2013 - AAG 40 League

[allweneedislove]

@Cmdr:

9 - Scoring/Playoffs
The top two players, with the best winning scores (Must complete at least 4 games, agianst at least 3 different opponents) will advance to the playoffs.  
If there is a tie between any players then the tie will be broken by:
1 - head to head play
2 - Total wins

@Gamerman01:

OK, I see why you’re confused.
Jenn did not define “winning scores”

I guess I don’t know for sure, but I thought it was winning percentage…

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY SCORING/SCORES??

I assume “winning score” means number of wins minus the number of losses.

My first impression was total number of wins, but that is the 2nd tiebreaker.

[gamerman01]

Pretty sure it’s win % because that’s what it’s been in leagues previously, and Jenn pretty much copied the AA50 league rules and tweaked them a bit.

The questions are accumulating, and the league moderator(s) are AWOL!!

[gamerman01]

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

Cow, you are apparently unaware of my extensive ranking spreadsheet (which I have been keeping for a couple of years for leagues).  See the link above - this thread is a stickied thread in the league forum.

I see no need for any of the things you’re proposing because all of this data is compiled in one spreadsheet - you can see exactly how many games everyone has played, you can even see WHO they played, and how many times they won with Axis or with Allies.

I already proposed that the minimum # of games be raised from 4.  There were very few league games played in 2012 compared to 2013 and this is why it was only 4.

Better players, average players, inexperienced players…. they can ALL find good matchups using my spreadsheet.  I have assigned a points per game number that reflects strength of schedule, which equalizes players who have played 20 games or only 3.

Anyway, please download the spreadsheet and review it a bit before you spam more suggestions on the league thread.

If you don’t see a use for the league and don’t want to play with it, that’s your decision.  But it seems to me you’re spouting off your opinions about something you know very little about, which I guess is your MO

[boldfresh]

@Gamerman01:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.0

Cow, you are apparently unaware of my extensive ranking spreadsheet (which I have been keeping for a couple of years for leagues).  See the link above - this thread is a stickied thread in the league forum.

I see no need for any of the things you’re proposing because all of this data is compiled in one spreadsheet - you can see exactly how many games everyone has played, you can even see WHO they played, and how many times they won with Axis or with Allies.

I already proposed that the minimum # of games be raised from 4.  There were very few league games played in 2012 compared to 2013 and this is why it was only 4.

Better players, average players, inexperienced players…. they can ALL find good matchups using my spreadsheet.  I have assigned a points per game number that reflects strength of schedule, which equalizes players who have played 20 games or only 3.

Anyway, please download the spreadsheet and review it a bit before you spam more suggestions on the league thread.

If you don’t see a use for the league and don’t want to play with it, that’s your decision.  But it seems to me you’re spouting off your opinions about something you know very little about, which I guess is your MO

that is Cow’s MOOOOO

[Cow]

Wow, rankings on spreadsheet form. I worry if more players join @_@

[Cow]

Yeah I do not keep up with all the threads on this forum.

Ranking system is fine. Prefer ELO.

[gamerman01]

Always the critic

[boldfresh]

@Gamerman01:

Always the critic

No one every thinks of anything that cow hasnt either invented or already thought about at least 10 times (in fact there is already probably a treatise somewhere he has already written on tevery possible subject you could ever conceive).

[Zhukov44]

It’s pretty awesome how many league games are being played currently!

Cow’s ruminations reminded me of this rather old thread

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=348

Bung (he created the TripleA ladders and is a major contributor to the project) is playing on here now…he would be a good person to consult on integrating existing data to create an online ratings system.

I’m not familiar with the DAAK club but Yamamoto says they have an outstanding ratings system.

[gamerman01]

PPG basically is the rating.
We already have a ratings system

Cow’s ruminations - that’s a good pun

[gamerman01]

I welcomed ideas and suggestions on my rankings thread, and that would be the appropriate place to post these things.  No one has ever submitted a suggestion.  I think the ranking system that has evolved is more than adequate for our purposes here on this site and in this league, but I am open to suggestions.

Most people (league moderators, especially) can’t even be troubled with updating the standings, and continually say that it takes “a lot of work” to keep up a ratings system.  I devised one that’s not too complicated, yet sufficiently complex to be very meaningful and helpful.

[Cow]

I kind of wish players were not fragmented between different online communities.

