League General Discussion Thread

@farmboy said in League General Discussion Thread:

Just found a very minor bug (I think?). In my game here https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/32406/farmboy-axis-2-vs-oysteilo-allies-bm/319

it seemed that in my last turn I could land inf on midway (attacking it) without any naval or air support despite the presence of an enemy destroyer (and this is turn 20 so everyone has been at war with everyone for a while). Obviously I was going to take out the destroyer too, so this wasn’t an issue but I recall that one normally has to move other units into the sz before unloading or its blocked. I think? Or did i just imagine that.

I’m pretty sure you get a warning about a suicidal move. I don’t think it’s a problem. You only get stopped if you attempt to land from a transport with a defending sub and you don’t have a warship.

@simon33 thanks for clarifying that.

I understand the league has been around for a while, but has there ever been any discussion about making the league ranking system non-detrimental for playing someone more than 2 tiers out of yours?

I’m talking about how a tier M or E player (or someone who would like to be) is guaranteed to drop in ranking for playing a tier 2 or 3 player. This seems to show up when players are looking for a match and request the opponent be tier 1 or higher.

I’m sure part of the reason for the request is that players want an opponent who can keep up with them in skill level in addition to the ranking problem. However, my concern is that A&A is already a very niche game and this system further fragments the pool of players.

Assuming I’ve calculated this right, here is the required win rate for each tier combination to maintain their current tier:

@Tizkit I don’t disagree there’s a problem here.

But after much thought… what are the solutions? It’s not such a simple thing to rate players against no specific standard, within a limited pool of data.

About the only alternative is to have a full ladder system, but that could also cripple players who play less games, and seeing as there is no match control, the ladder would quickly be out of control…

suggestions welcome!

@Toucan-son-of-sam what about some sort of point system that wouldn’t punish someone for a loss? You earn points for wins weighted against how many points the other player has. This would reward people from playing and not picking their opponents.

No system is perfect and each will have its pros and cons.

I like the system the way it is. I really don’t want to play anyone that is not competitive with me, and neither would I enjoy playing someone who is going to smash me. The system now allows you to find an opponent who you can pretty well tell how competitive the game will be.

I think having the minimum for playoff seeding is 8 games is just about right. I didn’t make the regular playoffs this year, but I was seeded in the “second playoff” and in the “second playoff”, any player can enter even if they had not played 8 games. So everyone gets accommodated.

@Toucan-son-of-sam
@AldoRaine

I think the two main priorities if an adjustment were made are that it needs to be simple and non-disruptive. I expect there’s not a lot of appetite for a sweeping overhaul or adding complexity. Ideally it would be a non-event to players who don’t want any change.

So far, the best proposal I can come up with would be an optional add-on to the current system allowing both players to score as a tier 1 player if the game is played with a standardized handicap. Below is a draft.

Framework:

• The tier 2/3 player would receive a standardized IPC handicap at the beginning of the game to be added as a modifier to the usual bid the players choose
• The win/loss points awarded to both players would be for a tier 1 vs tier 1 match
• The tier 1-M player receives the opportunity to maintain their rank with a sufficiently high win rate
• The handicap amount could be different for each match-up (6 combinations in total)

Benefits:

• Can be ignored if players choose to stick with the existing system
• Pretty simple to understand and hopefully wouldn’t change the existing scoring spreadsheet significantly
• Creates an option if higher tier players want to play lower tier players without guaranteed loss of rank
• IPC handicap could help bridge some of the skill gap and hopefully make games between different tiers more compelling

Drawbacks:

• Deciding the standardized handicaps could be controversial. Perhaps this could be done through a vote?
• Might create some complexity for @gamerman01 (I believe he does all the scoring) considering that points awarded change retroactively when a person changes tiers.

Here’s an example Handicap Chart using a hypothetical 5 IPCs for each level of tier difference. Whether that would be enough to make the game closer to competitive is debatable.

Example IPC Handicap Chart

For example, if a tier E and tier 2 player set up a match, the decided bid would be modified by +10 in favor of the tier 2 player as a handicap. However, both players would score for a tier 1 vs tier 1 match because the handicap puts the lower tier player on closer footing.

![alt text]http://tinypic.com/m/kcfiht/2(image url)

first i ever seen that :alien:

@Tizkit, i see what you are saying and played with a similar thought my self, giving the better tier player some sort of a handicap.

But:

Over a hundred games played against at least all Tiers, i saw and realized it is good as it is.

Why??:
You have a real challenge. You will learn better that way. You will rework your flaws in your own game faster if you are willing to accept that sometimes or most of the times your Strategy is not the very best and it should be better to stick to a certain formula.
The formula simply is:
Get to know the board better and the game mechanics, know what you are doing and accept that the dice may not roll sometimes the way you want them to roll and work with it.

I think Gamerman01 did an awesome job with this pointsystem.
Is there a better way?, sure but to what cost??
I don’t want to be negative about your idea @Tizkit , just throwing in my thoughts and what i am came up with playing in the league for a while and being proud of the Progress many player and my self made over the years.

@aequitas-et-veritas I just want to clarify that I do not have any issue with the current system. Just wanted to bring up the other way because it is the only other way I could see working.

Playing a game with Trulpen and he is having an issue with the US/China/UK turn posting. It is not grouping the turn summary of all three powers when he posts. Is that beacuse he has an out of date version of triple A?

Probably an out of date version of the map. 4.0 is the most recent, not 3.9. In fact, you started it so it would be your map version which is out of date.

@simon33 Okay. So version 3.9 does not group the turn summary but 4.0 does? Weird because I have another game with map version 3.4 and it does group the turn summaries. Oh well thanks for the help.

That would be 3.4 of Balanced Mod. 3.9 of G40 is not specific. Many different iterations of it existed.

@simon33 Thanks I see that now.

Does BM not use the France NO where you get 12 IPC of free units one time after you liberate Paris?

@majikforce It’s still there, and whenever France was liberated in my games it worked.

@Adam514 Well maybe its a bug. It wouldn’t have to do with fact that Normandy was never conquered by the Axis? But just to be clear after the US liberates Paris the IPC’s should be immediately available correct? You don’t have to wait until Frances turn right? Thanks for the help.

@majikforce Actually it’s just 4 French infantry that spawn in France when it’s liberated, you need to edit the 4 inf to whatever you want that is worth 12 PUs or less.

@Adam514 Political question. Japan declared war on US, UK, ANZAC turn 1. US landed troops in Manchuria turn 2. Turn 3 Russia declares war on Japan yet it does not let me move Russian troops from Amur into Manchuria. Am I missing something as to why this is not allowed? The politics panel shows that Russia is neutral to the US yet allied to UK Pacific and ANZAC. Is this a bug? Thanks for the help.