2012 League Discussion

Really charged discussion gents.  I have been considering sitting out in 2012; I barely had time to get ten games in.  But, I’d like to add a couple ideas to the mix.

The Dutch Plan:

1. The point made about the people with lesser records tending to be new people to the league or people who don’t stick around is an excellent one.  Instead of the leagues being <10 games and 10+ games, pehaps the two leagues should be Veterans League and New Recruits League.  Guys must play in the New Recruits League first and then automatically get bumped up to Veteran’s League if they get at least 5 or 6 games in, regardless of record. The issue would be that there may be a limited number of opponents for this “league”, but we would allow the New Recruits to play any player and report their win without the game necessarily needing to be listed as a league game to count. They just post a completed game on the New Recxruits message board. The point is that we are looking for activity and longevity.  The Veterans could play the New Recruits, but the win-losses would not count in the Veterans League standings.

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

When  say the New Recruits automatically get bumped up,  mean that they would become eligible for the season the following year in the Veterans League.

@DarthMaximus:

BTW, Gamer in your spreadsheet, does OBG only have 8 losses.  I may have missed something but it looked like the losses were: LL, DD, RD, Soul (2), Bold (2), Billy.

No, he does have 9.  I went back through the results posts, and found that I missed one of the losses he had to Lucky.  I also hadn’t changed it to 2-0 in Lucky’s line.  Both records are correct on my spreadsheet though (and they match JWWs).

@DarthMaximus:

If you refine your system to where you like it, I’d consider a thread titled “Gamer’s Rankings” for you to post your updates.  It of course would have no barring on the League or league playoffs, but I’d consider using it for tourney seeding if one or more of the top 4 don’t return for a tourney or something.

Thanks, that would be cool.

Some players might appreciate a different way of looking at the standings……  So yeah, I could update it once a month, and I could list won/loss and percentages for those who like to see it monthly.

@DutchmanD:

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

Interesting proposition, but I think that would bring back the tournament problem that some people would prefer to avoid some other for, let say, diplomatic reason. And that may make the league loose some people playing, that I think we want to avoid.

Somehow, that would make the league something really different ; do people want such a change ?

Personally, I don’t really know ; I think that this would make me choose between tournaments and league (since I do not think I would have time for both since it would make 10 to 14 games plus potentially 5 more)

Any idea when the 2012 league will launch?

@Yoshi:

Interesting proposition, but I think that would bring back the tournament problem that some people would prefer to avoid some other for, let say, diplomatic reason. And that may make the league loose some people playing, that I think we want to avoid.

Somehow, that would make the league something really different ; do people want such a change ?

Personally, I don’t really know ; I think that this would make me choose between tournaments and league (since I do not think I would have time for both since it would make 10 to 14 games plus potentially 5 more)

Yep, I would be gone.  No mandatory/scheduled games for me.  I would only do free-play, if there was a league schedule.

@Ol’:

Any idea when the 2012 league will launch?

I think the cutoff is November 1.  If you finish a game after November 1, it’s a 2012 result.  So the games that are just getting started now are effectively 2012 games.

@DutchmanD:

Really charged discussion gents.  I have been considering sitting out in 2012; I barely had time to get ten games in.  But, I’d like to add a couple ideas to the mix.

The Dutch Plan:

1. The point made about the people with lesser records tending to be new people to the league or people who don’t stick around is an excellent one.  Instead of the leagues being <10 games and 10+ games, pehaps the two leagues should be Veterans League and New Recruits League.  Guys must play in the New Recruits League first and then automatically get bumped up to Veteran’s League if they get at least 5 or 6 games in, regardless of record. The issue would be that there may be a limited number of opponents for this “league”, but we would allow the New Recruits to play any player and report their win without the game necessarily needing to be listed as a league game to count. They just post a completed game on the New Recxruits message board. The point is that we are looking for activity and longevity.  The Veterans could play the New Recruits, but the win-losses would not count in the Veterans League standings.

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

These are good ideas.  Splitting up the league into “Veterans” and “New Recruits” would cut out alot of potential abuses.  Totally agree with that concept.  Even expert online A&Aers with prior TripleA or GTO experience will fumble a bit with Abattlemap eccentricities (see our old friend Cow), so requiring that they get a few games under their belt before entering the main competition protects them as well as us.

#2 is a bit more controversial.  It’s a bit more like GTO’s tiered league format
http://www.gametableonline.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

Some of us are seasonal–we have more time to play A&A in some parts of the year than others.  If there was only 1 required game every month (or 2 months) it could work, but any more requirements could be too much.  Also, some ‘elective’ games ought to count towards the league standings, as long as they are against other ‘veterans’.

@Zhukov44:

These are good ideas.  Splitting up the league into “Veterans” and “New Recruits” would cut out alot of potential abuses.  Totally agree with that concept.  Even expert online A&Aers with prior TripleA or GTO experience will fumble a bit with Abattlemap eccentricities (see our old friend Cow), so requiring that they get a few games under their belt before entering the main competition protects them as well as us.

