Hi everyone,
I am new to the League System here. In the first post, all the information is a bit outdated. You only state rules for Alpha3, instead of 2nd Edition. Can you clarify that? I assume that you play the 2nd edition, which, among other things, would mean we bid for allies instead of axis, right?
Good point, it does say Alpha3.
Don’t worry, it is 100% 2nd edition. The only difference of 2nd edition from Alpha3 was
You are bidding for Allies, yes. If the bid goes negative, then the one taking the bid can add units as Axis. (-6 bid means I’ll take the Allies and you can add 6 to your Axis)
Way over 95% of bids have been non-negative.
If you have any questions, please just feel free to ask here or PM me or Cmdr Jenn, the league moderators.
The league standings/rankings are located here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydEhlX0RfbGxmM3RMSHJQd083TV9JUGc#gid=0
This should help you immensely in sizing up the potential competition. These rankings are updated multiple times per day. You will be added to the list as soon as you’ve completed 1 league game.
Game rules questions can be asked on the G40 FAQ thread, which is stickied.
If you have any more league rules questions, again, feel free to ask them here for the benefit of all.
Good point, it does say Alpha3.
Don’t worry, it is 100% 2nd edition. The only difference of 2nd edition from Alpha3 was
- 1 less infantry in Egypt
- Korea added to Mongolia rules
- Yukon territory deleted (or was this between Alpha2 and Alpha3?)
You are bidding for Allies, yes. If the bid goes negative, then the one taking the bid can add units as Axis. (-6 bid means I’ll take the Allies and you can add 6 to your Axis)
Way over 95% of bids have been non-negative.If you have any questions, please just feel free to ask here or PM me or Cmdr Jenn, the league moderators.
there’s only 1 negative bid that i am aware of… :lol:
Thank you very much for the updated information. Now I only need to find opponents :-)
Of course I found the ranking-thread. But the link to the google doc was missing there (at least in the first couple of posts). Since no one wants to search through 65 pages, you might think about at least adding the link to your first post (or maybe I am blind and the link can be easily found somewhere else?).
If I understand the rules correctly, I get 1-3 points for a win (depending on the quality of my opponent). Does PPG means “points per game”? probably not, since there are people with more than 4 PPG. And how differs the official ranking from yours?
One last question: There are several players highlighted in blue. What does that mean, “eligible to play to best of 5”? Can u clarify that for me please?
Thank you very much for the updated information. Now I only need to find opponents :-)
That should be easy. Use the private message system or the “Find League opponents here” thread. You won’t have to wait long.
Of course I found the ranking-thread. But the link to the google doc was missing there (at least in the first couple of posts). Since no one wants to search through 65 pages, you might think about at least adding the link to your first post (or maybe I am blind and the link can be easily found somewhere else?).
I do not have the power to edit posts in the Play Boardgames thread, so I cannot change the first post. I do post it every once in awhile. If you would have scanned through the posts for just 2-3 pages you would have found the link. Thanks for the suggestion.
If I understand the rules correctly, I get 1-3 points for a win (depending on the quality of my opponent). Does PPG means “points per game”? probably not, since there are people with more than 4 PPG. And how differs the official ranking from yours?
There is no official ranking system, the only thing that is official is league standings. League standings are strictly by Win %.
The ranking system changed during the year by popular demand. Again, unfortunately it is impossible to edit the original post of the Rankings thread.
Players didn’t like the negative numbers. Now everything is 3 points higher, so
Play a tier 1, you get 2 points for a loss, 6 points for a win
Play a tier 2, you get 1 point for a loss, 5 points for a win
Play a tier 3, you get 0 points for a loss, 4 points for a win
Play a tier 4, you get 0 points for a loss, 3 points for a win
One last question: There are several players highlighted in blue. What does that mean, “eligible to play to best of 5”? Can u clarify that for me please?
As you can see in parentheses, a player must complete 13 games vs. at least 6 other opponents to be eligible to play a best of 5 against another player who has also met the requirements.
Best of 5 means you can play until someone has 3 wins, so 3-0, 3-1, 3-2.
The limit on # of games against an individual is meant to cause players to play against a wider variety of opponents and not just keep playing the same person.
Tier 4 should be -1 for a loss. Since there can be no negatives maybe bump everythin another point?
Tier 4 should be -1 for a loss. Since there can be no negatives maybe bump everythin another point?
Thanks for the idea
Tier 4 don’t win very often and when they do, it’s against tier 3 or 4. They don’t need to be kicked around any further. Earning 0 for a game lost is penalty enough I think :-)
Pretty sure just the idea of losing points for a loss is unpopular, even if it’s only -1 vs. tier 4.
@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:
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
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, #6
Nobody 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).
