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

        Team Games >> 2012 Arimaa World League >> 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
        
(Message started by: megajester on Apr 30th, 2012, 6:32am)
Title: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Apr 30th, 2012, 6:32am
The 2012 Arimaa World League is coming up, and it would be good to contribute our ideas and suggestions from the previous season as soon as possible, before the details are finalized.

Thank you for your interest, and I hope we will have another fun year with the World League.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 30th, 2012, 8:06am
My impression of last season was again that we have enough interested players to make the season fun and exciting, but just barely.  It seems that the Rockies' roster more often than not consisted of the only three players available.  Sometimes we had a fourth player who could have played if there had been no other option, and sometimes our third player was playing because there was no other option.  I'm glad that neither we nor any other team had to ever submit a two-player roster, but it seemed like a close thing.

From a strategy perspective, I formerly didn't want the other teams to know that we had no roster options in a given week, but I'm over that now.  For next season, I think it would be nice if the captains were open about how many volunteers there were choosing from each week.  The reason is that new players who join the AWL mid-season are often willing to join teams for reasons other than geography, and they could sign up where their playing time would be maximized if that was a motivation to them, but they don't have the information that permits them to do so.  We could have a little group effort that keeps the teams balanced in size (not in ability, of course, as Ring of Fire will always win anyway) for the purpose of keeping any one team from falling apart.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Apr 30th, 2012, 8:11am
As expressed before, I want a complete eradication of any rule-imposed incentive with respect to the duration and victory condition of a game (other than penalizing forfeits).
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by browni3141 on Apr 30th, 2012, 8:50pm
What is this Arimaa World League and how do I get in on it?
And as soon as I find out I will probably agree with aaaa.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Boo on May 1st, 2012, 2:47am

Quote:
What is this Arimaa World League and how do I get in on it?


See the links in megajester's signature.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on May 19th, 2012, 12:13pm
Hi everybody, slowly but surely I'm organizing things...

I've set up a 2012 Arimaa World League page (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/2012_Arimaa_World_League) where you will see links to club pages. I've made a start, but the clubs can make whatever changes to their pages they wish. Especially "Moments of Glory" can be fleshed out.

More details on the upcoming season soon...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on May 22nd, 2012, 12:02am
Very cool Megajester!

I do see some additions and corrections.  I don't know how to make changes myself.  The 2010 season 1 and 2 results are reversed for all the teams.  
Also, the player game count is missing a season.  I counted them up and have them in an excel sheet.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Dolus on May 31st, 2012, 11:29am
One thing we mentioned last time is providing time for a tiebreaker round if need be, if we haven't already put that in place for this year. And maybe explicitly stating the "off-dates" of the event early (e.g. Thanksgiving).

Other than that, I don't really have any suggestions or anything. I like Fritz's suggestion to make sure new players go where they are needed.

Yay! I have the 5th most appearances for the Rockies! But we need to get at least 2nd this year...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Jul 4th, 2012, 10:27am
I also agree with developing some type of recruitment program and trying to match new players with teams that need them.  Overall, the World League has been running very smoothly and I can't think of any major suggested improvements for the upcoming season.

My team's biggest problem is always finding low-rated players to keep us within budget.  I really hope there are many new recruits out there willing to join the AWL 2012.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 13th, 2012, 9:05am
Thanks very much everybody. I've been very busy lately, hence the absence. I've had some spare time, and I've been working on a master spreadsheet to make updating the wiki easier. I've uploaded a sample of the results onto the 2012 AWL wiki page just so you can see the format.

More coming soon...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Jul 13th, 2012, 11:33am

on 07/13/12 at 09:05:29, megajester wrote:
Thanks very much everybody. I've been very busy lately, hence the absence. I've had some spare time, and I've been working on a master spreadsheet to make updating the wiki easier. I've uploaded a sample of the results onto the 2012 AWL wiki page just so you can see the format.

More coming soon...


That elephant photo looks great and is a really nice addition to the page.  The AWL Wiki pages get nicer every year :)

Since you’ve been very busy I don’t want to give you any more unnecessary work.  But if this request is easy to implement, I think it would be helpful:  instead of listing all the teams roster & player rating costs in one long column, would it be possible to have the team rosters in a 2x2 table with the head-to-head teams being listed side-by-side each week.  The would cut down on the length of the page and also it would be nice to see both team rosters next to each other.  This, of course, is not a high priority, especially if it would be time-consuming to implement.

Thanks again for organizing AWL season 3!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 14th, 2012, 8:52am

on 07/13/12 at 11:33:30, Adanac wrote:
That elephant photo looks great and is a really nice addition to the page.  The AWL Wiki pages get nicer every year :)

Since you’ve been very busy I don’t want to give you any more unnecessary work.  But if this request is easy to implement, I think it would be helpful:  instead of listing all the teams roster & player rating costs in one long column, would it be possible to have the team rosters in a 2x2 table with the head-to-head teams being listed side-by-side each week.  The would cut down on the length of the page and also it would be nice to see both team rosters next to each other.  This, of course, is not a high priority, especially if it would be time-consuming to implement.

Thanks again for organizing AWL season 3!

I'll see what I can do.

Any suggestions on dates, anybody?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 14th, 2012, 9:00am

on 07/14/12 at 08:52:23, megajester wrote:
Any suggestions on dates, anybody?

Wait until I time out on all my Postal Mixer games.   :P

No, seriously, I would love to see the AWL restart at any time, and I will participate for the Rockies even if my drained reserves in all of my Postal Mixer games suggest that I ought not.  Thanks for ponying up for another season!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 14th, 2012, 10:57am

on 07/13/12 at 11:33:30, Adanac wrote:
instead of listing all the teams roster & player rating costs in one long column, would it be possible to have the team rosters in a 2x2 table with the head-to-head teams being listed side-by-side each week.

How about the way it is now? If that would do, it'd be the easiest to implement.

BTW Thanks Fritz. :)

Edit: By "the way it is now" I mean the way it is now that I've changed it. I just reread my post and realized it looks like I'm being cute...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Jul 15th, 2012, 6:57am
I am fine starting at any time, would prefer starting August 6 or earlier.  I suggest having some good advertising in the game room a week before the start to get new people interested and get everyone pumped up for a new season.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 19th, 2012, 3:29am
Survey! Clicky! (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JFLSTNT) Thanky!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Dolus on Jul 19th, 2012, 8:28am
Yay! I did my survey. :)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Jul 19th, 2012, 9:23am

on 07/19/12 at 03:29:05, megajester wrote:
Survey! Clicky! (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JFLSTNT) Thanky!


I completed the survey, and yes I do like the new page with the team ratings listed side-by-side.  Thanks!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Boo on Jul 19th, 2012, 11:23am
If I click "2012 Arimaa World League" in the main page I am taken to the "The 2012 Arimaa World Computer Championship" instead.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 19th, 2012, 12:05pm
We should announce the league on BoardGameGeek; that will probably snag us a couple of participants who read BGG forums but not arimaa.com forums.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 19th, 2012, 4:59pm

on 07/19/12 at 12:05:42, Fritzlein wrote:
We should announce the league on BoardGameGeek; that will probably snag us a couple of participants who read BGG forums but not arimaa.com forums.

Sounds good. Would you mind doing that?

Here are links for the logo if you think it would look cool:
http://bit.ly/AWL600 (full size 600 dpi)
http://bit.ly/AWL300 (full size 300 dpi)
http://bit.ly/AWLhal (half size)
http://bit.ly/AWLqua (quarter size)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 19th, 2012, 11:48pm

on 07/19/12 at 16:59:30, megajester wrote:
Sounds good. Would you mind doing that?

Done.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 20th, 2012, 6:41am

on 07/19/12 at 23:48:00, Fritzlein wrote:
Done.

Ta very much!

BTW I know it's all been a bit fait accompli but what do you guys think of the logo?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 22nd, 2012, 9:15pm

on 07/20/12 at 06:41:42, megajester wrote:
BTW I know it's all been a bit fait accompli but what do you guys think of the logo?

I like it.  It makes the AWL it's own deal.  When do we start again?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 23rd, 2012, 1:31am

on 07/22/12 at 21:15:15, Fritzlein wrote:
I like it.  It make the AWL it's own deal.  When do we start again?

Why thank you.

We start in August. First or second week, depending.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Jul 26th, 2012, 11:23am
Here are my proposed changes to the rules concerning playoffs:


Quote:
  • 10.1 If after the last matches have been played there is a tie for first place, there shall be a playoff between the teams sharing it.
  • 10.2 These tied teams will be ranked by the following playoff-specific ranking in order of priority:
    • 10.2.1 most matches in which the team won more points than the opponent
    • 10.2.2 least total number of forfeits
    • 10.2.3 lowest total budget expense
  • 10.3 The playoff structure is as follows:
    • 10.3.1 Except where overruled below, the team with the better ranking chooses color. For the purpose of seeding and the right to pick color, ties in the playoff ranking are broken randomly.
    • 10.3.2 If two teams are tied, they will play a single playoff match.
    • 10.3.3 If three teams are tied, the two lowest-ranked teams will play each other, and the winner of that will choose the color for the second, deciding match against the highest-ranked team.
    • 10.3.4 If all four teams are tied, the highest-ranked team plays the lowest-ranked one and the other two each other, both matches taking place in the same cycle. The winners play a last match for the title. If the finalists had opposite colors in their respective semi-finals, they will flip colors in the final. Otherwise, if one team scored more points in the semi-finals, it gets to pick color.
  • 10.4 [...]
    • [...]
    • 10.4.3 Points will be scored as normal. In the event of a tie in any playoff match, the winner will be the team with the smaller sum of the ratings of the higher-rated of the originally rostered and the actual player of each game in that match. If that is also a tie, then the lower-ranked team wins. In the unlikely event they are further tied in the playoff ranking, the winner will be determined randomly, unless this was already the deciding match, in which case, both teams shall be declared joint winners of the League.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Jul 30th, 2012, 10:18am
aaaa, thank you for your suggestions. I haven't had time to digest them yet, but I will be getting back to you shortly.

I have updated the League wiki page (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/2012_Arimaa_World_League) with present membership information, based mainly on the survey and other stated additions.

In the survey Thiagor and Ivers0n indicated that they would be willing to play for whoever needed them.

Based on responses from the survey, I propose opening Twitter accounts for both the league in general, and the individual teams.

I'm doing this bit by bit as I can... I hope we can have first round rosters together by 8th of August.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Dolus on Jul 30th, 2012, 11:39am
It looks like the Rockies has done some recruiting. :D

Depending on who else signs up, we may have to ask if they'll join some other teams. Ring of Fire won't do too well budget-wise with 3 out of 4 players rated at 2200+.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 14th, 2012, 6:41am
Hey everybody.

2 questions

- What does everybody think about an August 20 start date?

- Are we going to have 1 week rounds or 2 week rounds?

I have updated the League Rules (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/2012_Arimaa_World_League) and incorporated aaaa's edits FYI. I'd be grateful for a green light from as many from the Legislators' Committee and the managers as possible.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Aug 14th, 2012, 10:29am

on 08/14/12 at 06:41:54, megajester wrote:
Hey everybody.

2 questions

- What does everybody think about an August 20 start date?

- Are we going to have 1 week rounds or 2 week rounds?

I have updated the League Rules (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/2012_Arimaa_World_League) and incorporated aaaa's edits FYI. I'd be grateful for a green light from as many from the Legislators' Committee and the managers as possible.


August 20th sounds fine for a start date.

I’m pretty sure my team can handle weekly matches but I’ll conduct a team poll just to be sure.  If we have weekly games and two seasons then everyone across the league will need to average about 4 games between now and the end of 2012.  That's a heavy burden for some and a walk in the park for others.

The rules look good.  My only personal preference would be a rule stating that you must play at least one game to become eligible for the tie-breaking playoff match(es).
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 14th, 2012, 2:58pm
Since when am I a legislator?  Does that role require that I read the league rules?  :P  The only thing I notice on a quick skim is that players appear to be allowed to reschedule into the following week, causing an overlap of rounds.  (and they can re-re-reschedule indefinitely, until months later?)  I would prefer that players only be allowed to reschedule to time slots that were part of the original schedule.  If the scheduler set you for slot #119, you can't move it later in the week.  The agreement of two players that later is better shouldn't override the needs of the league to keep on schedule.

Especially since I prefer one round per week.  My experience is that having rounds once every two weeks hardly increases player availability.  The delay might make a few players feel less burdened, but this is more than offset by the number of players who lose interest if they are only called upon once every four weeks, or six weeks.  Perhaps it will be slightly easier to fill the rosters if we play every week.  The main argument against playing every week is that it might overwhelm the league coordinator.

Starting August 20 is fine with me, but you'd better check with ChrisB on that one.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Aug 14th, 2012, 8:00pm
August 20th works for me.  I have no preference between going 1 or 2 weeks for each round.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 15th, 2012, 3:55am
Twitter account (https://twitter.com/ArimaaLeague) created.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 15th, 2012, 4:15am

on 08/14/12 at 14:58:04, Fritzlein wrote:
The only thing I notice on a quick skim is that players appear to be allowed to reschedule into the following week, causing an overlap of rounds.  (and they can re-re-reschedule indefinitely, until months later?)


