Gamerman, not sure what you are referring too. I am not in charge of the AA50 league, but the AA40 league rules, per post #1 of this thread read:
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
Given that the league has gotten significantly larger than last year, I am willing to take the top 4 players, perhaps the top 8 players - just keep in mind, the more players in the play offs, the longer it will take to crown a champion. You have to figure 4-6 weeks for a game to finish because there are some players who play that slowly.
With the top 4 players in the playoffs, (verses calling it a championship game), I expect it to take 2 months starting November 3rd to determine a league champion for 2013.
If we go top 8 players, we may cap time to play to 3 weeks maximum and determine points, as described on page 1, to determine a winner to move on to the next bracket. I don’t know, we are not at that point yet, so let’s focus on making the league as fun as we can. =^_^=
@Cmdr:
Gamerman, not sure what you are referring too. I am not in charge of the AA50 league
And I’m not sure what you’re confused about - I know you’re not in charge of AA50
With the top 4 players in the playoffs, (verses calling it a championship game), I expect it to take 2 months starting November 3rd to determine a league champion for 2013.
If we go top 8 players, we may cap time to play to 3 weeks maximum and determine points, as described on page 1, to determine a winner to move on to the next bracket. I don’t know, we are not at that point yet, so let’s focus on making the league as fun as we can. =^_^=
Well, you know, talking about going top 4 or top 8 players DOES make the league more fun for some players right now.
Sure, so now the question is, why is TripleA demanding I downgrade my Java 38,000 levels to some 1.5 crud when I have like 7 or something like that?
And, I could do 8, but as I said, I’d probably have to cap games at 3 weeks at least for the first two tiers and let the last game run to a natural end? Or are there objections?
Sounds good, but how do you enforce a 3 week game?
How about just have something like a 24 hour post limit instead of 72 hour? Just brainstorming
Using the rules on page 1 for end of season games:
8 - End of the Season games. Per rule (7b), all games that finish after Nov. 1 will be carried over to the next season.
EXCEPTION: If at any time during the season both players agreed that their game will end prior to the end of the season (and neither player is willing to concede at the end of the year) then the following system will be used to determine a winner on the last day of the season (Please note play would need to continue up to that point due to the 72 hr rule):
- 1) Each Victory City will count as 3 Points
- 2) Each National Objective will count as 3 Points
- 3) If technology is in play, each technological break through will count as 1 Point
- 4) Total value of all units + total income for each side will be tabulated and for each 100 IPC, 1 Point will be awarded.
- 5) The player with the most “points” will be declared the winner.
There will be no negotiation. Period.
The original idea of this rule was for players who did not want to lose a game that could be played between then for next year, but could not establish who the victor would be for the current year.
So after three weeks, no matter what point the game is at, the points are tallied for the first two games of the 8 player, playoff. The championship game would run until surrender or declared victory using the rules for declaring a victory.
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.
I’ve got the most up to date version of Java (I have to for my work) and have no problems whatsoever. Â I’d just stick with the most up to date version.
My suggestion for 8 players is to divide them into 2 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each group making up a final group (similar to soccer and so forth). Â That way it’s only 2 rounds of games (in terms of time), not three, and the finals would be a lot more dynamic.
In fact, you could even go 16 with just the top player in each group advancing and you would be using the same time frame. Of course players should be seeded according to their rankings during the season (either way).
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.
