|
||||||||
|
Title: League Feedback Post by megajester on Nov 13th, 2009, 10:06am This is a continuation of the thread "Arimaa Team League?" originally started under the Events subfolder. Please post any new comments, ideas etc. about how the League should function to this thread, so that all the feedback can be kept in one place. Thanks. Here is the Arimaa Team League? thread link for reference: http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=events;action=display;num=1255867337 |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Nov 13th, 2009, 4:00pm So where do the Africans and South Americans join? Maybe, since the non-US teams are hurting for participants, we could direct South America to help out the Ring of Fire and Africa to help out Europa. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Nov 14th, 2009, 12:44am Exactly. These are clubs not national teams. Anybody can play for anybody. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by nycavri on Dec 16th, 2009, 11:27am I'm excited to play a friendly for the Yankees this week (Dec 14 - 20), but it is now the 16th and there is still no game scheduled. I filled in 60 choices - when should we expect to find out our time slots? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Dec 16th, 2009, 3:00pm on 12/16/09 at 11:27:17, nycavri wrote:
Do you not see a game scheduled for you in the game room? I see one at 22:00 Thursday Yankee time. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Dec 16th, 2009, 3:08pm I see Sconibulus has two games scheduled at the same time. The only way I know of to avoid this would have been for him to change his time preferences after the first game was scheduled. Clearly that didn't happen. Perhaps I need to fall back on my earlier thought that we just can't have two events running at the same time. When the World League starts up in a few months, I will not run the Continuous Tournament. No hard feelings; I'm glad to see something new and exciting get off the ground. To resolve the current situation, though, Nombril and Sconibulus need to get together and agree on another time for their World League game. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by nycavri on Dec 16th, 2009, 6:57pm on 12/16/09 at 15:00:23, Fritzlein wrote:
Thanks, Fritz. It wasn't there when I posted around 3.30 pm, but was by the time you replied around 7 pm . . . |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Sconibulus on Dec 16th, 2009, 7:59pm Hehehe, oops, well Nombril, since I'm at fault here, I suppose you're entitled to reselect the match time. I'm available at that time on any other day, and could start up to three hours later. If none of those work well for you, we could leave it as is, and see how well I'm able to play simultaneous games... pity I'm the same colour in both, or I could super-sneakily make you two really play eachother. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Dec 17th, 2009, 10:37am I'd be happy to play a day earlier, same time. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Dec 17th, 2009, 10:43am on 12/16/09 at 15:08:36, Fritzlein wrote:
Personally, I don't think you have to put the Continuous Tournament on hold because one person ended up double booked. Off the top of my head (and being ignorant of the amount of effort required), either a. reschedule a game once in awhile, or b. see how tough it would be for the scheduling tool to eliminate already scheduled time slots. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Dec 17th, 2009, 12:21pm on 12/16/09 at 19:59:47, Sconibulus wrote:
on 12/17/09 at 10:37:49, Nombril wrote:
Thanks guys. I have moved Nombril vs Sconbiulus 24 hours earlier. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Dec 17th, 2009, 12:36pm Nice one Fritz, sorry for not getting on it myself. Next time I'll check to make sure that none of the games I schedule clash with any other scheduled games. Maybe we can get omar to either add some code to the scheduler or give us a way of seeing which times the players have entered on the scheduler tool to help things along... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 7th, 2010, 4:38am With only a month or so to the official start date of the World League, I thought it might be a good idea to slowly "iron out the creases" in preparation. - Firstly, the Rockies still do not have a captain and the Yankees are a bit thin on the ground. Anybody volunteers to help out with either of these? - Secondly we need to decide on how many games will be played each cycle. Captains, maybe you could ask your teammates in your team forums. - Thirdly, and this is mostly a question for omar, is the scheduler going to be extended for all times in the week or is it going to stay as it is? I know everybody is still busy with the WC so I'm not asking for anybody's undivided attention. It's just we don't want to rush these decisions, especially as this will be the first time for all of us, so your thoughts and suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 10th, 2010, 4:02am on 03/07/10 at 04:38:09, megajester wrote:
Update: Congratulations to ChrisB, the new captain of the Rockies. All comments are still welcome on the remaining points. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 11th, 2010, 7:36am We need to talk a bit more about the number of games to be played in each match. A point that perhaps I should have made more clear, is that the number of games for each match must remain constant throught the entire league. The reason for this is that the points for each match are totalled on the League Table, and if we change the number of games for each match it will end up being unfair. So basically we'll have to decide the number of games now. Take a look at the club membership: http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/Club_Membership I'm thinking it's safest if we say 3, and even then the Yankees still need a bit of support. If we have a lot of interest before the start date, however, we might be able to push 4. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Mar 11th, 2010, 8:21am on 03/07/10 at 04:38:09, megajester wrote:
Personally, I found it hard to pick 60 hrs for scheduler. If this tool gets extended to cover all days of the week, I assume we need to pick more hours to assure a match is made. If a new or updated tool is looked into for League play, I wonder if something can be done that requires fewer hours? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Eltripas on Mar 11th, 2010, 6:27pm on 03/11/10 at 08:21:54, Nombril wrote:
Well you can always directly accord with your opponent the time of the game. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 11th, 2010, 11:04pm on 03/11/10 at 18:27:27, Eltripas wrote:
Just fill in the times you are available for and set the rest to level 5. Provided you've selected enough times at reasonable hours in the higher levels, especially over the weekend, it would be very unusual for any of the level 5 times to be selected. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 24th, 2010, 10:35pm OK, it might be good to clarify a couple of points. At the moment we are expecting to announce 3 tables per match. Table 3 will probably have a rating ceiling of 2000, while Tables 1 and 2 will of course be subject to no upper or lower limit. On Monday 12th these details will be finalized at the same time as I release the fixtures list. Monday April 12th will be the start of Week 1 of Round 1. This is the week when the captain decides with his teammates who will play at the three tables. He will submit his roster by Monday 19th (Week 2). I will schedule the games on Tuesday, and the games will most likely be played over the weekend of Week 2, perhaps a couple overlapping into Monday. That day, Monday 26th, is Week 1 of Round 2, and so on. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 25th, 2010, 4:37am on 03/24/10 at 22:35:21, megajester wrote:
A few more questions: - Can we announce a backup player that will play in the event that the original player doesn't show up? Or will that be a forfeit? - If both captains announce their roster at the end of Week 1, can we switch players if we find, for example, that one of the boards has an enormous rating discrepancy, either favourably or unfavourably? Or are the lists finalized once they are submitted? - Is the World League going to consist of 3-game matches against each of the other 3 teams? And then will the winner be the team with the most accumulated points out of those 9 games? Or will the score continue to accumulate through all World League events throughout 2010? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ChrisB on Mar 25th, 2010, 6:24am on 03/25/10 at 04:37:24, Adanac wrote:
One possibility for both of these issues would be to allow a replacement of a player on the roster at any time, provided that the replacement player has a lower rating than that of the player being replaced. Or, more lenient, would be to allow a replacement as long as the replacement player's rating does not exceed the rating of the player being replaced by say, 100 points. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ChrisB on Mar 25th, 2010, 7:01am on 03/25/10 at 06:24:16, ChrisB wrote:
After further thought .....One thing I do not like about my suggestion is that it would be risky for a team to put lower-rated players on the roster, since few or no replacement players would be available for those players. (The safest approach would be for a team to submit the highest-rated players allowed and then replace as needed.) So, I think my previous suggestion is not good yet, but perhaps some tweaking can fix it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 25th, 2010, 9:12am on 03/25/10 at 04:37:24, Adanac wrote:
Good questions. Basically we want a fail-safe system, but a system that allows captains to announce changes to the roster at the last minute won't be fail safe. Let's say you want to change a player half an hour before a scheduled game. The fate of the match will rest on whether or not I happen to be online at the time. So we need a cut-off. But when? The scheduler starts from 00:00 GMT on Thursday. So let's say we allow a 24-hour breathing space for players to request a reschedule to their game. So we say I'll schedule the games before 00:00 GMT Wednesday. Based on rosters submitted before 00:00 GMT Tuesday. So we're back to square one. I know it sounds harsh to say "If you don't make it, it's a forfeit", but that's why we're giving teams a week to work out who's available. That's also part of the rationale behind the 24-hour breathing space. Also I think the idea of tinkering with a roster after it's been released, even before any cut-off point, is more complicated than it sounds. Who gets to make an adjustment first? How many rounds of adjustment will there be? I think it's just simplest to say the original roster is final. That's fair because both teams' rosters will be announced at the same time. I appreciate the concerns about rating differences. After all this isn't a party game, we're trying to start something serious and competitive. Therefore teams may be expected to field the best players they have. That's why Table 3 is U-2000, so that beginners don't get left behind. I'll tell you what, how about we rewrite the rule as follows: "The three players shall be fielded in order of strength, and player 3 shall be rated under 2000." So a strong team might field players of strengths 2400, 2200 and 1800, against a weaker team fielding 2100, 1900 and 1600. The weaker team would still stand a reasonable chance. on 03/25/10 at 04:37:24, Adanac wrote:
It's going to be a double round robin. You play the other 3 teams twice each, once as gold ("home game") and once as silver ("away game"). Therefore 6 rounds x 2 weeks = 12 weeks = 3 months. That'll take us to the beginning of July. If people think that's too short I had been thinking about some sort of Clubs' Cup knockout tournament afterwards, but we really shouldn't be starting that conversation now. :) on 03/25/10 at 07:01:28, ChrisB wrote:
I really don't think changing rosters is going to work, and I think the "order of strength+Table 3 is U-2000" rule I outlined above should be a fairly decent workaround. But please don't misunderstand me as being set in my views, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I think it's better to have fail-safe rules that might seem slightly draconian instead of fuzzy ones that could end up turning into misunderstandings and unfair situations that will leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. Every single point counts. Just one forfeit can and probably will make the difference between a single team taking first place and two teams going to a tiebraker. So we need simple, crystal clear rules. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 25th, 2010, 9:51am on 03/25/10 at 09:12:27, megajester wrote:
Thanks for the explanations, everything is clear now :) I have two suggestions regarding the rules above: 1. We should probably use WHR rating rather than Gameroom rating, just as we did in the World Championship, so that players are ranked according to their Human vs. Human ability rather than their bot-bashing skills. 2. Ratings might fluctuate from the beginning of Week 1 to the beginning of Week 2. That could cause players to play on a different board than originally expected. So how about: (a) ratings will be based upon WHR rating on the final day of Week 1; and (b) captains can switch the order for any two players so long as there is no more than a 50-point difference in their ratings. That last point 2(b) is intended to provide a bit of flexibility in case two players have virtually identical ratings but one is more willing than the other to play on a higher board. Or perhaps to get a more favourable time zone pairing for certain players, or because two players really want to play against one another, etc. But if people think 2(b) would be unfair then I'm okay with dropping that option. For example, if Team A = 2300, 2100, 1900 Team B = 2300, 1950, 1920 then Team B has the flexibility to switch players 2 & 3 but Team A does not. Switching players could provide a better time zone pairing but it might also motivate Team B to switch players 2 & 3 if the captain knows that the 1920 player is particularly good at defeating the 2100 player. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 25th, 2010, 1:32pm on 03/25/10 at 09:51:18, Adanac wrote:
Yep definitely. on 03/25/10 at 09:51:18, Adanac wrote:
Have you actually got players who've indicated they might not want to play on a high/low board? On the other points... Something else I probably should have stated more clearly is that one team doesn't know the other's roster until both are announced simultaneously. At least in theory, it shouldn't be possible to plan so that specific players face one another. (Of course, if we're now saying that players are sequenced in order of rating that does make it easier to guess who will be at which table. So maybe we should make some private sections in the forum or get the captains to use the messaging system more.) I get the feeling this rule would unnecessarily complicate things without providing much benefit. But so long as it's clearly defined and everyone's happy with it, why not. "The three players shall be fielded in order of strength. However, if two players in subsequent order of strength are within 50 rating points of one another the captain may reverse their positions on the roster. Notwithstanding, player 3 shall always be rated under 2000." |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 25th, 2010, 3:08pm I really think Megajester's got a workable rule there. If we get into more than three boards, we should consider an even lower ceiling for boards 4+, say 1800/1600/etc. After all, we want to encourage beginners, and what better way to do so than to have a place for them to slide into the league without getting bashed. I'm very much in favor of no substitutions once a captain has announced his three (or whatever number) boards. As we all know, though, real life does happen unexpectedly. It is conceivable that a player could suddenly find themselves in a drastic/tragic situation where they just could not possibly play a game. In that case, should we consider a one-time substitution to allow for that? Maybe it's one time per captain per season, or maybe two or three times. I don't know. If you guys feel it should be "these things happen, just take the forfeit" then I would still support that. Just fostering discussion. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 25th, 2010, 10:33pm on 03/25/10 at 15:08:38, azgreg wrote:
My problem isn't with how often captains do this, it's with me not being able to guarantee when I'll be online. I want to be able to set up the games on Tuesday, reschedule if the players request it on Wednesday, and then not need to check back every five minutes to see if the captains want to substitute. It's this kind of scenario I'm worried about: On Friday a captain says "I want to make a sub for one of my games on Saturday." I happen to be online that day, I make the substitution, that substituted player goes on to win 3 points. Following round same thing happens, but I'm on holiday so I can't make the substitution, and so that team registers a forfeit. Suddenly it's my fault. Which is why we need a cut-off point. If I'm setting up the games on Tuesday, I want a final roster on Monday. I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that you should know on Wednesday if the time assigned to you for the weekend is good for you or not. Of course stuff happens, that's life, and it's a pain. I wish there was a fail-safe way to acommodate it but I can't see one. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Mar 26th, 2010, 3:34am Stepping back a bit on the issue of substitutions, does the game that is played have to be the scheduled game? If some Real Life event comes up, and a teammate is able to substitute, the substitute could announce themselves in the chat room a few minutes prior to the scheduled time. The game could be played as a manual invite at the proper time control. Later, is it easy to change the game from casual to tournament? Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about substitutes. (I know in my parents bridge clubs and bowling leagues substitutions occur without any advance notice...) I think we should make a decision about whether or not substitutions are a good idea for league play, and then figure out how to make the system handle it. On the subject of setting the boards in order of player rating: Why have any restrictions? I recall when my tennis team went up against a very strong team, we would often put our 6th best person at the top of the list, allowing our 1 to play the opponents 2, and so on down the list. Yes, we were sacrificing the first game, but it gave us a better chance at the rest. Looking at the strength of my teammates, I think this is the only way any of the other teams are going to be able to beat The Ring of Fire! :P (I do like having 1 or more boards with a max rating threshold - I see it as varsity vs. junior varsity and a good way to encourage all levels of players to be involved.) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 26th, 2010, 4:51am I completely see your point, MJ. There really isn't any late-sub rule that doesn't demand that you be online all the time leading up to every game, which is obviously not realistic. So, no subs it is! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 26th, 2010, 9:20am on 03/26/10 at 03:34:44, Nombril wrote:
Yes. on 03/26/10 at 03:34:44, Nombril wrote:
Basically, you have to define circumstances where the League Co-ordinator accepts a normal game instead of the scheduled game. Possible, but it has to be well regulated. You have several questions. 1. How do you make sure the original player really won't make it and it's not a case of his teammates assuming he won't? Otherwise you could have a situation where the original player doesn't sign in for a week, his teammates panic and find a substitute, only for the original player (who was on holiday or something) to show up on the day. 2. How do you select the substitute? Captain decision? Or volunteer-based? If you get more than one volunteer how do you decide? 3. What if the substitute wants to reschedule? How do you make sure it won't be unfair on the opponent, who has already planned his week around the scheduled game? 4. The substitute was ready to challenge the player at the scheduled time, and the player didn't show up. But there are no records. How do I know who forfeited? 5. What do you do if the players start the game and one of the players says he hadn't realized it was a a league game and wants to start again? And even if you do solve all of the above... 6. How do you make sure Team A doesn't abuse the system by releasing a token roster and then handpicking players according to the players Team B fields? Is it really fair if winning is as much about roster shenanigans as playing good Arimaa? I have managed to write up rules that would cover 1-5. They basically require the player who can't make it to make a post in the forum, the substitute to put his name forward in the chatroom, to send a challenge in a specific format to the other player when he turns up, and for them both to specify in the chatroom the number of the game they're playing and that they accept it as the official game. It's complicated. And doesn't solve 6. Nothing solves 6. If people are interested in these rules I can type them out. But I still keep coming back to the idea that we should stick with the original roster. K.I.S.S. (by the way the last "S" is for "Straightforward";)) ---- On another question that Nombril raised, how do people feel about making it mandatory to sequence players in order of strength? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 26th, 2010, 10:23am Quote:
I kind of agree. Not having the ability to sub increases a player's commitment level when s/he says they're available. By putting them on the roster, the captain is saying, "OK, kid, you said you're ready, get in there and don't let us down!" No subs will eliminate late shenanigans based on knowing the other team's roster, too. "Oh, Fritzlein isn't playing this week? Suddenly I'm available, how about that?" ---- Quote:
I'm in favor of that. Somehow it strikes me as unfair to sacrifice board 1 in hopes of beating up on boards 2 and 3 (or more). If we're judging team against team we should pit best against best, 2nd best vs 2nd best, down the line. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 26th, 2010, 11:44am First, regarding the order of strength of the players on each board. Suppose we have: Team A = 2600, 2050, 1700 Team B = 2350, 1850, 1300 With no restrictions on board order, the captain of Team B might decide to place the weakest player on board #1 in the hopes of winning the series 2-1 rather than losing 0-3. But the captain of Team A might simultaneously decide to switch his top two boards in anticipation of just such a tactic. I don’t like that too much because these shenanigans might result in lots of imbalanced boards and that’s contrary to the spirit of the World League. In the 1970 chess match USSR vs. the Rest of the World the ROTW almost but didn’t quite place their players in order of strength. For example, Bent Larsen was on the top board while Bobby Fischer was #2 despite being rated 70 points higher than Larsen (the fact that Fischer didn’t throw a tantrum and refuse to participate after this “demotion” may have been due to his strong desire to crush the USSR :)). I think it’s nice to have this type of flexibility when two players are close in rating, but I don’t like it when players are separated by hundreds of points and the swap is a transparent attempt to grab extra victories at the expense of a “sacrificial lamb”. The idea of a rating cap on the lower tables is one great way to prevent the types of tactics described in the first paragraph. For example, the captain of Team A above would have only 2 options (leave the players in order or swap the first two) while the captain of Team B would have 4 options. Without restrictions, they would each have 6 options. A different idea might be to award extra points for the higher boards. For example, boards 1, 2 and 3 might be worth 5, 4 and 3 points respectively. That would increase the incentive to place the top player on board #1. But I don’t like this idea because it would send the message that some games aren’t as “important” as others. After considering the pros & cons I like the status quo: - Players are sorted according to rating - Switching the order of 2 players should only be allowed if they are very close in rating, and must be announced at the end of Week 1 - Place a rating cap on the lower boards - All boards are worth the same number of points Next, regarding the substitution of players. My main concern is that if we don’t allow any substitutes then some players will never get a chance to play. For example, suppose a team has 7 players. Three can play 100% guaranteed. Three cannot play at all. The seventh player has an 85% chance of being able to play but because of family or professional obligations there’s always an unpredictable 15% chance of a forfeit. So the captain chooses the 3 players that are guaranteed not to forfeit. In the next round, the 3 participants from the previous game are all on vacation. But the 3 players that couldn’t play previously are all now 100%. The seventh player is still stuck in the situation where he probably can play but there’s still a 15% chance of a forfeit. So again the captain chooses his roster based upon the most reliable players who won’t stick the team with a 0-point forfeit. The irony is that the only player on the team who didn’t get a chance to play in either of the first two rounds was the one player that was available to play both rounds. And such a pattern could continue for the entire season. If we want to give the captains the flexibility to select <100% players without the full risk of a 0-point forfeit then we could choose 1 potential backup player for each game. But we would want to limit abuses. Some suggestions might be: - Backup cannot be above the table maximum rating - Limit the number of substitutions by deducting the 1 forfeit point anyway if the original player doesn’t show up. So the backup could gain 3 victory points but loses the forfeit point regardless of whether or not the game is completed. - An alternate deterrent would be to limit the number of substitutions per team per calendar year (perhaps 2 or 3?) - The same player can be nominated as backup for multiple boards, but can only play once per round - Backup must play in the same time slot as the original game, but must wait 15 minutes before replacing the original player. - Backup player can be rated no higher than 50 points above the original player - Backups must be announced within 24 hours after the schedules have been determined For example, my team might hypothetically announce a list like this (original player/potential backup): Board 1: Adanac / Simon Board 2: The_Jeh / knarl Board 3: Eltripas / knarl Now if board #2 is scheduled for 12:00 and The_Jeh doesn’t show up by 12:15 then knarl can challenge the opposing player (or possibly the opposing backup if neither of the original players show up) using the same time controls as the original game. This game becomes the official game, regardless of whether or not Megajester happens to be logged in, which addresses the fail-safe issue. Knarl, having played on board #2 is no longer eligible to play on board #3 so my team would no longer have a backup for board #3. But if both The_Jeh and knarl failed to show up to the previously mentioned game by 12:15 then we obviously lose by forfeit and knarl is still eligible to act as the backup on board #3. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 26th, 2010, 2:21pm on 03/26/10 at 11:44:35, Adanac wrote:
I hadn't thought about that. Thanks for bringing it up. on 03/26/10 at 11:44:35, Adanac wrote:
I think this combination of suggestions will probably work quite well . The only issue I have is with it is with this one, "Backups must be announced within 24 hours after the schedules have been determined." I will be scheduling the games by GMT 00:00 Wednesday, and the players will have a 24-hour cooloff period to request a reschedule, so the games are finalized by GMT 00:00 Thursday, which is the theoretical earliest time for which a game can be scheduled. Now, we can either shift the whole process one day backwards to allow another 24 hours for the backups to be assigned, or we can say the captain announces them together with his roster. Problem being that the game might be scheduled for a time that doesn't work for the backup at all... In which case I suggest the following: A single list of backups for all the tables. There will be three names in any order the captain likes. If the assigned player doesn't show up within 15 minutes of the assigned game time, the highest in order of preference available (ie. logged into the chatroom) makes the challenge. But I still think there should be a rule that both players confirm the game number in the chatroom before they click start, or at least 2g. Example: Captain submits the following roster Table 1: A (2200) Table 2: B (2050) Table 3: C (1700) Backups: X (2350), Y (1850), Z (1300) Player A doesn't show up. Y and Z are available. Y challenges. Player C doesn't show up. X and Z are available, but X is too highly rated so Z challenges. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 26th, 2010, 2:47pm OK, here's my 2c worth. It's just an attempt to think about the rostering differently so subs might be less complex. Lets say, instead of captains releasing a roster of who will play, they just release a list of "injuries" (the players on their team that aren't available for the match). The director can then schedule the top three uninjured players, allowing for any rating caps. As far as subs go, if the original player is 15 mins late, any uninjured player of lesser rating that isn't already playing in the match can sub in by challenging with the correct time controls. To stop overuse of substitutions, put a cap on the number of subs per season. I don't know if that solves any problems, or creates more. I was just trying to come up with something simple that allows substitutions, because I don't think I'll ever get a game with three tables, being the lowest rated player on my team, which seems a shame if we got any forfeits. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 26th, 2010, 3:10pm What happened to keeping it simple? I get that as captains we want to avoid forfeits, but is the solution to make 3 subs log in and wait on every game in case their player doesn't show? Even a player who is 85% or 50% on availability should be able to answer a straightforward, "Can you be available for one game the week of 4/19? If the answer is yes, I will try to get you in. If you can't commit to one game, just say so." With zero subs, players who are in the match know they need to make the effort to make their game happen or else the team will forfeit. And players who are out of the match can forget about the league for two weeks. As the league progresses, I believe that someone who's available most of the time, but still out of the top 3 on their team, will still get worked in for several games as the top 3 will want a break periodically. I want my team to win, of course, but I want everyone on the team to have a good experience to keep them coming back. Someone who's always available but never plays will simply drop out, and then they're not available when my top board goes on holiday. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 26th, 2010, 4:33pm OK, here's another go at thinking laterally: Assuming there's no substitutions allowed, how about a different rating cap style, to keep with the spirit of the league (include all skill levels). Something like: The captains roster anyone they like, but after the first round of matches an overall rating cap for the season will be introduced. The overall rating cap would be extrapolated from the team that fielded the lowest average ratings for the first round. So by the end of the season, the teams will have fielded roughly the same number of rating points, which should make it a close competition and lowly rated players will inevitably be used to get under the rating cap. Cheers, knarl |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:06pm on 03/26/10 at 16:33:23, knarl wrote:
Brilliant. Captains will have a budget of rating points to spend however they like during the season. Teams are inherently equalized, but cleverness of the captains and flexibility and dedication of the team members still counts. Everyone will get to play because everyone is attractive either through winning chances or through being cheap. Captains who don't recruit at least one low-rated player (and use him) will be in a world of hurt. Possible extension: if you burn through your rating budget unwisely early in the season, you don't have to forfeit or recruit 1100-rated players later in the season. Instead your team's total score is penalized by one point per 350 rating points you go over budget. That's assuming 3 points per win and 1 point per loss scoring. That penalty was chosen to be the smallest such that going over budget is never an advantage according to the Elo formula. In other words, those who stay in budget will have an advantage from doing so, but those who go over won't automatically lose the season. By the way, I like the no subs rule for simplicity. But with the rating budget, there's a simple solution: A) If you sub in someone lower-rated, you still have to pay the rating of the original player B) If you sub in someone higher-rated, you have to pay the higher rating plus the difference. For example, subbing in a 1900 for an 1800 means you get charged 2000 against your budget. So you can sub all you want, but it will hurt you unless the original player wasn't going to be able to make it. The less the difference in rating, the less the sub hurts you. Also I think the budget/subs rules in conjunction eliminate any need for switching the order of players. Captains will have plenty of room for strategy without being allowed to shuffle the order of who plays which board. Your original roster must be in order of rating, and if you want to shuffle it then you can pay the substitution cost. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:49pm on 03/26/10 at 17:06:31, Fritzlein wrote:
Hmmm... ingenious... a little complicated but workable. It would work, but for me it would fundamentally change what the League represents. What would it mean in sports leagues if, instead of having rich and poor clubs, all were given exactly the same budget? I don't know about you but part of what I like about the concept of sports leagues is you have different clubs, some are rich some are poor, some are brilliant and some aren't but they're together because of a common loyalty. They give it all they've got so they're the best they can be, even if that doesn't mean winning. But the winner really is the winner, the best team out there. A "ratings budget" however means you're deliberately tying the hands of the stronger teams so they can't be the best they can be. All winning such a league would prove is that the winning team's players are underrated and the losing team's players are overrated. You could say that having a rating limit on certain tables comes to the same thing but it feels different. It's like taking the aggregate score from a match between two official national sides and their U21 teams. Both have still been the best they can be. I dunno, I'm not keen, but if everyone likes this idea let's do it. on 03/26/10 at 17:06:31, Fritzlein wrote:
OK, when does he make the substitution? Does the captain have to continually check up on game status? Or are you talking about Adanac's idea of proposing a separate backup for each table? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:52pm By the way, here (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/League_Rules) is the latest draft of the League Rules. A work in progress to be sure... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:04pm on 03/26/10 at 17:49:34, megajester wrote:
They do exactly that in some sports leagues by using a salary cap don't they? I'm not big into sports, but I always hear talk about the salary cap in the NRL (Australian rugby league) here, and I assumed it was to negate the richness of the clubs and make a closer competition that's better for spectators. I thought the same would work for arimaa. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:14pm on 03/26/10 at 18:04:57, knarl wrote:
Oops. I looked on Wikipedia and it seems they specifically don't do it for European football. Which would explain why it seems a strange idea to me. Fair enuffsky. We're still back to the question of how substitutions are gonna work though. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:15pm Also, I see benefits in the way it would encourage recruitment and nurturing of up and coming talent, because someone with a rising rating would be better value. The same way a salary capped sporting team would look for young talent that gets bang for their buck. After all, helping to "train more world-class players" is an aim of the league. By the way. I think the idea for the league was a stroke of brilliance! I see a time where there'll be 14 teams and each team will need middle management to sort out rosters because there'll be that many members! Or there'll be premier league, and leagues A through G :-D . Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:22pm on 03/26/10 at 18:14:40, megajester wrote:
I think need for subs goes down with the season rating cap, because captains have the flexibility to lean towards the player that is definitely available, over the higher rated player who might not make it, and he knows in the long run it'll give him some more in the rating bank, if you know what I mean? So the simple no-subs rule looks more attractive to me in that sense, but all Fritzleins ideas are good, albeit more complex. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:24pm on 03/26/10 at 18:22:28, knarl wrote:
I should say He or She. Do we have any female captains? Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 27th, 2010, 5:07am OK, I've fallen in love with this ratings budget idea. I'm sorry I was a hard sell at first, well done knarl and Fritzlein. Genius. Now I'm going to try and crystallize all the concerns that have been expressed into a new proposal and then explain why I think the new proposal addresses them. At the league start captains are given a ratings budget to last for the whole season. The figure will be calculated to ensure that players of all levels get a chance to take part, taking into account that those players' ratings are likely to increase as the league progresses. Captains are free to spend as much or as little in any one match. Overspending will be penalized by 1 league point per every 350 rating points. There will be no ratings-limited tables. During Week 1 the captain negotiates with his teammates who is available. The players fill out the scheduler for times they know they definitely will be (1st choice), are most likely to be (2nd choice), will probably be (3rd choice) and might be (4th and 5th choice) available on Week 2. Captain submits a roster by 00:00 GMT Tuesday of Week 2. He must field players in order of WHR rating on Monday of Week 1, with the exception that two players within 50 points of one another may be switched. League Co-ordinator announces the rosters and schedules the games before 00:00 GMT Wednesday. Players have until 00:00 GMT Thursday to appeal their assigned games. A player who wishes to do so must re-fill out the scheduler to reflect their circumstances, after which the League Co-ordinator will re-schedule the game. After this point no substitutions will be allowed. Now to why I think this should be a reasonable compromise. People have thought substitutions might be a good idea for two reasons: (1) the selected player doesn't show up, or (2) there's a massive ratings discrepancy on the tables. As we've already said, finding a fail-safe substitution system that isn't open to abuse promises to be an administrative nightmare. Which would be fine if there were sufficient justification for it. But there doesn't seem to be; there really should be no excuse for 1 (apart from acts of God), and the combination of the ratings budget and the requirement that players be fielded in order of strength should prevent 2. Adanac had said he was worried that people with busier schedules might get left behind without a substitution system. But to be honest, we can only accommodate such players so far. The League takes a certain level of commitment. All a player needs to do is find a week where he won't have too much on and fill out the scheduler properly. The ratings budget system will make it easier for captains to make room for such players on a given week. The idea of assigning backup players might work, but it could be unfair on the backup players for the same reason that unregulated substitution systems could be unfair on the League Co-ordinator: it requires the backup to be around at whatever unearthly time was scheduled to suit the official players. You could make it that all players not on the roster can be backups, but it still comes to the same thing. The team logs a forfeit purely because nobody was online at the time; now whose fault is that? I know Fritz had some ideas as to how the ratings budget system could help make player substitutions a workable option. Perhaps, but it doesn't solve the main issues with the nuts and bolts of administering them. I think a "ratings budget plus no subs" solution will be fair, elegant and realistic, and make for a fantastic League for everyone. What do you think guys? Please chip in with any considerations I've missed. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:12am One of the disconnects in our resent discussions finally became apparent to me last night. We are spending a lot of time talking about being fair, even, balanced, etc. But the teams themselves have been formed by player self selection. So we are starting from a potentially unfair position of unbalanced teams, and everything we are suggesting to make things "fair" will be a band-aid (repair/patch/workaround) on the unfair starting point. That said, the ratings budget seems to be a reasonable way to approach getting to a point of "fairness". It is possibly better than having a team rating cap or running a draft for picking teams, since the players actually playing the games are being regulated, rather than just the composition of the overall team. (It sounds complicated to me - so I'll leave it to the captains to decide if they want to deal with it! ;) ) Just for fun, here is an alternative proposal, that would be on the reverse side of the spectrum of fairness and regulation. If the idea of the league is to have fun, show some team spirit, and learn about the game, why not play unrated games? Each team could have a teamspeak channel (or use the public or a private chat room), and they can shout advice from the sideline to their teammate who is playing. You could forget about rating caps, ranking tables, U-1800 tables, concerns about cheating, etc. on 03/27/10 at 05:07:05, megajester wrote:
Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but I don't consider my boss coming to me with a last minute project that will require working the weekend, or my 3 year old deciding they don't want to go to bed on time, or any other number of other unplanned events as being acts of God. If you implement the ratings budget, I don't see any draw back of allowing unrestricted substitutions as regular game room challenges 15 min after the start time in case the original player doesn't show up.. Yes - if it is a tough time, there might not be any teammates watching, but hey, at least there is an opportunity to avoid a forfeit and have a game played. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 27th, 2010, 8:16am on 03/27/10 at 05:07:05, megajester wrote:
This will be interesting. I support this system for the inaugural season and if it doesn't work out then we can always try new ideas in future years. Will ratings be fixed at the start of the season to prevent "sand-bagging"? i.e. the possibility that a player might lose just enough rating points leading up to a match so that he fits "under budget". Or we could use lifetime highest rating so that ratings can go up but not down? Or maybe there's an even easier method? There have been cases in Arimaa history where people have distorted their ratings by hundreds of points for various reasons, so I think we need to be vigilant about this. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ChrisB on Mar 27th, 2010, 8:46am on 03/27/10 at 05:07:05, megajester wrote:
I'm all for the ratings budget. Until we reach the point of having different level of leagues, I think the budget approach provides the best opportunity for giving enthusiastic low-to-middle-rated players the chance to play. Subs vs. no subs is a tougher call for me, but I'm leaning toward trying the unrestricted substitutions as proposed by Nombril, with the budget penalties proposed by Fritzlein to help avoid abuse. To further avoid abuse, it might help to increase the penalty for substitutions beyond the first few (or even the first) in the same season. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 27th, 2010, 8:46am on 03/27/10 at 07:12:57, Nombril wrote:
I think we're disagreeing about the nature of fairness. In sports, fairness means that both players play under the exact same conditions so that the winner is the better player. "May the best man win." Not "Let's all have a draw." Player self-selection is what gives the clubs their own distinct atmosphere, identity and is what inspires the players with loyalty. Of course they're going to be unevenly matched. The point of playing is for the better team to win, for it to be a genuine test of Arimaa prowess. What we are arguing about is not evening out team strengths per se, but making sure that a team's winning is not affected by outside conditions. We're trying to make sure a team is rewarded for their commitment and skill, not for taking advantage of the rules... on 03/27/10 at 07:12:57, Nombril wrote:
Well, you could say it's changed the objective from "may the best man win" to "may the man who most excels himself win." on 03/27/10 at 07:12:57, Nombril wrote:
We could do that but it would completely kill any "sports league" atmosphere, which at least for me is the point of the exercise. on 03/27/10 at 07:12:57, Nombril wrote:
Fair enough, let's codify it. If a substitution is to be made after 00:00 GMT Thursday on Week 2, the following procedure must be implemented. ("Rating" refers to WHR rating.) 1) Official player states in his team's forum clubhouse that he will be unable to play at his scheduled game. 2) Volunteers rated no more than 100 points higher than the original player put their name forward to play at the exact same time as the scheduled game. If the captain is unavailable to decide who will play, the highest rated volunteer takes precedence. All such discussions take place in the team's forum clubhouse. The captain has the final decision as to who will be the substitute, but he may not change that decision unless the substitute subsequently resigns his position as per step 1. 3) At the game time, the substitute must sign into the chatroom to prove he is present. He must issue a challenge to his opponent as the exact same color and with the exact same time controls as the scheduled game. He must state in the challenge that he is the substitute player. If these conditions are met the opponent must accept. 4) Before clicking Start, both players must enter the chatroom and state the game number and that they accept it as the official game. 5) Any rescheduling of the game is subject to the original opponent's agreement. If there is a rescheduling, both must state their agreement to it either in the forum or in the chatroom. When the agreed time arrives, both must sign into the forum to prove their presence, and adhere to steps 3 and 4. Player Absence If the scheduled player has not carried out step 1 and does not appear for his match, after 15 minutes of the game time, one of his teammates present that are rated no more than 100 points higher than he is may make a challenge in accordance with steps 3 to 5 above. If more than one such player is present, they may discuss who will play in the chatroom, however the highest rated among them takes precedence. If the captain is present, he makes the final decision. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Mar 27th, 2010, 10:21am on 03/26/10 at 17:49:34, megajester wrote:
This is how I felt about the World League when it was purely geographical. Specifically I wanted the United States to beat up on Europe. I wanted it to be about who has the team that is better, period. I wanted revenge for the lone U.S. vs E.U. match where the U.S. got clobbered. But now that the U.S. has been split up and the Ring of Fire has self-selected, my attitude has totally changed. Now it makes more sense for the league to be about enthusiasm, participation, and everyone on the team fulfilling a role. Not only does the budget per se make the likely winner more about team spirit than about team skill, my proposed penalty for substitutions makes it even more so. The teams whose players show up every time they commit to play never have to pay a penalty. I don't get the rationale for allowing the order of the boards to be swapped around (even given close ratings) and allowing free substitutions (even given close ratings). It's a hassle that is open to abuse. Next we'll be proposing allowing one takeback per game in case somebody might mismouse. We wouldn't want to penalize someone for mismousing, would we? ::) Allowing unlimited substitutions, but at a cost, would not be open to abuse, and no team will ever use the feature at all unless they have to. It won't be a strategic option used for maximizing team total score, it will be a last resort to avoid forfeits. The less the feature is used, the less there is hassle for having the feature available. But the possibility of substitution will still be there so that people who can't ever commit 100% because of real life still can participate in the league. Adanac, I understand and share your concern about the rating budget causing sandbagging. A budget creates an incentive for people to lower their ratings. Therefore the idea of using lifetime highest rating instead of current rating is very appealing. We should ask woh to include peak ratings in his WHR table. I think that will require only a modification of his display, i.e. no extra calculation, because the whole history ratings by definition retain the whole history. Whatever the rules end up being, everything will be fine. The rules can always change next year depending on how things work out this year. Just look at how all the other events around here have evolved over time. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 27th, 2010, 12:47pm on 03/27/10 at 10:21:24, Fritzlein wrote:
Ooh I don't know about that, you still seem fairly enthusiastic about whacking the Yankees :) Just kidding, I get you totally... I know everybody is bound to have a different concept of what the League should be, but I still think that we have managed a reasonable compromise deal. Fritz, I think your idea of making subs expensive is good. I've included it in the latest draft of the rules, though you'll notice I've made it a bit more uniform for simplicity. I hope it suits. League Rules v2010.03.27a (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1182) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Mar 27th, 2010, 1:14pm on 03/27/10 at 12:47:50, megajester wrote:
Heheh, that's just my emotional scars from when I followed baseball as a lad, and the Yankees always beat my beloved Royals. Quote:
Thanks! But is this what you meant? "Take whichever of the two ratings is higher, the originally fielded player or the substituted player. Add the difference between the two." I was suggesting "The cost is the rating of the substituted player plus the difference in rating between the original player and the substituted player." My proposed penalty for subbing up or down is the same, namely a cost that is higher than your player's strength. Under your language, subbing in a weaker player incurs twice the penalty (relative to actual playing power) of subbing in a stronger player. Anyway, under either method of penalizing, there is no reason to limit substitutes to 100 points stronger. Go ahead and sub in someone 350 points stronger; your bugdet will suffer a full two-point penalty, so even if you win the match you gain nothing, and if you chance to lose you have really shot yourself in the foot. :o |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 27th, 2010, 2:13pm on 03/27/10 at 13:14:34, Fritzlein wrote:
I agree with Fritzlein in this concern. If a 2500 player is absent and he is replaced by a 1600 player, according to the current wording this should be a 3400 "cost" against the rating budget. Ouch! The team is better off forfeiting (I assume that a forfeit would still cost 2500 in this case). Also, I like all the new rules but I think one modification is required. The total rating budget of 34200 was determined based upon current ratings. But now that we've switched over Peak rating we'll probably need to increase the budget a bit more. Other than that, I think everything looks great. I'm getting a lot more excited about the World League now that all the rules are nearly in place. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 27th, 2010, 4:03pm Excellent! I like the way you calculated the rating cap Megajester. I also agree it would be best to use peak WHR for both the rating cap calc and player cost. Regarding substitutions, I like the idea of the bare bones penalty system. Ie. No restrictions on the sub, you just pay the appropriate penalty. That way the captain can work out their own club rules for subs. I too am getting excited about the league start now that it's down to minor tweaking of the rules. I'm looking forward to spectating games as well as playing, and loose geographical grouping means I shouldn't have to get out of bed to spectate most of our games. I planned to watch the final games of the WC, but didn't manage to drag my butt out of bed at 5am =) Go Ring Of Fire!!! knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Eltripas on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:03pm on 03/27/10 at 13:14:34, Fritzlein wrote:
Isn't this just the rating of the original player? x+(y-x)=y Or I'm misunderstanding something? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 27th, 2010, 8:24pm on 03/27/10 at 19:03:26, Eltripas wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding "substituted player". It's more like: y+(y-x) Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 27th, 2010, 8:27pm No wait, I should say: cost = y+|y-x| Where y is the replacement player, and x is the original player. But somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Mar 27th, 2010, 10:14pm If the simplified explanation is confusing people, we could always revert to the original explanation: A) If you sub in someone lower-rated, you still have to pay the rating of the original player B) If you sub in someone higher-rated, you have to pay the higher rating plus the difference. Yes, this explanation has two cases instead of one, but the extra verbiage might be justified by folks understanding it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by amalgam on Mar 27th, 2010, 10:32pm I'm not quite sure how to express this algebraically, but perhaps it could be something like this: Let x = original player Let y = substituted player. If my original 1600 player doesn't come, and I substitute him for a 1500 player, I pay 1600 points. The same would apply if I substituted a 1600, 1400, or 400 rated player. Now, if x < y, then points paid = y + (y-x). So if my original 1600 player doesn't come, and I put in a 1700 player, I pay 1700 + (1700-1600) = 1800 points. So by substituting a player 100 points higher, I must pay 200 points more than I originally would have. Hence, the hybrid function is: If x >y , or x = y, points paid = x. If x < y, points paid = y + (y-x) or 2y-x. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 27th, 2010, 11:13pm on 03/27/10 at 14:13:32, Adanac wrote:
Doh yeeah! :D This occurred to me in bed last night, and I kicked myself to sleep... I am restoring Fritzie's original rule. I'm sorry I doubted you Fritz... ;) on 03/27/10 at 14:13:32, Adanac wrote:
Doh yeeah! This one hadn't occurred to me at all. I had assumed that since WHR ratings are based on HvH games they should be lower than gameroom ratings. Maybe but not peak WHR ratings. I'm adjusting the rules page to just state the method of calculation, and say we'll actually calculate it on April 12th. [10 minutes later] I really shouldn't try to access the wiki using Google Chrome. It works fine in Firefox but before discovering that I reset my password, idiot... So, when I can access the rules, the edited section will read as follows (adjusted sections underlined): At the league start captains are given a ratings budget to last for the whole season. A captain must "pay" for each player he fields, even if he forfeits, and the "cost" of each player is that player's rating. The total ratings budget for 2010 will be *?* (calculated as follows: *?* [average peak WHR rating of all members of all clubs as on April 12, 2010, rounded up or down to the nearest ten + 50] x 3 players per match x 6 matches). [...] 6) The "cost" of a substituted player is paid instead of that of the original player, however this is not simply his rating. If the substitute's rating is lower than that of the original player, the cost is the original player's rating. If the substitute's rating is higher than that of the original player, the cost is the substitute's rating plus the difference between the two ratings. If a substituted player forfeits, this cost is still paid. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 28th, 2010, 4:06am Megajester, what were your thoughts on the suggestions to simplify the substitution rules? Ie. Make the penalty known, and let the clubs decide for themselves in which circumstance they'll make a substitution, and they can just do the official challenge at the end of 15mins. Clubs can then have their own debate whether a sub has to be captain approved, or if anyone can save the day if they're there, or if their rating is close enough, etc. etc. I think it would be good, because it adds to team strategy, and simplifies the rules. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 28th, 2010, 4:47am on 03/28/10 at 04:06:52, knarl wrote:
Most of the substitution rules are actually there to leave a "paper trail" in the case of any dispute. As LC, I should be able to walk away on Thursday, come back on Tuesday and know what happened, who was the official substitute, who forfeited etc. etc. I don't think the procedure is overly complicated. Substitutions step 1 is there so that it isn't unfair on the player who has been rostered. Basically, if the player is on the roster, and he likes the time of the scheduled game, after 00:00 Thursday he should be able to walk away until the game. Otherwise what could happen is the team decides to sub him behind his back. Of course, the team is free to discuss who should step up to the plate if he doesn't show up, there's nothing in the rules against that. Making it that substitutions are only allowed if the player himself states he will be unavailable is also good to prevent captains from handpicking subs based on the opposing team's roster. The statements under Substitutions step 2 and Player Absence that "the highest rated player takes precedence" does not mean that the highest rated player should play, it just means the highest rated player has first dibs if the captain is unavailable to make the decision. Of course the players should discuss it. The point of that wording is to make sure everybody knows where they stand so an almighty argument doesn't blow up if the captain is unavailable. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 28th, 2010, 4:53am I still think that we need some sort of penalty to discourage unnecessary substitutions. Otherwise, if a team has two players with identical, or nearly identical, ratings the captain can announce one player in the starting lineup and then switch to the other player on gameday, intending to trick the opponent into preparing for the wrong player. Or, having seen the lineups, the captain might try to remove a player and replace him with someone that has a better career W-L record against a particular opponent. A simple suggestion would either be a flat adjustment penalty (+200 rating cost for any substitution, for example) or we could deduct the point that the team would have received for non-forfeiture. Either way, we should penalize substitutions a bit more harshly than the current proposal. I think the current system is a bit too lenient, and almost encourages substitutions as a legitimate strategy. And I will also suggest one additional substitution rule: "A player can only serve as a substitute if he has not already played a game or been scheduled to play a game in this round". The first part is obvious but the second part is important because it prevents a player from skipping a scheduled game and then being used as a substitute in a different game. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 28th, 2010, 5:42am on 03/28/10 at 04:53:38, Adanac wrote:
You did catch the bit about only allowing substitutions if the originally rostered player says it's OK? The current rules say this is step 1 if the substitution is to be valid. I had being relying on the word "must", maybe I should have made it clearer. on 03/28/10 at 04:53:38, Adanac wrote:
He would of course have to convince the originally rostered player to officially relinquish his position on the board. Tough but possible, you're right. on 03/28/10 at 04:53:38, Adanac wrote:
I like the flat penalty. Simple, works. Regardless of the original player's rating it's the sub's rating +200. We could even make it a bit higher for it to be a real disincentive. The rule would also extend to player absence, to make it an incentive in that direction as well. on 03/28/10 at 04:53:38, Adanac wrote:
Sorry I forgot to add that to the draft. Will be doing so ASAP. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 28th, 2010, 6:03am I really think you're on to something fun here. That rating budget will add a lot of drama and uncertainty to the league as captains try to balance their desire to play top-flight players every week and their fast-dwindling budget. What if a player doesn't have a WHR rating? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 28th, 2010, 6:14am on 03/28/10 at 06:03:14, azgreg wrote:
I think that 1500 is the default. Hmm, that's a problem isn't it? Because now someone rated below 1500 will always have a peak of 1500. Oh well, it shouldn't be too bad because everyone in the League currently has a rating above 1500. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by nycavri on Mar 28th, 2010, 10:30am Um, not sure if that's true. My overall rating is in the 13xx range. Where would I find my WHR number? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 28th, 2010, 10:59am I would ask everyone to perhaps consider revising the calculation of the rating budget. At the current 1950 average per match, Europa is at a severe disadvantage when chessandgo plays. His WHR of 2744 means that the other two boards need to average 1553 to keep the team budget "on pace" to not run over. The same thing applies to Fritzlein's team. Maybe the "average" player used to calculate the budget should be 2000 or 2100? That way if you don't have a World Champion on your team you can really load up on all three boards, but if you do have one, you're not reduced to using beginners. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 28th, 2010, 11:04am When I use the match scheduler it lets me view WHR ratings. Just for the record nycavri, you currently have a WHR rating of 1549. Fritzlein has asked woh to set up a peak WHR ratings page. As I understand it, everybody starts off with a 1500 rating, so even those who have dipped below it still have a peak rating of 1500. According to League Rules v2010.03.27a: START On the start date (April 12th 2010) the LC will: - Prepare and maintain a players list with their ratings. ("Rating" refers to peak WHR rating as per 00:00 GMT Tuesday on Week 2 of any given round.) I will do this using the wiki. In fact I will make a fresh page for each round just in case ratings budget costings should need to be confirmed or recalculated. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 28th, 2010, 11:16am on 03/28/10 at 10:59:31, azgreg wrote:
That's... sort of... the whole point of the ratings budget?? :D I do get your point though, that was sort-of the idea beind the "+50" in that equation. We also need to figure in that peak WHR ratings are probably going to rise as the League progresses. How about "+150" instead? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 28th, 2010, 11:18am on 03/28/10 at 10:30:08, nycavri wrote:
In the gameroom go to Players -> Top Rated Players -> WHR Ratings for HH games or try this link http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whrh.htm |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 28th, 2010, 11:33am on 03/28/10 at 11:16:40, megajester wrote:
Would that put the rating cap at around 2000 per game? Or 36000 per season. If so, I think that's a reasonable total. It's enough that most teams can use their best players fairly regularly, but not every week. Perhaps this season teams will use lower-rated players against the Yankees so that they can use stronger players against the other clubs (unless the Yankees beef up with about 2-3 extra 2000+ players) . If so, that will negate some of the disadvantage that the Yankees team will currently face with the expanded rating cap. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Mar 28th, 2010, 11:53am on 03/28/10 at 10:59:31, azgreg wrote:
Exactly. If there wasn't a severe penalty for playing chessandgo, you would just use him every round and rack up an automatic three points for the win. My personal feeling is that if the budgets mean that chessandgo and I only get trotted out once or twice in the whole season for special occasions, that's fine. That would be good for the league, not bad. Let's don't raise the budgets so high they are meaningless and we land right back at the league winner being the team that has chessandgo on it. :-/ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by nycavri on Mar 28th, 2010, 12:07pm on 03/28/10 at 11:04:47, megajester wrote:
Nice to know it's those darn bots that are really causing me problems . . . |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 28th, 2010, 2:22pm on 03/28/10 at 04:47:11, megajester wrote:
OK Quote:
I still don't quite see the need for this step, because if a substitution can only happen after 15mins of game time, the original player always has the option to play. He just has to make sure he's there on time (which is the case anyway). Quote:
Fair enough. I just thought the clubs could work that kind of thing out for themselves. Whatever substitution rules get put in place, I don't think it's a big deal. I don't see them being inacted much anyway. I like the idea of a bigger penalty too, brings it closer to having no subs. Subs won't be needed much anyway with the flexibility the ratings cap gives the captains to play all their members. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 28th, 2010, 2:37pm on 03/28/10 at 11:53:14, Fritzlein wrote:
I like the logical way megajester used to calculate the rating cap. Using the peak WHRs with that logic should make it a fairly optimal cap. As for possible problems with the default 1500 rating peak, we could define the peak as a maxima. Ie. the peak has to be at the end of an upward trend, otherwise use current WHR. So if someone hasn't won a game in their history, their current rating is used. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 28th, 2010, 2:39pm Quote:
But that's my goal, right? ;D Seriously, though, I see your point. Ultimately, we want to get lots of different players into the league games, not just the top-rated ones, and make more fun for everyone. The +150 (2000 avg) seems to be a good number to use. Man, I'm ready to start playing right now! This will be fun! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Mar 28th, 2010, 8:15pm on 03/28/10 at 06:14:06, Adanac wrote:
On a separate note, I wanted to mention for anyone that didn't see megajester's video that losing on time is considered a forfeit. I don't have a problem with this but wanted to let others know as I could not find it specifically mentioned elsewhere, and it is (as far as I know) a change from the norm. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 28th, 2010, 9:38pm on 03/28/10 at 14:22:07, knarl wrote:
Erm, I think the rules have been misunderstood. The sections "Substitutions" and "Player Absence" represent two separate scenarios. The "Substitutions" section is for when a player knows in advance he won't be able to make it. He lets the team know, and the captain has the opportunity to make a reasoned decision. From that point onwards, as LC, I accept that substitute as the official player. If nobody shows up on the day, I charge the forfeit to the substitute, not the original player. The "Player Absence" section is so that, if when the time comes the player doesn't show up and somebody happens to be around, that person can step in and prevent an outright forfeit. on 03/28/10 at 14:37:18, knarl wrote:
I think this will be very difficult to implement, since it might be difficult to make a graph to work out whether somebody who's dipped below 1500 has had an increase in ratings at some point. (Example: Player A played 5 games. If graph shows 1500, 1485, 1450, 1405, 1398 it means he is dropping like a stone, has had no maxima, and should be rated 1398. If the graph shows 1500, 1485, 1405, 1450, 1398 then there was a spike to 1450 and that is the player's maxima. We can't know that without the graph and I don't know how practical it is to produce one.) I reckon benchmark 1500 should be fine. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 29th, 2010, 2:13am on 03/28/10 at 20:15:00, novacat wrote:
Quite right, sorry! I will be adding this to the rules as well ASAP. (Where is my password reset token?!?) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 29th, 2010, 2:38am Oh right, so it doesn't reset your password it just send you a reminder... Gaah! Anyway at long last I am proud to announce the latest draft of the rules: League Rules v2010.03.29 (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1188) Of course official rules are a bit clunky, and it's only the captains really who have to know it all off by heart. So I would like to make a nice straightforward "how-to" video just so everybody's clear. For that reason I would like to have a final draft by Monday next week, April 5th. Thanks very much for all of your comments and suggestions, I'm sorry we haven't been able to include everybody's ideas. I think we've ironed out all the major creases, but if there's still anything outstanding that you feel could be a serious problem, please do mention it before Monday. Thank you all again. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 29th, 2010, 10:08am This is very nitpicky, but worth defining. We're losing 1 league point for every 350 overspent on our budget, and I assume that means we lose the point by overspending by 1-350 points. If we go over by 351-750, we'll lose 2 league points, and so on. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 29th, 2010, 12:39pm on 03/29/10 at 10:08:46, azgreg wrote:
Ah now there you see, I had assumed the opposite, ie. 0+ loses you 0 points, 350+ loses you 1 point, 700+ loses you 2 points etc. I'm sure we'd all agree that it would be going overboard to penalize a team a whole point for exceeding their budget by 5 points or something... I have adjusted the rules to read that we penalize by 1 league point for every 350th ratings point by which teams overspend. League Rules v2010.03.29a (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1189) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 29th, 2010, 2:13pm Hey, why not? We penalize players by making them lose the whole game for going over on time by 1 second! But seriously, that's great. Thanks! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 29th, 2010, 2:29pm *Groan* We were talking about having a simplified 200-point substitute penalty weren't we? Guess what. Another draft! v2010.03.29c (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1191) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 3:45pm on 03/29/10 at 12:39:47, megajester wrote:
In reality that just means the budgets are 350 points higher. I think the first penalty should kick in as soon as you go over budget, otherwise, for the final games captains can intentionally go over budget by less than 350 knowing they won't get penalised. Regarding the 1500 default rating. Woh tells me in the other forum, that WHRs update previous ratings, so people's first rating should be meaningful. So that's solved. Since we're on the budget subject; I wasn't going to mention it, but I think the +150 in the budget calculation is arbitrary, and shouldn't be there. I think it spoils a logical calculation, the peak WHRs should make an appropriate budget without throwing in extra numbers, but it's not a big deal. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 3:57pm I just remembered that megajester explained the +50 (now +150) in the rating cap calculation as correcting for increased average ratings throught the season. Maybe instead of guessing the number, there's a way of predicting the increase using the WHRs, or we could actually update the budget after each round (obviously only if the average rating increases, not decreases). But like I said before. It's no big deal. I'm probably being way too picky =) Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:01pm on 03/29/10 at 15:45:52, knarl wrote:
I think the +150 serves a few useful functions: 1. Peak rating will be higher than current rating for most players, so we need a buffer. 2. We need another buffer to account for rating improvements during the next 3 months, especially for the newer players on the upswing. 3. Using the average rating for the entire league as the benchmark without a +150 adjustment would make it virtually impossible for some of the stronger players to participate. For example, Chessandgo probably would never get a chance to play even one game if we didn't add that adjustment factor in, because of his high rating and because his strong teammates will also be using up a lot of the budget. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:07pm on 03/29/10 at 16:01:53, Adanac wrote:
Oh, I just re-read the latest draft of the League Rules and it appears that we're adding 150 points to the average peak rating. If we're adding this amount to the peak rating then I'd prefer only a +100 adjustment. Otherwise the rating cap will be so high that it will start to lose some of its usefulness. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:08pm on 03/29/10 at 16:01:53, Adanac wrote:
I assumed the peak ratings would be used in the calculation? Quote:
Yeah, remembered that after posting, oops. Quote:
Point taken. Maybe it would actually be higher than 150 that we need to add if we had some systematic way of estimating this parameter. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:17pm on 03/29/10 at 16:07:55, Adanac wrote:
I wonder how much higher peak rating will be than current rating anyway. We'll have to wait and find out I suppose. Maybe it will result in a generous budget anyway. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 29th, 2010, 9:35pm on 03/29/10 at 16:07:55, Adanac wrote:
Well, we must be doing something right if we're down to arguing over 50 ratings points! :) Even if you could work out by how much somebody's WHR increases over a 3 month period, it wouldn't be valid because the League will probably bump up the rate at which everybody plays HvH games while increasing their level of concentration. A semi-regular player in the League should come out of it a better Arimaa player. At this stage in the game, I think we need a bit more of a consensus that 150 is too high before we change the rules. On a similar note, what does everybody think about the overspending penalty? The reason I made it that way is that, especially because this is a small League and will therefore be a short League, 1 point can and probably will make all the difference. It has in pretty much every simulation I've run of the League so far. This is why I want to be lenient on very slight overspends. But if everybody feels it just amounts to an extra 349 points, fair enough. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:10am on 03/29/10 at 21:35:23, megajester wrote:
150 is too high. ;) Having a high budget reduces the flexibility of the captains. The higher the budget, the more the proper strategy is just "field your strongest available players". You don't have the flexibility to not field them. With a budget that is only slightly above league average rating, there is substantial room for strategy. The team that has a greater number of willing players has more strategic options, and thus has an advantage towards getting favorable pairings. With a budget that is relatively tight, the league winner will very likely be the most enthusiastic team (i.e. no forfeits, many different players available every week). That said, I agree that we're getting pretty close when we're arguing about 50 points per game in the budget. :) Quote:
Your argument about going over budget by 1 rating point doesn't hold water, because no matter where you draw the line it is true. If you allow a little overspending, it is like having a slightly higher budget, which is what I am advocating against above. For my intuition, it should work like azgreg guessed it would work: over budget 1 to 350 rating points = -1 League point over budget 351 to 700 rating points = -2 League points etc. On further reflection, though, I think it would be a refinement to deduct partial points for overspending. This would break a tie between two teams that had equal League points but overspent by different amounts. Say that each team finishes with 42 points, but one team was over budget by 3 rating points and the other over budget by 177 rating points, the final score would be 41.991 to 41.494. That makes more sense to me than a tie. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:36am on 03/30/10 at 06:10:37, Fritzlein wrote:
I agree with everything that Fritzlein said, but I think for simplicity we could use integer values for the standings. Perhaps we could add a tie-breaker rule that in the event of a tie, the team that used fewer rating points during the season will win? That would add an extra layer of strategy in the final round. I also agree that setting the rating cap too high or too low reduces flexibility because it forces the captains to over-rely on the same players over and over again (either always fielding the strongest or weakest players, depending upon the cap). There's a middle ground that maximizes the flexibility and I think that +100 is much closer to the mark than +150. I'd be happy to try the first season at +100 and then after the season we can debate whether we need to increase/decrease the adjustment in 2011. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Mar 30th, 2010, 8:24am on 03/30/10 at 06:10:37, Fritzlein wrote:
I also agree with Fritzlein. A budget of 36000 with a penalty for overspending by 351 is the same as a budget of 36350 and overspending by 1. If our method of calculating that initial budget is sound, with enough cushion to allow for ratings growth, etc, we should be set that as an absolute maximum to be spent without penalty. My earlier post was in jest, but it's true that we impose a game-loss penalty for someone who exceeds the time control by one second, so why not start imposing penalties for exceeding the ratings budget by 1? I know I brought up the whole "increase the budget" argument because of chessandgo, but Fritz is right that the budget should be as low as we can stand. It should cause some pain for a captain to field a 2200+ player, enough to make it a somewhat infrequent event. That average rating we use to calculate the budget should be the average of the player we want most represented in the league. Using "fewest rating points spent" as the tiebreaker adds an interesting twist to the league endgame. Each captain will know (or suspect) going into the last round where they will stand in case of a tie and be able to plan accordingly. It also lets the league finish after 6 rounds no matter what. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 30th, 2010, 1:02pm on 03/30/10 at 06:10:37, Fritzlein wrote:
I understand all this. I was just thinking that higher rated players are probably more likely to be available than weaker ones, for the simple fact that getting a high rating requires having a fair amount of time to play Arimaa whereas obviously a low rating doesn't. On that basis someone could easily have come along and said it should be higher still, so that captains don't end up in the situation of "players players everywhere and not a man to field"... this is why I wanted a consensus ;) So, +100 it is then. Hell even azgreg agrees. :D on 03/30/10 at 06:10:37, Fritzlein wrote:
Yeah that was silly of me. Right again, azgreg. on 03/30/10 at 06:36:35, Adanac wrote:
Maybe it's just because they don't do this in football leagues, but having fractions of a point just sounds weird to me. We can however say that teams are ranked first by league points, and then by ratings budget remaining, just as Adanac suggested. I have incorporated all of the above, plus a slight clarification in the preamble to the substitutions steps, in League Rules v2010.03.30 (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1192). |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Eltripas on Mar 31st, 2010, 10:00am What do you guys think about having a blitz round in the league? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Mar 31st, 2010, 12:38pm on 03/31/10 at 10:00:21, Eltripas wrote:
This is me reading your post... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OJtS2fYdOL8/SPtY6DTAVPI/AAAAAAAAEKY/ZYMdHCManl0/s400/shocked.jpg HUH...?? Only joking. I was just itching to use that graphic :) But seriously, why not? Well, you could think of the League as being a kind of "deal". Everybody plays a maximum of one scheduled game every two weeks at a time that suits them. That's what everybody's signed up for and that's what the teams have been gearing themselves towards for a long time now. If I've understood correctly, you're talking about the kind of blitz tourneys we had last year, which are a completely different kettle of fish; they require that EVERYBODY, from all manner of time zones, be online at the same time. I suppose there's no reason that players from the different teams shouldn't get together and organize something. But what with all the hassle it's been drawing up fair and consistent rules for the League (a bunch of carefully phrased bullet points that would barely fill an A4 bit of paper) I don't think it would work as part of the "Arimaa World League." At least not this year. But to be fair, being co-ordinator makes me more hesitant than usual about new ideas, simply because I'm the muggins who's gonna have to make it happen :) If you have some specific ideas of how we could make blitz rounds work as part of the World League, please do share them. But if you haven't got something clear in mind I really don't think we should be going new places in this thread, especially not before Monday. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great people are thinking about other stuff we could do with the league-slash-clubs concept. I have a couple of ideas as well, perhaps I should open a new thread. What do you think? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Mar 31st, 2010, 12:59pm on 03/31/10 at 10:00:21, Eltripas wrote:
No thanks! I can't play that fast (took me 49 tries to beat bomb2005Blitz). If you want to do team blitz tournaments, you can set up a separate event and invite the league teams to make a roster for it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by nycavri on Mar 31st, 2010, 2:36pm Yeah, I didn't sign up for blitz. I'm mediocre enough with time to think . . . |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 1st, 2010, 12:13pm Oops! I owe Eltripas an apology. It turns out he was only talking about time controls... (Which reminds me that we haven't specified that yet in the rules. I've amended it to specify the same time controls as in the WC, which are the same controls we had in the 2009 Friendly Round. League Rules v2010.04.01 (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1199)) I think it's better to have consistent time controls throughout the League. Maybe we can do something with blitz as a separate event, I don't know... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Apr 1st, 2010, 12:39pm Where did I get the idea it was going to be 60sec time controls? Could have sworn I read it or saw it in the intro vid. Better remember to change my scheduled times. knarl |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Apr 1st, 2010, 12:55pm on 04/01/10 at 12:39:06, knarl wrote:
According to the league rules it is 60 seconds per move. I'd recommend not changing your scheduled times ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Apr 1st, 2010, 3:08pm on 03/29/10 at 16:17:14, knarl wrote:
Turns out that most people are at or very near their peak rating, which makes sense considering that almost everyone who is playing is improving. Also it apparently takes a substantial game history to get rooted enough at a given rating so that a change can be registered. Anyway, looks like the budget using peak WHR will not be far from the budget calculated using current WHR. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 1st, 2010, 11:44pm on 04/01/10 at 15:08:05, Fritzlein wrote:
I think using peak WHR as opposed to current will provide that much more of a safeguard against sandbagging. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 5th, 2010, 1:32pm Monday 5th has come and gone, and so I'm happy to announce the final draft of the rules: v2010.04.06 (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1203) There are just a couple of question marks to fill in. One of course is the ratings budget which will be calculated as per the formula; nothing to worry about there. The other is rather more important, that of who will be the League Director. I had a chat with Omar about this and, seeing as the League Director really needs to be a disinterested party, we're now looking for another candidate. You'll notice the Backup Co-ordinator role is now separate from the Director's role. What this means is that being the League Director isn't much work at all, in fact if all goes well he shouldn't have to do anything. :) But if there is anybody, preferably with some experience, who won't be playing in the League who'd be prepared to be called on to "referee", please do give us a shout. Thank you all again for your input. See you on Monday! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by RonWeasley on Apr 6th, 2010, 5:40am on 04/05/10 at 13:32:23, megajester wrote:
Omar sent me a message about this. I'm highly qualified for "not much work at all". But I don't want the impression that I think I have a monopoly on directorships. So I would encourage another volunteer to step forward if interested. Otherwise, I would be happy to serve. Because this is new, I expect a small number of cases where a ruling is needed. I encourage the guiding principles to be deciding match outcomes over the board, avoid excessive delays, listen to advice. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 10th, 2010, 3:09am So, the big day is finally just around the corner! No other candidates have stepped forward, so congratulations and thanks to RonWeasley, our League Director. I had been talking about making some how-to videos, but seeing as we already have an introductory video I thought it would be more practical to have a League FAQ (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/League_FAQ). Please do let me know if I've missed anything. I have also created a AWL 2010 Player Ratings (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/AWL_2010_Player_Ratings) page. I will make a new page, "AWL 2010 Round X Official Player Ratings", for each round's official ratings. On Monday I'll release the fixtures list, and then we'll be off! Edit: If there is no change to the player ratings before Tuesday midnight, the ratings budget will be 34,470. FYI League Rules: "The total ratings budget for 2010 will be ? ?, ? ? ? (calculated as follows: ? ? ? ? [average peak WHR rating of all members of all clubs as on April 12, 2010, rounded up or down to the nearest ten, + 100] x 3 players per match x 6 matches). This is designed to ensure that players of all levels get a chance to take part." Average peak WHR rating of registered players is currently 1815.24. Rounded up or down to the nearest ten + 100 = 1915 x 3 x 6 = 34,470. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Apr 10th, 2010, 10:55am on 04/10/10 at 03:09:45, megajester wrote:
If we're rounding to the nearest ten, shouldn't it be: 1920 x 3 x 6 = 34560 ? I have big plans for those extra 90 points ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 10th, 2010, 12:44pm on 04/10/10 at 10:55:10, Adanac wrote:
Quite right. Duuh. In my defence, I had just been rounding up or down league ratings to the nearest integer, m'lud. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Apr 11th, 2010, 10:33am This is a late question, but I just thought of it. The rules need to cover the situation where a team has fewer players active than boards to play in a match. For example, three boards going, but only boards 1 and 2 have players. Board 3 is obviously a forfeit, but some rating budget cost must be paid for this. Otherwise, a team could play two high-rating players, use zero for the third, and average out ok. I feel that the cost should be the rating of the lowest rated player on the team. If it's any higher, I could simply use that lowest player in the third spot, available or not, and let him or her forfeit. What do you think? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11th, 2010, 1:55pm I agree with a cost of the lowest-rated player on your team for your third board if you only have two active players, since that's what you could do anyway. Along with getting 0 points for the game, it seems like an appropriate cost. If the other team suspects you of loading up two boards and sacrificing the third, they can always field their weakest player to get an automatic three league points for a rock-bottom cost. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 11th, 2010, 3:18pm I think it would be good to have a provision for incomplete rosters, because forcing captains to field a player they know isn't going to make it is unfair on his opponent, who will be getting himself ready for the scheduled time. (A disadvantage to fielding your lowest player is that nobody rated higher than 100 points of him could substitute. You would be better advised to field a middle-of-the-road player so that somebody can substitute.) How about the following addition to the current rules?: "Incomplete Roster: In the event that the captain submits an incomplete roster, the last place(s) shall register as empty, and each shall cost that team its weakest player's rating. No substitutes are allowed." PS #1: I also think we should say that once the League has started, any discrepancy or ommision in the rules will be resolved by the LC and LD agreeing on temporary amendments to the rules. These temporary amendments shall be valid only until the end of the league, when they will be reviewed for entry into the next league's rules. PS #2: I think it's unfair for captains to have to roster players when they don't know what their official ratings for that round will be yet. So I've changed it to, "Rating" refers to peak WHR rating as per 00:00 GMT Monday on Week 1 of any given round. I hope these last minute changes (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1245) are OK with everybody. I'll finalize them at 00:00 GMT Thursday, so if you think there will be a problem with these adjustments please reply to this thread on or before Wednesday. Also, don't forget to check out the Fixtures List (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/AWL_2010_Fixtures_List). We are officially in Week 1 of Round 1 of the first ever Arimaa World League. Gentlemen, start your engines! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by RonWeasley on Apr 13th, 2010, 8:46am on 04/11/10 at 15:18:28, megajester wrote:
May want to worry about a team putting a very low rated player on the roster without intending to play him, but to take advantage of this rule. I'll call this player the towel boy. I don't really expect any team to actually do this, but maybe the rule should use a nominal rating (1500?) instead. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 13th, 2010, 8:58am on 04/13/10 at 08:46:43, RonWeasley wrote:
That'll guarantee they use a towel boy! Think about it, if I've got a 1400-rated player... The basic problem is the "no subs allowed" rule. But I don't know how, under the current rules, you would administer a substitution for a game that isn't scheduled. In theory a player shouldn't have to check back at all after midnight Thursday on Week 2 before his game time actually arrives (this is the reason for the rule that both players MUST agree to a reschedule otherwise the original time stands). If the opposing captain hasn't fielded a player to his table at all, he should be able to walk away with a free 3 points. In any case I really don't think the towel boy possibility is a real issue. It's a plain old forfeit. Sure, his opponent is slightly disappointed and perhaps even a bit annoyed that his opponent didn't show up. But hey, its 3 FREE POINTS!!! All the glory with none of the gory! :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 14th, 2010, 1:55pm Here are the 2010 Arimaa World League Official Rules (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php?title=League_Rules&oldid=1250). Again, thanks everybody for your input. This is the first time we're doing this, so there are bound to be imperfections. Any outstanding points detected from this point forward will be handled by myself and RonWeasley, though of course with all the input we can get from you guys. It's shaping up to be an exciting season. All the best to everyone! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Apr 14th, 2010, 6:45pm I just noticed the rules no longer mention that two players within 50 points of one another may be switched (for table order). I don't remember any arguments against this. Was it left out on purpose? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 15th, 2010, 12:13pm Found it! on 03/26/10 at 17:06:31, Fritzlein wrote:
I removed it when I made a major revamp for v2010.03.27a. It seemed a good idea to keep things simple, and nobody objected to my removing it afterwards. Just on principle, I think we should avoid changing the goalposts now that the League has officially started and the captains have already started submitting their rosters. If you feel it would be a major problem, though, let's discuss it. Otherwise perhaps you could make a case for it before the next League. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Apr 16th, 2010, 3:36am Thanks! No problems here, just wondering as I have some players with very close rankings. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 20th, 2010, 9:33pm Would everybody who's playing in this round's matches please check in the gameroom to make sure their game times work for them. The times will be finalized from tomorrow so this is your last chance to get it changed! Thanks. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Apr 21st, 2010, 6:29am With new players continuing to trickle in, I think one clear rule change for next season needs to be expanding the matches from three games to four. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 22nd, 2010, 12:38am on 04/21/10 at 06:29:02, Fritzlein wrote:
Either that or we make a rule that 5-odd players can get together and start a brand new club. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Apr 22nd, 2010, 10:03am on 04/22/10 at 00:38:12, megajester wrote:
Having one more club wouldn't create any more games played per round; that would require two new clubs. But even if there were enough players for six clubs, it would be better to cap the league at four clubs and increase the number of boards played per match, because a greater number of boards reduces the possibility of captains doing backflips to achieve or avoid particular pairings. With four boards per match instead of three, and the order among the four players mandated by rating, the focus would shift somewhat away from captains trying to get favorable pairings and somewhat toward the players simply having to win against whatever opponents they happen to be paired against. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Apr 23rd, 2010, 5:19am You're probably right, Fritz, that we should expand the clubs before we increase their number. Of course my dream, and I think that of some others, is to have a League that looks and feels like other sports' leagues. Only four teams isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) But as you say, we're better off expanding the clubs first. (Of course, technically there's no reason why you can't have a 5-club league. It just takes longer to complete the double round robin, because one team has a bye every round.) I think we should decide an optimal number of tables, whether 4, 5 or more, and once we're at that optimal level make rules about how new clubs can be formed. I like the idea of clubs forming by themselves, democratically, because that promotes team loyalty. (The only reason we set them up artificially this time was because we had to.) This would tie in well with rajmahendra's idea (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=talk;action=display;num=1271415890) for local clubhouses. PS: I know this will be a multitopic post, so maybe people can quote this bit separately, but what does everybody think about a knockout "cup" tourney at the end of the League? During the League we're all constrained by the budget, which is a good thing for certain reasons. But how about we then have no-holds-barred, "field the best 5 players you got" Knockout Tournament, like the World Cup? The winning team would be presented with a "trophy" (name ideas people?) that would be a separate title to "League Champions". Both tournaments would then become a part of the yearly calendar, with teams having to defend their League and/or Knockout titles. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by RonWeasley on Apr 23rd, 2010, 6:47am on 04/23/10 at 05:19:45, megajester wrote:
The Derma Plaque. The Cat Ass Trophy. The Pew Cup. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by azgreg on Apr 27th, 2010, 1:28pm For the other teams, I was able to use Google Sites to throw together a serviceable website for posting team Europa announcements, tips, strategy, etc, outside the prying eyes of other teams. There is a template in the form of a soccer team that I, a complete newbie, easily modified in a couple hours, adding our roster, results, stats, schedule, etc. It still needs work (our team logo is still a soccer ball, for example), but it's a start. I'm hoping it'll build some team spirit, and would recommend it to other teams, too. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on May 4th, 2010, 9:59am I know the presumption must be against changing any rules in the middle of the season, but I'll suggest a change anyway in case there is a groundswell of support. After the format was finalized, several newcomers signed up. The Rockies now have nine team members, which means that on average each of us will get to play a league game once every six weeks. Furthermore, the average rating has gone down since the start of the league, so it is now poor strategy for the captain to give lower-rated players equal playing time. I know from being one of the scrubs on my Ultimate Frisbee team, it's no fun when some people don't get to participate. Therefore I propose that for the return matches (rounds 4-6), we add a fourth board to the schedule, and allocate an additional 1650 rating points per round (4950 points total) to every team's budget. The intention is not only to open more spots for more participation, but also to slightly lower the average budget per board to make it good strategy to play newcomers on the fourth board. Changing the rules in the middle can be unfair, and in this case Europa and Ring of Fire, with fewer low-rated players, can claim that my proposed change will help out the Rockies and Atlantics, with more lower-rated players. If the captains object, I can understand why, and I'll delay pushing for change until next season. But I wouldn't be surprised if the captains were all in favor of the proposed change now that they have had a chance to see the ramifications of the current budget. For example, Adanac has by now surely realized that it maximizes the score for Ring of Fire if he plays at least five of the six rounds, if not all six rounds, because otherwise the Ring of Fire will end up underspending and leave potential league points on the table. It's not that I think we did a bad job of setting up the AWL, it's just that it is already succeeding to such an extent that new people are hopping on the bandwagon. AWL is a victim of its own success. To meet the original league goals there needs to be a bit more room for participation and the average budget needs to come down a bit, so I thought I'd run this suggestion up the flagpole immediately instead of waiting another nine weeks for the present season to be over. ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on May 4th, 2010, 12:20pm on 05/04/10 at 09:59:25, Fritzlein wrote:
I think that if people join with the expectation of playing once every six weeks [or every third match] then that’s pretty reasonable. If we add more players without expanding the league then many people will feel that they’re not getting an opportunity to play. But if we increase the number of boards then the number of forfeits will increase as the smaller teams find it more difficult to field a full roster. I’d prefer to err on the side of caution here. Quote:
I wouldn’t mind adding a fourth board if it means getting more players involved BUT there’s one little problem. My team is having a difficult time filling just 3 boards. In fact, we’ve only had two volunteers in each for each of the first two matches and so I stepped forward as the third player each time. I wasn’t even planning to play this often but that’s what happens on a 7-player team :) (Technically we have 8 on our team but I haven’t heard anything from Simon in many weeks and I’m not sure if he’s planning to play this summer). If adding a 4th board means that we’re going to start losing a game by forfeit each week, then you know how The Ring will vote! Quote:
In reality, though, my team is just using whoever is available for any particular match rather than strategizing about matchups, budgets, etc. Simply filling in three roster spots is enough of a challenge right now. I think every team should have at least 10 players before we add an extra board. If that happens before, for example, May 21st then I would agree to the change for matches 4-6. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on May 4th, 2010, 2:03pm The clause in the League Rules for rule changes was only intended for dire circumstances where either there was a serious dispute over say whether a player forfeited or not, or if the procedures as they stand are illogical or unfair. I just have a bad feeling about changing the rules halfway when we don't strictly need to. To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister... Sir Humphrey: I forsee all sorts of unforseen problems! Jim Hacker: Such as? Sir Humphrey: If I could forsee them, they wouldn't be unforseen :D... I'm all for making enhancements to the League for next season, and it seems a good idea to discuss our ideas now while they're fresh in our minds. It's just that in the beginning I had trouble enough selling the League idea at all, so although the ideals of the League are certainly loftier than this my main concern first time around was just to make something that would work. I decided it was better to risk having people queueing up for 3 tables than teams not being able to find enough players for 4. It's still early days yet. It's a bit like a television series, Round 1 was our "pilot" and it went OK. Round 2 we seem to be having a tiny bit of a drop-off, but let's see what the spectator turnout'll be. Only after Round 3 or 4 will there be any distinct trends we'll be able to say anything definite about. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on May 4th, 2010, 6:09pm on 05/04/10 at 12:20:13, Adanac wrote:
Oh, I didn't know that. That's a conclusive argument as far as I am concerned. We shouldn't open a fourth board until people are starting to feel disappointed that they can't play more. If any team is scraping to fill three boards, rather than deciding who doesn't get to play each week from surplus volunteers, then adding a board is just silly. Quote:
OK, folks, if you are new to the league and wonder which team to join, now you know that you should sign up for Ring of Fire to get playing time! Incidentally, this raises a good point for next season. Between seasons all rosters should be wiped clean and everyone should re-enlist, just so that inactive players aren't carried on the rosters indefinitely. on 05/04/10 at 14:03:43, megajester wrote:
Looks like a good decision, judging by Adanac's feedback. Quote:
Sounds reasonable. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on May 5th, 2010, 4:45am If there are some teams with extra players eager to play - a few thoughts: a. Exhibition games - tables 4 and up don't count for anything except pride, and are scheduled if both teams have additional players on the player list. (The strength of order would start again at table 4 - so this could lead to some mismatches, if team A fields a top player and team B fields a low player for this spot.) Players on the Exhibition games could still be subs. b. Start up the Continuous Tournament again. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Jun 16th, 2010, 4:10am I believe for Autopostal games and the WC games, we received an email with our opponents email address. Not sure what folks think about having a similar email sent for AWL games, if it is already an easy part of the scheduling tool? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 16th, 2010, 6:18am Er, you should have got an email. :-/ Though you're right about adding opponents' email addresses. It's just that before 00:00 GMT Thursday morning players should message the co-ordinator and not their opponents if there's a problem with their game time, so I had thought it would be less confusing... but I will be adding the opponents' email addresses from now on. There are several people who are not actively using the email accounts they used to sign up with arimaa.com. For that reason last round I also messaged all the players in the forum. I forgot to do that this round but I will be doing so shortly. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 21st, 2010, 2:25am It was brought to my attention that Korhil was signed into the chatroom for the duration of his Round 5 match against starjots. As you know, starjots would actually have had the right to have the game declared a forfeit. However the chatroom archive clearly shows starjots' implicit acceptance of the result of the game. Therefore, the game stands. And that's even if Korhil didn't realise he shouldn't be signed into the chatroom, of if starjots didn't realise he had the right to claim a win, because it's the players' responsibility to know the rules. Especially after what's happened with 722caasi, I would like to reiterate the importance of knowing and understanding the rules, and I would suggest to captains that they ask the players they roster to refresh their memories. Thank you, and all the best with the final round! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ocmiente on Jun 21st, 2010, 3:11pm on 06/21/10 at 02:25:05, megajester wrote:
I agree that this game should stand, but I'm going to play devil's advocate on your interpretation of the rules. According to the rules: Quote:
I didn't find any time limitation on 'the discretion of the opposing player' in the rules, and implicit acceptance doesn't seem to be in the rules either. Of course, I might have missed something... I think the rule should probably include a 24 hour time limit on protests to eliminate the possibility that a game might be challenged days or weeks after the event. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by starjots on Jun 21st, 2010, 3:30pm On the devil's advocate side here as well - how is a player going to know if his opponent was in the chat room during a game? He'd have to break the rules himself :)* *asterisk says i may be wrong! **i'm only talking about rules here, not any particular game |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Sconibulus on Jun 21st, 2010, 5:43pm Well, the chatroom does say when people went in and out, so if you entered the chat after the game, and see your opponent there without a recent notification of entry, they were there the whole time. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by starjots on Jun 21st, 2010, 6:18pm on 06/21/10 at 17:43:37, Sconibulus wrote:
Good thing I used an asterisk! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 21st, 2010, 9:32pm on 06/21/10 at 15:11:19, ocmiente wrote:
According to the log, starjots signed in immediately after the match and could have seen that Korhil was present. He signed out before Hippo pointed that fact out, but signed in soon afterwards and will certainly have seen what Hippo said. However he continued to merrily discuss the game. As far as I'm concerned that's implicit acceptance. "But I didn't know that's what the rules say" doesn't count in my book, because it'll set a bad precedent for future disputes. I've made enough calls for players to familiarize themselves with the rules for it not to be a valid excuse. Hence the decision. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by RonWeasley on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:11am on 06/21/10 at 02:25:05, megajester wrote:
I've noticed that Korhil has been signed into the chatroom continuously for weeks. He may not know he's signed in. Go and look. You can try to chat with him, but he's afk. I think he may be perpetually logged into the game room too. So he might not be aware of this, or it could be his preferred default connection state. Either way, he should be encouraged to log off the chatroom when he plays event games. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 22nd, 2010, 6:41am on 06/22/10 at 04:11:03, RonWeasley wrote:
We have already been messaging about this issue, bu thanks for the heads up. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 22nd, 2010, 6:42am As a reminder, please could all captains check their messages and get back to me as soon as possible concerning the next League. Thank you. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by leo on Jun 22nd, 2010, 9:52am on 06/22/10 at 04:11:03, RonWeasley wrote:
He may have good reasons for doing so, but considering the primitive communication system the browsers are stuck with so far (i.e. Ajax), that's a burden for both the Arimaa server and Korhil's computer. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by starjots on Jun 22nd, 2010, 10:46am on 06/21/10 at 21:32:02, megajester wrote:
I know you are responding to someone elses post here, but it leaves an impression I wish to correct. I didn't bring up Korhil being logged in with you or anyone else. He won. Maybe next time I'll win :) My feedback, which is generic, is having player's trying to detect irregularities in games is not something that scales well nor is it in line with what a player is really there to do (play). But I also realize that on-line matches within a small community pose a lot of constraints - so I accept the realities and thank all the organizers for their hard work. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ocmiente on Jun 22nd, 2010, 11:48am on 06/21/10 at 21:32:02, megajester wrote:
I agree with the decision. My post has more to do with the rules, and future protests than this particular instance. By your decision, it appears that you have created an unwritten rule that protests must be made by one of the participants, and that the protest must be made in the chat session immediately following the game, or some indeterminant number of post game logins (citing this particular instance with starjots) and once that player logs out (after some undefined number of chat room logins), the player may not contest the game results. If that is what you want, I'm OK with that... Well... no... I guess that's still a little vague, actually :). In any case I'm just recommending that whatever the rule is, it should be written in the rules so that people can familiarize themselves with this rule. I still recommend a 24 hour protest period. I hate to think that I'd be up at 10:00pm, play for over an hour, then have to determine whether there is any need to protest - especially if there was a teamspeak recording, which means I might have to listen to that for another hour (yikes, is it 1:00am already! I need sleep! No... must... push... through... might... need... to protest!). |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 22nd, 2010, 1:03pm on 06/22/10 at 11:48:07, ocmiente wrote:
Hm OK I see what you mean. (And by the way, I'm really glad to have someone play Devil's advocate with me...) OK here's how my reasoning works. The rules say: "While a game is being played there shall be no communication between any one of the players and anybody else concerning Arimaa. Such communication includes, but is not limited to, being signed in to the chatroom or the Teamspeak client. Any infringement of this rule shall result in forfeit subject to the discretion of the opposing player." Meaning, the forfeit only happens if the opposing player signals he wants it. Once a player is made aware of such a situation, one would usually expect an explicit decision one way or the other. Failing that, if it is clear the opposing player is aware of the situation, a clear indication of his opinion one way or the other should suffice. One would have expected starjots to immediately cry foul. However he didn't, quite the opposite, he seemed quite happy that the game was played fairly. Therefore I accept that as his decision not to regard the game as a forfeit. So my decision rests on three principles: 1. Starjots should know the rules 2. Starjots was clearly aware of the situation 3. Starjots clearly indicated his decision, ie. his acceptance of the result So my unwritten rule is not that a protest must be made immediately after the game, but that once a player is aware of the situation and has indicated his decision he can't then change his mind. A 24-hour breathing space would be a good idea (I will add this for the next League), but seeing as we haven't got one under the current rules I think we have to accept first decisions as final. Otherwise that sets a precedent of letting people change their minds whenever they like. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 22nd, 2010, 1:18pm on 06/22/10 at 10:46:19, starjots wrote:
Sorry I only just saw your post starjots. The point of the rule is not to encourage players to actively look for irregularities. It's so we know what to do when we do spot them. Let's say Amendment B never existed. PlayerA loses to PlayerB, and gets suspicious because he played much better than he does usually, and so he goes and checks the chatroom. It turns out PlayerB was logged in the whole time and played almost the exact same moves the spectators thought he should. Now PlayerA "knows" PlayerB cheated. But PlayerB says he really is that good, he's just been training really hard, and he never even noticed he forgot to close the chatroom window. Now how do you adjudicate THAT one and keep everybody happy? :D So basically I've been trying to develop a framework of rules to prevent hurt feelings or any perceived unfairness, which especially in the beginning could have seriously damaged the League's prospects or even killed it off completely. Though I'm very happy for people to play Devil's advocate with me. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ocmiente on Jun 22nd, 2010, 2:33pm Quote:
Your judgement is excellent as usual :). Seriously! Thanks very much for starting up and running the league. It's been a lot of fun! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Korhil on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm on 06/22/10 at 04:11:03, RonWeasley wrote:
I tend to keep the chat window open from multiple machines, so it's common that one will always show me as connected. With the archiving (that I only recently learned existed) there isn't the same need to remain connected from somewhere - I didn't want to miss anything interesting that was discussed. I'm pleased Starjots shares my opinion regarding a decision over the board being more important. (As the drama I manage to create in the last round I was involved in shows). All I can add is that immediately after I read the thread about 722caasi I realised I had ensure that it was more widely known I was connected to the chat room during my game. My initial message about it was a PM Adanac to ask exactly what I should do. I didn't want to act alone again - as in my game with Sanzo - and make a bigger mess. As a result, by the time I actually informed megajester, this thread had already covered it. Cheers, Martin |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm I would prefer if the forfeit is not up to the opposing player in the future. The opposing player must then either accuse someone of being a cheater, look like a jerk for claiming a forfeit for an innocent mistake, or do nothing and feel like someone may be taking advantage of them. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Korhil on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:08pm on 06/22/10 at 16:01:12, novacat wrote:
The context is different between the scenarios you mention. If someone is considered to be cheating, the decision will likely be made by the Leage Director. For the latter two, the player can use their own discretion. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Jun 22nd, 2010, 5:21pm I am just trying to say that many people are too nice to ask for a forfeit even if they would like to, and should not be forced to do so seeing as they were not in error (much like granting a rematch). |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jun 22nd, 2010, 5:24pm on 06/22/10 at 16:01:12, novacat wrote:
I agree. The conditions of a forfeit should be laid out in advance, and if anyone (player, spectator, organizer, administrator) points out within 24 hours that the conditions for forfeit existed, the forfeit should be enforced. This is a suggestion for future rules, not a suggestion for what to do in this case, where it seems to have been written into the rules that the burden is placed on the player. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ChrisB on Jun 23rd, 2010, 9:17am on 06/22/10 at 16:01:12, novacat wrote:
I agree also. I would have handled the situation similar to the way strajots did. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 23rd, 2010, 9:39am OK, agreed. In future Leagues it will not be left up to the opposing player. If the player was logged into the chatroom, and it's noticed within 24 hours, it's a forfeit. The end. Just for the record, the reason behind leaving it up to the opposing player was so that the rules could take into account the human perception of fairness, a grey area that legal systems can never completely cover. Meaning, in cases where it's clearly an honest mistake, I wanted the opposing player to be free to let it go instead of having a rigid forfeit rule that neither player would see as "fair" in that situation. You may well disagree with the wisdom in that, and I'm not sure of it myself. But as I'm sure is becoming more apparent to everybody as time goes on, I've always believed that people will only take the League seriously and get enthusiastic about it if they feel it is predictable and fair, and that the only way to ensure that is to apply the rules to the letter. Zero irregularities. And I was worried that if I made a forfeit rule that seemed overly draconian, not taking human error into account, a situation exactly like this one could arise. I had visions of everybody saying it was an honest mistake and the game should stand, and me being the only guy saying "Hey we need to apply the rules here." As I say, an unfounded fear perhaps. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Hippo on Jun 23rd, 2010, 12:51pm Oh I didn't notice the Korhil case is duscussed in this thread. ... I suppose you have already checked if the IP adress from which he was in Chatroom does not agree with the IP adress he was playing on. I have expected he has several open connections from different computers. I know it means nothing in either case :), it just improves the probability ... :). I always start important games by mentioning I am leaving the chatroom (and I am checking my opponent is doing as well). It is good habbit. I appologize that I were not taking attention while commenting the game, but Korhil in the left top corner is like a chatroom logo I do not even consider :( so I have not connected it to the player until he started commented the game. ... May the players would be marked with the count ... form how many IP adresses they are logged in the chat room ... :) just kidding. And I do think this case is simillar to case where players agreed on rescheduling missed game and it was forbidden as the players has no right for it and may be captains would. It seems to me from that principle player cannot conclude he don't mind his opponent had to lose by rules and may be captains would. I understand the rule as "Only captains (representing the team will) have the right for forgiveness". This is just general principle not implying I think the game rusult should be changed. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jun 29th, 2010, 2:26pm 1) The Round 6 rosters (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/AWL_2010_Round_6) have now been announced. Could all players please check their emails and/or forum inbox (by clicking on the "you have X messages" link at the top). If the game time in the gameroom doesn't work for you, you need to correct the scheduler and let me know before 00:00 GMT Thursday (Wednesday night). 2) There has been talk of another League after this one. After messaging the captains, there are concerns about availability over the summer months. Please could all players fill in this really short survey (http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/323455/81f8d65c88e6) to help us out. Thanks! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Sconibulus on Jun 29th, 2010, 6:44pm What about some sort of virtual trophies at the end of the season, just for grins. There'd be the Arimaa Cup or similar for the winning team, maybe an MVP, either as voted on by the players or mathematically by earned points/points expected based on rating... Perhaps an Ironman for most games played, and/or a Stalwart Castle awarded to the player who lost the longest game... maybe some silly ones too, like Cat Killer, or I <3 Rabbits (fewest rabbits lost per game, and most cats killed overall, irrespectively.) Well, that's all I have for now, feel free to suggest your own, or maybe draw pretty pictures. (I don't know how to draw pretty pictures, for sadness.) P.S.: I apologize in advance if these look stupid by the light of day : () ) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jun 29th, 2010, 7:16pm on 06/29/10 at 17:53:16, Korhil wrote:
Nah, your post wasn't cynical. The word you are looking for is paranoid. ;) Seriously, though, we should move the discussion to the feedback thread. It is a legitimate point that when a team overspends, they aren't just hurting themselves via the budget penalty, they are hurting their opponent for that round as well. It isn't currently a zero-sum game: the decisions of one team in a match can effectively hurt both teams in the match, allowing a team to play for spite rather than playing for best total score. I don't recommend moving to a per-round budget, because I think our current system is good enough and there is no need to add complexity. For the record, though, let me lay out my thinking of how it would work. The value of a budget point depends on how closely matched the opponents are. A rating point is worth most in an equal game and worth least in a mismatch in either direction. If two players are equally rated, they have equal winning chances, and thus an expected league points score of 2-2. One extra rating point should tip the balance to 50.144% to 49.856%, for an expected score of 2.00288 to 1.99712. Therefore, if we transfer 0.00288 league points between the teams for each point of overspend, it will offset the most a team could expect to gain, and will be a greater penalty than the actual gain for mismatches. For example, if the players are 300 rating points apart, the expected league score is 2.69804 - 1.30196, while 301 rating points apart has an expect league score of 2.69951 - 1.30049, for a gain of 0.00147 league points, i.e. about half the cost we would impose. It is too much hassle to keep track of so many digits. Better instead to transfer one league point per 347.4 rating points overspent, or perhaps (for more granularity) to transfer 0.1 points per 35 points overspend. An example of the latter: Say the per round-budget is 5700. Team A spends 5893 while Team B spends 5624. Team A wins two of three for a score of 7-5. But the overspend of 193 points is divided by 35 and rounded up to give a transfer of six tenths. So the final score for the round would be 6.4-5.6. Since the transfer of league points is theoretically greater than the expected league points gained from fielding a better player, one might expect there to be no overspending ever. It is true that given a choice between overspending less and overspending more, a captain should always overspend less regardless of the circumstances, but there are border cases. A captain could find himself in a situation where the choice is between exceeding budget by 43 or falling short by 97, in which case he would have to pay two tenths of a point (the price of 70 ratings points) for an additional fielded strength of 140 points, which is worth it as long as the mismatches are 300 points or less. on 06/29/10 at 17:07:21, knarl wrote:
Right, this would favor teams with more volunteers each round, because they can come the closest to a per-round budget without going over. Captains with fewer options would lose the ability to avoid penalties by evening out spending across the season, so they would suffer relatively speaking. That's an argument against. The bigger argument against in my mind is the extra busywork for an already-taxed league coordinator. The argument for a per-round budget is that it prevents spiteful play of trying to drag down a particular opponent rather than building up one's own score. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Jun 29th, 2010, 10:43pm Can we allay some paranoia by just asking to captains to subscribe to a code of behaviour that states they will play to better their teams score, not for spite? Personally, I assume the captains are upstanding members of our community, and this would be wholey unnecessary. Cheers, knarl. PS. No snickering about our captains status in the community! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by leo on Jun 29th, 2010, 11:25pm on 06/29/10 at 18:44:57, Sconibulus wrote:
I think it's an awesome idea. It reflects the variety of gameplays and games we witness in Arimaa, and it helps us highlight some things we only fuzzily perceive about it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 4th, 2010, 11:29am Rockies, Ring of Fire, and Europa each had eight different players who actually played a game. Atlantics had six. Compared to total roster size of 39 players, 30 played. Huge success, I say. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Korhil on Jul 4th, 2010, 2:29pm on 06/29/10 at 19:16:41, Fritzlein wrote:
I just posted in the '2nd Round thread' with a concept I had - moving this discussion between threads again would make it harder to follow. I suggest a rating min & max for each board. I think this would promote closer games on all 3 boards. There have been a number of rounds where atleast 1 board has a great disparity and the competition isn't as close. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Jul 27th, 2010, 7:39pm I just realised our team is going to be penalised one league point for underspending in the first round of the season. As far as I know, we only have three available players, but it turns out we might have been better off to roster a high rated player on table 1 who was unlikely to turn up, take the hit for a forfeit instead of underspend, but stand a better chance at winning table two and three. This seems wrong because to maximise our points, we'd be depriving a lower rated player from playing, and throwing a game, both of which are totally against the spirit of the league. Personally, I think the per round limits curtail the philosophy of the budget anyway. I'm sorry I missed the opportunity to argue against them when I had the chance :(, but I didn't follow the forum closely enough. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Sconibulus on Jul 27th, 2010, 8:17pm knarl, since the difficulty is going to be in underspending, not overspending, you can supply a higher-rated played, and sub-in whoever you actually want to play during the period in which rescheduling is acceptable. This still seems against the spirit slightly, but less so. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 27th, 2010, 8:30pm I never quite got the logic of forbidding underspending myself. The justification was to prevent one team from giving another team points by fielding a super-weak team. However, there is no way to prevent one team from giving another team even more points than that by fielding a regular team that loses its games on purpose. No formula or regulation can stop someone that wants to lose. That reminds of a dance at my college where there was a sign prohibiting tobacco in the middle of everyone who was smoking marijuana. That seemed pretty futile as well. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by speek on Jul 27th, 2010, 10:37pm Why would a team throw a match on purpose? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 27th, 2010, 10:58pm on 07/27/10 at 22:37:18, speek wrote:
Indeed, and given the lack of motivation, why have a rule that intends to prevent it but can't? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Jul 27th, 2010, 11:12pm on 07/27/10 at 19:39:00, knarl wrote:
I wasn't aware of that new rule; is it too late to change our roster? We only had 2 players that volunteered to play, Knarl and Rozencrantz. Adding Harren to the top board was purely out of necessity since he's the only other player who indicated that he might be able to play next weekend. I could offer to replace Harren on top board to get over the minimum rating hurdle, but I'm even less likely than he is to be able to play. If our opponent is available to play late Sunday night or maybe Monday morning then that would fit my schedule. Unfortunately, Thursday - Sunday evening is completely unavailable. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Jul 28th, 2010, 12:01am on 07/27/10 at 22:37:18, speek wrote:
To decide the winner if the given team can't win. As for the underspending and overspending, both are to prevent one team from giving too great of an advantage to another team. Underspending will likely result in the other team getting 9 points, much like overspending will likely result in the other team getting 3 points. Also, the extra points you get from the underspend may be used against the next opponents and create an even bigger disparity. The difference between underspending and losing on purpose is that the former can be done with good intentions and the latter requires malicious intent. I don't know if I agree with limiting spending or not. However, if there is a maximum spending limit, it is equally fair to have a minimum. The problem with per round limits is that the average for each round should not be the same. The league budget is set with an extra 100 points per person for future growth, but in the first round there is no growth yet. 6550/3 = 2183; only 5 players are higher than this. 5150/3 = 1717; 17 players are below this. That leaves 19 players in the middle. After adding 100 points to everyone, 6 are above and 9 are below with 26 in the middle. Why not decrease the limit by 100 points now and increase it each round by 20? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jul 28th, 2010, 12:36am on 07/28/10 at 00:01:26, novacat wrote:
...because it would be very complicated, and because that's only half the reason for the additional 100 points. In theory, a higher rated player is more likely to be able to set aside time to play, for the simple reason that he needed to set aside a fair bit of time to get to that high rating. So boosting the budget by 100 points per player helps to prevent situations where plenty of players are available but none of them are weak enough. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by speek on Jul 28th, 2010, 8:44am Has overspending/underspending actually created a problem before? And even if it did, it only did so once (as that's how many times you've done this). I'm not sure I see the wisdom of making rules to prevent non-problems. To determine if you actually have a problem, you should track the total number of points each team plays against during the league. If you end up with one team that played against dramatically more points, or fewer points, than you'd have a good basis for making such a rule. You would also get some data for a possible equation such as (average pts - pts) = x league points. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by PMertens on Jul 28th, 2010, 8:50am on 07/28/10 at 00:36:46, megajester wrote:
that is a really intersting theory ... does it apply to any of our higher rated players ? certainly not to me ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 28th, 2010, 9:37am I was available every round last season and expect to be available every round this season. I am eager to play, and would like to get a game every time I am available. However, I don't like what it does to the league when the higher-rated players play more. The lower-rated players should be just as important to team success. I recommended slightly lowering the per-round budget from last year so that captains would be under greater pressure to field lower-rated players. It surprised me to see the budget slightly raised instead. I don't know what formula is necessary to arrive at the budget I want; I just know what budget I want. :P Anyway, like so many things in life, we just have to try out various solutions and see which solution works best in practice. Everything has unintended consequences. We live and learn. After trying enough things that are sub-optimal, we start to do it well. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jul 28th, 2010, 11:05am @Adanac If you'd actually read the message I sent you, you'd have known that it wasn't too late to change your roster. I gave you until 12:00 GMT today. Despite there being no provision for this in the rules (and it really being your responsibility to know the rules) I decided to hold up the entire schedule just to give you a break. But that boat has sailed now... And guys, guys... You all had plenty of time to voice your concerns before this league started. I went out of my way to ask for everybody's opinion, even though everybody keeps telling me they'd be perfectly happy for me to just call the shots as I see fit. If the current rules are "sub-optimal" (!) whose fault is that? If you want the rules to change for the next league, great. Write it all down here, the more the merrier. The Arimaa community's wish is my command. But don't let me choose the menu and then complain when you don't like what I serve up. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 28th, 2010, 11:59am For the record, I'm expressing the same opinions now that I expressed when you asked for comments. I'm fine with you calling the shots, even when you make a different decision that what I recommended. Indeed, the fact that I am fine with you calling the shots is precisely why I didn't argue to the death about every point on which we disagreed before the league began. One inevitable consequence of trying something new is that we don't know how it will work out. Rules that sound great in theory produce unexpected results in practice. It's fine to say that rule changes are allowed only between seasons, but it would be too much to say that feedback is only allowed between seasons. During the season is exactly when we see whether the rules we have chosen are causing problems. It's tough being an organizer because every time someone says, "It would would better another way," it sounds like they are saying, "You are messing up everything." That's not the way I feel, though. I'm very grateful that you are running the AWL, and I think you are doing a great job of it. I'll try to remember to say that more often while I am bringing up things that I would do differently. :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jul 28th, 2010, 12:24pm *sighs* Yeah, you're right, you have been consistently arguing for a budget reduction. Thing is, I calculated the budget this time using exactly the same equation as last time, and managed to get it into my head that the total was less, not more than in the last season. (Although this does mean the average player rating has gone up, not down.) I thought it would be enough to make a post in League News giving everybody a week to point out anything I'd missed. And nobody did. But a week is probably too short to discuss something as complex as budget calculation, expecially when you feel as if you've already given your two cents worth and I didn't include it. We live and learn... PMertens may well have a point about my as sumption that stronger players are probably more readily available than weaker ones. Perhaps I should have just gotten rid of the extra 100 points per player. I think we need to keep it as simple as possible; I only just got my head around that post you made where you were talking about 1000ths of a league point and so on. I know you weren't proposing we do that exactly, but would you mind explaining again exactly how you would rejig the budget calculation? You're right about getting the feedback while it's still hot. I'm all for that, I didn't mean players shouldn't comment on what we should do for future leagues. I'm sorry if it came across like that. PS: This is good for a laugh. I had to spell "assumption" "as sumption" because when I put "my" in front of it the forum thought I was talking about my bottom, and replaced it with "I disagree." LOL! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Jul 28th, 2010, 12:54pm on 07/28/10 at 11:05:31, megajester wrote:
I didn’t know the rule but it didn’t really matter anyway. We only had 3 players available this week and, as luck would have it, we didn’t fit into the acceptable rating range. Oh well, no big deal. I have no problem with the rule changes and I don’t expect it to be an issue for my team in the future. We’re ordinarily very close to the 5850 mark every match, give or take a couple hundred points. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jul 28th, 2010, 1:00pm on 07/28/10 at 12:54:10, Adanac wrote:
Sorry I was short with you. It's been a long day. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 28th, 2010, 2:25pm on 07/28/10 at 12:24:34, megajester wrote:
I also think we need to keep things as simple as possible. That's why I would have used the budget mechanism of the first season, except with a slightly lower season total. There's a legitimate concern about teams going easy against one opposing team and then going hard on another opposing team. That kind of favoritism is a possibility in any round-robin format. The possibility for collusion, either explicit or implicit, that is always present in round robins is why I feel that World Championships should always be elimination-style tournaments. I like the round-robin format of the AWL, though, because it is supposed to be a friendly league. I like trusting every team to maximize its own score. I like the way AWL is structured to be participatory. I probably shouldn't have even talked about the per-round budget as an alternative to the per-season budget. The only good that can come of it is to prevent a team from going really hard against one opposing team to drag that team down. Unfortunately, it can't prevent the opposite, namely giving free points to one opponent to lift them over another opponent, so the round-robin problem would still exist. I presented the scheme while trying not to endorse it, which was dumb. Why would I forward a formula that I don't support using? The problem is that I am a mathematician, so I can't resist an opportunity to present an equation, even a useless equation. :) The way a per-round budget would work is to transfer points to the other team as compensation for fielding an overrated squad. Thus you can't hurt them by overspending. Indeed, on average your overspending would help them due to the transfer of points. You could dominate every board by 400 rating points, sweep all three games, and end up giving the other team more points than if you had just stayed in budget to duke it out. Within each round, one would transfer 0.1 points to the other team per 35 points overspend, rounded up. If both teams overspend, transfer only the net. It's not super-complicated, but it's extra busywork for the administrator each round. The only reason it appeared complicated was that I was trying to justify the formula in my previous post rather than merely suggesting it. With a per-round budget, there would be no season budget. There would be no way to save up for later rounds by spending less in the current round. This lack of flexibility would really hit teams hard if they only had three volunteers. Under the current system, it seems that over-budget and under-budget squads are less likely to be the result of someone trying to abuse the system, and more likely the result of having no choice in the matter. As long as that is what is actually happening, it makes more sense to have a per-season budget. For example, it does suck to be the Ring of Fire this round, when they might get swept by the Rockies. But at least with a per-season budget (and no per-round budget) they could feel better knowing they can overspend on some later round, without penalty, to try to get back the points they lost this round when they had no other roster choices. Contrariwise, nobody thinks Ring of Fire is trying to throw the league to the Rockies, and even if we did think they were doing that, penalizing them a league point would in no way stop them from throwing the league to the Rockies. Thus I'd be happy reverting to last season's budget scheme. Simpler, and probably more appropriate to the situation. Even better, we could revert to last season's budget targets. :) I guess that I am proposing changing the rules in the middle of a season, but we are barely underway and I doubt any captain will feel that their strategy has been invalidated by the change. It's your call as to how bad a precedent it would be to make a quick change while things are just getting underway, and whether the damage would be outweighed by perhaps running more smoothly in the current season. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Fritzlein on Jul 28th, 2010, 2:38pm on 07/28/10 at 12:24:34, megajester wrote:
The best thing about giving advice that isn't taken is that it is a one-way bet. Poker players call it a freeroll. If things go well, I can always claim they would have gone better had my advice been taken. If things go badly, I can say that I told you so. I can't lose. ;D Hopefully you won't now change your mind and take my advice, because then if things go badly it will be my fault. We only get to discover what is wrong with my ideas if they are actually implemented. So please, whatever you do, don't listen to me. That could only end badly for me. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Adanac on Jul 28th, 2010, 4:56pm Fritzlein made some pretty strong arguments against the new rule. It doesn’t make much sense to penalize a last-place team that is trying to throw a match for the benefit of a title contender. But one alternate scenario where this new rule could be useful would be with a team with 4 available players, for example, rated 1850, 1600, 1450, 1400. If the captain feels that the team is going to finish 0-3 regardless of who he selects then the logical option is to select the three lowest-rated rather than the three highest-rated players and save the extra 450 rating points for future rounds. The problem is that the captain hasn’t given any thought to which pairings would be most exciting for the fans – competitive pairings are supposed to be part of the appeal of the WL. Of course, in this scenario the team cannot possibly reach the rating floor. There’s nothing that can be done about that, but at least we’re providing the captain with the incentive to make a “proper” roster selection. There’s a flip side to this situation, as my Ring of Fire has unfortunately learned this week. If there are only 3 players available then a team can get hit with 3 huge rating mismatches plus a point penalty. But those are the breaks – maybe in the future we’ll have a larger player pool so that the chances of a team being forced into an unfavourable lineup will become significantly reduced. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Hippo on Jul 29th, 2010, 2:48am For the future AWL seasons ... I like the idea of overcost penalisation points be given to opposing team. I like it much more than per round limit. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Jul 29th, 2010, 5:36am on 07/28/10 at 14:38:52, Fritzlein wrote:
Ah but now I'm gonna! MWAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Seriously, I think we could perhaps lose the minimum budget limit, because that's the only thing that's really throwing a spanner in the works and it doesn't work to prevent what we're trying to prevent. I see Adanac's point, but I don't think it justifies his team being penalized 1 point for no good reason. As I think I explained in an earlier post, players' average ratings are higher than last round so using the same budget calculation results in a higher budget. ;) I don't think it's worth it to risk the unforseen consequences of lowering the budget mid-season when we already have the round maximum in place to stop the likes of Europa playing skittles with the opposition. But please feel free to outline precisely how you would change the budget calculation for the next League. And by the way, whatever happens I take full responsibility, whoever the suggestions initially come from. That's only fair if I'm going to be the benevolent dictator around here. :) If there's no objection, in accordance with the rules I would like to officially ask RonWeasley for his approval for the following amendment: "Rule 6.3.3 is adjusted as follows: Captains may not overspend Note: This means that each round the captain's target spend is 5850. His upper spending limit (see 6.3.3) is 6550 |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by knarl on Aug 2nd, 2010, 10:27pm Gday, I just wanted to point out a little typo on the AWLS round 1 wiki page, so someone with an account can fix it. It list RoF as winning two and losing one, which conflicts with the actual results which are correctly listed further down. We actually won one and lost two. Cheers, knarl. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by RonWeasley on Aug 3rd, 2010, 7:16am on 07/29/10 at 05:36:27, megajester wrote:
I haven't worked through all the technicalities associated with this, but removing the lower limit penalty seems like it gives teams more flexibility. The risk of abuse seems low, given that the people here are trying to optimize fun rather than spite. Therefore, as LD, I approve the removal of the lower spending limit. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by aaaa on Aug 28th, 2010, 1:23pm I'm in the process of finding new, optimized parameters for the WHR rating system. I understand that if these were to be adopted in the middle of this competition, the resulting abrupt change in players' ratings would possibly prove to be disruptive and raise issues of fairness. Perhaps some sort of ad hoc accommodation might be possible here, e.g. a flat adjustment of budgets based on how the average rating of a participant would differ between settings. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by ocmiente on Sep 13th, 2010, 5:04pm For next season, can we reduce the penalty for losing due to a time out or resignation? If a team simply doesn't show up, that would justify not getting a point for playing; but some budget penalty would be more appropriate in games like the forfeits we've seen this season. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by megajester on Sep 14th, 2010, 4:28pm on 09/13/10 at 17:04:26, ocmiente wrote:
I agree that the current system is too heavy-handed. It never occurred to me to link the budget with anything other than the deployment of players, but this might be a good way of creating some sort of incentive for players to play to the finish instead of abandoning it half-way through. I don't know what others think, but a chess-style "1 point for a win" seems boring... Heyyy here's another idea! Maybe we award bonus points for a speedy win. Example: 2 points for a win, with 1 bonus point for winning in 31-40 moves, 2 points for 21-30, 3 points for 0-20. Now that would be an incentive to keep playing on, wouldn't it? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by aaaa on Sep 14th, 2010, 5:18pm on 09/14/10 at 16:28:07, megajester wrote:
A similar discussion came up with the Continuous Tournament and again I would like to state that one should not want to severely compromise the integral nature of a single Arimaa game by having such a valuable secondary objective where the focus is on game length. Players have developed different playing styles, which differ in how long games tend to last with them, and these should not be encouraged or discouraged on the basis of anything other than how well they win games. I wouldn't go much further with this than adding a low-impact tiebreaker in the same vein as the concept of goal differences in several sports, here highest number of moves in all lost games minus number of moves in all won games. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by novacat on Sep 14th, 2010, 9:56pm If someone is purposefully losing on time or resigning, then they can just as easily allow the opponent to win by goal (as is often done on the turn before a forced goal). If people are not purposefully losing based on time, they are likely trying to come up with a move to continue playing. As such, I don't think there is a need to penalize anyone for losing on time (especially if it is due to technical difficulties). I suggest the points stay the same and a forfeit be defined as not showing up for a game and having no substitute to fill in. I think other incentives would be better suited to motivate players to finish their games. For example, teams that finish all games could earn the title "Enduring Elephants," while teams that finish less than half their games end up the "Wreckless Rabbits." Feel free to come up with all the animals in between. :D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by aaaa on Oct 9th, 2010, 11:40am Another idea would be to only have no-shows cause a forfeit of a game point and let the least number of timeouts+resignations be the first tiebreaker. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: League Feedback Post by Nombril on Oct 11th, 2010, 2:11pm Two suggestions for rules changes before the next season, following up on some of the above suggestions and also one of my observations: 1. timeout penalty: I think it makes sense to consider no-show forfeits to be in a different category from timing out. The current 3-1-0 system could still be used, with forfeits going into the 0 point column but time outs going into the 1 point column. As for what column resignations should go under: there is a culture to 'finish' games here, but often people just suicide their pieces (or make 1 step, or step a rabbit as far forward as possible, etc) when they are ready to resign. So I would lean towards a resignation going into the 1 point column, since there really isn't a penalty for these other informal resignations. If the above is adopted, I would modify aaaa's suggestion and have time-outs used as the first tie breaker. It seems most teams' roster selection isn't often based on strategy, but rather who is available to play. So having budget as the first tie breaker is almost like a random number generator. (OK, it does still give some indication of who 'out performed' their ratings, but with only 18 games per season, I think there is too much noise in this number to be accurate.) 2. Substitutions and Forfeit Timeframe aaaa ran into the situation today where his opponent didn't show up on time. He was in an uncomfortable situation of wanting to be a good sport and keep the game window open, vs. wanting to help his team win and just claim the forfeit and cost the opponents the 1 point for a forfeit. In our first season discussion about rescheduling a forfeit, I'd like to point out the following line of thought: on 05/27/10 at 16:14:49, Adanac wrote:
I suggest that we can substitute 'forfeit' for 're-scheduled' in the above, then we have a very similar, if not identical, situation. Why should I substitute for a higher rated player if the opponent is willing to wait longer for my stronger teammate to show up? Also, in a team event, I think it would be more comfortable to take decisions like this out of the individual players hands. Since the gameroom already has an automatic 15 min grace period, I suggest that a forfeit be automatic after 15 min. A substitution can be prepared in the meantime, but should NOT start until after the 15 min window has run out. Probably a 5 min window (so 15-20 min after the original scheduled time) would be sufficient time for the game with the sub to be started. I'm looking forward to the last game of the season tonight, and hope we can continue to smooth out the rules and keep having fun with the games and league concept! |
||||||||
|
Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |