If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play. Same with balanced mod games.
The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.
Experience = higher bids. Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids. The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.
I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.
Well I agree. I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high. Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league. The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.
So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have. 2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.
If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play. Same with balanced mod games.
The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.
Experience = higher bids. Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids. The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.
I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.
Well I agree. I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high. Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league. The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.
So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have. 2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.
I get where you are coming from, but if you know you will steamroll an opponent at +20, you can always give them a higher bid to make the game more challenging. Like I said before. It takes two to tango. Personally I enjoy the challenging games the most as winning or even losing such games is much more full fulling.
If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play. Same with balanced mod games.
The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.
Experience = higher bids. Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids. The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.
Assuming the pro-axis imbalance persisted for individual games, wouldn’t your idea make rankings a less reliable indicator of actual skill (including initial bid making) because
I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.
Well I agree. I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high. Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league. The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.
So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have. 2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.
You’d wind up with a lot of tied matches even between players at different skill levels (with axis winning both of the two games). Seems like a lot of work just to get to a tie
I like playing Allies and want a high bid. But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want. So most of my league games I play Axis.
I’m always curious to hear Masters’ perspectives on this: Assuming equally matched players skill wise (say, tier 1 or higher), how much would you say Allies are worth for a bid?
In case 2 very high skilled players play a BO1 for the championship and assuming both at fully confident with their Axis play I believe 30+ bids are necessary.
I also think the reason many players still take the Allies is because losing with Axis is somehow more painful. When taking the Allies there is still that excuse in the head “well, axis is overpowered anyway so I chose the harder way and I can blame Larry”. When playing Axis there are NO excuses, “Larry gave you the advantage and you still messed it up, you failed”
Something like that I guess^^
You’d wind up with a lot of tied matches even between players at different skill levels (with axis winning both of the two games). Seems like a lot of work just to get to a tie
Assuming that happens, the bid would go up alot faster than it would under single games. The reason Allies still win alot of games is because some players (f.e. Adam514) are good enough with Allies that they can overcome the Allied disadvantage against all but the most skilled opponents. Anyway, those players who could score Allied wins in this scenario (going 2-0) would be, correctly, ranked the highest. Eventually, the bid would get up to the point where the Allied win % approaches 50%, making it difficult to win with the Axis as well.
See the TripleA ladder ratings for a concrete example of what I’m talking about.
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
That I agree with. However it needs to be tested between players of similar skill level and so far I haven’t seen enough results between tier M/E players.
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
That I agree with. However it needs to be tested between players of similar skill level and so far I haven’t seen enough results between tier M/E players.
agreed. would love to see some M/E games using BM
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37131.60
SouL (x) over dawgoneit (L)
Absence of over a month.
The Allies are even losing no-shows! What are the odds?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37131.60
SouL (x) over dawgoneit (L)
Absence of over a month.
He is in the hospital SouL. At least that is what I read somewhere in this topic.
Oh, that’s right. Thanks Soulblighter. Well, if his opponents agree to let him finish any of these games, don’t worry, it’s not hard to undo the results - just let me know if a result changes
P.S.
As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.
That I agree with. However it needs to be tested between players of similar skill level and so far I haven’t seen enough results between tier M/E players.
agreed. would love to see some M/E games using BM
Prefacing this by saying that I currently suck at A&A and am new to the forums, so my input can only go so far…but every game I lose, I get better and learn new things…so is it possible that the best Allies strategies still have yet to be uncovered?
For those of you that know Smash Brothers Melee, everyone thought Jigglypuff was the worst ever so none of the pros ever played as her and strategies for Jiggly were never fully-developed. All of a sudden, a pro started playing Jiggly and found out she was actually pretty freaking amazing and new strategies were born. Axis is, generally speaking, more enticing to play because they get to force the action instead of constantly having to be on the defense. That being said, more time has probably been put in to finding the best ways to play as Axis, leaving the Allies underdeveloped.
Of course, the counter-argument is that someone always has to be Allies, so if there were good Allies strategies then someone would’ve figured them out by now (someone didn’t always have to play as Jiggly, which is why she was in the background for so long). And I’m defining “good Allies strategies” as strategies that would lead to a 50/50 win split. So if the best players play one game as each side with a fixed bid (of 30 or however high they need to go), then Allied strategies would be unearthed or it would be clear that the game is completely broken with no sweet-spot, no matter how much you bid.
Enjoyed your post very much,
Game is definitely not “completely broken”
I was thinking about this recently - I think what you’re seeing out of the top players playing the Allies is pretty fully developed and about as good as they’re going to get. Like you said, 30 - the Allies probably just need about +30 for a bid if you don’t make any other changes. That’s putting 1 unit max per territory. If you play that there is no maximum to the number of bid units to a territory, I would think the bid would be substantially lower than 30
Adam514 (Axis) over BerntBernt (Allies) Balance Mod
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37517.105
MrRoboto (Allies) over Shin Ji (Axis) in a Balanced Mod game.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37540.new#new
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37529.135
StuckTojo (Axis) defeats Talleyrand19 (Allies +18)
nothing like losing several 98% battles in one game
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37414.180
Talleyrand19 (Axis) defeats DefinitiveS (Allies +23)
JuanSpain over Me1945 (Allies +26) Play off 1/4
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36902.210
