League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

I’m against LL games for the league as well, for reasons already stated above.

@Cmdr:

There is currently no rule against low luck games.  Continuing to allow them next year is being discussed now, but allowing them to stay wouldn’t be a departure from the standing rules.

Incorrect.

@Cmdr:

4 - Game & rules default - AA40 Alpha +3 (as posted on or prior to 2 November, 2012), ]ADS, NO’s, No Tech, 8 Europe or 6 Pacific VC win, Auction Bid.  (Rules posted here: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149)

(Bold my emphasis)

You did go back and rewrite the number four and it’s subheaders but you didn’t mention anything else that I saw about LL or ADS. That’s probably a simple oversight on your part rather than an intended change. You covered everything else in number four with your revisions, but with more detail.

Regardless, LL is not a part of the official rules. It’s not covered in the game manual, the official errata, league rules, etc. Bidding can’t be found in the game manual either. But the league rules cover the bidding rules to be used quite comprehensively. A lack of rules disallowing LL doesn’t inherently mean LL is therefore allowed in the league.

@Cmdr:

And yes, if a top tier player chooses to play LL of his own free will and losses, then his opponent gets full credit.  Just like if a top tier person gives his opponent 148 ipc bid with out limit to placement an losses.

You already have agreed that LL is different than dice. What you’re suggesting is the same as taking a top 10 college football team, pitting them against a college soccer team, and then dinging them in the football polls for losing. Or to take the example further, it’d be the same as thinking that since the soccer team beat a top 10 football team on the soccer field than that soccer team has earned the right to play in a BCS bowl game.

I am opposed to allowing LL in league next year.

LL is for whimps.  all the fun of this game is the variability that dice introduce (even for those of us that REGULARLY get hosed by withering dice).  :-D

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

@MrRoboto:

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

I think she means an inordinate amount of 1’s rolled so that it FEELS like it’s rolling more.

@Cmdr:

@Gamerman01:

@MrRoboto:

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

I think she means an inordinate amount of 1’s rolled so that it FEELS like it’s rolling more.

Exactly.  It feels like tripleA rolls 2 or 3 hits per AA Gun on an unusually high basis.

i think that feeling comes from remembering the 3% outlier battles more because they are extraordinary and cause the most havoc on your plans.

everyone remembers that big battle where the whole game hinged on the outcome and you were mathematically favoured to win but the scales were tipped against you because the aaguns hit that 3% outcome.

no one remembers that battle months ago where you took 3 fighters and overwhelming force into a battle and your opponent missed all 3 aagun shots.

triplea is not rigged, the numbers(dice) are random, it is just how we perceive luck.

@alexgreat:

@Seth: I can see why tiers are practical, but do they dont feel very objective…who is tier 2, who is tier 3, who draws the borders and where, which exceptions should apply etc. If tiers are necessary to decide how much a win is worth, then there should at least be an objective way to create them, easy to understand for all players.
Surely not easy to find a better system than the one we have, though, and I dont claim I have one. More sophisticated systems also would likely need much more work from the ones doing the rankings, and you cannot ask more from them with the current commitment so high already. Using the current ranks of both players as modifiers of base points and bonus points for beating the qualifying positions surely sounds like a lot of work, for example.

@Boldfresh:

gamer draws the lines very clearly between tiers - so that is objective no?

no, gamerman’s opinion is the opposite of objective, it is subjective.

@Gamerman01:

The purpose of retroactive points is to correct for earlier inaccurate ratings.  I understand the downside is that you could be getting “free” points by the fact that a guy you beat earlier has improved.  As far as losing points because your past opponent later did something stupid or got diced - I say that will work itself out.  If he’s really tier 1 quality and dipped to tier 2, then he will win and get back to tier 1 and you will get your points back.  This is one of the reasons I am slow to change tiers on somebody, like when Bold was tier 1 all year but reported some losses and got all the way down to about 3.3.  Again, this is where human beats computer.  I figured he would win some games and get back to tier 1, and also he told me he was winning some games.  He is already up to 3.43.,

gamerman’s knowledge of history of players is a great asset.

@Boldfresh:

i think that once a player is a known quantity to gamer he can assign a tier value to that player.  if gamer has a record to go on for the previous year, he can feel pretty comfortable making that determination.  I think a good compromise would be to make 5 tiers.  give new players tier 1 status for the first 5 games, then have gamer adjust the tier as appropriate.  no retroactive changes in points after the new tier change.  then if there is further improvement over the next 5 games the player could be moved up again…

i also have faith in gamerman’s assessments
@Boldfresh:

…remember, the goal for all of this is to give the best approximation of skill levels in the league so good matches can be found and a rightful champion can be crowned right?

i agree

@Boldfresh:

if someone thinks gamer would make changes in tiers without good reason, i challenge them to show me once that it happens.

i dont think anyone could challenge gamerman’s ethics as he has always shown to do the right thing.

gamerman has done yeoman’s work in creating and maintaining the rankings.

gamerman, i think you have done an excellent job assigning tiers and no one can challenge this as it appears you do it without bias and are always accurate over time.

despite the accuracy of gamerman i think we should move to a tier system based on ppg.
this would

1. alleviate any new player’s concerns that do not know gamerman
2. be easier on gamerman
3. allow the league to continue in gamerman’s absence. gamerman might not always be around. i know he has been a fixture for many years but we never know if/when he has to take an extended break from the league for personal reasons, loses interest, or just does not have enough time.
4. transparency for all
5. becomes objective(not necessarily better than subjective for the reasons we have pointed out above)

assuming we still use gamerman’s point per game system i would suggest

tier 4 is 0-1.49ppg
tier 3 is 1.5-2.49ppg
tier 2 is 2.5-3.49ppg
tier 1 is 3.5+ppg

i am interested to hear everyone’s opinion on this but have particular interest in what gamerman has to say.

gamerman would you feel like this makes things easier on you? would you feel like some of your power and influence has been taken away?