Rule 7.1:
[...] A game must be played within 96 hours (4 days) of its originally-scheduled time.

That should solve that one.

My fancy spreadsheet will reduce the amount of time I need to spend running the League, so every week is fine for me.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Aug 15th, 2012, 7:43am
I've polled my team and the Ring of Fire has a strong preference to have games every week, beginning August 20th.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Aug 15th, 2012, 9:19am

on 08/14/12 at 14:58:04, Fritzlein wrote:
Starting August 20 is fine with me, but you'd better check with ChrisB on that one.

Submitting a roster by Monday, August 20, works fine for me.

Like novacat, I don't have any preference between playing every week or every other week.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Aug 15th, 2012, 2:39pm
I feel that in order to go with one round per week, no manager should object to it, so that leaves woh.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 15th, 2012, 4:01pm

on 08/15/12 at 04:15:20, megajester wrote:
My fancy spreadsheet will reduce the amount of time I need to spend running the League, so every week is fine for me.

I'm thrilled that you have created a way to automate more of the busywork.  Less coordinator burnout results in more fun for everyone!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Aug 15th, 2012, 5:06pm

on 08/14/12 at 10:29:08, Adanac wrote:
My only personal preference would be a rule stating that you must play at least one game to become eligible for the tie-breaking playoff match(es).

How about something less strict like forbidding recruitment in the "postseason".
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by woh on Aug 16th, 2012, 6:34am
Starting August 20 is fine with me, but I am not sure about one week rounds as I might not ba able to get a full roster every round. But I am willing to try it out.

Maybe a week without play after 3 rounds would take some pressure off.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Aug 16th, 2012, 8:43am

on 08/16/12 at 06:34:58, woh wrote:
Starting August 20 is fine with me, but I am not sure about one week rounds as I might not ba able to get a full roster every round. But I am willing to try it out.

Maybe a week without play after 3 rounds would take some pressure off.


I counted 19 weekends until the end of 2012.  If you're not sure you can field a team every week, why don't we just have games every second week for the 1st season?  That would still leave enough time to cram a 2nd season at the end (with weekly games) if there's a desire for that.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Aug 16th, 2012, 9:49am
Here is one proposal that could be combined with normally having one round per week:
After each played round, there is a certain time period in which a manager can, if he hasn't done so earlier, ask the coordinator for a postponement of the next round for one week. The request should be done in secret and not publicly announced by the coordinator until after aforementioned period has expired.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Aug 16th, 2012, 11:43am

on 08/16/12 at 06:34:58, woh wrote:
Maybe a week without play after 3 rounds would take some pressure off.

Something like this would work well for me.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 17th, 2012, 6:27am
Start date is August 20th. We will have one-week rounds with a one-week gap between rounds 3 and 4. FYI.

BTW don't forget to follow the Twitter account (https://twitter.com/ArimaaLeague).
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by chessandgo on Aug 19th, 2012, 6:55am
What's the link to slected our prefered schedule times for this event? I tried http://arimaa.com/arimaa/events/selectTimes.cgi?e=2012awl but it doesn't seem to exist.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by chessandgo on Aug 19th, 2012, 6:57am

on 07/19/12 at 16:59:30, megajester wrote:
Sounds good. Would you mind doing that?

Here are links for the logo if you think it would look cool:
http://bit.ly/AWL600 (full size 600 dpi)
http://bit.ly/AWL300 (full size 300 dpi)
http://bit.ly/AWLhal (half size)
http://bit.ly/AWLqua (quarter size)


Like it!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by woh on Aug 19th, 2012, 9:16am

on 08/19/12 at 06:55:47, chessandgo wrote:
What's the link to slected our prefered schedule times for this event? I tried http://arimaa.com/arimaa/events/selectTimes.cgi?e=2012awl but it doesn't seem to exist.


http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/selectTimes.cgi?e=awl2012
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 19th, 2012, 3:55pm
I have just opened an event "2012 AWL." I get the idea that the scheduler is a universal tool, ie. if you enter times for one event you've entered times for them all. Is that correct?

Ratings for this round have been finalized and are visible on the wiki. Overall season budget is 35,100. Managers have 24 hours, until 00:00 UTC Tuesday, to submit their rosters.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 19th, 2012, 4:42pm

on 08/19/12 at 15:55:16, megajester wrote:
I have just opened an event "2012 AWL." I get the idea that the scheduler is a universal tool, ie. if you enter times for one event you've entered times for them all. Is that correct?

I think not, as I have in the past entered times that didn't register because I had them in the wrong event.


Quote:
Ratings for this round have been finalized and are visible on the wiki.

I think the rules says to use peak WHRH, but it looks like you have just taken current WHRH?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 20th, 2012, 12:43am
Right you are Fritz.

Page for entering game times is:

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/events/selectTimes.cgi?e=2012awl

I will also add a link to my signature.

Thank you Fritz for pointing out my mistake in not using peak WHR. I am updating the wiki now. Season budget is 35,640.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by chessandgo on Aug 20th, 2012, 3:55am
Oh ok, thanks!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 20th, 2012, 6:53am
Apologies, I forgot to include Harren and the default 1,500 rating of three newcomers in my budget calculation. Revised figure is 35,280.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 21st, 2012, 11:23am
The Twitter account (link in my signature) still has only 1 follower. I'm going to be setting up the Twitter account to automatically announce all games twice, once 24 hours and once 2 hours before they start. If enough people will find that useful...

EDIT: Before anybody panics, I have updated the wiki with this round's games but I won't be scheduling them yet for a couple of hours...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Dolus on Aug 21st, 2012, 12:26pm

on 08/21/12 at 11:23:51, megajester wrote:
The Twitter account (link in my signature) still has only 1 follower.


And now 2 followers. Though to be honest, I don't really use Twitter myself...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by browni3141 on Aug 21st, 2012, 3:18pm
You have clyring and his opponent playing for the wrong teams on the wiki page.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by clyring on Aug 21st, 2012, 3:27pm
If I am playing for the Ring of Fire this week, am I allowed to sandbag to help the Atlantics? :P
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by RmznA on Aug 21st, 2012, 3:51pm

on 08/21/12 at 15:27:35, clyring wrote:
If I am playing for the Ring of Fire this week, am I allowed to sandbag to help the Atlantics? :P

I can win lose faster as gold, unless you try to save my rabbits. ;D
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 21st, 2012, 4:33pm
Thanks for the heads up people. My bad.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 21st, 2012, 7:05pm

on 08/21/12 at 12:26:10, Dolus wrote:
And now 2 followers. Though to be honest, I don't really use Twitter myself...