#2 is a bit more controversial.  It’s a bit more like GTO’s tiered league format
http://www.gametableonline.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

Some of us are seasonal–we have more time to play A&A in some parts of the year than others.  If there was only 1 required game every month (or 2 months) it could work, but any more requirements could be too much.  Also, some ‘elective’ games ought to count towards the league standings, as long as they are against other ‘veterans’.

Perhaps a hybrid.  6 scheduled matches and then 4-8 “free choice” matches. Or 20 if you are Boldfresh.  Some structure and some free agency combo might kill 2 birds.

Just an update, we’ve also decided to have a Global 1940 league.  Whatever rules are posted as “official” on January 1, 2012 will be the rule set used for the AAG40 league.  If Larry posts another ruleset later, then DM, myself, etc can discuss if the changes are significant and warranted and alter the “official” ruleset accordingly at that time. (I doubt there will be a change, Larry seems pretty intent on making sure the Christmas sales go out with the best possible ruleset.  Hence why I gave that specific date.)

As for Veteran/Newbie league, I don’t like artificial labels.  You should rise or fall based on your skill, not on any other factor.  I remember getting a trophy when I was 8 even though there were adults in the tournament. (Chess Tournament, yes I was a geek, deal with it.)  It was due to winning games, it had nothing to do with whom I played or did not play.  Now, that was a tournament and the opponents were picked for you, but the basic principle applies.

I also hear the argument about # of games shouldnt be the determining factor.  I agree.  It’s rather unfair if you play 30 games, win 50% and beat someone who played 12 games but won 100% of the games.  I sorta like the point system described pages back, but I’d add my own tweaks too it:

If you win:

1 Point if your opponent won 0-25% of his or her games.
2 Points if your opponent won 26-50% of his or her games.
3 Points if your opponent won 51-75% of his or her games.
4 Points if your opponent won 76-90% of his or her games.
5 Points if your opponent won 91-100% of his or her games.

You cannot lose points no matter what.  Your points are “awarded” at the end of the league year so that you can equalize how many points someone would get for, say, beating Commander Jennifer in a game that way someone does not get 5 points for beating me one week and 1 point for beating me the next week.    Since it’s awarded on a percentage win ratio, the veterans will be worth more points and thus draw more fire from the lower echelons, while the rookies won’t get picked on just because they are weaker players. (Do you want to play someone 3 times to get 3 points or one person 1 time for 5 points?)  However, no one is worth no points, so there is value in playing everyone!

@Cmdr:

I also hear the argument about # of games shouldnt be the determining factor.  I agree.  It’s rather unfair if you play 30 games, win 50% and beat someone who played 12 games but won 100% of the games.  I sorta like the point system described pages back, but I’d add my own tweaks too it:

If you win:

1 Point if your opponent won 0-25% of his or her games.
2 Points if your opponent won 26-50% of his or her games.
3 Points if your opponent won 51-75% of his or her games.
4 Points if your opponent won 76-90% of his or her games.
5 Points if your opponent won 91-100% of his or her games.

You cannot lose points no matter what.  Your points are “awarded” at the end of the league…

Thanks for your input, Jenn, but can you explain how your point system doesn’t reward the people who play more games?  If you don’t lose points for losses (don’t understand the rationale there - would just make everyone want to play the best players all the time), then don’t you just get more points the more you play?  Or are you dividing by the number of games played?  (I can only guess, because you didn’t fully explain, I don’t think)

Anyway, seems to be a lot of sentiment here to stick with straight win percentage (I don’t strongly disagree), but I will post the points standings regularly, as an aside, just for fun.

The dividing by the number of games played options may be interesting

Gamer,

Well, for one, you might not know who is a 5 point opponent or a 4 point opponent.  Granted, you’d be able to track the number of wins/losses and have some idea of who is “upper level” and who is “lower level” but until the end of the year, when the percentages are official, you’d only be able to guess.

For instance, in Febuary you could play someone with 7 wins 0 losses who is, literally, a 5 point opponent at the time.  But if that opponent then loses 28 more games and wins no more games by the end of the season, their status is 7 and 28, or 20% win ratio thus they are reduced to a 1 point opponent.  Likewise, if you go into March with a record of 0 wins, 9 losses then win 31 games and lose 1 more game you are 31 and 10, or 76% making you a 4 point opponent, when it looked like you would be a 1 point opponent.

Basically, the idea is to have uncertainty.  Is your opponent going to be worth more or less points?  But it also rewards you for beating the stronger players at the end of the season.  Hopefully, the outcome will be that everyone has an equal chance of playing everyone else since no one knows who will be worth more points than someone else is.

The idea behind not losing points for losses goes with the rationale of why should you lose points?  You are awarded points for winning!  The number of points you win is determined by the number of wins against harder opponents and the number of over all wins.

Example: 
1)  Player A beats Player B.  Player B has 10 Wins, 1 Loss and is worth 5 Points.  As Player A only played Player B, then Player A ends the season with 5 Points.
2)  Player C beats Players D-J (7 players) all of which had 0 Wins and 1 Loss at the end of the season.  Thus, Player C earned 7 points.
3)  Player Z beats Players X and Y both of which had 4 Wins, 1 Loss at the end of the season.  Thus Player Z earned 8 points and won the league.

