@max334 yes was a nice xmas present for you!
2015 League Rules Discussion Thread
-
Have you read what I wrote? No need for any mandated matches.
i read it and i tend to agree but was just pointing out that mandated matches would “only” result in 25% of the necessary 8 matches being gigantic mismatches, as well as having the issue of being a crapshoot as far as how players move around. remember, losing to a tier 1 gives you 2 points, which would raise all tier 4 and some tier 3 ppg levels. :-)
-
No offense taken at all…I was just bringing up a thought…I can only play a certain number of games myself due to having to go out to sea due to the Navy, but if it is non-competitive for ya, then really it shouldn’t take any real effort on your part anyways…unless you are worried you are going to lose!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
Nope, like I said, I take games with anyone. But there’s a lot of times I’m not taking games from anyone no matter who they are :-)
Although, if Larry ever wants a game, you know I will make time :-D
-
Nope, like I said, I take games with anyone. But there’s a lot of times I’m not taking games from anyone no matter who they are :-)
Although, if Larry ever wants a game, you know I will make time :-D
just play cow - he knows every move larry makes.
-
In my mind, turning down game isn’t the same as saying “later” or “not now.”
Anyway, post#1 is a copy of the current rules, just to specify. A reference for anyone who wants to propose a change.
What about team games, like if 4 people want to do a 2 on 2 game?
Should we permit that, or should we bar such games? I would say we could permit it, since both sides have equal players they can just share the points for a win/loss (add and divide by two for each winner.)
-
League is for individual play only
Keep thinking :-)
-
I Agree with Gamer. In the end the best player of the team is being punished vs individual winners, and the other one might be lifted so the league ranking would loose consistency. Your ranking has to be only driven by what you have been able to do on your own.
-
@Cmdr:
In my mind, turning down game isn’t the same as saying “later” or “not now.”
Anyway, post#1 is a copy of the current rules, just to specify. A reference for anyone who wants to propose a change.
What about team games, like if 4 people want to do a 2 on 2 game?
Should we permit that, or should we bar such games? I would say we could permit it, since both sides have equal players they can just share the points for a win/loss (add and divide by two for each winner.)
The solution for team games is simple. If enough players want to play teamgames, then make a separate league dedicated to just that.
-
We’ve never had much luck with 2v2 tournaments and leagues. Individual games would get finished, but teams would never make it to the end. Also, 2v2 might help Tier 1 and Tier 3 or Tier 4 players work together in a way in which the more experienced player can help the less experienced player. The T4 player might less points for a win, and the T1 more points but I don’t think the single instance here or there would drastically alter the overall course of the league.
It’s just an idea, I’m not married to it. I’m just as fine leaving it a 1v1 league too as it has always been.
-
Players can play any style of game, in the play boardgames section of the site. Team games are a blast, but we don’t have a team league because of what you just (very concisely) said.
You can always play any kind of game with anyone you want, just might have to do it in the play boardgames section.
I would be happy to moderate your game in the play boardgames section as well, if you have a disagreement and need mediation, so you’re not even giving that up. Only thing you don’t get is your game counting on an official record. If you’re playing to have a fun game, you don’t care about that anyway.
-
Players can play any style of game, in the play boardgames section of the site. Team games are a blast, but we don’t have a team league because of what you just (very concisely) said.
You can always play any kind of game with anyone you want, just might have to do it in the play boardgames section.
I would be happy to moderate your game in the play boardgames section as well, if you have a disagreement and need mediation, so you’re not even giving that up. Only thing you don’t get is your game counting on an official record. If you’re playing to have a fun game, you don’t care about that anyway.
I do care about rankings, but my ranking got messed up at the very beginning. So I decided to leave and come back again at a later time. I also hoped that the house league version was ready by then. When I noticed it wasn’t even close, I decided to come back sooner to help speed up by doing some more testing. But as it is, testing is still slow. And the game needs more testers to boot anyways.
-
Try again a couple months after the playoffs start. It looks like I’ll be working on the house ruled game again, and actually play-testing it myself for the first time
Sorry for your disappointment so far
-
Try again a couple months after the playoffs start. It looks like I’ll be working on the house ruled game again, and actually play-testing it myself for the first time
Sorry for your disappointment so far
I am not that disappointed and I get that not everybody has time to test these things or has other things to do. I think it is a shame tho that not that many players have been willing to test the house rules. I mean players like Karl and MrRoboto would make ideal testers. They can finish a game rather fast and are both decent players. So I was a bit surprised that the house rule version wasn’t finished yet.
As for my bad start in the league. It was my own damn fault for trying to play to many games at the same time. Well to many for me anyways. It is my belief that if you start out, it would be best to focus your energy at one game at a time as you will almost always play against players who have more routine then you do and thus will make certain choices easier and faster. If you want to maintain the same speed, then you need to focus more of your time and energy on a single game…
-
House rules would have to be very carefully vetted before implementing them in a league - if that was your intent to suggest.