Shame... I've set up automatic updates to announce games in advance. If it catches on I'll do it for the following rounds too.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 22nd, 2012, 12:16pm
Proposed rule change for next time: set the budget at 36000 regardless of who signs up.  It seems absurd that the budget was tightened after a season in which every team struggled to stay within budget.  The formula for calculating some number other than 36000 assumes that everyone who expressed interest on the survey will actually play, which we know is not true, especially for people who have never played before and just thought it sounded like a cool idea.

In the case of the AWL budget, the experience of past leagues will be a better guide to the future than semi-random survey responses.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by chessandgo on Aug 22nd, 2012, 3:08pm
I have a very limited understanding of what twitter actually is, but I created an account to follow you Joel.

I try to avoid any post where actual budget calculations are mentioned, for fear I'd feel even more ashame than I am now every time my team fields me, thinking of the chunk of our budget I'm taking away.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 22nd, 2012, 5:33pm

on 08/22/12 at 15:08:00, chessandgo wrote:
I try to avoid any post where actual budget calculations are mentioned, for fear I'd feel even more ashame than I am now every time my team fields me, thinking of the chunk of our budget I'm taking away.

Yes, I know the feeling.  There are not many situations in which I can play without hurting my team.  Usually it is best for me to root from the sidelines, to play only when there aren't three other volunteers, and to hope that it isn't necessary for me to play so often that the team goes over budget.

You might suspect me of advocating a larger budget so that I could have more playing time without dragging down my team's prospects, but I don't think that's my real beef.  In the past I have argued against increasing the budget just as I am opposed to the present decrease in budget.  It isn't the size so much as the method that bugs me.

I'm mostly reacting against the idea that a number produced by a formula should be considered a good number merely because it is precisely defined and can be precisely computed.  I feel that the budget number from the current rules, although it has no subjectivity and can be worked out to ten decimal places, is wildly inaccurate compared to the highly subjective judgement of whether last season's budget was too high, too low, or about right.  In this case, subjective judgement makes for a better yardstick.  Using a round number like 2000 per player (*6 rounds *3 players = 36000 total) protects us from the illusion that we can compute a good budget in advance, without knowing how often everyone on each roster will volunteer to play, if they volunteer at all.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by browni3141 on Aug 22nd, 2012, 8:25pm

on 08/22/12 at 15:08:00, chessandgo wrote:
I try to avoid any post where actual budget calculations are mentioned, for fear I'd feel even more ashame than I am now every time my team fields me, thinking of the chunk of our budget I'm taking away.

Thanks for the warning. I'll try to stay weak.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by chessandgo on Aug 23rd, 2012, 6:44am

on 08/19/12 at 16:42:11, Fritzlein wrote:
I think not, as I have in the past entered times that didn't register because I had them in the wrong event.


I thought so too, but the times I had entered using woh's link actually carried over to Joel's link. Maybe the scheduler is now unified? It'd be cool, we're likely to have several scheduler-using events runining simulteneously in the very near future. But maybe instead of having to select just over half the possible times, we might have to select a half + total number of current events, to ensure proper scheduling?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Aug 23rd, 2012, 10:45pm

on 08/22/12 at 12:16:33, Fritzlein wrote:
It seems absurd that the budget was tightened after a season in which every team struggled to stay within budget.  The formula for calculating some number other than 36000 assumes that everyone who expressed interest on the survey will actually play, which we know is not true, especially for people who have never played before and just thought it sounded like a cool idea.


on 08/22/12 at 17:33:21, Fritzlein wrote:
Using a round number like 2000 per player (*6 rounds *3 players = 36000 total) protects us from the illusion that we can compute a good budget in advance, without knowing how often everyone on each roster will volunteer to play, if they volunteer at all.

I agree the situation is not ideal.  Teams struggled to stay under budget last year because of a lack of low ranked players (both the Ring of Fire and the Rockies had only 1 player ranked below 1930 that played in the second season).  This year, we have a great group of new faces, but we can't guarantee how many will actually play.

I disagree with the solution (i.e. make the budget so that the teams can get by playing their higher ranked players with the occasional really low ranked player).  The whole point of the budget was to make sure the lower ranked players have equal opportunity to play.  It would be a shame if any of the new recruits don't get to play because we assumed they would not volunteer and made it so they are not needed even if they do volunteer.  

I think the current implementation works ok.  After all, if you are running over budget, it means you have a stronger roster.  As long as you don't go more than 700 over and you win one game more than you would have otherwise, you're ahead. Of course, if you go over budget and still lose you're toast, but they say fortune favors the brave. ;)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 24th, 2012, 1:34pm

on 08/23/12 at 22:45:08, novacat wrote:
I think the current implementation works ok.

Perhaps it does work fine.  After this season, we'll have another data point by which to judge.  If the method of calculation is sound, the tighter budget won't be an issue because it is compensated by the greater number of new players who signed up.

An interesting addition to the standings (if megajester can auto-generate it without too much trouble) would be the amount over/under target budget divided by 350.  For example, Let's say Europa wins two of three from the Rockies and thus leads by 7 points to 5.  But Europa overspent the target by 720 and the Rockies underspent by 230, which is worth -2.06 and +0.66 respectively.  So when you take budget into account, the standings would be 4.94 to 5.66, i.e. the Rockies would actually be leading.  (Of course we need to win one to make this scenario come true.  :))
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Aug 28th, 2012, 4:35am
Atlantics and Europa tie for first spot, as Europa's roster was 20 points over the round spend limit. Click the wiki and Twitter links in my signature for more.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by odin73 on Aug 28th, 2012, 6:15am
Why is there a penalty for Europe? Else it should have 6 points and 100% won?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 28th, 2012, 9:58am

on 08/28/12 at 06:15:30, odin73 wrote:
Why is there a penalty for Europe? Else it should have 6 points and 100% won?

Because Europa was more than 700 points over target budget for an individual round.  Since I'm not on team Eurpopa, I don't know whether this was an oversight or there was no alternative.

I do know, however, that in round two the Rockies are more than 700 points over target budget because we have literally no other options.  We will take a two-point penalty this round, not because we want to beat up the Ring of Fire so badly, and not because we are failing to pay attention, but because our team members Aamir, balaclava, cptroot, and Copac, whose low ratings all figured in the calculation that lowered the target budget by 200 points per round this season, all were not available to play.  Indeed, only three of us were available.  It was simply impossible for us to remain within 700 points of target for this round.

I remain unhappy about the formula behind the budget calculation.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Aug 28th, 2012, 10:42am

on 08/28/12 at 09:58:46, Fritzlein wrote:
Because Europa was more than 700 points over target budget for an individual round.  Since I'm not on team Eurpopa, I don't know whether this was an oversight or there was no alternative.

