8 Players would be a total of 3 games with the winners of each playing the winners of the other in the next round. So 4 people are eliminated round 1, 2 are eliminated round 2 and 1 is eliminated round 3.
At this time, I do not think 16 players is warranted. The next league kicks off the same day league play ends and league championships begin, so it isn’t like without playoff games you have nothing to do.
@Cmdr:
Admittedly, I know how easy it is for #4 to happen if using Battlemap as it does that throughout game play, not sure about TripleA.
TripleA also has TUV stats by country and by side (you don’t even have to add them up as in ABattlemap) but the total includes all facilities.
Forgot about your scoring system for games that could be called at the end of the year. Seems like a promising idea for deciding playoff matches where time is up. But you should try to take incentive away for players to stall. I think you should consider making the 72 hour rule a 24 hour rule for faster playoff games, to avoid stalling.
Good idea, Gamerman. So we can make the playoffs 24 hours, except if you notify me by PM and your opponent in some manner that you need more time, in which I will grant a one time extension to 72 hours.
Jenn, could you edit #2 in the rules, in the first post of this thread to reflect the new ruling?
That would be great -
so are we going by ranking or record?
@Infrastructure:
so are we going by ranking or record?
Are you asking about the playoffs?
It’s by league rules and therefore league record and the rankings have no bearing whatsoever - that’s what “for fun and information only” means.
That said, I don’t know that anyone has been keeping the official league records, so either Jenn is going to rely on my records or she is going to have to go through 400 some odd game results posts and meticulously record them all herself at the end of the year.
So unless Jenn makes and more revisions, if she goes with top 4 or top 8, it would be the top 4 or 8 with a minimum of 4 games played and highest winning percentage
PPG and ranking # is my device and is completely unofficial, as made clear in the first two posts of the rankings thread.
I have this caveat draped over the middle of the spreadsheet in order to prevent this type of confusion. Do I need to make it larger? :-)
@Infrastructure:
so are we going by ranking or record?
Current rules are the top 8 players, based on percentage of games won. Technically, there is a 4 game minimum, however, since our top players are complaining of lack of people to play, and I know there’s more than 4 contestants (since 17 are complaining) then I don’t think the minimum number of games is going to be an issue.
Perhaps next year we can have a weighted system where if you beat someone with a better record than yourself, you can earn more points, but no matter what, you can’t lose points. I think it would be interesting, just not sure how to implement it without going insane in the process. =^_^=
And yes I’ll be going through the results thread in July, August, September and the last day of October to keep a record going of win/losses. Not that I don’t trust Gamerman, it’s just I am the one who is going to get hate-mail if I don’t have the right people qualified for the playoffs. lol. (I’m sure his record is correct, and you can use it to look at where you are in the standings, but it’s not the official record.)
@Cmdr:
@Infrastructure:
so are we going by ranking or record?
Perhaps next year we can have a weighted system where if you beat someone with a better record than yourself, you can earn more points, but no matter what, you can’t lose points. I think it would be interesting, just not sure how to implement it without going insane in the process. =^_^=
gamerman is currently maintaining such a system.
No, she’s talking about not losing points, which merely rewards the frequent flyers and punishes those who don’t play a zillion games
Bad idea!
Even Darth has a -3 points per loss in the ghost town AA50 league, and he was loathe to take off points
Oh, wait, that’s right. You CAN’T lose points in my system anymore.
And the substance is still exactly the same :roll:
So, Jenn, you’re telling me that there is no official league standings because you haven’t done it, and without my work no one would know where they stood compared to other players unless they kept all the records themselves?
Go on win percentage, but add a percentage point for every game played.
If you lose points if you play and lose to inferiorly rated players, then who would take a challenge from someone who lost a few games and won nothing? Only concern.
That’s what I mean by, I am not sure how we would go about implementing a weighted system. Unlike unofficial tabulations, I have to deal with the players complaining the system is not fair. :cry:
Don’t worry about it, no one will get shafted this year. The only rule changes I’m likely to implement are ones that keep players playing, like upping the number of games you can have with an opponent. We can discuss new rules in October for the next season.
Right
Well, why not consider Darth’s 2013 AA50 system?
Too bad it’s not getting tested, so we don’t really know how well it works, but it seems OK.
FWIW I have no problem with simple win% so long as the minimum # of games is sufficiently high (like a lot more than 4 in this year’s G40)
The only issue I see here is somebody going 4-0 or 5-0 or 8-0 and then sitting on that. Talk about incentive to not play games… :-P
I trust Jenn when she says no one will get shafted this year
Right
Well, why not consider Darth’s 2013 AA50 system?
Too bad it’s not getting tested, so we don’t really know how well it works, but it seems OK.FWIW I have no problem with simple win% so long as the minimum # of games is sufficiently high (like a lot more than 4 in this year’s G40)
The only issue I see here is somebody going 4-0 or 5-0 or 8-0 and then sitting on that. Talk about incentive to not play games… :-P
I trust Jenn when she says no one will get shafted this year
i will no doubt be shafted, per usual.
On a related note, with Gamerman’s subjective system,
Tier 1 has gone 39-0 against tier 3.
Tier 1 has gone 39-8 against tier 2.
Tier 2 has gone 48-5 against tier 3 (and the five tier 3 victories include some forfeits).
That pretty impressive predictive power.
Right
Well, why not consider Darth’s 2013 AA50 system?
Too bad it’s not getting tested, so we don’t really know how well it works, but it seems OK.FWIW I have no problem with simple win% so long as the minimum # of games is sufficiently high (like a lot more than 4 in this year’s G40)
The only issue I see here is somebody going 4-0 or 5-0 or 8-0 and then sitting on that. Talk about incentive to not play games… :-P
I trust Jenn when she says no one will get shafted this year
Sounds like an issue where we need to raise the limit on the number of games.
Admittedly, we had 35 games last YEAR. 4 games out of 35 total left us with only two people qualified to play at all in the last game of the year, and that was just barely if I remember right.
We have many more games now. 245 by last count on Gamerman’s spreadsheet alone and we’re only halfway done. (I only tallied wins, and I may have miscounted, I’ve been in the hospital a LOT this year, like most of January, February and March.)
So if 4 games means you participated in about 11% of games, to get that same percentage now (assuming the league ended today) you’d need 27 games to qualify.
Assuming we get as many games again as we have now, perhaps a total of 500 games, would a 50 game minimum to be in the championships be too high? Probably, what about 25 game minimum? We have 6 players with over 14 games now (14 or more to 17) just counting WINS, not counting losses.
I’m good with changing it if everyone else is.
At this point here in May, it seems to me 20 game minimum might be appropriate, ±5
my vote is 30 games played. I also think that currently active games as well as finished games should count towards being able to go best of 5…
the limit should not be too high as it might discourage new players from joining the league.
i would suggest 10 games.
i also really like infrastructure’s idea of adding percentage points for games played. this gives incentive to keep playing more games.
having an attainable low threshold while creating incentive to play more games even with a perfect record makes for the most robust league.
i would suggest adding more than a single percent per game played. i would think somewhere between 1 to 6 per game played.
