Thx! Enjoyed the game, well played. Dice were unkind to you, especially the AA hits.
2013 - AAG 40 League
-
@Gamer, @Jen
1-Do we have information about the number of players that will participate in the play-offs?
This is pretty important because it affects our decisions who to play with and how many games to play.2-Also, are the standard biding rules the one that allow unlimited number of units per territory? So if a player would like to limit it he should tell it on the start of the game just as the tech option being turned on?
3-Is it allowed to put a sea units in a sz in which U do not have a ship, or your allies do not have one?
As for land territories is it allowed to put (bid) units in an allied territory?
-
@Gamer, @Jen
1-Do we have information about the number of players that will participate in the play-offs?
This is pretty important because it affects our decisions who to play with and how many games to play.2-Also, are the standard biding rules the one that allow unlimited number of units per territory? So if a player would like to limit it he should tell it on the start of the game just as the tech option being turned on?
3-Is it allowed to put a sea units in a sz in which U do not have a ship, or your allies do not have one?
As for land territories is it allowed to put (bid) units in an allied territory?
I guess this is my main issue with this league. Players who are mid-tier don’t get many opportunities to play upper-tier players as they would worry about their winning percentage and a loss to a mid-tier player would hurt them far more than a win would help them. Nearing the end of the season especially, there would seem to be little incentive for anyone in the upper tier to play any games as it may risk their playoff standing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m loving the league and the effort people are putting in to make it both fun and organized. But I would like to see some incentive for better players to play with “improving” players so that the league is even more rewarding.
Perhaps for next season we could implement a system whereby, depending on your standing from the previous season, you must play x number of games with players in your tier and at least x games against players 1 tier below the tier you begin the season in?
Just a thought…
-
Currently the rules stipulate you must have ownership of the territory at the start of the game, or you must have a ship from your nation in the sea zone where the bid unit is placed. There is currently no limit to the number of units placed in any specific, legal, sea zone or territory but many have stipulated a maximum of one. Restrictions to bids is legal as long as both players agree to the limit. Just like technology is legal as long as both players agree to use technology.
So for example, ANZAC cannot place a destroyer in SZ 35. Yes there are American ships present, but they are not ANZAC ships. Likewise, Russia cannot bid an infantry to Alexandria because they do not own Alexandria at the start of the game.
Next year, after a discussion of the league members of this year and with concurrence of the league moderators, the bidding rules may be changed.
As for the playoffs, the members selected for the playoffs will be the ones with the best percentage of wins to total number of games. Next year that may change to the tiered system that Gamerman’s been working on for over a year. But as you point out, there are concerns about players shunning each other to protect their rating.
Currently the safe guards for that behavior are as follows:
- You can only play your friends or “easy” targets a maximum of 5 times (that means until one player has achieved 3 wins against the same opponent.) That encourages people to play many other players.
- Ranking is determined by number of wins divided by total number of games. (#Win/#Game) Which means playing the worst player in the league actually helps you as your odds of winning against the worst players is significantly higher than playing the top or second best player in the league.
As for the number of people in the playoffs, I am not sure yet. Gamerman and I need to talk about it. Last year we only had 3 people qualify for the playoffs at all, and 1 of them did not want to participate which is why the opening post has it called a championship game and not playoffs. This year is significantly larger which means we will have many more players qualify. Now, what I can say are these kinds of competitions (championships and tournaments) break up nicely in blocks of: 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 (just keep doubling it.) That’s so you can easily have winners play winners until you only have 2 players remaining.
I would assume that Gamerman and I would agree on top 8 players (that’s 4 games to determine champion.) The idea is to finish the 2013 league before the 2015 league after all!
-
Great answers, Jenn, I agree with everything.
My rankings matrix shows who has played who, and you can tell by scanning it over if someone is especially fond of winning (avoids tier 1 players). I actually haven’t noticed any top players avoiding mid-tier players, as it sounds like you are concerned about.
Personally, I prefer playing
- mid-tier players who are up and coming
- new people who are unknown entities, to hopefully make sure their first game in the league is a good experience
- good sports who I already know and are fun to play with
And I personally don’t care much about getting into the playoffs - not real fond of the pressure. Last year I deliberately didn’t play my 8th game that would qualify me for the AA50 playoff (although I think I won the league the year before last), and I am liable to forfeit my imminent playoff spot this year. Would you like it? :wink:
Now that said, I do understand that most players are very interested in playoffs. However, unlike the NBA, only about 1/7 of league players will qualify (I agree with Jenn’s 8 players for this year).
I will continue on a new post….
-
As Jenn said, we will be hammering out the details for next year’s league in the next couple of months, so it is great timing for you to talk about next year’s league, and thank you for detailing your concerns.
As Jenn said, the maximum 3 games against another opponent (5 if you both have 13+ games) is designed to keep people from racking up a lot of wins against a couple of bottom feeders and to get people to play a higher number of different players.
Now that I’m side by side with Jenn, I can add my ideas for improving the rules for next year.
Thanks for your idea about mandating (for playoff purposes) a certain number of games against different tiers. Tell me what you think about my idea.First of all, keep in mind the 2013 league rules were set last year and other than expanding the playoffs and allowing best of 5 in certain circumstances, the rules have not been changed (still go by win %). This is important, I’m sure you agree, because the criteria for playoffs shouldn’t be changed on players who started the league understanding it was by win %.
Now I think we agree win % alone has some serious flaws (inherently encourages people to feast on weaker players and avoid the strong ones), and I think that is easily remedied.
As you know, my rankings reward playing stronger players (win or lose, does not matter), and also compensates for playing weaker players. So what makes sense to me for next year (Jenn and I need to discuss and agree at some point before November), is that we go by PPG with a minimum number of games played (probably in the neighborhood of 8-12). I would certainly like to invite continued feedback and ideas from league players like you’ve just given us, as we decide the framework for next year.
Now chew on this….
I have an idea (and we COULD do this at the end of this year), based on the fact that a lot of players enjoy playoffs and express interest in being in them. However, only the elite players (top 8 out of more than 50) will be involved in the playoff this year, and unless a league player becomes elite, he/she will never play in the playoffs.So what about this? A playoff within each tier. We’re basically already going to have a playoff for tier 1 (well, 8 of them) by the league rules. I am thinking about sponsoring (officially or unofficially) a playoff for any tier 2 players and any tier 3 players who wish to participate. In other words, there would be a playoff (tournament like) for tier 3 players only. That would be fun, right? And include most all players? (Tier 4 need to keep working on their game a bit, sorry)
(To be continued)
-
FYI if the playoffs started now or very soon, these are (APPROXIMATELY) who would probably be in them:
RGP44, 7-0, 1.000, #2
Alexgreat, 9-0, 1.000, #7
Allweneedislove, 19-2, .905, #1
Zhukov, 8-1, .889, #4
Gamerman01, 21-3, .875, #3
Arathorn, 6-2, .750, #13
Hobo, 11-4, .733, #9
Ziggurat, 16-6, .727, #6Nobody can argue this is a good group for the playoffs.
However, by rankings, these players would be excluded:
#5 Hank13 (10-4, .714)
#8 Cow (10-4, .714)Note that these players could easily qualify by the end of the year by win% (current rules) but yes if they really wanted to be in the playoffs then they will pick weaker opponents.
Hank and Cow are ranked #5 and #8 using my system but are not in the top 8 by win % because they play tougher competition.
Half of Cow’s games were played vs. tier 1. Only 3 were below tier 2.
Half of Hank’s games were played vs. tier 1, with very few against below tier 2.So there’s the difference between straight win % and a strength of schedule calculation such as my own.
I think having 3 tournament/playoff at the end of the year that excludes no one but the tier 4’s (I’ll call them apprentices) would alleviate the concerns about the playoff qualification/determination, and include everyone who wants, in the fun.
Winner of the tier 1 playoff is crowned winner of the league for the year.What do you think, Jenn?
-
Unless Jenn objects, I am planning to sponsor 2 additional playoffs at the end of the year, for players who will not qualify for the official playoff.
A playoff for any excluded tier 1’s, and tier 2’s who sign up, and
A playoff for any tier 3’s who sign up.I will establish the brackets and administer/moderate the tournament.
Any tier 1 who does not qualify for the playoffs may enter the tier 2 tournament (these will be lower tier 1’s), so that no one tier 3 or above is exluded from a playoff.Only the winner of the league playoff by win % will be named league champion (the official league playoff) and
if you play in the official league playoff you are not eligible for these additional playoffs.I will create a web document sign up sheet and provide the link here soon.
-
Generally we have a tournament starting around this time which allows for those who would otherwise not be able to get a championship title a chance to get one through an alternative route.
I have no problem with a Junior Varsity league play offs. Â I think we even discussed this possibility a few months ago. Â Honestly, I think we’d be better off with just one Junior Varsity league and not two. Â That would allow the top 16 of 50ish players to play for a crown. Not sure if we need the top 50% of players to qualify, but I am not saying we cannot.
-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydF93TUcwNFB2Y1JvYm9weThsdzV0cEE&usp=sharing
Here’s the sign up.
Good point. Great idea, Jenn, I’ll leave it as 2 tourneys right now to separate tier 2 and 3, but it will depend on interest.
If there are like 8-16 players total interested, we could just do 1 junior tourney, yes.
-
I will establish the brackets and administer/moderate the tournament.
I’m sorry, I went to bed too late last night. I was going to say this and almost forgot.
If Jenn is willing, she will also moderate the additional playoff(s) with me (answer questions, settle disputes).
I did not intend to exclude you, Jennifer -
Lol, I read that part in, originally!
The only question really is if we will have a tournament this year or not. There was interest, but with the Senior Varsity and the Junior Varsity play offs maybe we do not need a tournament as well?
-
@Cmdr:
Lol, I read that part in, originally!
Good.
The only question really is if we will have a tournament this year or not. There was interest, but with the Senior Varsity and the Junior Varsity play offs maybe we do not need a tournament as well?
Right, I think this can serve as the tournament for anyone who’s not playing in the 8 man league playoff.
Actually, tier 4’s can feel free to sign up as well. Will probably end up being one add’l tournament. Call it the NIT (USA college basketball tournament for the teams that aren’t good enough to get invited to the NCAA tournament in March).
-
I’d say tier 2 has priority, then tier 3 if open spots and if anything is left over, tier 4.
We could make junior varsity 16 players if there is enough interest, but I want the actual championship to end before 2015 if at all possible, 8 players doing 4 games with Thanksgiving and Christmas in the mix always pushes into the next year (I just plan on it.)
-
Yeah, sounds great.
I think if we get 16+, I would prefer 2 tourneys of 8 split by upper half and lower half of rankings of those signing up, but let’s see how many actually sign up in the coming weeks first.
Signup is here, guys. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydF93TUcwNFB2Y1JvYm9weThsdzV0cEE#gid=0
-
There seems to be some obvious flaws in ranking players for the league finals based on their win percentage.
For example, you have a tier 1 player like Alex who is undefeated but has only played low-level players. Since his spot in the finals is assured, there is no reason for him to play any other games as a loss will affect his win percentage. For the same reason, anyone on the bubble (me, cow, etc.) has no incentive to compete against players who are equal to or better than them and are better off playing people they should be able to beat.
The beauty of Gamerman`s points per game ranking is that it encourages you to always try to play people close to your skill level or better, making the overall AA experience better as well. From personal experience (this being my first year on AA.org) this also helps players improve as I see a lot of players that I started out with like Alex and Zigg up in Tier 1.
I realize these rules were set at the beginning of the season and I don`t have any expectation that they will be changed but it is something to consider for next year.
(Also I am in no way taking a shot at Alex as I know from the 4 games we have played outside of the league he is a very good player and excellent person :))
-
There seems to be some obvious flaws in ranking players for the league finals based on their win percentage.
For example, you have a tier 1 player like Alex who is undefeated but has only played low-level players. Since his spot in the finals is assured, there is no reason for him to play any other games as a loss will affect his win percentage. For the same reason, anyone on the bubble (me, cow, etc.) has no incentive to compete against players who are equal to or better than them and are better off playing people they should be able to beat.
The beauty of Gamerman`s points per game ranking is that it encourages you to always try to play people close to your skill level or better, making the overall AA experience better as well. From personal experience (this being my first year on AA.org) this also helps players improve as I see a lot of players that I started out with like Alex and Zigg up in Tier 1.
I realize these rules were set at the beginning of the season and I don`t have any expectation that they will be changed but it is something to consider for next year.
(Also I am in no way taking a shot at Alex as I know from the 4 games we have played outside of the league he is a very good player and excellent person :))
i liked your post hank. are you in politics? if not, i think you should consider running for office. :wink:
-
There seems to be some obvious flaws in ranking players for the league finals based on their win percentage.
For example, you have a tier 1 player like Alex who is undefeated but has only played low-level players. Since his spot in the finals is assured, there is no reason for him to play any other games as a loss will affect his win percentage. For the same reason, anyone on the bubble (me, cow, etc.) has no incentive to compete against players who are equal to or better than them and are better off playing people they should be able to beat.
The beauty of Gamerman`s points per game ranking is that it encourages you to always try to play people close to your skill level or better, making the overall AA experience better as well. From personal experience (this being my first year on AA.org) this also helps players improve as I see a lot of players that I started out with like Alex and Zigg up in Tier 1.
I realize these rules were set at the beginning of the season and I don`t have any expectation that they will be changed but it is something to consider for next year.
(Also I am in no way taking a shot at Alex as I know from the 4 games we have played outside of the league he is a very good player and excellent person :))
I would perhaps be willing to relinquish my spot in the playoffs to one of the higher ranked players, even though I might have a better win%.
I try to play tier 1 and tier 2 players, now that I’ve wrapped up my previous games (I have three games running, two against tier 1 and one against a tier 2 player). Should I win these, only then would I feel myself “worthy” to replace Cow/Hank in the official playoffs.
Just my two cents.
-
Yeah, sounds great.
I think if we get 16+, I would prefer 2 tourneys of 8 split by upper half and lower half of rankings of those signing up, but let’s see how many actually sign up in the coming weeks first.
Signup is here, guys. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydF93TUcwNFB2Y1JvYm9weThsdzV0cEE#gid=0
Signed up, just in case.
-
Yes, and there is a limit to minimum number of games to play to qualify for playoffs to prevent people from having 1-3 games and then not playing anymore. Â Or so was the thought.
I don’t mind switching to a weighted system, but I’d like to include some of the safeguards in place as well. Â Play X number of people, have Y number of games and have a percentage at a certain level perhaps. Â For next year. Â
-
No need to apologize, Arathorn. You’ve only finished 8 games - you might very well be in the top 8 rankings by the end of the league year.
As of today you’re in, but we’ll see how things look at the end of the year. You might be ranked in the top 10 by then. Or top 8.
Signup is here at this link, and yes you should sign up if you want to play unless your name is Allweneedislove (or myself :-)), who appear to be the only ones who have basically clinched at this point.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydF93TUcwNFB2Y1JvYm9weThsdzV0cEE#gid=0
Suggested Topics