I do know, however, that in round two the Rockies are more than 700 points over target budget because we have literally no other options.  We will take a two-point penalty this round, not because we want to beat up the Ring of Fire so badly, and not because we are failing to pay attention, but because our team members Aamir, balaclava, cptroot, and Copac, whose low ratings all figured in the calculation that lowered the target budget by 200 points per round this season, all were not available to play.  Indeed, only three of us were available.  It was simply impossible for us to remain within 700 points of target for this round.

I remain unhappy about the formula behind the budget calculation.

Oh no! I thought we were only 690 points over the target, but with the new ratings we are 710 over.  If I had known that, I might have gambled with balaclava on the roster (who said he might be available late in the week).   Looks like a tough break for both the Rockies in this round and Team Europa in Round 1.  At least the mutual bad breaks help even the playing field.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 28th, 2012, 1:24pm

on 08/28/12 at 10:42:21, ChrisB wrote:
Oh no! I thought we were only 690 points over the target, but with the new ratings we are 710 over.  If I had known that, I might have gambled with balaclava on the roster (who said he might be available late in the week).

Oh, well, it is good to know that there was the option of a maybe-forfeit in addition to the options certain-forfeit and two-league-point-penalty.  That give me more hope for next round.  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Aug 28th, 2012, 1:42pm
Maybe I'm blind, but after looking through all the rules twice I still can't figure out:

1.  Which players on Ring of Fire are eligible to substitute for Ivers0n in round 2.  Surely not just anyone can substitute onto 3rd board?

2.  Is there a budget penalty for using a substitute player or is it just the rating of the person who plays the game?

EDIT: After reading some more, I have an additional question:

6.3.3 "Managers may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point plus a point for every 350 rating points or part thereof in excess after the 700 point mark. This only applies to the initial roster submitted; if a substitution causes this limit to be exceeded no penalty shall be applied."

3. Isn't there a major loophole here?  Any team can avoid the penalty points by submitting a valid roster and then "unexpectedly" needing to substitute higher-rated players into the lineup above the 6580 limit. However, if there's already a penalty for using a substitute (which I couldn't find), then I would agree with not double-penalilzing a team for using a substitute player.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Aug 28th, 2012, 2:25pm

on 08/28/12 at 13:42:19, Adanac wrote:
Maybe I'm blind, but after looking through all the rules twice I still can't figure out:

1.  Which players on Ring of Fire are eligible to substitute for Ivers0n in round 2.  Surely not just anyone can substitute onto 3rd board?

2.  Is there a budget penalty for using a substitute player or is it just the rating of the person who plays the game?

You can substitute with any player not on the roster, but if the substitute player's rating is higher than the original player's, the sub's cost is increased by that rating difference over sub's posted rating. For example, if is you at 2560 substitute for Ivers0n at 1580, your cost would be 2560 + (2560 - 1580) = 3540.

See:
"8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher or if both players' ratings are the same, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substitute player's rating is higher, the substitute player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substitute player forfeits."
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Adanac on Aug 28th, 2012, 2:34pm

on 08/28/12 at 14:25:32, ChrisB wrote:
You can substitute with any player not on the roster, but if the substitute player's rating is higher than the original player's, the sub's cost is increased by that rating difference over sub's posted rating. For example, if is you at 2560 substitute for Ivers0n at 1580, your cost would be 2560 + (2560 - 1580) = 3540.

See:
"8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher or if both players' ratings are the same, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substitute player's rating is higher, the substitute player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substitute player forfeits."


Thanks.  So I am blind!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by supersamu on Aug 28th, 2012, 6:24pm
I just want to point out that the links to the league games on the wiki are incorrect. All links  lead to an old AWL game.
A question to ChrisB: So, if i understand correctly, the peak WHR rating of one of our players inceased too much since you submitted the roster? If not, from which day are the peak WHR ratings taken? I won a game against harren 5 hours before the AWL game, i hope this game didn't cost us one point.  :-[
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Aug 28th, 2012, 7:46pm
[quote author=supersamu link=board=2012AWL;num=1335785543;start=60#74 date=08/28/12 at 18:24:08]
A question to ChrisB: So, if i understand correctly, the peak WHR rating of one of our players inceased too much since you submitted the roster? If not, from which day are the peak WHR ratings taken? I won a game against harren 5 hours before the AWL game, i hope this game didn't cost us one point.  :-[/quote]
No, your win over Harren had no effect on your team exceeding the upper limit of 6580 in Round 1.  The peak WHR ratings for Round 1 were set well before you won that game.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Aug 28th, 2012, 11:19pm
I have been thinking of another way to do the points/budget, which ends up being almost exactly what Fritz suggested here:

on 08/24/12 at 13:34:25, Fritzlein wrote:
An interesting addition to the standings (if megajester can auto-generate it without too much trouble) would be the amount over/under target budget divided by 350.  For example, Let's say Europa wins two of three from the Rockies and thus leads by 7 points to 5.  But Europa overspent the target by 720 and the Rockies underspent by 230, which is worth -2.06 and +0.66 respectively.  So when you take budget into account, the standings would be 4.94 to 5.66, i.e. the Rockies would actually be leading.  (Of course we need to win one to make this scenario come true.  :))

Start with a budget of 0.  No budget limits on any round either.  All other rules stay the same.  Optional: we can come up with a "rating to points" calculation if 350 doesn't work well.  

Thus (for 350 per point), a team who plays three 1500 rated players and loses would tie with a team who plays 2200 rated players and wins every game.
Using Fritz's example, the Rockies would have been slightly ahead with 1 victory.  On the other hand, the Rockies could have also played Aamir, balaclava, and Copac and won.  The risk with this roster is if chessandgo wasn't on the roster, Europa would win.

Advantage:  Teams can play anyone and still be in the running.
Disadvantage:  There may be more lopsided games and less play for middle ranked players because teams will likely want to either assure victory with stronger players or lose with very low rated players.

I'm sure there are other things I didn't think of, and I'm not sure I am ok with the disadvantages I did think of, but I wanted to share my thoughts.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 29th, 2012, 2:06pm
Novacat, if I understand correctly, the main innovation you are proposing is that, instead of just penalizing teams for going over budget, we reward them in equal measure for going under budget.  This would create problems.

Assume for a moment that the Elo formula is correct.  Assume that you, as a captain, know in advance the ratings of your three opponents are 1800, 2000, and 2200.  Assume that you have an infinite roster to choose from, so you can field players of any rating.  Assume that, as you propose, there is no budget, just an adjustment based on spending more or less than your opponent.  What is your optimal strategy under your proposal?