Bit late to this conversation I suppose, but I’d throw these thoughts in.

The way I have read this thread, most of the comments are directed toward the league rules.  I think there should be discusion about what people want the league to look at, rather than the actual details of the rules.  Come up with a philosophy and then let Jen and Gamer draft a rule set.

For me, the attraction of online league play is the ability to play a pile of games in a short time and try all kinds of crazy stuff I wouldn’t want to try in a 2 or 3 times a year get together ftf.

So, I’d like to see a league framework that is wide open, rather than detailed, to make it as inclusive as possible.

Tech, tech tokens, LL, bids for tech.  All of these have had opinions given on.  Totally agree that we need a base line, but after that everything permitted in the rules should be fair game for two willing players.

This year has seen an explosion of players; it would be a real shame to chase away new people just because their prefered style of play isn’t an option.

what i meant by objective allweneed is that there is an actual cutoff for each tier.  what that cutoff IS is subjective yes, but the cutoff itself is objective.

@allweneedislove:

@alexgreat:

@Seth: I can see why tiers are practical, but do they dont feel very objective…who is tier 2, who is tier 3, who draws the borders and where, which exceptions should apply etc. If tiers are necessary to decide how much a win is worth, then there should at least be an objective way to create them, easy to understand for all players.
Surely not easy to find a better system than the one we have, though, and I dont claim I have one. More sophisticated systems also would likely need much more work from the ones doing the rankings, and you cannot ask more from them with the current commitment so high already. Using the current ranks of both players as modifiers of base points and bonus points for beating the qualifying positions surely sounds like a lot of work, for example.

@Boldfresh:

gamer draws the lines very clearly between tiers - so that is objective no?

no, gamerman�s opinion is the opposite of objective, it is subjective.

@Gamerman01:

The purpose of retroactive points is to correct for earlier inaccurate ratings.  I understand the downside is that you could be getting “free” points by the fact that a guy you beat earlier has improved.  As far as losing points because your past opponent later did something stupid or got diced - I say that will work itself out.  If he’s really tier 1 quality and dipped to tier 2, then he will win and get back to tier 1 and you will get your points back.  This is one of the reasons I am slow to change tiers on somebody, like when Bold was tier 1 all year but reported some losses and got all the way down to about 3.3.  Again, this is where human beats computer.  I figured he would win some games and get back to tier 1, and also he told me he was winning some games.  He is already up to 3.43.,

gamerman�s knowledge of history of players is a great asset.

@Boldfresh:

i think that once a player is a known quantity to gamer he can assign a tier value to that player.  if gamer has a record to go on for the previous year, he can feel pretty comfortable making that determination.  I think a good compromise would be to make 5 tiers.  give new players tier 1 status for the first 5 games, then have gamer adjust the tier as appropriate.  no retroactive changes in points after the new tier change.  then if there is further improvement over the next 5 games the player could be moved up again…

i also have faith in gamerman�s assessments
@Boldfresh:

…remember, the goal for all of this is to give the best approximation of skill levels in the league so good matches can be found and a rightful champion can be crowned right?

i agree

@Boldfresh:

if someone thinks gamer would make changes in tiers without good reason, i challenge them to show me once that it happens.

i dont think anyone could challenge gamerman’s ethics as he has always shown to do the right thing.

gamerman has done yeoman’s work in creating and maintaining the rankings.

gamerman, i think you have done an excellent job assigning tiers and no one can challenge this as it appears you do it without bias and are always accurate over time.

despite the accuracy of gamerman i think we should move to a tier system based on ppg.
this would

1. alleviate any new player�s concerns that do not know gamerman
2. be easier on gamerman
3. allow the league to continue in gamerman�s absence. gamerman might not always be around. i know he has been a fixture for many years but we never know if/when he has to take an extended break from the league for personal reasons, loses interest, or just does not have enough time.
4. transparency for all
5. becomes objective(not necessarily better than subjective for the reasons we have pointed out above)

assuming we still use gamerman�s point per game system i would suggest

tier 4 is 0-1.49ppg
tier 3 is 1.5-2.49ppg
tier 2 is 2.5-3.49ppg
tier 1 is 3.5+ppg

i am interested to hear everyone�s opinion on this but have particular interest in what gamerman has to say.

gamerman would you feel like this makes things easier on you? would you feel like some of your power and influence has been taken away?

forgive me allweneed - but i don’t understand what change to gamer’s current system you are proposing?  i had proposed a change by making 5 tiers rather than 4 so that a new player could be assigned to middle tier upon entry.

Now, with philosophy stated, I’d like to throw my 2 cents in for base line league play

Bid Allies, no unit removal, below zero bids go to Axis.  (IE:  I’ll give you axis with +3)
Full unit placement, so only save 1 or 2 IPC.
1 unit per space, land or sea.
Must have a unit present, and only units of the same nationalit(ies) in the space permitted.  (I bid Russian Inf France!!)
Tech off

@Boldfresh:

forgive me allweneed - but i don’t understand what change to gamer’s current system you are proposing?  i had proposed a change by making 5 tiers rather than 4 so that a new player could be assigned to middle tier upon entry.

no need to appologize, it was a very long post with many quotes and the suggestion was slipped in near the end and not emphasized.

i suggest that the tiers should be based solely on points per game and not based on gamerman’s knowledge.

@Boldfresh:

what i meant by objective allweneed is that there is an actual cutoff for each tier.  what that cutoff IS is subjective yes, but the cutoff itself is objective.

currently there are not actual cutoffs for each tier, they are assessed by gamerman. if you check the rankings as of right now there are some players with higher point per games in lower tiers than others ranked members.