interesting switch from Sealion. The dice saved me
2015 League Rules Discussion Thread
-
No one has found a big exploit, but then, bids of 20 or so are just starting to become more common
-
I think the (default) league rule on bidding should be
1 unit per territory/sea zone
China can only get infantry/artillery (because that’s all they’re legally able to build at game start - Burma road is open)Agree that.
-
I think the (default) league rule on bidding should be
1 unit per territory/sea zone
China can only get infantry/artillery (because that’s all they’re legally able to build at game start - Burma road is open)Agree that.
Huh, I thought this was already the rule? Also, I thought it was only 1 unit per territory in which a unit already existed.
I like that fine.
-
Currently it is China can bid for any unit that does not violate their movement restrictions and that you can have unlimited bid units in any territory so long as you start with at least one unit in said territory.
Not saying that’s how it should be, not saying that’s not how it should be. Just addressing the system to figure out where people are concerned and how the community wants to resolve issues.
Personally, I have no problem if people want to bid two units to Alexandria or even Kweichow. I would have issue if my opponent wanted to bid 5 infantry to Paris however, so I can see some of what people are worried about.
Speaking of, just out of grins and giggles here, has anyone tried bidding a fighter to Paris to see what happens to the German offensive forces? If it survives (and currently it COULD be British so it could have major utility if it does) it could screw up any Sea Lion plans two fold. If it draws extra planes to Paris then that’s more AA Gun shots and potentially more damage to the Luftwaffe and at worst, drawing more planes means better odds for the Royal Navy too. Then again, maybe Germany for goes hitting Normandy and/or Vichy France (S. France) just to have more manpower on the ground to deal with said fighter? Anyone have experience with a bid like that?
-
A few ideas about the playoffs.
First off, the 8 game rule. Would it make sense to relax this a bit for returning players who have consistently performed well? For example, players who qualified for this season’s playoffs only need to play 6 games to qualify for the next season’s playoffs. My understanding is that the rule is in place to ensure players are ranked accurately before allowing them into the playoffs, but this isn’t an issue for already-established top players.
My reason for bringing this up is pretty clear from the current standings. I personally would hate to see Gamerman miss out on the playoffs by missing one game, though it looks like he might just get in under the wire :)
Second, 8th place tiebreak. There should probably be an extra tiebreak option in the case that the first two still leave it tied, which would be the case if the playoffs ended now. I think normally the last tiebreak option in competitions is to just decide it by chance, so in our case rolling a virtual two-sided die would likely suffice.
Finally, call this beating a dead horse if you must, but I still think playoff games should also count for the league standings. Our league is not analogous to professional sports with a distinct regular season and playoffs, since we always have a season running. As such, the season should reflect the overall performance of each player over the time period the league runs for, and since playoff games fall inside that time period, they should be counted as well.
A couple of real-world things to back this up.
In chess, rankings are done continuously. When a tournament rolls around, the top X players are invited based on their ranking, and the matches played during the tournament count for their rankings. In other words, there is no distinction made as to what venue a match is played in. As long as the match conforms to the rules of the federation, they count for the player’s rating.
Another example is tennis. The top 8 players in the points ranking participate in the end-of-season finals tournament (sound familiar? :)). The tournament itself also awards points, that then count for the rankings in the next season.
-
A few ideas about the playoffs.
Great, thanks!
First off, the 8 game rule. Would it make sense to relax this a bit for returning players who have consistently performed well? For example, players who qualified for this season’s playoffs only need to play 6 games to qualify for the next season’s playoffs. My understanding is that the rule is in place to ensure players are ranked accurately before allowing them into the playoffs, but this isn’t an issue for already-established top players.
Good point - I think there is a secondary reason - to encourage more participation in the league. Gives players more chances to play regular season games against the top players.
