting results for 2012. So we’d proably need it in Nov. Once you have that I’ll put up your thread. We could start with a year end rankings for 2011 once the regular season completes.
I don’t think it is a bad idea to have an “outsider” (non-moderater) do rankings. These will not effect league or league playoffs.–--------------
Great! Thank you thank you! I am totally fine with my rankings having no effect on the league. I appreciate the sticky.
I will update the thread frequently, so that players can see the regular w/l records and percentages on a current basis. I will also regularly upload the spreadsheet, so that players can see the win/loss matrix at any time. JWW (or whatever mod is doing it in 2012) can just ignore my thread and post standings when he wants, as in the past. I don’t want to be any distraction or trouble at all.
The point system in my side-show for-fun rankings will be:
Victory against top 1/3 - +3 points
Loss against top 1/3 - -1 point
Victory against middle 1/3 - +2 points
Loss against middle 1/3 - - 2 points
Victory against bottom 1/3 - +1 point
Loss against bottom 1/3 - -3 pointsTo increase the accuracy of who is a top 1/3, middle 1/3, or bottom 1/3 player, I will use the 2011 and 2012 win/loss records combined for determining tiers. For example, we all know Zhukov44 is a veteran with considerable skills. He will be a top tier player for purposes of the points because he went 9-2 in 2011. If he starts off 0-2 in 2012, he will still be considered a top tier or mid tier player at that point (combined record of 9-4). In other words, I will not blindly follow the 2012 records alone.
And yes, no one should fret my methods, because the point rankings will have no bearing on league play or playoffs. It’s just for us curious types, to provide a simple adjustment for strength of schedule. As requested, I can start the thread with the final 2011 point values and rankings along with the methodology as an illustration.
Thanks again! Looking forward to it.
Suggested Topics
