Arimaa Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Team Games >> 2010 Arimaa World League >> Second Season
        
(Message started by: Fritzlein on Jul 4^th, 2010, 11:33am)

Title: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 4^th, 2010, 11:33am

The first season of AWL was a massive success, far better than I imagined possible. Next time around (hopefully soon), the only changes I would ask for are

1. One round per week
2. Slightly lower budget

The budget calculation was fine, but as the season progressed, new players joined with a lower average rating than the original rosters.

Does anyone else want another season? If so, how much the same or different?

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Korhil on Jul 4^th, 2010, 2:17pm

Would it be possible to put some ratings brackets around each board, rather than a budget?

Example brackets for purpose of discussion:
Board 1: 1950+
Board 2: 1650 - 2000
Board 3: 1700 or Lower

The objective of this would be to try promote players of closer ratings to face off more often.

Cheers,
Korhil

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Sconibulus on Jul 4^th, 2010, 2:41pm

I found that most of the games were fairly close, ratings-wise, while only 14 of them were within 100 points, only one or two of those happened at the top table, your proposed 1950+ region.

Your idea would reduce a captain's flexibility, he'd have to field his top player on the first board if he could, there would be no advantage to fielding anyone else, and he'd be doing the same on the other two boards as well, playing his best player that fits under the cap.

I think that Fritz' idea of reducing the budget is a good one, although I'd like to hear the captains weigh in. I know we calculated that the Atlantics could only have used all of their current budget had they used substitutions.

For myself, I'd like a longer season, so that individual matches have less impact in the final standings (although it will still probably come down to the last match, this is more to give a club that gets swept more time to recover) this could be readily accomplished by adding extra teams (if there's support), or by running three circuits rather than two.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Korhil on Jul 4^th, 2010, 3:32pm

on 07/04/10 at 14:41:19, Sconibulus wrote:

Your idea would reduce a captain's flexibility, he'd have to field his top player on the first board if he could, there would be no advantage to fielding anyone else, and he'd be doing the same on the other two boards as well, playing his best player that fits under the cap.

The rating value for the top board should be modified to allow for each team to have a few options.

What I like to see change, is that currently a team could field players with ratings 2200, 1900, & 1900. Many teams have lower rated players (sub 1700) and I think it would be nice to promote more games between these player against each other at board 3.
Against that line up, a team would need to field a 2400 &, 2100 player to go with their 1500 board 3, hoping to win the match 2-1. It seems that currently from an objective point of winning, it is difficult to field lower rated players. I would like to see that change.

Cheers,
Martin

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by knarl on Jul 4^th, 2010, 10:42pm

on 07/04/10 at 15:32:00, Korhil wrote:

When I filled out my survey, I also said that we shouldn't change anything much, other than maybe more tables if there's enough players.

Martin, I think the concerns you raise will be less apparent with a tuned budget, and hopefully more tables, but I'm just postulating.

Personally I think the rating budget has done a great job of giving higher and lower rated players the opportunity to play in a competative event.

Cheers,
knarl.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by novacat on Jul 5^th, 2010, 8:45am

I don't think the Atlantics have enough available players to play once a week for an immediate second season. I think it is a great idea with better player availability and/or more players on the team.
Likewise, dividing the tables by rating may leave me with no one to play at a table as the availability of our players under 1700 is really low. As the number of players grows, I could be convinced to divide groups of tables to certain ratings (i.e. table 1 & 2 like the current rules, and 3 & 4 must be below 'X' rating).

On a side note, I think the best place for evenly matched games is something like the continuous tournament.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Nombril on Jul 5^th, 2010, 10:03am

Here is my 2cents:

1 week vs. 2 week rotations:
I think 2 weeks is best, especially if we want the captains (and players) to have a chance to reflect on the results before choosing the next group of players to field. (I also think the Continuous Tournament would be good to run in the alternate weeks - it could give us an idea if more/different people prefer playing individual vs. league games.)

Budget:
Would this just be recalculated according to the rosters at the beginning of the season? (It seems Fritz's comment is directed towards the fact that players joining the league affected the average, not that the original formula was off.)

"Even" match ups - more games per match:
I understand the concern with having some lopsided games. But I expect that a ratings limit for each table won't be affective (What if you are just over the breakpoint - do you need to lose on purpose to play a lower table?) I think the solution to have more "even" games is to change to 4 or 5 games per match. I think we should do this before adding teams or playing more frequently. (Hopefully Megajester can post the survey results to know if this is feasible.)

Bots:
I've seen a few people discussing adding a bot team in the chat room. I think a bot team would be interesting. Or should we allow bots to join a regular team? Or was one of the purposes of the league to promote H vs H games? I wonder if a bot team would have a hard time competing, since it seems even if both Marwin and Clueless played, most teams could still win table 1 and 2.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by megajester on Jul 8^th, 2010, 11:17am

Apologies to everybody, there was a convention over the weekend and the mushroom cloud has yet to settle. I'll be updating the wiki on the final League results as soon as I can. Congratulations Ring of Fire for a hard-earned title.