My reason for bringing this up is pretty clear from the current standings. I personally would hate to see Gamerman miss out on the playoffs by missing one game, though it looks like he might just get in under the wire :)
Oh! I’ll make it in, thanks to Juan’s very good sportsmanship. He just posted today, that he would be willing to play 4 straight hours with me Thursday, and yes I’ll probably have my 8th game done, barely. But it’s mostly my own doing that I’m close to not qualifying. Part of the reason is (I did glance ahead and see you raise this issue) I played 3 heavy playoff games during the 2015 league season. This made it less easy to finish 8 games this year, and I had the exact same issue 2 years before when I won the championship. I was 1 game short of qualifying for the playoffs in 2013 (Not a problem necessarily, because I didn’t want in badly)
I was having similar thoughts for this year (didn’t really want in badly), but thought if there were people who encouraged me/wanted me to participate in the playoff again (defend my title and all that), that’s all it would take for me to make sure I got 8 games done. Even if that means resigning 1 game that wasn’t really done.
Second, 8th place tiebreak. There should probably be an extra tiebreak option in the case that the first two still leave it tied, which would be the case if the playoffs ended now. I think normally the last tiebreak option in competitions is to just decide it by chance, so in our case rolling a virtual two-sided die would likely suffice.
Won’t say much since I’m not 100% sure of your meaning, but the tiebreaker is basically just by most games played, which makes sense. Ahh, now I see your vested interest :-D You are at 4.00. If the season ended right now and if you assume I have 8 completed games, then we would have a 3-way tie for 8th, with Rasmustb getting in, because 1) there were no head to head results among the 3 players and 2)he has 13 games to Snake and nielsen’s 10. Again, the idea seems to be encouraging more participation in the league and rewarding those who have played more games.
What is not clear is when there are 3 or more players tied, how do you apply “head to head play”. I think the simple solution to this is to reverse it. #1 factor is most games played, then if there is a tie, look at head to head.A caveat - This was my first year as co-moderator, so many of the rules are carryovers from before.
I think an improvement on the tie-breaker rule would be to have the #1 tie-breaker be who has played the most tier 1’s. Then if it’s still tied, go by most games played. If still tied, head to head (assuming there wouldn’t be more than 2 tied at this point). If all else fails, then die roll.Since you can still participate in an 8-man playoff even if you narrowly miss the main official league playoff (to name league champion), my opinion is that it shouldn’t be taken too seriously. I mean, you still get fun playoff action. The bottom seed has only won the Super Bowl once, to my knowledge. My point being that it is unlikely that the 8th seed will win it all.
Finally, call this beating a dead horse if you must,
For the record, that was Jennifer :-D
but I still think playoff games should also count for the league standings. Our league is not analogous to professional sports with a distinct regular season and playoffs, since we always have a season running. As such, the season should reflect the overall performance of each player over the time period the league runs for, and since playoff games fall inside that time period, they should be counted as well.
A couple of real-world things to back this up.
In chess, rankings are done continuously. When a tournament rolls around, the top X players are invited based on their ranking, and the matches played during the tournament count for their rankings. In other words, there is no distinction made as to what venue a match is played in. As long as the match conforms to the rules of the federation, they count for the player’s rating.
Another example is tennis. The top 8 players in the points ranking participate in the end-of-season finals tournament (sound familiar? :)). The tournament itself also awards points, that then count for the rankings in the next season.
Very well stated. I agree. And if this change is implemented, then that’s another reason the 8 game entry requirement could remain unchanged (I would have 10 games completed).
My only reservation to this is the double reward/punishment pressure of the playoff games.
Imagine getting diced in a playoff game - not only are you disappointed at being knocked out of the playoffs before your otherwise sure championship win :-D but you are hung with a loss on next year’s regular season too. Do you know what I mean?
And, as I said, double reward if you get lucky.Difference from chess is that their chess rating is based on hundreds or thousands of games. If somebody like me loses a playoff game and plays about 8-12 games a year, that’s a pretty significant setback on next year’s rating.
Like I said, I still tend to agree with counting it towards next year, but what I just described, is the biggest negative I see off the top of my head
Thanks again for a well thought out and intelligent list of ideas!
As far as the imminent playoff games counting toward 2015 regular season (this could be done for the additional playoffs as well, not just the main one), that needs Jennifer’s approval as well. I’m not opposed. I would like to hear the opinions of players like Me1945, Zhukov, Ghostglider, I already know Boldfresh is in favor, Hobo, Wheatbeer, Rasmustb, Snake11, and the other players who have signed up for playoffs before actually deciding for sure. (Mr. Roboto doesn’t count because 1-3 games would have almost no effect if he plays 50+ games again :lol:)
I know there was a lot of discussion on this topic earlier in the year. I could go back and see who said what.
If there is a significant majority for or against, from the people it would actually be affecting, I would think Jennifer would also agree that we would go with that. It’s the players’ league. -
If the season ended right now and if you assume I have 8 completed games, then we would have a 3-way tie for 8th, with Rasmustb getting in, because 1) there were no head to head results among the 3 players and 2)he has 13 games to Snake and nielsen’s 10.
Actually I was thinking more of the situation if the league ended right now, i.e. before you got your 8th game in. Rasmus would get in as #7 on the basis of having more games played, which I think is perfectly fair. But Snake and I would be tied for 8th with no games between us and the same number of games played, so the rules have no answer as to who should get in as the 8th spot.
So my suggestion was really just to explicitly add a die roll as being the last tiebreak option, so we don’t get a situation where it has to be decided in the heat of the moment. I don’t have any issue with the existing tiebreak rules. As you say, there is a bit of ambiguity as to how to interpret the first rule in the case of a 3+ player tie, but I’m not sure it’s a likely enough event to need to spend a lot of time on it.
Imagine getting diced in a playoff game - not only are you disappointed at being knocked out of the playoffs before your otherwise sure championship win grin but you are hung with a loss on next year’s regular season too. Do you know what I mean?
And, as I said, double reward if you get lucky.
Difference from chess is that their chess rating is based on hundreds or thousands of games. If somebody like me loses a playoff game and plays about 8-12 games a year, that’s a pretty significant setback on next year’s rating.
Fair points, and I certainly understand if this is a stumbling block for some people. Personally the reason I like the game is the combination of skill and luck, so I don’t mind the risk of getting doubly shafted if it means I also have the chance of getting doubly rewarded. :)
A mitigating factor is that the playoff games are going to be against players of comparable skill, so for higher tiers you are at least going to get some points for the loss.
Plus, the ranking system gets more accurate the more games are counted, so all else being equal, we’ll have a “better” ranking by counting as many games as possible.
-
OK
Yes, for tie-breakers, if it were to go beyond the provision of the rules, as you said, die roll would make sense
I will be re-evaluating the tie-breaker rules for 2015 rulesetYeah, if I don’t hear a lot of protesting, the playoff games should count for 2015, I think, unless Jennifer doesn’t agree.
I need to scan through this thread soon, too, in drafting 2015 rules with Jennifer -
OK
Yes, for tie-breakers, if it were to go beyond the provision of the rules, as you said, die roll would make sense
I will be re-evaluating the tie-breaker rules for 2015 rulesetYeah, if I don’t hear a lot of protesting, the playoff games should count for 2015, I think, unless Jennifer doesn’t agree.
I need to scan through this thread soon, too, in drafting 2015 rules with Jennifertotally agree - the playoff games should count toward 2015 league.
-
I agree as well
-
As do I. It’s a “real” game, so it should therefore count.
-
@Shin:
As do I. It’s a “real” game, so it should therefore count.
it’s even more “real” than a normal league game.
-
OK
Yes, for tie-breakers, if it were to go beyond the provision of the rules, as you said, die roll would make sense
I will be re-evaluating the tie-breaker rules for 2015 rulesetYeah, if I don’t hear a lot of protesting, the playoff games should count for 2015, I think, unless Jennifer doesn’t agree.
I need to scan through this thread soon, too, in drafting 2015 rules with Jennifertotally agree - the playoff games should count toward 2015 league.
I think this is a great idea….
-
Difference from chess is that their chess rating is based on hundreds or thousands of games. If somebody like me loses a playoff game and plays about 8-12 games a year, that’s a pretty significant setback on next year’s rating.