If you take the derivative of your expected (league score + budget bonus), you will find that it is always negative.  That is to say, increasing the rating of the players you field always hurts you, and decreasing the rating of the players you field always helps you.  Therefore your strategy should be to field the three lowest-rated players you can find, every round, regardless of which three opponents you face.  You'll lose every game but win on the budget bonus.

Now you see why it is important that there be a penalty for going over, but no bonus for going under.  Under the current rules, the negative derivative assures you that every point you spend over budget will hurt you, because the incremental increase in winning chances is worth less than the incremental increase in budget penalty.  But if you are under budget,  every additional point you spend helps you.  You get increased winning chances and the penalty remains zero.

Therefore the current system pressures the spending towards the middle.  Everyone wants to exactly meet the budget without going over.  This, in turn, makes high-rated players exactly as valuable as low-rated players.  Within that framework, however, there is still plenty of room to strategize.  For example, consider a budget of 6000 and the following rosters:

A: 1800, 2000, 2200
B: 1400, 2200, 2400
C: 1600, 1800, 2600

Roster B has positive expectation against roster A.
Roster C has positive expectation against roster B.
Roster A has positive expectation against roster C.

So there is no optimal roster; there is a guessing game and an opportunity to psych out the opposing captain.

Assuming, of course, you have enough volunteers to have options about who to field.  :)  
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Aug 30th, 2012, 2:03am

on 08/29/12 at 14:06:30, Fritzlein wrote:
Assume that you, as a captain, know in advance the ratings of your three opponents are 1800, 2000, and 2200.  Assume that you have an infinite roster to choose from, so you can field players of any rating.
...
Assuming, of course, you have enough volunteers to have options about who to field.  :)  

Given these assumptions, great analysis.  However, we are far from that, so I was trying to come up with something a little more forgiving for teams with low availability.

First, let's take away the opponent's roster.  You only want to play a lower ranked player if they are 700 points lower than their opponent, otherwise you want to play someone ranked higher that the opponent but not by more than 700 or you are losing.  Given that we still have an infinite roster with any rating (including negative :P ), there is really no clear reason for any choice.  Just get a random number generator and go.

Putting back the opponent roster and removing the unlimited player selection, there is a limit to the lowest ranked player.  Playing the three lowest ranked players in the league would still lose to your 1800, 2000, 2200 roster.  Thus, my choice would actually be to play my top three players.

Taking away both assumptions, I would look at the opponent's lowest three players and see who is less than but close to 700 rating points higher (2000 to 2200).  With a little tweaking, this would be feasible against Europa and the Rockies.  Since the Ring of Fire has a lot of higher ranked players, I would either play my strongest players or my weakest players against them.  I could probably play all the players on the Atlantics right now, but as you can see, most players ranked between 1600 and 2000 would only get to play if no one else is available or if captains were hedging their bets.  
This is where you can reduce the ratings per points lost ratio.  Going from 350 to 275 distributes the regions of preferred players around.  Now the only unfavorable range is 1600 to 1850.

Looking at some rosters:
A) 1350, 1400, 1500
B) 1850, 1900, 2000
C) 2100, 2250, 2400
D) 1350, 1900, 2400
A beats C, loses to B
B beats A, loses to C
C beats B, loses to A
D wins or loses based on the result of the table with the same ranking.
All teams have the players to do at least 1 of these options, and most can do 2 and come close to 3.  Even if you are forced to play a non-ideal roster due to availability, you still have a decent chance of coming out ahead.  For example, your roster this week (1820, 2110, 2660) would lose against A, be unfavorable against C, be almost 50/50 against B, and win against D.

I remain unsure if this arrangement will indeed cause problems or turn out ok.  Either way, the current arrangement will be the better one as participation increases.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by clyring on Aug 30th, 2012, 7:23am

on 08/30/12 at 02:03:04, novacat wrote:
First, let's take away the opponent's roster.  You only want to play a lower ranked player if they are 700 points lower than their opponent, otherwise you want to play someone ranked higher that the opponent but not by more than 700 or you are losing.

This works under the assumption that the higher-rated player will always win. This is simply not true.


on 08/29/12 at 14:06:30, Fritzlein wrote:
If you take the derivative of your expected (league score + budget bonus), you will find that it is always negative.

I'm afraid you have erred in your calculations here. The global maximum derivative for expected league points before the penalty is ln(10)/800, quite plainly greater than 1/350.


on 08/30/12 at 02:03:04, novacat wrote:
This is where you can reduce the ratings per points lost ratio.  Going from 350 to 275 distributes the regions of preferred players around.  Now the only unfavorable range is 1600 to 1850.

Going from 350 to 275 brings about Fritz's doomsday scenario where the weaker player is always better in every single situation! :P
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 30th, 2012, 8:55am

on 08/30/12 at 07:23:18, clyring wrote:
This works under the assumption that the higher-rated player will always win. This is simply not true.

I am not making this assumption, only the assumption that the Elo formula holds, i.e. the probability of winning is 1/(1 + 10^(rating_diff/400)).


Quote:
I'm afraid you have erred in your calculations here. The global maximum derivative for expected league points before the penalty is ln(10)/800, quite plainly greater than 1/350.

You are correct; ln(10)/800 is actually 1/347.4, so the derivative is positive for a rating difference of 29 Elo or fewer.  If you are very close to your opponent's rating, spending more on your own rating helps a little.  Outside that narrow band, decreasing your rating would always help.


Quote:
Going from 350 to 275 brings about Fritz's doomsday scenario where the weaker player is always better in every single situation! :P

I believe that here is it you who have erred.  Going from 350 to 347 (not 275) brings about the doomsday scenario.  We are very close to it already.  (In fact, that is how I chose the value of 350, although I forgot that I rounded up.)  For example, although decreasing rating by one point wouldn't always help, decreasing rating by one hundred points always would.  Therefore the strategy of "always field the three lowest-rated players you can" would be essentially correct.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 30th, 2012, 9:14am

on 08/30/12 at 02:03:04, novacat wrote:
First, let's take away the opponent's roster.  You only want to play a lower ranked player if they are 700 points lower than their opponent, otherwise you want to play someone ranked higher that the opponent but not by more than 700 or you are losing.

OK, I understand the confusion.  I understood you to be saying that instead of having a just penalty for overspending, you would also have a bonus for underspending.  But apparently you meant, by removing the budget, that there would be only one adjustment, i.e. either the weaker team would get a bonus, or the stronger team would get a penalty, but not both.  I infer this because if the weaker team gets a bonus and the stronger team gets a penalty, then fielding a player rated 350 points lower (not 700 as you say) is an automatic win.