Now for the 2010 League Sequel! There has been a fairly strong response to the survey. It's certainly enough to have a Sequel, but I fear not enough for teams to be able to field rosters every week. Sorry Fritz.

Our start date needs to be pretty soon. Week 1 of the Sequel needs to be this Monday. Which means Europa needs a new captain to step up to the plate. Would any volunteers for the post (from any team) make a post in the Europa Clubhouse thread.

If there is to be a bot team we need a captain and some players to step forward ASAP. I'll start a new thread now.

The rules will remain essentially as they are, although I will be making superficial changes to make them easier to understand. The only material changes will be:
- LD will make final decisions in cases of dispute
- There will be a limit to how much a team can go overbudget in a single round
- Forfeits will be automatic and not subject to the other player's consent
- Budget will be recalculated using the same formula as in the League Rules

By the way, if anybody wants to switch teams now is the time to do so. All you need to do is make a post in your chosen team. Once the League gets started everybody has to stick to whichever team they're in.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 8^th, 2010, 2:02pm

Yay, another season! Thank you megajester!

Are we going to have the same four clubs plus a bot team? If so does that mean the season will consist of ten rounds or five? Or if there is a bot team, will we consolidate down to three human teams in order to keep the same six-round structure?

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Sconibulus on Jul 8^th, 2010, 2:07pm

Fritz, it'd be eight rounds, teams can't play themselves : () )

Personally, I'm not sure about two weeks per round, and an odd number of teams, that means about a month-long wait between rounds for a team that gets a bye.

I'm a little curious as to why we'd have a per-round budget in addition to a total budget, that seems as if it would reduce a captain's flexibility in a few ways, one, it might be much more prone to incurring penalties because there is insufficient availability in one round, also, it seems as if it doesn't allow a captain to play what it thinks will be a weak opponent light, and use the saved points to try to defeat a stronger opponent.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 8^th, 2010, 3:34pm

on 07/08/10 at 14:07:31, Sconibulus wrote:

And, when you factor in those byes, it makes ten rounds, not eight. :P I agree with you about the undesirability of an odd number of teams. The extra team does not increase the number of games played per week, because one team is always sitting out. Therefore, if we do have a bot team, we should disband one human team (the Rockies?) and let the players join whichever other human team they would like to.

Quote:

I'm a little curious as to why we'd have a per-round budget in addition to a total budget

I'm sure this relates to the discussion of overspending against a particular team to hurt that team even if it is a bad strategy. The full solution was to transfer penalty points to the team against whom you overspent, but it would be a bookkeeping pain. Having a limit is a partial solution that is easier to implement.

What would be the limit for overspending in one round? 500 points? The Rockies in the last round overspent by 475 points, which was not at all spiteful, but was the cost of the only three volunteers. The only larger overspend was by Europa in the first round by 542 points, but it would have been only 342 points over if not for the substitution.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by novacat on Jul 8^th, 2010, 8:29pm

on 07/08/10 at 15:34:34, Fritzlein wrote:

I'm sure this relates to the discussion of overspending against a particular team to hurt that team even if it is a bad strategy.

What if that team wanted to hurt the opponents they weren't playing against and fielded a really weak team instead? :o

While I don't think it's a big deal, I do think setting a lower limit actually has as much merit as setting an upper limit per round. How much that merit is remains to be seen.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 9^th, 2010, 1:14am

on 07/08/10 at 20:29:34, novacat wrote:

What if that team wanted to hurt the opponents they weren't playing against and fielded a really weak team instead? :o.

Or fielded a strong team and lost all of their games on purpose? Losing intentionally is a much easier way to favor one opposing team over another than any we have discussed so far.

In any round-robin situation there is the possibility of collusion, which is why all championship tournaments should be elimination tournaments. For AWL, though, a great spirit of sportsmanship has reigned insofar as player selection is concerned. For example, I noticed that every team captain made opportunities for every volunteer on his team to play rather than selecting to try to maximize points. This first season was about maximizing participation instead, and I expect the same for the second season as well, whether or not per round limits are imposed.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by megajester on Jul 10^th, 2010, 3:15am

OK, we will set a reasonable lower limit as well. Also, if there's no objection, I'd like to round official ratings up or down to the nearest 100. In the last season everybody's ratings were chaging by something silly like one or two points each round, which created a LOT of work for me.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Arimabuff on Jul 10^th, 2010, 4:15am

on 07/09/10 at 01:14:17, Fritzlein wrote:

Or fielded a strong team and lost all of their games on purpose? Losing intentionally is a much easier way to favor one opposing team over another than any we have discussed so far...

I hear Oliver Stone is planning to make a movie about it. ;)

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 10^th, 2010, 4:39am

on 07/10/10 at 03:15:54, megajester wrote:

Also, if there's no objection, I'd like to round official ratings up or down to the nearest 100. In the last season everybody's ratings were chaging by something silly like one or two points each round, which created a LOT of work for me.

Woah, that's potentially a lot of points. If ratings are only changing by a point or two every round, then rounding to the nearest 10 should be sufficient to avoid almost all the updates, right?

