G40 League House Rule project

[gamerman01]

Updated

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls

[variance]

I have an idea to float for next year’s league.  If axis continue to win more than allies, how about if you give people an added incentive to play as allies to compensate for the extra risk of losing?  Maybe you could give people an extra point anytime they win playing allies.  For example if you win against a middle tier player as axis you would get 2 points but if you win playing as the allies you get 3.  Otherwise it may get to the point where no one wants to play the allies side.

[boldfresh]

interesting idea variance but that is the point of bidding.

[gamerman01]

Thanks for the suggestion, variance

I think that is unnecessary because that’s what bidding is for

Nobody should ever be taking either side unwillingly.
Also, there are only a handful of players here who have had a lot more success with the Axis than the Allies.

Interesting thing was the Axis had a much higher win % than we are experiencing here, the last 2 years in AA50-41 and you still had no trouble getting people to play Allies.  Most people didn’t demand enough bid, but that’s their problem.  Same goes here.

Bidding makes it so both players are always satisfied with their side and start.  I can’t believe how many years it was before I knew about bidding  :-P

[wheatbeer]

On a related note … I was wondering why the ranking system includes such steep penalties for defeat?

If two tier 2 players or two tier 3 players play a pair of matches and each player wins one of the games, then both players’ PPG will always go down rather than evening out.

Maybe losing to an equal/higher tiered opponent could have no penalty, while losing to a lower tiered opponent could have a proportional penalty for the loser:
tier 1 loses to tier 1 = 0
tier 2 loses to tier 2 = 0
tier 3 loses to tier 3 = 0
tier 1 loses to tier 2 = -1
tier 2 loses to tier 3 = -1
tier 1 loses to tier 3 = -2

That might be unduly complex to implement, but throwing the idea out there.

[gamerman01]

Thanks for the suggestion, Wheatbeer

If Tier 2’s split games, they earn 0 points and the average tier 2 player has 0 PPG so they stay in about the same place.  If they are lower tier 2, they rise and if they are upper tier 2, they fall.  After all, they just traded games with a fellow tier 2 player so they should be more solidly tier 2.

If Tier 1’s split games, the average is +1, which is average for a tier 1

If Tier 3’s split games, the average is -1, which is average for tier 3

The points are all relative, so I don’t think -3 is a steep penalty.  If you lose to a tier 3, I think the -3 is appropriate.

Is there anyone who has played a several games who you think is not appropriately ranked?  I think the current system is actually doing a great job

I guess I can see some negatives to using the negative numbers, though…. pun intended

I could change it so -3 = 0
-2 = 1
-1 = 0
0  = 3
1  = 4
2  = 5
3  = 6

but it would be sheerly aesthetic

[gamerman01]

To directly address your suggestion, though, I think blunting the penalties that much would actually make the rankings distorted.

And you’re right, that would be too complex to implement because it factors in the player’s own ranking.  The current system doesn’t do that - it only addresses the opponent ranking.  If someone changed tiers, I would not only have to change all their past opponents’ scores, but their own points as well.  There could be some nasty ripple effects…

I do appreciate the suggestion, though.

[wheatbeer]

@Gamerman01:

After all, they just traded games with a fellow tier 2 player so they should be more solidly tier 2.

I was about to contradict this and then I remembered that tier 2 spans both positive and negative (with zero in the middle), so a player’s PPG would actually increase if the player started on the negative side of tier 2 (it would still be negative, but closer to zero). Now this makes sense to me  :-D

[variance]

@Gamerman01:

I could change it so -3 = 0
-2 = 1
-1 = 0
0  = 3
1  = 4
2  = 5
3  = 6

but it would be sheerly aesthetic

This would make more sense to me, and it would be less psychologically traumatizing.  People are generally not good at dealing with positive and negative numbers so if all numbers are positive it would be better.

[gamerman01]

I think that will be a simple fix - I can just add 3 points per game played to everybody.

[gamerman01]

OK, now everybody’s a hitter
No psychological trauma

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls

[variance]

That is Sooo much better.  Thanks gamerman!

[gamerman01]

You’re welcome

Occasionally, I do accept a suggestion  :lol:

[Stalingradski]

Very cool suggestion - and thanks Gamer for implementation  :-D

[gamerman01]

Because the league rules require 4 completed games to be eligible for playoffs, I am changing my 5 game minimum to be ranked, to 4 games.

There are 4 players with 4 games completed right now, so we now have 31 ranked players (4 or more games completed)!

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls

[wheatbeer]

Any chance that playoffs will be between more than 2 people?

[Major Major]

I just keep falling further and further down the list and I ahven’t even a finished a game in weeks…
:? :roll: :wink: 8-)

[gamerman01]

@wheatbeer:

Any chance that playoffs will be between more than 2 people?

It’s funny you ask this now.  I had a big post written up to reply to Jenn, but then I changed my mind.

You should ask this question on the league thread and/or PM Jennifer.

I’m not sure how “back” she is yet, but officially I have zero authority at this point.

[gamerman01]

@Infrastructure:

I just keep falling further and further down the list and I ahven’t even a finished a game in weeks…
:? :roll: :wink: 8-)

Oh!  Yeah…… since I lowered the requirement to 4 games your number would have increased along with most everyone else’s…

If Cow, gradski, or somebody else above you loses a couple you could rise again without finishing a game!

[gamerman01]

Updated

Including the game that Hobo is about to post

AA Gamer’s League Rankings.xls