With all due respect (and with a FIDE rating of 2023), this statement is not true. Mathematically speaking, except for the very elite whose ratings move more slowly, about 95% of a chess rating (using the ELO system) is a direct reflection of the last 25 games played. I can get you an exact figure on that if you like :D, but the idea is that if a player is under-rated or over-rated by 400 points, this will self-correct over his/her next 25 games.
I would very much encourage a default bidding rule – for example, I was bidding my first 15L game with Whack, and I think I forgot about 5 of the normal parameters for bidding (thankfully, he’s a cool player and also had the same parameters in mind). For example, make the default "no tech, no rerolls, 1 unit per territory, etc. etc. (this doesn’t have to be it, but it would be nice to have a standard and vary from that, instead of having to make the standard every time someone bids). I’m still not sure what the bidding rules are if no one specifies… ;)
-
Thanks, yes the bidding rules will be clarified and a default set
I’ve played a lot of chess, but either wasn’t on the ELO system or didn’t understand it.
Regardless, my point is sound, that a single game carries a lot of weight in our system when the typical player finishes about 8-15 games a year.
This was related to the discussion about playoff games counting toward 2015 league, and currently it’s looking like that is what’s going to happen, and I’m not opposed, so my statement about chess ratings not being accurate is actually irrelevant, but thanks :-) I stand corrected -
Hey, no worries Gamer! You have been wonderful for this league and for all of the players who enjoy it.
You have actually now inspired me to do something. I really like your system, and I would like to see how it would stack up next to a modified ELO system (the mistake for systems using a full ELO system for Axis & Allies ratings is that there is a chance factor, however small, that chess doesn’t have). With your blessing, I may take that up as a side project “off the grid” for the 2015 League…. :)
I do understand what you are saying about having a dicing in a game in essence counting twice, leading to a doubly negative result. I don’t really see why 8 games is such a burden for players dedicated to the league, but then again I’m not a top player… :D
-
Hey, no worries Gamer! You have been wonderful for this league and for all of the players who enjoy it.
Great, I appreciate the encouragement
You have actually now inspired me to do something. I really like your system, and I would like to see how it would stack up next to a modified ELO system (the mistake for systems using a full ELO system for Axis & Allies ratings is that there is a chance factor, however small, that chess doesn’t have). With your blessing, I may take that up as a side project “off the grid” for the 2015 League…. :)
Frankly, the system was just my first attempt at reflecting strength of schedule, as opposed to no reflection at all. To my surprise, it has actually stood the test of time and worked very well and accurately, which is why 2014 was the first year that it was actually officially used. I would encourage your off the grid rating - that’s how mine started, basically. 2013 it was a side show, for informational purposes, and I made it available to all players.
I do understand what you are saying about having a dicing in a game in essence counting twice, leading to a doubly negative result. I don’t really see why 8 games is such a burden for players dedicated to the league, but then again I’m not a top player…. :D
Good to know at least one person understands what I was trying to say - 8 games is not a burden, I agree with that. One of the reasons I’ve had a lot of success is because I am thorough and careful, and that takes time, effort and energy. Resulting in fewer games played
-
Historically speaking, we did not count play off games for the next year’s league so that they would not use up one of the allowed games between two players. Keep in mind, we used to have a maximum of 3 games between any two players (2 games with a tie breaker if necessary.) So if you used a play off game as well, then you could find yourself with only one available game you could count between you and your friend.
I have no problem counting play off games in the 2015 league, I just wanted to clarify why and where those rules came from.
Personally, I would like to keep a maximum number of games between opponents. I feel that it encourages players to play more opponents. I have no problem increasing or decreasing the maximum allowed games between any two players, however. So if anyone has input on what that number should be, and can justify their position, I am more than willing to listen.
-
That was very insightful and helpful, thank you.
One solution is for me to track that games were playoff games between the players and do not count against the maximum. I was going to say I didn’t want to do this, but now I realize it would be pretty easy to track. I can just put a comment in the cell in the standings matrix for playoff games.
That’s a great point that previously there was a cap of best of 3 between any 2 players, so that could mean only 1 additional game during the year between those 2 players. However, this year we have an adjustable cap, where if you’ve both played 13+ games, you can go best of 5. We had multiple players this year eligible to play best of THIRTEEN!
