Author |
Topic: League Feedback (Read 34736 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #120 on: Apr 21st, 2010, 6:29am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
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.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #121 on: Apr 22nd, 2010, 12:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 21st, 2010, 6:29am, Fritzlein wrote:| 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. |
|
Either that or we make a rule that 5-odd players can get together and start a brand new club.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #122 on: Apr 22nd, 2010, 10:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 22nd, 2010, 12:38am, megajester wrote:| Either that or we make a rule that 5-odd players can get together and start a brand new club. |
|
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.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #123 on: Apr 23rd, 2010, 5:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
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 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.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #124 on: Apr 23rd, 2010, 6:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 23rd, 2010, 5:19am, megajester wrote:| "trophy" (name ideas people?) |
|
The Derma Plaque.
The Cat Ass Trophy.
The Pew Cup.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
azgreg
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4723
Gender:
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #125 on: Apr 27th, 2010, 1:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #126 on: May 4th, 2010, 9:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
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. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #127 on: May 4th, 2010, 12:20pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 4th, 2010, 9:59am, Fritzlein wrote:| 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. |
|
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:| 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. |
|
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:| 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. |
|
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.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #128 on: May 4th, 2010, 2:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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  ...
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.
|
| « Last Edit: May 4th, 2010, 2:32pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #129 on: May 4th, 2010, 6:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 4th, 2010, 12:20pm, Adanac wrote:| My team is having a difficult time filling just 3 boards. |
|
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:| In reality, though, my team is just using whoever is available for any particular match rather than strategizing about matchups, budgets, etc. |
|
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 May 4th, 2010, 2:03pm, megajester wrote:| 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. |
|
Looks like a good decision, judging by Adanac's feedback.
Quote:| 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. |
|
Sounds reasonable.
|
| « Last Edit: May 4th, 2010, 6:15pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender:
Posts: 292
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #130 on: May 5th, 2010, 4:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender:
Posts: 292
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #131 on: Jun 16th, 2010, 4:10am » |
Quote Modify
|
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?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #132 on: Jun 16th, 2010, 6:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
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.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 16th, 2010, 6:32am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #133 on: Jun 21st, 2010, 2:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
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!
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 21st, 2010, 2:25am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ocmiente
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #3996
Gender:
Posts: 194
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #134 on: Jun 21st, 2010, 3:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 21st, 2010, 2:25am, megajester wrote:
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... |
|
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: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. Approved by LC and LD May 24, 2010.
|
|
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.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print