[gamerman01]

Amen to that
It’s not like there’s that many of us anyway.  It’s not a mainstream game, and the fans are all fragmented among who knows how many web sites, with little comingling….  Zhukov is an exception

[variance]

If we’re supposed to place bid units only in territories that already have a unit of the same power in it, then how come I hear that some people put an ANZAC infantry in New Guinea?  Is it legal to do that?

[DizzKneeLand33]

Hey, don’t forget about Dizz on that “multiclub” list…. I know it’s still tax season, and I’ve started back playing tournament chess, but I’m lurking… ;)

Okay, so, 1 game between the top two at this point is ludicrous with all of the activity here.  Gamer, I know that players for the most part don’t play just to win the league.  However, there is always that element (I’m usually in it) that likes to have the chance to play the best of the best by qualifying for something cool, something important, something league championship oriented…

So, here is my off-the-cuff solution.  Remember, I’ve been running the “tournament” thing for over 23 years now, so I hope at least everyone can humor me.

Someone mentioned a 6-player round robin final.  That is a really interesting idea.  I think the problem is the number of games that players would be playing at once.  So, how about we modify that?  Why not two 4-player round robin semifinals and a 4-player final?  The only chance where a tiebreak would be needed (other than head-to-head) would be if 3 of the 4 players went 2-1 and the 4th 0-3.  Well, somebody can figure out a tiebreak for that.  So, 8 players qualify, and the top 2 in each round-robin semifinal make the finals.  3 games to play at once.  Certainly not an overload.  And, this allows more players to qualify while still allowing the cream to rise to the top.

In that scenario, my goal would be to make the playoffs, knowing that I would be probably NOT making the finals.  But, to lose those games honorably would be a very cool experience…

Of course, the number of players could be modified and is certainly worthy of discussion.

Then, the qualification scheme.  Win percentage for FOUR games??  That is statistically cavemanesque.  Anyone interested in a postseason (and remember, not everyone is!) should at least have to play 8 games or something.  Or, you could do this.  If there were 8 qualifying spots, perhaps allow 2 in on the rules already set out regarding win percentage, 2 more for total wins overall (THIS factor would certainly increase games played, wouldn’t it? And, isn’t that the point??), and 4 more spots to be divided any way you would see fit (1 for most different opponents beaten, 1 for hottest girlfriend (or boyfriend), etc. etc., or heck, 2 - 4 for top players on Gamer’s list not already qualified for one of the other slots).

Now, that’s a playoff system, isn’t it?  What’s not to like?  :mrgreen:

[Cow]

I had a similar suggestion.  1 most wins, 1 most games, 1 winning streak, 1 win loss ratio %. Have the 4 compete. Round robin sounds fun. If round robin is the thing then we can have 1 highest ranked (gamer has a ranking system so we could implement it).

[Cow]

Yeah that is a good idea. we could have top 4 by ranking and 4 by other categories.

[Cow]

you might have to do brackets. rank 1 vs cat 1, rank 2 vs cat 2, etc. Rankings vs Other style. Then the final 4 could round robin it out.

[gamerman01]

@variance:

If we’re supposed to place bid units only in territories that already have a unit of the same power in it, then how come I hear that some people put an ANZAC infantry in New Guinea?  Is it legal to do that?

It is legal.  You don’t have to have a unit there already.  That’s the way it used to be, but Jenn changed it.

[gamerman01]

@JWW:

4c - Bid Placements - Bids can be placed all in one territory, spread out over multiple territories, or taken in IPCs to one country or split between multiple countries.
Land bids must be placed in a territory which you own at the beginning of the game but are restricted to units of that countries nationality. 
Examples for clarification -
A - UK can bid units to Egy.  Russia/US cannot.
B - UK can bid units to Bor/Sum.  Russia/US cannot.
C - US/UK/Rus cannot bid units to any Chinese territory.  Only Chinese units can be placed there.
Naval Bids must be placed in a seazone which already contains at least one unit and are restricted to that countries nationality.
Examples for clarification -
A - Russia can only bit naval units to sz 4.
B - UK can bid units to sz 12.  Russia/US cannot.
C - US can bid units to sz 50.  Russia/UK cannot.
You can bid for Industrial Complexes.  Placement (of newly purchased units) may take place immediately in the placement phase of Round 1.  The new IC will be limited by the IPC total of the territory on which it is placed and all other standard IC rules apply.