2012 League Discussion

[LuckyLindy]

@Gamerman01:

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

[Jennifer]

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.

[gamerman01]

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)?

[Jennifer]

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.

[gamerman01]

@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.

[Yoshi]

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 :)

[DarthMaximus]

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.

[gamerman01]

@DarthMaximus:

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 points

To 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.

[Guest]

Gamer this sounds really cool. Thanks for the extra effort! I would also like to thank the moderators. You guys do a great job! The league has been really fun. I am happy to have the opportunity to play and look forward to starting the 2012 season.

[gamerman01]

Just read the 2012 league rules posted by Darth Maximus.
Looks great!
Thank you JWW and Darth Maximus for your efforts and continuous improvement of the league.

[DarthMaximus]

Thanks.

–--------

Changing this to the generic league discussion thread.

[DarthMaximus]

2012 games can begin.

Make sure you put 2012 in the title  for any new games.

[DarthMaximus]

Thanks again for everyone who played in 2011 and made it another successful season.

2011 regular season is officially over.  The playoffs are set:
Gamer vs. LL
Zhuk vs. DD

Let the 2012 Regular Season begin!!!

[djensen]

I’m in for 2012, well maybe. I’m now on a mac (it’s actually been nearly 4 years) so I can use those .exe tools. I also don’t have room to set up a board indefinitely at my place. It looks like my only option is TripleA.

Has anybody been successful using TripleA as a Play by Forum tool. I used to use an patched version that worked well but it has been years now. All I really need to do is us it to keep track of the pieces.

Finally, which game plays faster AAG40 or AA50?

[Jennifer]

Dj,

First, I am not aware of a module for AAGlobal40 on TripleA.  Does not mean it does not exist.
Second, Anniversary will probably play faster - at least until you get used to the intricacies of global.  It’s a lot easier to get sucker punched in Global, in my opinion.

[djensen]

50th Anniversary it is!

[Jennifer]

@djensen:

50th Anniversary it is!

Yea, I am considering Anniversary as well for a bit…probably until June - see if Larry ever touches up Global some more.

I’d need a refresher coarse…oh…free points guys!  Come get your free points!!!

[General_D.Fox]

I have a sub question that maybe someone can answer.

Let’s say there is a German sub in Sz 12 and the Italian fleet in Sz 13. I want to attack that Sz 13 fleet with a dest and cruiser. Does that sub mean my destroyer and CA stop automatically? I know I can amph assault if it’s just the transport, but as for this other issue…anyone know?

[LuckyLindy]

@The:

I have a sub question that maybe someone can answer.

Let’s say there is a German sub in Sz 12 and the Italian fleet in Sz 13. I want to attack that Sz 13 fleet with a dest and cruiser. Does that sub mean my destroyer and CA stop automatically? I know I can amph assault if it’s just the transport, but as for this other issue…anyone know?

You can completely ignore that submarine, submarines cannot block any combat move.

[Guest]

You can ignore the sub to attack my fleet TDJ  8-)