League General Discussion Thread

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Awesome. Glad you have come around @gamerman01. So one league but 3 standings.

OOB is less popular so may need playoffs decided based on top 4? Perhaps a rider to allow that to be decided at the end of the year? Will it still be 8 game minimum in all games? Probably fine in BM and P2V. Should it be BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard? House rules can blur the lines but I guess it is pretty unlikely that it won’t be clear what the nearest game is.

i think boms cost 14 should be standard to prevent bomber spam. but it is a democracy, we BM dudes can vote.

@majikforce said in League General Discussion Thread:

Is OOB so bad that you could never possibly get a win? I doubt that very much.

Actually, it is. More or less.

Just take our game in the tourney as an example. We got a huge bid of 56 for Allies and I’ve thought on several occasions that the Allies were crushing it (for instance getting an early firm hold of both Spain and Scandinavia), but Axis still seem to be winning. I’m amazed.

Of course, you are likely better players than we are, but it has atleast partly to do with a pretty bad rule-set regarding i e re-conquering capitals, the easy China-conquest, slightly easier winning-conditions and significantly lower NOs/income for the Allies. All of which is favourably addressed by BM3.

I also had a playoff-game in the previous season where I was forced to play OOB. I’m not an awfully bad player, but was annihilated as Allies with a 28-bid. Having played a lot of BM3 during that season, all I could feel for OOB was contempt (as well as for my rotten play).

In my book it’s really pretty much OOBsolete, but I won’t haunt those who still love that version. ;)

@amon-sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

i suggest we patch OOB with BM, but if the OOB guys want their own league, fine by me.

Problem there is that then no problem is solved. :) We would be in the same situation of having to define a default for the playoffs being unfair to atleast someone.

I think the division into 3 standings and playoffs is as simple as great idea.

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard

It is already, and still called BM3 (designer’s decree). ;)

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard

It is already, and still called BM3 (designer’s decree). ;)

BM 3.1 :tongue:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@amon-sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

i suggest we patch OOB with BM, but if the OOB guys want their own league, fine by me.

Problem there is that then no problem is solved. :) We would be in the same situation of having to define a default for the playoffs being unfair to atleast someone.

I think the division into 3 standings and playoffs is as simple as great idea.

well thats for the OOB dudes to decide. I think that OOB league and play off will be of little interest,

but if they wish to have it ,

i dont have anything against it.

it is the most democratic idea.

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@amon-sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

i suggest we patch OOB with BM, but if the OOB guys want their own league, fine by me.

Problem there is that then no problem is solved. :) We would be in the same situation of having to define a default for the playoffs being unfair to atleast someone.

I think the division into 3 standings and playoffs is as simple as great idea.

Actually, I think I understand now what you were driving at. Keep OOB and BM3 together, but have the option of separate playoffs. Sure, that could work. Maybe even be good. Still think the best solution is a separate standing also for BM3 and OOB. Makes a bit of sense, since there are pretty different prerequisites for the two versions.

as for OOB i dont play it much worse then BM, its not abot that. its about BM beinge more balanced, upgraded, better, gives much more options, totally dominant comparing to OOB. (the bombers cost 14 is just another great add).

i personally hope since PTV is a different game that we BM dudes will see another remakes of BM similar of that boms from 12 to 14.

(by that i mean the cost of units, tech and national tech options)

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@amon-sul said in League General Discussion Thread:

i suggest we patch OOB with BM, but if the OOB guys want their own league, fine by me.

Problem there is that then no problem is solved. :) We would be in the same situation of having to define a default for the playoffs being unfair to atleast someone.

I think the division into 3 standings and playoffs is as simple as great idea.

Actually, I think I understand now what you were driving at. Keep OOB and BM3 together, but have the option of separate playoffs. Sure, that could work. Maybe even be good. Still think the best solution is a separate standing also for BM3 and OOB. Makes a bit of sense, since there are pretty different prerequisites for the two versions.

no, i wasnt for the mix model.

i was for one league and one playoff for them just like this year but without ptv, and with bm as the default version

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard

It is already, and still called BM3 (designer’s decree). ;)

Reference?

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

BM4 (14 IPC bombers) as standard

It is already, and still called BM3 (designer’s decree). ;)

Reference?

@regularkid

@trulpen That is not a reference.

Can we already start our leauge game?

@simon33 said in League General Discussion Thread:

@trulpen That is not a reference.

I’ve read a statement about it, but finding it, nah, would take several hours of manual search. Won’t do it, sorry.

I say that it is BM4. It is not the same as BM3 by intention.

@giallo said in League General Discussion Thread:

Can we already start our leauge game?

I mean play-off game ofcourse

@giallo yes you can start the bidding process as well as the Playoff game.
This discussion is about the next Playoffs in '22.
You may start yours against Tanios allready. GL HF

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

OK, great! Great discussion, I mean.

Not a bad idea to have separate playoff brackets for separate versions - not a bad idea at all - but I think I have a better one!

It’s no trouble for me to maintain 3 different standings sheets for 2021. Therefore, I’m confident the majority will agree that for 2021 we will still have 1 league together (shared results thread, shared discussion thread, shared everything) but with a separate standings and PPG calculation by version, which is actually what I was saying before I read the last 2-3 hours worth of posts. There will be a league champion playoff for each of the 3 different versions.

Again, this is a proposal and you all can shoot it down (with radar enabled AA guns), but surely this will be the most popular idea, no?? :)

I would very much like to have ONE ranking for all games, after all that is what we have to today. Today @gamerman01 would record any result as long as someone is posting a win for their opponent (even chess would be ok I think?). That is good and is not a problem.

Like several people have suggested maybe it makes more sense to record the number of games each individual has played in each version rather than a spesific rating for that version. This number of games played (minimum, maybe 3 or 4?) determines if you are eligible to play that version’s playoff, the overall ranking however, is always the master for your seeding regardless of version.

I think ONE ranking is prefered because sometimes you will have persons with 0 or 1 game in one version (but many games in other versions) playing a person with several games in that version. This way of handling the ranking will put people at a rating sooner, remember it is a 3 game cap before you have a firm rating.

We need to avoid a situation where someone plays 2 OOB, 2 BM and 2 PtV and is still without a rating.

I agree with having one ranking. 3 tourneys sounds great, and recording results in each sounds great too, but I dont like the idea of having 3 different rankings. The more games players play the more the rankings stabilize. 8 or so games seems to do a decent job at that with our particular ranking system.

E or M in one version probably translates well to other formats provided that player has actually played those other formats. I think we just need a minimum of games in a particular format to qualify for that particular tourney.

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

I agree with having one ranking. 3 tourneys sounds great, and recording results in each sounds great too, but I dont like the idea of having 3 different rankings. The more games players play the more the rankings stabilize. 8 or so games seems to do a decent job at that with our particular ranking system.

E or M in one version probably translates well to other formats provided that player has actually played those other formats. I think we just need a minimum of games in a particular format to qualify for that particular tourney.

exactely my point. I agree 100%