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.
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.
@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?
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:)
Man, I’m starting to sound like Cmdr Jenn
Just wanted to be the first one to admit that :oops:
@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.
I wasn’t thinking in terms of enforcement, really. More like a * or something next to your name in the rankings.
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.
: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.
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
#1 and #2 sound great.
As for #3, man, I dunno Gamer. You’re cute and all, but I might be too vanilla for that just yet…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VHTjGHsDHs
Introducing……
MASTER tier, tier M
5.50 and above
4 completed games required - you don’t get the coveted “M” only winning one game against a tier 1
8 points for defeating one (which only other M’s will probably be able to accomplish :evil:) and 4 points if a Master deigns you worthy of playing and losing to him
And #3……
funny…meaning it brought a smile to my face…I like the idea. No protesting here.
Rising tide lifts all boats…
I do like to have comparable PPGs from year to year, and this compromises that a bit, but not much. Adding tier E was a bigger effect that way…
One thing I would like to raise, and perhaps I am mistaken and it’s a non issue , is that I have noticed that many/some people are now seeking games w/only high tier players. I imagine, and perhaps I should do some research before bringing this up but I believe that a higher tier player who plays a lower tier, even if winning the game can lower their ranking….I know, I know, it’s only a game :roll:, I for one never ask to play this tier or that and have difficulty saying no to a lower tiers that ask for a game. Also, personally I think we do ourselves a disservice when we (higher level players) don’t play lower tier players. I know I have learned much in the games I have played w/Tier E opponents.
With that said is there some magical formula you can create gamer which allows for the higher level players to engage the lower tiers and not having it negatively effect their standings, I know, I know it’s only a game :wink:, if they win?? Or perhaps every tier player needs to complete a game with a lower tier etc.
thanks for considering.
Yeah, systems like that do exist, see elo for example. Someone was doing an elo ranking for the league this year, but I don’t know if anything came of it.
However, even if we had such a system, I wouldn’t expect a lot of players to want to play people more than a couple of tiers below them, just because evenly-matched games tend to be more fun.
I should note that this is mainly because of time constraints, if you’re like me and only have time for ~10 games a year, you have to make them count. If I had all the time in the world, I would play anyone, rankings aren’t the reason to play :)
I wonder how much of a bid might be useful as a balancing feature. Something like, you can get more points for beating someone if you give them a much higher bid than average? So a Tier 1, who gets challenged by a brand new player (so Tier 3 to start), might give them the usual bid, but then it’s auto bumped by 40 or something?
I don’t know how workable such a system might be.
Thanks for re-opening that big can of worms, JWW :lol:
I am playing a new guy right now and it’s one of the funnest games of the year for me. Best case scenario I get 3 or 4 points and it lowers my average a lot, but I don’t care. If I didn’t want it to kill my PPG, then I would play him in the play boardgames section. You don’t have to play all your games here.
A lot of us have different objectives, I know. A lot of guys just want to get in the playoffs. Realistically, the champion every year is going to be someone like me who doesn’t really stress about his PPG. The top 8 get in. If you’re good enough to be champion, you’re good enough to finish in the top 8 without obsessing about PPG.
You have to be a few tiers above a guy to have a win against him lower your PPG. It’s not a competitive game. Yes it’s penalized by the system. Do we really need a system where you always go up for a win, no matter how bad your opponent is? My one opinion is we don’t.
As far as people wanting to play people in the higher tiers because they think it’s better for their PPG either way -
Isn’t that a good thing?
The current system penalizes people who go for really easy wins. I think that’s good.
As far as people wanting to play people in the higher tiers because they think it’s better for their PPG either way -
Isn’t that a good thing?The current system penalizes people who go for really easy wins. I think that’s good.
I still think people should not be penalized but rather being ±0 with those games.
