League General Discussion Thread

@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%

I haven’t played PTV … is the game mechanically similar enough that a person with a good PTV record is likely to have a good OOB/BM3 record?

Or conversely, is there any player who’s very sucessful at PTV but very poor at OOB/BM3?

@wheatbeer said in League General Discussion Thread:

I haven’t played PTV … is the game mechanically similar enough that a person with a good PTV record is likely to have a good OOB/BM3 record?

Or conversely, is there any player who’s very sucessful at PTV but very poor at OOB/BM3?

At first you probably wont be at the same level, but once you play a few games and learn the rules and basics you will be fine. In order to be a good player in this game you need to make good decisions, be able to develop strategies and adapt as needed, and such. All those things apply to all the versions. The different versions have their own nuances but if you are good at fundamentals you can learn the new games with just a bit of effort.

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

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.

Actually you guys were winning early on. However, you made two mistakes which is going to cost you the game; barring some unlikely eventuality. 1) You let us take Moscow. And I say let because you could have stopped us and chose not to. 2) You went for the Neutrals too early. Yes, you ended up with Scandinavia and Spain but it cost so much time and effort that it allowed Japan to bounce back from some pretty impressive Allied play in the Pacific.

I think a playoff tourneys for each version is a good idea and it also makes sense to keep track of games played in the different versions (at least if that is easy for the moderator).

I do think one ranking (regardless of games played) is better for the reasons Oysteillo and Ksmkay have suggested.

I’d also prefer it if one can only enter only one of the tourneys at the end of the year. I think that would encourage more participation and also encourage players to play more PTV and especially OOB as those become other routes to the end of year playoffs.

@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 prefer the original offer/suggestion from @gamerman01.

When contemplating how L21 would play out for me comparing the two alternatives, I’m seeing a scenario when I play only BM3 all through the season and another where I play mainly BM3, but also some games of P2V and even OOB if I’m not too disgusted.

I believe the latter alternative actually is the more fun one. Atleast for me. Variation is beneficial.

@trulpen

I dont see how your response addresses one ranking vs three rankings.

You can still do whatever you want, are you saying you would never play the other versions because you are worried about your BM3 rank being affected by a handful of games in the other version? If so then why bother playing league games with those versions in the first place? Regular non-league games are an easy way to experience variation without affecting your ranking.

i see why one ranking - 3 play offs is a good idea.

we all have personal lives, and it will be hard to play many games. And with only 3 games played its too little for getting a proper rating.

All though in ideal scenario i would prefer 3 standings, realisticly 1 standing for all games is ok, since we dont have information that somebody is good in one version and sucks in the other.

But i disagree with the idea that one cant play more then 1 play off. why not? its like in tennis, u can play both singles and doubles. and since we have 2nd and 3rd playoff in BM this year, we can have it in PTV and BM next year, whats the problem?

and 1 standings for all games also helps our Gamerman, otherwise he will have too much job

I encourage everyone to contribute in the 2021 support drive!

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36303/axis-allies-org-2021-support-drive/3?_=1609873977428

If you play, it is nice to contribute to the site I think. After all it is not free to maintain this service that all of us like!

@amon-sul I doubt it will be much of an issue since i expect most people at the highest level will focus on one or the other in any case so there should be a lot of room for others to join in even if a couple of people try their hand at two or more tourneys. But I think it is a bit more exciting to play for 1st then for 9th and this gives more people the opportunity to do so.

Also while I think we need to have only one ranking for all variants for it to be meaningful, and I also think the threshold to join a tourney should be low (8 games in total and 3-4 of the variant) I can see situations arising where a top oob player is kept out of that tourney because someone else who has a higher ranking due to their play in another variant decides to play in two.

Also, I’ll just note that right now, the league is much more competitive than it was a year ago. There are players in each of the three tourneys this year that played in the top 8 last year. That may change when covid passes, but right now we can have a pretty high level of competition with the top 24.

I don’t think you should be able to play in the playoffs with less than 8 games played of that particular variant.