2015 League Rules Discussion Thread

Jennifer

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.

Soulblighter

@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.

gamerman01

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.

MagicQ

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.

boldfresh

@MagicQ:

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.

What are you referring to?

Soulblighter

@Boldfresh:

@MagicQ:

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.

What are you referring to?

He is referring to the MagicQ’s loophole. It has been discussed already.

boldfresh

@Soulblighter:

@Boldfresh:

@MagicQ:

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.

What are you referring to?

He is referring to the MagicQ’s loophole. It has been discussed already.

where

gamerman01

Bold :roll:

MagicQ - I disagree. The default should be what the rulebook says. New players coming into the league would be playing by the rulebook.

You need to agree with your opponent that you are disallowing the MagicQ loophole before playing, and then you can have it disallowed. So as long as you can agree with your opponent before playing, you can have this loophole closed.

Jennifer

@MagicQ:

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.Â Â

Great so reiterate what the loophole was and the current recommended solution for the others. Someone might have a better solution than the currently proposed one you know. None of us have a monopoly on great ideas!

gamerman01

<sigh>you would ask

Rulebook as written essentially says you can’t leave a sea zone during the combat movement phase to avoid combat unless there are surface warships in your zone.

What this means, is that you cannot attack transports/subs in the zone your fleet is in, and also move ships away in the combat movement phase to avoid this combat.

Krieghund said whoops, that’s not what they meant. He’s saying you should be able to leave the zone to avoid any type of combat, including with subs/transports, but that’s not what the rulebook says.

The league rules should default to what the rulebook and official FAQ/errata says. This has not been fixed in official FAQ/errata. So if you want to close the loophole, merely agree with your opponent before hand. What better solution is there?</sigh>

JuanSpain

My thought on this is:

Transports should not be able to leave a combat zone in any case, and 2) subs should not be able to leave a combat zone if there are enemy destroyers in the zone.

Also, you should not enter enemy subs occupied sea zone in NCM, that should be done in Combat Move and the subs should have a chance to fight (defend the zone), only if they submerge, 2) would be applicable.

But rules donÂ´t reflect this, and agree with Gamer, if something is not reflected in the rules, it is a mess applying it in the league.

A different topic I would like to discuss is related to game rankings:

I think all games could be recorded in the number of wins/losses record. I agree the win/loss effect is not recorded until both players become eligible to it (so no effect in players score), but the number of games completed record would reflect the total number of games completed.
I think something in the scoring system should push players to play more (making this league bigger and bigger), ideas for that might be:
2)1) Inviting the players with more games completed to the play-offs allthough it may mean more playoff rounds.
2)2) Scoring points each time you complete 10 games. Players playing fast vs many opponents at a time, make this league more dynamic, but that style of playing makes them loose more % of games in relation to players that play little amount of games, but spend a lot of time thinking each strategy.

This means that playing a lot is not good in order to be one of the best ranked, so ranking system does not facilitate making this league bigger every day.

2)3) Players with less than 20 games could not be part of the playoffs, but they should be ranked since game 1 is completed (eliminating the Tier 3 default), so that when you play tough players that donÂ´t complete more than 3 games in the league, you are not punished in your ranking by the fact that the player did not make 4 (in example Kion AAA).

What do you think?

Juan

gamerman01

Good points, Juan, thanks. I understand most of them, I think.

You point at KionAAA, but for every one like that there are 3-4 that are actually more like tier 4’s.
In most cases I think it’s actually generous to assign tier 3 to new players. The only time you will not get full credit for beating a good player is if they actually only play 1-3 games in league for the year, and are actually skilled at tier 1 or tier 2 level. Again, most players new to the league are not better than tier 3 anyway.

If you rank a player from their first game, then you have someone getting credit for losing to a tier 1 even though in most cases, a player who comes along and plays one game and beats a tier 3 player is not tier 1. This is why there is a 4 game minimum. Note that if a player completed several games in the previous year, I do carry that ranking forward, so this only applies to new players.

I have one idea, just off the top of my head. I could have a stat for # of new players brought into a league. So when someone records their first game, I ask them if a current league player brought them into the league, and give credit to that league player on the rankings, thus not affecting ranking, record, or PPG.

I recognize you raised other issues, but I do not have time to address them right now. I will just say that not everyone spends as much time playing or plays as fast as you and Mr Roboto, Wheatbeer and Karl. You should not get points for playing more games. You do get one perk - that is the ability to play more games against other active players than the rest of us who are limited to best of 3 or best of 5

gamerman01

Also, when anyone gets upwards of 15-20 games played, a couple points here or there (like for playing Kion) are insignificant. The more you play, the more accurate your ranking would be.

boldfresh

can we all say this together……

Gamer’s system is doing a fantastic job.

Juan’s point about people who play a lot of games is valid - playing a lot of games is going to decrease your win percentage because you are going to overlook things and make more mistakes. so just ask yourself, do you prefer to play a lot of games or do you want to try to make the playoffs and act accordingly. i think we can be successful bringing players to the league because the league is very well run and because it’s easy to find competition close to you in skill level, thereby creating stimulating and challenging games.

I guess everyone may have their definition of what makes for a great league - maybe we should submit what we think the mission statement of the league should be? :-)

gamerman01

Um, Jenn, not only do we ALWAYS know who the top 5 are and they are sitting pretty at the top of the standings on any given day, but we know precisely what rank every single player is, on any given day of the year!!

gamerman01

VERY well said, Bold, thank you.

Purpose of the league to me, is for players to be able to find opponents of varying skill levels for a match any time of the year, to have moderator support for your games, and to have shared standings that show your record and progress. The standings serve to help players find an opponent at the skill level that they desire.

OK, I’m the first to share a mission statement. @ Everyone - What’s yours?

gamerman01

@Gamerman01:

Um, Jenn, not only do we ALWAYS know who the top 5 are and they are sitting pretty at the top of the standings on any given day, but we know precisely what rank every single player is, on any given day of the year!!

I would remind you that prior to my being here, not only were the league standings merely by win percentage, but they were OCCASIONALLY updated, whenever the moderator got around to it, sometimes every couple of months.

gamerman01

If I do say so myself, the PPG system and nearly REAL-TIME updating of PPG and rankings has generated a lot of interest and excitement in the league.

JuanSpain

Bold, my proposals did not intend to be a criticism to GamerÂ´s system.

I think I will make over 70 games this league, so I definetely like GamerÂ´s system :-D

I am also thankfull for all the efforts done to make it up and running. Precisely because of that feeling, I think it is fair spending time trying to help improving and making it even better.

I coincide with league mission stated by Gamer, making it grow faster and stimulating players to play more was the aim of the enhancements (in my view) that I proposed.

666

@Boldfresh:

can we all say this together……
Gamer’s system is doing a fantastic job.

YES, thank you Gamerman.

2015 League Rules Discussion Thread

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

L24 PTV MikawaGunichi (X+7) vs Wizmark Game#2

L24 OOB FlyingBadger (Axis) vs Gamerman01 (Allies+44) #2

L24 Wizmark (allies) vs Koala (axis+10)

L24 PtV 666 (alliex) vs Nikola1975 (axis +11)

L24 PTV Adam514 (Axis+13) vs GeneralDisarray (Allies)

L24 PtV Mikawagunichi (Allies) vs. Nikola1975 (Axis + 12)

L24 PtV Hythem (Allies) vs. Nikola1975 (Axis +9) Game #2

League General Discussion Thread

30

17.4k

39.9k

1.7m