Now that I understand what you mean, I have a different objection: your proposal is not zero-sum.  If, say, the weaker team gets a bonus and the stronger team gets no penalty, then the teams both benefit from being mismatched.  Say each board has a difference of 700 rating points; then the two teams combined would score 12 league points.  If the other two teams were evenly matched on every board, those two teams combined would score 6 league points.  So the way to win would be to call up the opposing captain and agree who "goes high" and who "goes low" to maximize the total points scored.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by clyring on Aug 30th, 2012, 4:23pm

on 08/30/12 at 08:55:08, Fritzlein wrote:
I believe that here is it you who have erred.  Going from 350 to 347 (not 275) brings about the doomsday scenario.  We are very close to it already.  (In fact, that is how I chose the value of 350, although I forgot that I rounded up.)  For example, although decreasing rating by one point wouldn't always help, decreasing rating by one hundred points always would.  Therefore the strategy of "always field the three lowest-rated players you can" would be essentially correct.

Going from 350 to 347 would indeed already bring about the doomsday scenario you suggested, going further to 275 does not change this. If you look my actual post it should be clear that my use of 275 refers to a different value suggested by novacat and is not the result of a terrible miscalculation.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:30am
megajester, on the wiki, you keep duplicating one wrong URL as the supposed link to the comment pages of all the games. You even undid my correction of the first round.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Sep 3rd, 2012, 11:51am
I just realized that myself. I'm copying and pasting the entire page each time from an Excel worksheet, which means that I'm pasting on top of any changes anybody else has made. Thanks for the help though. If anyone else sees an error, please let me know, and I'll change it.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Sep 3rd, 2012, 12:35pm

on 09/03/12 at 11:51:38, megajester wrote:
Thanks for the help though. If anyone else sees an error, please let me know, and I'll change it.

The Atlantics didn't forfeit twice last round; they made two substitutions.  I can't imagine what you would have to do to get those results picked up (and correctly included in budget calculations) automatically.  Maybe substitutions will always be a manual task for you?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Sep 3rd, 2012, 6:23pm
The Atlantics sub games were:
#242998  clyring vs woh
#243005  browni3141 vs supersamu
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Sep 4th, 2012, 1:28am
Thanks guys I will make the necessary changes
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Sep 4th, 2012, 8:39am

on 09/04/12 at 01:28:14, megajester wrote:
Thanks guys I will make the necessary changes

Thank you for doing all the grunt work behind the scenes to make the league run smoothly!  It's a true gift the Arimaa community.  (Oh, and the round 2 Rockies games still all have the same link. :P)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Sep 6th, 2012, 4:35pm

on 09/04/12 at 08:39:27, Fritzlein wrote:
Thank you for doing all the grunt work behind the scenes to make the league run smoothly!  It's a true gift the Arimaa community.  (Oh, and the round 2 Rockies games still all have the same link. :P)

OK NOW I've made the necessary changes...

I like the way you basically do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-Kg1FYwJY#t=0m18s) to my ego whenever you find a problem ;D Please carry on...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Sep 6th, 2012, 10:54pm

on 09/06/12 at 16:35:25, megajester wrote:
OK NOW I've made the necessary changes...

Thank you!


Quote:
I like the way you basically do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-Kg1FYwJY#t=0m18s) to my ego whenever you find a problem ;D Please carry on...

It's called "Pump and dump".  ;-)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Sep 10th, 2012, 8:43pm
Moving this to the roundtable.

on 09/08/12 at 14:56:46, megajester wrote:
(A note: This rule was kind of accidentally-on-purpose written so that if there was nobody around to substitute, both players could turn up almost an hour late and still play [because the game would still be on the system], whereas if there were substitutes around they would not have to wait a whole hour. Which is another debate. Perhaps a better idea would be to say that teammates have until T+15 mins to select a substitute who is fielded at T+15 mins if the original player is absent, otherwise the game is forfeited even if the original player turns up.)

I am very much in favor of changing the rules to "Teammates have until T+15 mins to select a substitute who is fielded at T+15 mins if the original player is absent, otherwise the game is forfeited even if the original player turns up after T+15 mins".
The reasons for this were expressed well by Nombril here http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=2010awl;action=display;num=1258135580;start=192#192. The one that resonates the most for me is quoted below.

on 10/11/10 at 14:11:21, Nombril wrote:
... 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.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Nombril on Sep 10th, 2012, 9:57pm
And the delayed game this weekend was potentially worse then the one I mentioned last year.  After 45 minutes one of the original players arrived, and they started playing a sub.  After 47 minutes the other original player arrived.  If I understand it correctly: with the "soft" deadline the player arriving at 45 minutes could open the game window and claim a forfeit if the other team didn't have a sub available?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Sep 10th, 2012, 10:40pm
I'm in favor of automatic forfeit after 15 minutes for a no-show with no sub present.  That is to say, I would be happy if players did not have the option to wait more than 15 minutes for late opponents.  I definitely want this rule for the 2013 World Championship (and I will bring it up for discussion in that thread), but for AWL I will stop with casting my vote and will be content with whatever the majority decides.  There are arguments on both sides, and AWL is not the World Championship.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Sep 10th, 2012, 10:55pm
On a slightly different topic, I see a lot of people with questions about how to claim a forfeit.  Thus, I'd like to clarify any misconceptions.
The game room software is programmed so that if player A does not show up for the game within 15 minutes after the scheduled start time, then player B (that showed up) just needs to exit the game window after the 15 minutes are over.  The software instantly and automatically changes the game to a forfeit.
If player B leaves before 15 minutes are up, the forfeit does not register so make sure to wait past the 15 min.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Sep 24th, 2012, 10:00am
The wiki page (link in my signature) has been updated with official ratings for the "next round" (the rest of the page is waiting for the full results from round 4 to come in). Managers who have already submitted a roster have until 00:00 tonight GMT to revise their rosters if necessary.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Heyckie on Oct 2nd, 2012, 6:50am
I haven't been following Arimaa that much for several months because of family and work and all of  that "life" stuff. Now I've just started playing a bit again and would like to know how the events are going too. The wiki page isn't quite up to date so is there some place I could see the results of AWL rounds 4 and 5?

Also I know the information must be here somewhere but I'm too lazy to browse around so how do I get that EUROPE tag in my posts?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by foggy on Oct 2nd, 2012, 7:56am
You could use the link from the Gameroom navigation: Games\Event games.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by odin73 on Oct 2nd, 2012, 12:20pm

Quote:
Also I know the information must be here somewhere but I'm too lazy to browse around so how do I get that EUROPE tag in my posts?

Answer to that question is found in the AWL Europa thread:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=2012AWL;action=display;num=1342686100
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 3rd, 2012, 1:32pm

on 10/02/12 at 06:50:53, Heyckie wrote:
The wiki page isn't quite up to date so is there some place I could see the results of AWL rounds 4 and 5?