I am more interested in seeing if there is some sort of assumption we can make about scramble decisions - something codified. It was a point raised by someone else, but it is a concern that has merit. What is unknown is if there is anything we could do about it that wouldn’t make it just as bad or worse as it is now.
What I would like to avoid is allowing Germany to calculate very precise battles because it knows it can assume no scramble by England as just an example. I see abuse on the horizon there. Part of what keeps them in check is having to assume England does scramble in all attacked sea zones and risk England not scrambling in any of them.
-
More important point is scramble assumptions and re-rolls. It is custom to make assumption about an opponent�s scramble or intercept decision and thus save time. Should we put a billet rolling such situations? I suggest no or minimum at possible extent re-rolls rule in a case when the assumption is wrong. E.g. Japan attacks Guam with BB and 2 land units on TT vs. US ftr. Axis player assumes no scramble and BB conducts naval bombard. If US player picks up scramble, I suggest keeping the BB dice result for sz21 battle as well as the ftr dice result originally rolled for the land (Guam) battle. There is probably no way to describe all possibilities, but setting default rules for resolution will help.
If anybody is concerned too, please voice up.This is a good point, and I have added it to my list of things to specify in next year’s league rules.
There will be guidelines printed about how to handle these situations.Basically, when you make any assumption for the other player, obviously you should give them the benefit of every doubt. As I did for you when I attacked Guam (I think it was you). You may have misunderstood what I was doing (IIRC you re-rolled a hit that didn’t need to be re-rolled). If you have any problem with Guam whatsoever, please bring it up with me via PM so that I can fully explain (again) how my assumption helped you, and could not have possibly handicapped you in any way.
Again, good point, and I will add language that describes what is expected when making assumptions for the other player.
I already addressed the assumption of decision for other players issue, and concluded it. I will add language to the league rules that explains what happens if you assume a decision for the other player.
Spoiler: It will give every advantage to the defender.@ JENN
RE House rule game. I am not even ready to talk about what this would mean for the league or a league. It’s only been brought up because Soulblighter has been interested in it lately. Don’t worry about it, remove it from your radar. -
@ JENN
RE House rule game. I am not even ready to talk about what this would mean for the league or a league. It’s only been brought up because Soulblighter has been interested in it lately. Don’t worry about it, remove it from your radar.These are not the droids you are looking for.
-
Game,
I was thinking more of a way to avoid waiting for scramble orders without the penalty.
Currently, or at least we had in Tournaments, somehow wasn’t in the league rules, the rule has been:
If a mistake is made in battle then you must restart from the round in which the mistake was made. The defender results can not be worse than they were the first time around, but may be better. Attacker results may not be better than the first time around, but may be worse. Defender and attacker results can be identical to how they were originally, however. Continue this until the situation changes (ie if the defender gets more hits or attacker gets less hits in a given round) then proceed with normal combat rules.
This penalizes the attacker who should have been more careful and ensure to be rolling the correct dice without giving undo advantage to the defender.
-
@Cmdr:
Game,
I was thinking more of a way to avoid waiting for scramble orders without the penalty.
Currently, or at least we had in Tournaments, somehow wasn’t in the league rules, the rule has been:
If a mistake is made in battle then you must restart from the round in which the mistake was made. The defender results can not be worse than they were the first time around, but may be better. Attacker results may not be better than the first time around, but may be worse. Defender and attacker results can be identical to how they were originally, however. Continue this until the situation changes (ie if the defender gets more hits or attacker gets less hits in a given round) then proceed with normal combat rules.
This penalizes the attacker who should have been more careful and ensure to be rolling the correct dice without giving undo advantage to the defender.
-
Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a penalty…
Don’t worry, I have it on my list for 2015 league rules time, and will take care of it.
Again, there will just be guidelines. I don’t think we should legislate how it is to be done.For example, when I want to assume casualty choices for the opponent so that I can finish my turn, I will give them maximum defense (taking off defensive bombers first, for example), and if the defense has any survivors, then the defender gets to choose whatever survivors he wants (can save the bombers at the end even though he got maximum defense). But I don’t want to dictate that everyone has to handle it in the same way.
This is just one of those things you need to be up front with your opponent about. Another example is whether you’re going to allow your opponent to change USA noncoms while playing UK. Better for the players to work it out before it comes up, than for the league to legislate it. However, there is a league fallback for when the players can’t work it out (because they didn’t specify before hand). And that is that you can’t go back to previous phases because it’s against the rules.
League fallback for assuming defensive casualties or scrambling is simple. You aren’t allowed by the rules to make decisions for your opponent - technically you were supposed to wait. So when there is a dispute, the defender will always win in league moderation.
Anyway, we’ll write up those guidelines when the time comes. Thanks again to Me1945 for bringing up the assumption of scrambling issue. It did need to be addressed specifically in the league rules.
-
I found a loophole in 2014 playoffs. I will call it MagicQ’s loophole for those who know it. :wink: The official ruler has admitted it and recommended a way to correct it. I will advocate to eliminate this loophole in default rule in 2015.
Suggested Topics