So a second alternative is to ignore this factor, since it is not too hard to open up best of 5 or best of 7 possibilities.
Either way, it sounds like both moderators say it’s a go - all playoff games will also count in 2015 standings.
We just need to decide if they will count against the maximum head to head limits.So the traditional reason for keeping them separate doesn’t have as much traction as it used to.
-
I know I am late, but I need to voice my thoughts about this:
I’m completely against counting the playoff games as league games as long as we call it a “league”.
It violates the definitions of both playoff and league. The fact that a game counts as a game in two different tournaments, separated by two years doesn’t make any sense, at least from my viewpoint. With a deep understanding of both US and European versions of Playoffs/Leagues in addition to understanding of Tennis, Chess and Boxing, I just can’t see how counting for BOTH “last year’s playoff” AND next year’s league makes any sense. I’ll explain a tad below, before offering my “solution” by drawing parallels to other sports.In the US, sports play for a league/conference/division that ultimately ends, and THEN playoffs are kicked off as a separate season. No games count as “double”.
In Europe (and the world) the league is a separate entity, with no subsequent playoff on a national level.
And the “cups/national playoffs” are ran at the same time as the league, as a separate tournament.
There are also annual tournaments on the European level running and ending at the same time as the league, but teams are in these based on the results of the PREVIOUS year. So there you have the “two-year” element, which actually turns into qualifying for a third tournament in the third year, if you win a European Cup and then the Supercut to go to the World Club Cup (speaking Football/Soccer right now). But again, no games count as double.A “league” and a “playoff” doesn’t leave room for this. It would violate the premise of the definitions for “playoffs”!!!
BUT, we can solve this by changing the NAME of our official “competition” from League to “Gamerman’s World Rankings”.
That is the only way we can justify the games counting twice. And we can draw from the Tennis world for this.
We aren’t a “league” anyway, since in a league, each team/player plays the same amount of game, and have to play each other in a systematic way to determine who comes out on top with the best amount of games.
We aren’t really competing that way. We’re individual players that compete H2H and get a score for the collective ranking based on the outcome. That is what they do in Tennis.
In Tennis, the amount of points collected from the various tournaments in a year sums up into the “rolling” 1 year rankings, counting a full year’s rankings. But they’re ALSO keeping score of the RACE TO LONDON, counting ONLY the points earned in a Calendar Year, to reach The World Tour Finals, which is an EXTRA tournament for ONLY the 8 best players. These games is a “playoff”, but the games ALSO count in BOTH the H2H between players AND in the World Rankings". (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-Home.aspx) (1 Full Year ranking (rolling) -http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx) (YTD - Race to final top 8 tournament - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/YTD-Singles.aspx)
Tennis players play different amount of tournaments and games in a year, but they are all in the same ranking system, so it is easy to determine who’s world no. 1,2,3 etc, AND it is easy at the end of the official season to see which players are the highest ranked players, that get to play the extra tournament AND have the extra points there counted toward their world ranking. And of course, the is a World Tour Final (WTF) Winner crowned as well :)
Btw, I have a possible SOLUTION for the “double negative” that might come from losing a playoff game AND having it count double as suggested. What if ONLY the winning score is counted?
In the Tennis WTF you can’t get NEGATIVE points, but you can go through the Top 8 Tournament WITHOUT a point.
Just a suggestion. Only playoff WINS also count in the League (Or World Rankings as I want to name it).Anyway, I make a motion to rename the “league” to a properly named "Gamerman’s World Rankings, which will conclude on an annual basis, leaving the Top 8 players a chance for an extra tournament that will BOTH crown the Champion AND let the games count twice without violating any definitions.
Some may ask, WHY “GAMERMAN’S World Rankings”?
Well, most tournaments/rankings has a sponsor (Barclays Premier League, Emirates ATP Race to London, Liga BBVA).
And no sponsor has more personal investments than Gamer has had making this happen.
So it is only right to name it such.Let’s get rid of the wrongfully applied “league” and introduce the correctly used “World Rankings” that will accommodate for the will of the people without annoying the people with respect for definitions ;)
Suggested Topics