While Player C played the most games and got the most wins overall, he still lost because he didnt play tough enough opponents to garner enough points to beat Player Z.  Player A played one of the best players (ratio wise) but had the least amount of points because he did not play enough games to get points.  Player Z won because Player Z played against moderately skilled opponents, not trying to snipe the weak players, but not trying for Hail Mary games against really tough opponents either.  In this way, Player Z was able to earn enough points to win, while not playing so many games and risk distraction.

Yes, that’s what I was talking about before you posted the first time - a basic (less tiers than 5) point system.

However, I (and others) find it strongly distasteful that more wins leads to more points, and the number of losses is irrelevant.  Also, we have a minimum of 8 (proposed) games to qualify, so none of your players A, C, or Z would qualify.  Thus you don’t have the “hail mary” one game winner who makes our playoffs.  Gotta go - don’t have time to explain more, but thanks again for your input.

It sounds like we’re heading towards a straight win %, with a side-show of my point rankings on a separate stickied thread (hopefully), so I don’t think anyone’s really looking for an elaboration of a point system at this point.  (I understand that you, like me, like to explain lots of complicated stuff and numbers  :-))

@Gamerman01:

Yes, that’s what I was talking about before you posted the first time - a basic (less tiers than 5) point system.

However, I (and others) find it strongly distasteful that more wins leads to more points, and the number of losses is irrelevant.  Also, we have a minimum of 8 (proposed) games to qualify, so none of your players A, C, or Z would qualify.  Thus you don’t have the “hail mary” one game winner who makes our playoffs.  Gotta go - don’t have time to explain more, but thanks again for your input.

It sounds like we’re heading towards a straight win %, with a side-show of my point rankings on a separate stickied thread (hopefully), so I don’t think anyone’s really looking for an elaboration of a point system at this point.  (I understand that you, like me, like to explain lots of complicated stuff and numbers  :-))

I look forward to this, should add some extra flavor to the league  :-)  Thanks Gamer

Cheers

Well Gamer, I mean, you can easily just multiply by virtually any number you wanted and get the same ratios and points to assure yourself of the 8 game minimum.  I just wanted to point out the basic theory on how it would work.

That said, negative points for losing is going to be abused.  People will just stop playing games and only aim for targets they are almost certain of beating to maintain their points.  That means many people will be denied games, not because the other person is busy, but because the other person does not want to risk their points losing to you.  That runs counter to the whole concept, at least in my opinion.  What’s worse is that best players are going to receive very few, if any, challenges because people don’t want to lose what little they have earned.  Extrapolating from here, you can see that one years winner will most likely have no games next year and be unable to win.

If you gain nothing but lose nothing if you lose, then some players will challenge the top ranks merely for the challenge of it.  Even if it’s ratio based, a player with 20 games might challenge the best player in the league not because he needs points, but because a loss only drops him to 95% rating and that’s not enough to negate the learning experience from playing the better player (in the challenger’s mind.)  however, because the challenger has a good ratio, the better player might accept the challenge for the points.

No, you don’t understand my system, apparently.  If you challenge a really good player, you will lose 1 point if you fail to win, and you will gain 3 points if you do win.  Also, you can always earn more points - there is never a point where you have enough and can just quit.  So from what I read, you don’t understand my system at all.  Just go back and look at my earlier posts where I explain exactly how I calculated points.

Using my system, I have 17 points.  I could get to 18 points by playing and beating a lower tier player (but I would lose 3 points if I lose), get to 19 points by playing a middling player, and get to 20 by beating one of the top tier players.  I lose only 1 point for losing to a top tier player.  Doesn’t this make sense?  Don’t you agree that the minuses you point out about losing points do not apply to such a system?

Do you understand we’re not even influencing next year’s league (and I note that you have not played any 2011 games, although making such an observation about Yoshi got me into trouble), but that JWW and Darth are just going to go with a win/loss percentage again anyway (which I am totally fine with)?

We get back to the same question, Gamerman.  Why should a higher ranked player ever take the challenge of a lower ranked player in your scenario?  If the answer is, as I suspect, they would not, then you are suddenly forcing lower ranked players to play a lot more games to “catch up” to a higher ranked player so they can play them.

I’d like something where you have no idea how many points you have or dont have until the end of the season, or perhaps at 3 points along the season (April, July, September for example) and that way you have idea if you are playing someone worth more or less points than you and you are not looking for easy kills or avoiding easy kills because you have no idea who the easy kills are in the grand scheme of things.

And this is a 2012 discussion, it has no bearing on 2011.  Look at the thread title.  :wink:

Percentage is great, and I understand the desire that harder opponents be worth more than weaker opponents, but we need something that would encourage people to play, not punish them.  I don’t want to see players refuse to play because someone they will risk losing 3 points instead of 1.  It seems counter-productive.  If you can GAIN 3 points and not lose anything, then you might have something.  But the deal is, no one can LOSE what they have, you can only GET more.  Then there would be no excuse for the guy in the number one spot to refuse to play the guy in the number 100 spot.