For those of you who may not have seen - the rankings spreadsheet is now on-line on a web page so no downloading and opening up in Excel is necessary anymore (nor is ownership of Excel required)
This is the link/url. If you are a regular league player, you will want to bookmark this because I will not be posting this link constantly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=0
Dizzkneeland is the latest ranked member (finishing 4 games) and weighs in currently at #19, which isn’t too shabby because we now have 39 ranked players :-)
Will gamerman’s rankings be used to determine the playoff situation? Or is it strait up players with the most wins get in?
I am under the assumption it is strait up wins.
Read the first two posts of this thread, Cow.
Oh gamerman… my name on your result sheet for me says at ease… well the thing is I haven’t decided whether my name was at ease or a tease. so… please let it remain in one word! Thank you!
Oh gamerman… my name on your result sheet for me says at ease… well the thing is I haven’t decided whether my name was at ease or a tease. so… please let it remain in one word! Thank you!
:lol:
Your wish is granted
Now I think you are a tease
It has become clear to me that it is time to establish a new tier. Tier 4.
Here are my reasons:
Note that this will only reduce the PPG of players who have wins against tier 4’s, which includes me. It will not penalize the players who are moved to tier 4 in any way, because points and ranking comes from who you played. Your tier level has no effect on your own PPG and ranking.
I will be awarding 3 points for a win over a tier 4, and 0 points for a loss (same as tier 3)
For those who don’t know, this is how the system works as of now:
Win against a
Tier 1 - 6 points
Tier 2 - 5 points
Tier 3 - 4 points
Tier 4 - 3 points
Lose against a
Tier 1 - 2 points
Tier 2 - 1 point
Tier 3 or 4 - 0 points
and then points per game (basis of the ranking) is your total # of points divided by the number of games completed.
I did not put my rationale out there to invite debate, but if you have any questions or concerns, please contact me - PM is preferable. I put the rationale out there in anticipation of questions.
I am not creating the 4th tier to make anyone feel inferior. I am creating the 4th tier to make my rankings more accurate for all players involved.
as they do for beating a 7-10 or 8-14 player (who are in tier
Forgot to finish this sentence -
This was meant to say that there is currently both a 7-10 and a 8-14 player that are toward the top of tier 3.
Ah, yes…. that was a good change. I think the rankings are more accurate now.
Keep in mind, there are currently two playoff tiers. I undeleted the struck out rules section of the league rules. So those who do not qualify based on number of games, can still qualify for the junior varsity play offs.
I will go re-review the league rules at this time.
I might color code players who are eligible for the different playoffs - is that why you’re telling me this?
I will go re-review the league rules at this time.
I might color code players who are eligible for the different playoffs - is that why you’re telling me this?
If you so choose to do so. lol.
Yes, I wanted to remind people that the playoffs were opened up and double downed. Is that really a phrase? Anyway….to more easily find the wording, it’s in the opening post of the league rules, you can still read through the strike out line.
Yeah, thanks, I knew where to find it - just got sidetracked with other stuff. Going there now (maybe)
Can you not edit the first post with the league rules?
In the posts following that, you have some changes/addenda (is that the plural of addendum?)
I see behind the strikethrough that the # of games played for the minor leagues was 0-13. Shouldn’t that be 4-13 because of the minimum to qualify?
I believe the current rule is that you need 13 games played (against 6 opponents or something like that) to be able to play best of 5 against another player who has 13 games played. But it’s 14 games to get to the major playoff. Any chance you could decide to make them both 13 or both 14, so I can just do a single color to show that?
Again, can you not edit the first post of the league rules? Because at this point, to know all of the league rules you would not only have to read the first post, but all the posts after that. If you can’t edit the first post, I would ask that you copy the first post to a new stickied thread called “2013 G40 league rules” and edit it to be accurate to the current league rules.
IMO it is your responsibility to give us all the current league rules in one location. Thanks.
Any chance you could decide to make them both 13 or both 14, so I can just do a single color to show that?
And, of course, to improve consistency and reduce confusion among players.
Yea, it’s been a long effort on my part to get Djensen to fix my access to that forum. I can’t edit, remove, etc in there. I had to have DM lock the thread for us. Not a problem for me on say, the GD forum, or the Miniatures, etc…just the play games forum. I think a checkbox may not have been applied, not that I’m complaining, DJ has his mods because he’s a busy man!
It is even more clear to me now that it was time to make Tier 4.
I just realized I needed to make a separate subtotal for the wins and losses by Axis and Allies for the new tier -
Separating them, tier 3 now has a .389 win pct as Axis and .250 as Allies, which is much higher than before the separation, and creation of tier 4.
This is interesting (and is always at the right side of my spreadsheet):
Tier 1 win pct; Axis/Allies: .802; .683
Tier 2 .638; .548
Tier 3 .389; .250
Axis has 17% more wins than Allies among tier 1, 16% among tier 2, and 56% among tier 3.
However, consider this: A big reason the Axis is getting more wins is because tier 1 has played many more games as Axis than as Allies.
Games played as Axis/Allies
Tier 1 96, 60
Tier 2 69, 84
Tier 3 72, 84
Tier 4 23, 32
So you shouldn’t just look at the overall win % of .577 and .423 as Axis and Allies.
The disparity would be much smaller if the top 15 players weren’t disproportionately taking the Axis.
Tier 1’s who love to take Axis:
Boldfresh
Wheatbeer
Zhukov
Hank
Arathorn
Stalingradski
If these guys had taken the Allies as much as they had taken the Axis, I think the # of Allied wins would be close to the same as Axis wins right now.
If these guys had taken the Allies as much as they had taken the Axis, I think the # of Allied wins would be close to the same as Axis wins right now.
This is ambiguous.
I didn’t mean if these players had played Allies the same number of times as Axis, I meant….
Well, here’s an example.
Wheatbeer played 22 games as Axis and 4 games as Allies.
I’m saying if he had played only 4 games as Axis and 22 games as Allies, and the other tier 1’s had done the same, Axis and Allies over all right now would be close to equal, or maybe the Allies would even be ahead.
Basically, a major reason the Allies are getting beat up so bad overall is because many tier 1 players strongly favor taking the Axis and they are beating up on weaker players, many times.
And this is where the record keeping for each game really pays off.
If we had merely tracked # of Axis wins vs. # of Allied wins, we would conclude that that Allies need a bid of at least 20. Seriously. At least 20.
However, since I have tracked Axis and Allies results by player and by tier, it is easy to analyze what may actually be going on in the league.
The fact that tier 1 players as a group have played 60% more games as Axis than as Allies makes it very difficult to project how much, if any, advantage the Axis has over the Allies. One thing I am sure of, is the disparity between the .577 to .423 winning percents is greatly inflated by the fact that weaker players have taken the Allies far more than the stronger players.
Or is it that the players in tier 1 who have taken the Axis so often are over-rated because they took the stronger side, and just got easier wins? And the tier 2 and tier 3 and tier 4 players are where they are in part because they are players who took the Allies more?? I think that’s a fair question, too.
I leave it here for you to decide/discuss now.
I love the Axis, simply because I get to decide when the game ends whenever I feel like it.
In AA50 I could actually take berlin/italy… In global… GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. So basically the axis decide between 1) economic game 2) vc win or bust. At any point in the game they can decide vc win or bust.
So yeah.
So basically I prefer the axis because the allies sometimes get super boring. Like my game against hobo, is really boring and in hindsight I wish I just shoved everything in front of him round 2 and start skirmishing hard rather than block him from as many islands as I could.