I guess megajester has been a bit overwhelmed by the one-round-per week format, as I feared he might be.  It is already too late to pair Round 6 this week and give reasonable warning for any game that happened to be scheduled in an early time slot.  At this point we should probably delay the final round by a week, or more if megajester needs the breathing room.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Dolus on Oct 3rd, 2012, 1:36pm
I've been way too busy to play this season, but if there's anything I can help MegaJester with, I'm willing to try.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Oct 3rd, 2012, 1:54pm
Apologies for dropping the ball. I will try to schedule Round 6 games within the next 12 hours.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Oct 3rd, 2012, 2:02pm

on 10/03/12 at 13:54:10, megajester wrote:
Apologies for dropping the ball. I will try to schedule Round 6 games within the next 12 hours.

But the start of the first time slot is already in 5 hours.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 3rd, 2012, 9:19pm

on 10/03/12 at 13:54:10, megajester wrote:
Apologies for dropping the ball. I will try to schedule Round 6 games within the next 12 hours.

If this late scheduling would still give everyone at least 24 hours advance notice of their games, it would be acceptable to me.  However, I would distinctly prefer that you not schedule the round this late even if the scheduler happens to pick only weekend times.  I recommend instead delaying the final round by one week and taking the time to update the results, standings, budgets, and player costs for the final round.

It's not a big deal either way; Arimaa is just a game.  But in weighing the relative disadvantages, I'd rather accept the fact that rosters might have to be changed if thereby we get more clarity of the standings and budgets, as well as more advance notice of scheduled game times.

And don't worry about having dropped the ball.  We all love you for running the AWL.  It has been a great season once again!  :)
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Oct 9th, 2012, 10:36am
I would like to suggest all captains forward their roster for the last round to Omar (as he is the backup coordinator) so that we have a tentative plan B in the event megajester is not able to schedule the games today.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Oct 9th, 2012, 6:31pm

on 10/09/12 at 10:36:28, novacat wrote:
I would like to suggest all captains forward their roster for the last round to Omar (as he is the backup coordinator) so that we have a tentative plan B in the event megajester is not able to schedule the games today.

Good idea, novacat!

I just forwarded the Rockies roster to Omar.

If Omar isn't available, another alternative could be to have the four captains reveal their rosters and let the players self-schedule.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Oct 9th, 2012, 7:59pm
Omar has generously agreed to schedule the games.  If you have not already, please submit your roster to him.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Oct 10th, 2012, 2:38am
I've done it. I've also updated the wiki page, please let me know if I've made any mistakes. I don't think there were any substitutions...
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Thiagor on Oct 10th, 2012, 2:48am
Thanks for the scheduling, but there seems to be a mistake in the match Europa vs Ring of Fire: Our highest-rated player (Boo) is playing the their lowest-rated one (foggy), and so on.

Looking at the wiki, I think Europa's player are ordered in the wrong way.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by woh on Oct 10th, 2012, 5:57am
My mistake. Sorry for that.

I have sent the players for team Europa in the wrong order.
I hope it is not too late to reschedule the games for top and bottom players.

woh
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Oct 10th, 2012, 6:06am
I have rescheduled the games concerned.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by woh on Oct 10th, 2012, 6:07am
Thanks megajester, for correcting my mistake.
Sorry for causing the extra work.

woh
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aaaa on Oct 10th, 2012, 7:12am
Can anyone explain to me how it would be fair if the budget expenditures are going to be calculated on the basis of ratings that weren't available to the teams at the time they forwarded their rosters, not knowing whether to go through the trouble of determining what they should have been or to simply take the figures that were shown on the wiki at the time?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by novacat on Oct 10th, 2012, 8:10am
Thanks for all your work Megajester.  Round 4 is not updated in the wiki.  There were some subs for this round, but you can go to the event games page and see the correct games.  Gthreepwood was rated 1636.3 (his rating at the time is confirmed in the chat room, see Sept. 20th), so the Atlantics are actually 60 points lower in total remaining budget.  rht144 was rated below ginrunner, so no change to the budget there.


on 10/10/12 at 07:12:00, aaaa wrote:
Can anyone explain to me how it would be fair if the budget expenditures are going to be calculated on the basis of ratings that weren't available to the teams at the time they forwarded their rosters, not knowing whether to go through the trouble of determining what they should have been or to simply take the figures that were shown on the wiki at the time?
 The peak WHRH ratings of the Monday prior to scheduling are the values used per the rules.  I can see the argument that people could think that portion of the wiki was up to date (even though the rest was not), but given that every team is just under their budget (or just under the next penalty point), I think all the captains were well aware of what the costs were, or none of the changes ended up mattering.  The only exception could be the Atlantics, but I did check the WHRH before deciding the roster.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by ChrisB on Oct 10th, 2012, 9:16am

on 10/10/12 at 08:10:49, novacat wrote:
 The peak WHRH ratings of the Monday prior to scheduling are the values used per the rules.  I can see the argument that people could think that portion of the wiki was up to date (even though the rest was not), but given that every team is just under their budget (or just under the next penalty point), I think all the captains were well aware of what the costs were, or none of the changes ended up mattering.  The only exception could be the Atlantics, but I did check the WHRH before deciding the roster.

Yes, the Rockies were also tracking the changes to the WHRH peak ratings and the roster submitted was decided upon using rating values identical to those now posted on the wiki.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aurelian on Oct 13th, 2012, 11:56am
Is there a second season this year!
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by aurelian on Oct 13th, 2012, 12:09pm
Is there a second season this year?
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 27th, 2012, 9:01pm
I just noticed the final AWL standings were posted.  Congrats again to the Atlantics now that it is official.  It was great to have every team in contention down to the wire.  The budget was indeed a bit tight this season, at least judging by the total of 15(!) penalty points assessed, but overall the budget mechanism seems to be working to keep the teams balanced, give everyone playing time, and ultimately have the champions decided on the board.

A big thanks to megajester for running the league once again!  The AWL has transformed from an interesting experiment to a proven institution.  It is now hard for me to imagine going from one World Championship to the next with no AWL in between, and it is all owing to megajester.


on 10/13/12 at 12:09:19, aurelian wrote:
Is there a second season this year?

Joel, if you are too busy to administer a second season before year end, how would you feel about someone else taking the reins?  Given a seven week season, it would need to start next week to finish before Christmas, but there is still time to make it happen if someone wants to step up.  And by "someone" I mean "definitely not me", since I'll be preparing to organize the World Championship.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by megajester on Oct 30th, 2012, 5:26am
I would rather that if possible. I can send anyone who wants it the spreadsheet I've been using to organise the League if they message me and give me their email address.
Title: Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
Post by chessandgo on Oct 30th, 2012, 1:17pm
congrats Atlantics!


Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.