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by novacat on Jul 17^th, 2010, 11:32am

on 07/08/10 at 11:17:51, megajester wrote:

Week 1 of the Sequel needs to be this Monday.

It seems to me that we are still finalizing things. Is this correct or should I be getting a roster ready for Monday?

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by megajester on Jul 17^th, 2010, 1:40pm

Right! Let's get this party started!

Unfortunately we haven't had nearly enough interest for the Bot Squad. So that one's shelved for the time being.

I've redrafted the rules (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/League_Rules). I know it looks like a total revamp, but all I've actually done is made things a bit clearer (I hope) and made some implicit aspects more explicit.

The only fundamental changes are as follows:

- The LD's word is final in any dispute (see 3; 4; 8.1.5.1; and 8.1.6)
- Ratings are rounded to the nearest 10 (6.3.2)
- A captain can only overspend or underspend by 700 points in his initial roster without being penalized. Substitutions are unaffected. (6.3.3)
- A forfeit's a forfeit. (7.3)

Fasten your seatbelts people, because Week 1 starts on Monday!

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Sconibulus on Jul 17^th, 2010, 1:47pm

One question, what penalty is imposed if the captain doesn't fit in the appropriate range?

Imagine a situation where, say the average rating is 1800, and Europa has only three players available, rated 2600, 2000, and 1600. This admittedly unlikely scenario would make it absolutely impossible to fall within the limit, but even if the disparities were less, I'd still rather a team be able to field a trio, even if overpowered, than be forced to forfeit games, depriving the other team of a match as well.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by megajester on Jul 17^th, 2010, 2:01pm

on 07/17/10 at 13:47:30, Sconibulus wrote:

In the scenario you've just given Europa would have an overspend of 800 points, just above the limit I've proposed. If we take the average last time around, which was 1920, your scenario would represent an overspend of 420, so no penalty.

Besides, it's not forbidden to field an overpowered team, you just have to pay for it. It's all there in the rules for people to read. I even posted a link. ;)

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 20^th, 2010, 9:51am

Would it be productive to clear the rosters of the four teams, re-announce the season in the game room, and have everyone re-enlist for the team of their choice? I sense the possibility that there isn't enough enthusiasm to make a second season fly right now. Clearing the roster would allow the Rockies to see exactly where (between three and nine) our active participation will be.

If there aren't enough participants for a four-team, six-round season, we could perhaps still play a two-team, four-round season by merging the Rockies and Atlantics into a single team (US?) and Europa and Ring of Fire into a single team (THEM?) with four or five boards per round.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Emaad on Jul 20^th, 2010, 3:45pm

on 07/20/10 at 09:51:32, Fritzlein wrote:

If there aren't enough participants for a four-team, six-round season, we could perhaps still play a two-team, four-round season by merging the Rockies and Atlantics into a single team (US?) and Europa and Ring of Fire into a single team (THEM?) with four or five boards per round.

I really despise that Idea we should just make people
resign up and raise awareness like on the main page
we could put an ad that says something like arimaa world league sing up now and put a linkto the sign up

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by megajester on Jul 21^st, 2010, 2:38am

I made a post two weeks ago in which I said people should change clubs if they wanted to, and nobody did. The Sequel has in fact already started, on Monday. You can check out the fixtures list in the wiki, I'll be calculating the budget and updating the wiki more fully later on today.

Survey results are encouraging, but like you Fritz, I too am worried at the lack of player responses in the forum. So, I'm going to pull a little stunt in another thread to see what kind of player presence we have...

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 21^st, 2010, 1:32pm

on 07/21/10 at 02:38:49, megajester wrote:

I made a post two weeks ago in which I said people should change clubs if they wanted to, and nobody did.

Errr, that mostly misses the point. If everyone has lost interest and disappeared, of course nobody will change clubs. Everyone will just remain as deadwood on the roster. Even if someone is still around they have little incentive to change clubs unless they know some other club is short of members and more likely to field them. Only if we re-enroll will people have an idea which club is shortest on volunteers, which is likely the strongest incentive to jump ship.

But I guess the opportunity has passed, and we'll know soon enough if the captains have trouble finding three volunteers for next week.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by chessandgo on Jul 26^th, 2010, 8:47am

just to check, how do captains submit rosters? By sending a PM to megajester?

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Adanac on Jul 26^th, 2010, 9:14am

on 07/26/10 at 08:47:58, chessandgo wrote:

just to check, how do captains submit rosters? By sending a PM to megajester?

Yes, that's I how I always do it.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by chessandgo on Jul 26^th, 2010, 10:46am

Ok thanks Greg, did it on friday, but started getting second thoughts this morning :)

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by leo on Jul 29^th, 2010, 11:31am

Rimbit is already there:

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1308/awlshotdog.jpg

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by rbarreira on Jul 29^th, 2010, 1:16pm

Your drawings always bring a laugh :)

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 29^th, 2010, 7:10pm

Nice one, leo! Let's get Omar to swap that in to the login page as part of your ongoing series.

Title: Re: Second Season
Post by chessandgo on Jul 30^th, 2010, 8:47am

wow ... wow, wow, wow :)