2015 League General Discussion Thread

[gamerman01]

Yeah, you can’t do that
I actually don’t see it stated in the rulebook, but Krieghund, the rulebook in the flesh, has said you must place all units that you can place.

I see also the rulebook says complexes are never destroyed, but this isn’t true.  Any time a complex in China is captured by the Allies, it is destroyed.

[gamerman01]

It IS pretty clear from the rulebook that there can’t be carryover of units from round to round, however, as it mandates the refund of excess units purchased.

[Seador]

@Gamerman01:

It IS pretty clear from the rulebook that there can’t be carryover of units from round to round, however, as it mandates the refund of excess units purchased.

There is a TripA bug that if you purchase a facility upgrade that can’t be placed, it wont refund the cost either, for what it’s worth.  I know this one from experience, I was playing at a different resolution and clipped the upgrade major rather than buy minor and got hung up.

[MakeMaps]

@Gamerman01:

@Gamerman01:

Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.

No one ever claims a win due to a single 9 day absence anyway.  Many players wait about 3-4 weeks of absence before claiming a win.

Thanks for mentioning this. New people such as myself who don’t know the unspoken etiquette around here might think bumping after an opponent’s nine day absence is acceptable.

[gamerman01]

Maps, it is acceptable to claim a win after a 9 day absence. 
If your opponent comes back on day 10 and begs to continue, technically you don’t have to, but I’m pretty sure almost everyone would let them continue in normal circumstances (if he has been jerking you around all game)

[Shin-Ji]

And there’s the rub.  There’s a real chasm between what the rules allow and what will get you snarked at around here.  It’s confusing.  If we all agreed to play by certain rules, why the constant bickering over them?

Here’s what I’ve noticed, and it’s pretty consistent.  The worse your position in the game, the longer your moves take.  I do this myself, even, and I pride myself on playing fast.  Perhaps the rules should take that into consideration?

At the very least, we need some sort of clause that prevents someone posting in their other games, while simply pretending that the game they are losing doesn’t exist.

[gamerman01]

I don’t want to legislate sportsmanship, but I hear you

Bump rules are sufficient.  72 hour and 9 day rule will be re-visited

[666]

@Gamerman01:

Maps, it is acceptable to claim a win after a 9 day absence. 
If your opponent comes back on day 10 and begs to continue, technically you don’t have to, but I’m pretty sure almost everyone would let them continue in normal circumstances (if he has been jerking you around all game)

for what it is worth, I have never heard of a player being bumped to a loss complaining that the system is somehow unfair or that their opponent as Gamerman suggested, didn’t allow a continuation.

I have observed nearly all players allowing liberal continuations for vacations or any sort of stated needs for an extended absence. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against tightening our rules!

As an FYI…when the Bump rules were first introduced it was basically incorporated as a tool to keep end of year games moving along for players who wanted/needed to get that last win in for the playoffs etc… and as Shin Ji correctly stated, players, myself included, seem to slow down when things look hopeless…and with that said Zhukov, if our game isn’t completed as we near the end of the season I intend to capitulate as you clearly have the much stronger hand in our game…

[Zhukov44]

@Gamerman01:

I am not aware of any complaints from anyone who’s been bumped to a loss.  In my observations, when people give 72 hour bumps they are usually warranted.  Most players even after recording a win due to bumps will voluntarily continue playing the game and change the official result if they end up losing.

But that said, I think the official limits deserve another look.  Myself, I’m not sure about the 9 day rule.  4 bumps takes 12 days.  I think the single absence bump should be like 14 days.  Anybody else have thoughts on the subject?

Yeah we’re lucky in that generally there is exceptional sportsmanship in this community and when there’s a bump it’s well warranted.

The league rules should reflect our norms and the practices we consider sportsmanlike, so in case a player arrives and starts bumping after 72 hours every time his/her opponent is absent, and then appeals to the rules as justification, then there won’t be a conflict.  I think 96 hours or 120 hours would be closer to the kind of time most of us feel we should give opponents before thinking about bumping the thread.

[Zhukov44]

@JWW:

As an FYI…when the Bump rules were first introduced it was basically incorporated as a tool to keep end of year games moving along for players who wanted/needed to get that last win in for the playoffs etc… and as Shin Ji correctly stated, players, myself included, seem to slow down when things look hopeless…and with that said Zhukov, if our game isn’t completed as we near the end of the season I intend to capitulate as you clearly have the much stronger hand in our game…

I certainly slow down when I’m at a disadvantage so I can understand that.  Frankly, my average USA/China/Uk turn (whether I’m winning or losing) tends to take longer than 72 hours, so I probably wouldn’t like it if I was bumped after 72 hours when I’m deliberating on a major turn like that.

I’m not worried about our game JWW take all the time you need.

[Shin-Ji]

I wonder if it might be useful to have a sort of opt-in speedfreak clause?  Something where people who enjoy quick turnarounds like myself can be easily identified as such?  Because for me, to wait days for each turn is just … honestly I’d almost rather not play at that point.  So clearly we want to have room for different playstyles.

Of course, no one would be held to the turnaround times they self-report, it’s just a general guideline so that people find the best matches and such.

[666]

@Zhukov44:

Frankly, my average USA/China/Uk turn (whether I’m winning or losing) tends to take longer than 72 hours,

And this is why you are one of our strongest players, I would argue.

@Zhukov44:

so I probably wouldn’t like it if I was bumped after 72 hours when I’m deliberating on a major turn like that.

have you ever encountered this? I am not sure this is as big of an issue as some people think? Perhaps I am mistaken.

[666]

@Shin:

I wonder if it might be useful to have a sort of opt-in speedfreak clause?  Something where people who enjoy quick turnarounds like myself can be easily identified as such?  Because for me, to wait days for each turn is just … honestly I’d almost rather not play at that point.  So clearly we want to have room for different playstyles.

A long time ago we had a category for “weekend”, slow moving players and then another for the rest of us freaks…Perhaps this is something that can be remedied by simply calling out and asking for a quick game in the find league thread and then you can avoid the slow plodders, myself included, that are out there?

[gamerman01]

Right, great points all,

Zhukov I agree with longer bump times that are the bottom line for official league rules - remind me if I forget when the time comes

This doesn’t have to affect anyone else, because you could always agree to faster games.
If you and your opponent agree that you can bump after 24 hours of non-activity (or 4 hours, for all I care), and that is in writing on the thread that both of you have agreed to it, I would enforce it.

As you guys are saying, if a guy like Dominion or Shin Ji wants a faster game, you just need to say that up front, or find the players who also like to play fast.  If you think the league bump rules are too many hours, then make up your own limit for your game.

And if you agree to give each other a Superman ground/air piece with attack of 6 and defend of 6 that can move 3 spaces and doesn’t have to end in friendly territory, go for it.  (Man, that sounds like a good idea actually  :roll:)

[gamerman01]

Man, I’m starting to sound like Cmdr Jenn
Just wanted to be the first one to admit that  :oops:

[Zhukov44]

@Shin:

I wonder if it might be useful to have a sort of opt-in speedfreak clause?  Something where people who enjoy quick turnarounds like myself can be easily identified as such?  Because for me, to wait days for each turn is just … honestly I’d almost rather not play at that point.  So clearly we want to have room for different playstyles.

Of course, no one would be held to the turnaround times they self-report, it’s just a general guideline so that people find the best matches and such.

I agree if both players want faster turns they should be able to make an agreement to that effect.  One way to go is to agree to bump times (say 48 hours) before the game starts via PM.  That way you have the PMs to prove it in case there’s a conflict later.

[Shin-Ji]

I wasn’t thinking in terms of enforcement, really.  More like a * or something next to your name in the rankings.

[gamerman01]

I would do that if asked.

If people ask for a * by their name that means they play quick, I would be happy to do that.  One of these days I’m going to be looking for fast movers myself.

[MakeMaps]

:lol:Well certainly I like to play quick–-but I don’t want to be branded as someone who does. I don’t want that expected of me.

[gamerman01]

I woke up this morning with 3 great new ideas for next year’s league….

#1 No more default tier 3 for new players.  They will be whatever tier their record dictates, from their first game.  So if a new player loses to a tier 2, 3, or 4 and gets 1 or 0 points, he will be tier 4 until completing a second game.  If he loses to tier E, he will have 3.00 ppg and would be tier 2

#2 Players who completed 4+ games in 2015 league year will enter with their previous tier until they have completed a couple games (2-4, something like that) before it will change (similar to what we did this year, but it was a lot more than 4 games from the previous year that triggered this)

These 2 rules will reflect more accurately, I think, for players who end up with only 1-3 games played for the year.
Anyway, you don’t have to understand them - I take care of all this - I just think it will make for better rankings

And #3…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VHTjGHsDHs

I will announce later today to give you some suspense

All assuming there is no significant protest