A player noticed 3 months of missing game results in the ELO data during 2nd half of 2019.
I entered them all tonight.
If you didn’t play games during that time you will have very little change, but there were some noticeable tremors in the top 4. And if you did play games during that time, your game count and win % will be different.
Verification of accuracy of ELO data entry is still underway. Watch every day! You might go up a point! Or down.
DANG! I should have written down what I was at so I would know if there has been a change.
@AndrewAAGamer said in League General Discussion Thread:
DANG! I should have written down what I was at so I would know if there has been a change.
i thought the same thing, … i do know i went down tho, and now my status as #1 ranked is hanging by a thread lol
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
I entered them all tonight.
Verification of accuracy of ELO data entry is still underway. Watch every day! You might go up a point! Or down.
Newly entered data checked. Only one problem - the game on August 7th between trulpen and Dawg should be OOB instead of BM. Damn fine work for one night.
Thank you… X2
@GovZ said in League General Discussion Thread:
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
I entered them all tonight.
Verification of accuracy of ELO data entry is still underway. Watch every day! You might go up a point! Or down.
Newly entered data checked. Only one problem - the game on August 7th between trulpen and Dawg should be OOB instead of BM. Damn fine work for one night.
You checked me on all, July 1 to Sep 30, 2019?
@AndrewAAGamer said in League General Discussion Thread:
DANG! I should have written down what I was at so I would know if there has been a change.
Gotcha covered. I had taken a screen shot before entering those 3 months, just the screen starting with #1
So I can see on the overall spreadsheet, you went up 2 points
@gamerman01 LOL - Thanks!
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
You checked me on all, July 1 to Sep 30, 2019?
All of 2019 checked.
Oh, right, it went through October. I got it
ABH mentioned the winner’s curse in his interview. I was wondering if that discussion has been had here. As I’ve mentioned before, everyone here who is worried about his elo is going to want the axis. The system and the setup incentivize creative axis play. Historically speaking, it rewards new ways to do evil.
I was wondering if we might start a companion system that rewards creative Allied play. For instance, we might go with a set up that has been adjusted by the agreement of previous champions with a 60 bid. This is considered too high by ABH, but the bid might then go to the Axis player. An alternative would be to give the Russians 10 infantry in their capital and the US a fighter and a battleship in and off its capital. Another possibility is to adjust down the political rules by 1. Lastly, we might just spike the US map income by 25?!
I might also suggest scraping the bid system as is. It changes the narrative of turn 1 which I think is supposed to play out. The better way to go with the feng shui of the design is to give the powers that are currently neutral more units so that the ricochet might be a bit more powerful. Placing adjustments en masse in capitals makes a lot of sense.
I suggest this for the good of the community and to better align ourselves with history and virtue.
I might also encourage the league to add a version past oob, ptv, bm. I would suggest 1940, 42 version. If you think about it, it is the 1940 version 3rd edition.
One last and very simple idea is to acknowledge the player who’s gotten the furthest in the playoffs, playing the allies as the allied champion or Allied player of the year.
@crockett36 Come to PtV, where Axis get the bid and lose half the games! The water’s great 😉🇺🇸🇬🇧
I resisted the urge to answer when I saw it 5 hours ago so that others could react, but only Stucifer who said give it up, just switch to PTV!!
I’ll just respond to one of the several points so I don’t dominate discussion.
The idea of top players agreeing on a standard setup for a 60 bid is brilliant. Like you said, of course you could bid from there.
Actually @Arthur-Bomber-Harris may change his answer about 60, because
The bid set by the panel of top players wouldn’t necessarily be the most power packed effective one, but one that’s a bit more historical or whatever other factors, like not messing with the opening moves much.
@axis-dominion Like the UK bid placements on the Europe board could be less, making G1 less of an adventure
My immediate thought, if others in the league actually like the idea of standardizing a bid, especially for OOB,
is you won’t have a couple bid fighters to Russia. Of course there are other ways to prevent this cheesy and horribly ahistorical start, like was done by the BM, but changing the opening setup by pretty much adding units that are very popular for bids, should keep the bid low (bid from the new starting point) where the Allied player wouldn’t/couldn’t add 2 fighters to Russia.
.
The idea of automatically increasing income of the USA (and, I strongly believe, Russia) would be more historical and bring back traditional A&A play (the Axis had better get it done fast or they’re gonna die). I do understand the goal would be the Axis would still have a 50/50 chance of winning, but it would dramatically change the game to be like the earlier versions of A&A.
The big challenge with trying to implement the “later rounds increasing income” idea, is, hard to gauge if it “unbalances” the game.
I tried not to say too much, but hopefully this will advance the discussion beyond just the playa who dropped the concept in the room
Go!
One of my favorite things about PtV (and there are many) is how strong Mother Russia is. The revised NOs she gets and all the extra room on the board west of Moscow/Stalingrad really make it a slog as Germany to push for a quick victory. Her 46 base IPC income is game-changing. The factory destruction rule is also a big help here. I can’t remember if that’s in BM or not.
If players want to try out a fixed bid set, easy for one player to propose the additional troops and/or income for the Allies, and the other player decide which side he wants to take. Nothing preventing such an arrangement for rebalancing the game.
This could go a long ways towards keeping historical accuracy as many of the common bids lead to unrealistic situations such as total domination of the Atlantic in the early game or a massive Chinese army that overwhelms Japan. Perhaps 100 bids for Allies accompanied with reasonable selections would be about balanced assuming a fair bit of extra units goes to the United States.
@Arthur-Bomber-Harris
Did I get the winner’s curse idea right?
I appreciate the input from this year’s champion. Other Champions and runners up?
