Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Mar 29th, 2024, 12:56am

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
Arimaa Forum « League Feedback »


   Arimaa Forum
   Team Games
   2010 Arimaa World League
(Moderators: megajester, supersamu)
   League Feedback
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4  ...  13 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: League Feedback  (Read 34700 times)
Nombril
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4509

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 292
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #15 on: Mar 11th, 2010, 8:21am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 7th, 2010, 4:38am, megajester wrote:
- Thirdly, and this is mostly a question for omar, is the scheduler going to be extended for all times in the week or is it going to stay as it is?

Personally, I found it hard to pick 60 hrs for scheduler.  If this tool gets extended to cover all days of the week, I assume we need to pick more hours to assure a match is made.  If a new or updated tool is looked into for League play, I wonder if something can be done that requires fewer hours?
IP Logged

Eltripas
Forum Guru
*****




Meh-he-kah-naw

   


Gender: male
Posts: 225
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #16 on: Mar 11th, 2010, 6:27pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 11th, 2010, 8:21am, Nombril wrote:

Personally, I found it hard to pick 60 hrs for scheduler.  If this tool gets extended to cover all days of the week, I assume we need to pick more hours to assure a match is made.  If a new or updated tool is looked into for League play, I wonder if something can be done that requires fewer hours?

 
Well you can always directly accord with your opponent the time of the game.
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #17 on: Mar 11th, 2010, 11:04pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 11th, 2010, 6:27pm, Eltripas wrote:

 
Well you can always directly accord with your opponent the time of the game.

 
Just fill in the times you are available for and set the rest to level 5. Provided you've selected enough times at reasonable hours in the higher levels, especially over the weekend, it would be very unusual for any of the level 5 times to be selected.
IP Logged

megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #18 on: Mar 24th, 2010, 10:35pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

OK, it might be good to clarify a couple of points.
 
At the moment we are expecting to announce 3 tables per match. Table 3 will probably have a rating ceiling of 2000, while Tables 1 and 2 will of course be subject to no upper or lower limit. On Monday 12th these details will be finalized at the same time as I release the fixtures list.
 
Monday April 12th will be the start of Week 1 of Round 1.  This is the week when the captain decides with his teammates who will play at the three tables. He will submit his roster by Monday 19th (Week 2). I will schedule the games on Tuesday, and the games will most likely be played over the weekend of Week 2, perhaps a couple overlapping into Monday. That day, Monday 26th, is Week 1 of Round 2, and so on.
IP Logged

Adanac
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #892

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 635
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #19 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 4:37am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 24th, 2010, 10:35pm, megajester wrote:
OK, it might be good to clarify a couple of points.
 
At the moment we are expecting to announce 3 tables per match. Table 3 will probably have a rating ceiling of 2000, while Tables 1 and 2 will of course be subject to no upper or lower limit. On Monday 12th these details will be finalized at the same time as I release the fixtures list.
 
Monday April 12th will be the start of Week 1 of Round 1.  This is the week when the captain decides with his teammates who will play at the three tables. He will submit his roster by Monday 19th (Week 2). I will schedule the games on Tuesday, and the games will most likely be played over the weekend of Week 2, perhaps a couple overlapping into Monday. That day, Monday 26th, is Week 1 of Round 2, and so on.

 
A few more questions:
 
- Can we announce a backup player that will play in the event that the original player doesn't show up?  Or will that be a forfeit?
 
- If both captains announce their roster at the end of Week 1, can we switch players if we find, for example, that one of the boards has an enormous rating discrepancy, either favourably or unfavourably?  Or are the lists finalized once they are submitted?
 
- Is the World League going to consist of 3-game matches against each of the other 3 teams?  And then will the winner be the team with the most accumulated points out of those 9 games?  Or will the score continue to accumulate through all World League events throughout 2010?
IP Logged


ChrisB
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #2339

   


Gender: male
Posts: 147
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #20 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 6:24am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 25th, 2010, 4:37am, Adanac wrote:

- Can we announce a backup player that will play in the event that the original player doesn't show up?  Or will that be a forfeit?
 
- If both captains announce their roster at the end of Week 1, can we switch players if we find, for example, that one of the boards has an enormous rating discrepancy, either favourably or unfavourably?  Or are the lists finalized once they are submitted?

 
One possibility for both of these issues would be to allow a replacement of a player on the roster at any time, provided that the replacement player has a lower rating than that of the player being replaced.  Or, more lenient, would be to allow a replacement as long as the replacement player's rating does not exceed the rating of the player being replaced by say, 100 points.
IP Logged

ChrisB
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #2339

   


Gender: male
Posts: 147
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #21 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 7:01am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 25th, 2010, 6:24am, ChrisB wrote:

 
One possibility for both of these issues would be to allow a replacement of a player on the roster at any time, provided that the replacement player has a lower rating than that of the player being replaced.  Or, more lenient, would be to allow a replacement as long as the replacement player's rating does not exceed the rating of the player being replaced by say, 100 points.

After further thought .....One thing I do not like about my suggestion is that it would be risky for a team to put lower-rated players on the roster, since few or no replacement players would be available for those players.  (The safest approach would be for a team to submit the highest-rated players allowed and then replace as needed.)  So, I think my previous suggestion is not good yet, but perhaps some tweaking can fix it.
IP Logged

megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #22 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 9:12am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 25th, 2010, 4:37am, Adanac wrote:

 
A few more questions:
 
- Can we announce a backup player that will play in the event that the original player doesn't show up?  Or will that be a forfeit?
 
- If both captains announce their roster at the end of Week 1, can we switch players if we find, for example, that one of the boards has an enormous rating discrepancy, either favourably or unfavourably?  Or are the lists finalized once they are submitted?

Good questions. Basically we want a fail-safe system, but a system that allows captains to announce changes to the roster at the last minute won't be fail safe. Let's say you want to change a player half an hour before a scheduled game. The fate of the match will rest on whether or not I happen to be online at the time.
 
So we need a cut-off. But when? The scheduler starts from 00:00 GMT on Thursday. So let's say we allow a 24-hour breathing space for players to request a reschedule to their game. So we say I'll schedule the games before 00:00 GMT Wednesday. Based on rosters submitted before 00:00 GMT Tuesday. So we're back to square one.
 
I know it sounds harsh to say "If you don't make it, it's a forfeit", but that's why we're giving teams a week to work out who's available. That's also part of the rationale behind the 24-hour breathing space. Also I think the idea of tinkering with a roster after it's been released, even before any cut-off point, is more complicated than it sounds. Who gets to make an adjustment first? How many rounds of adjustment will there be? I think it's just simplest to say the original roster is final. That's fair because both teams' rosters will be announced at the same time.  
 
I appreciate the concerns about rating differences. After all this isn't a party game, we're trying to start something serious and competitive. Therefore teams may be expected to field the best players they have. That's why Table 3 is U-2000, so that beginners don't get left behind. I'll tell you what, how about we rewrite the rule as follows: "The three players shall be fielded in order of strength, and player 3 shall be rated under 2000." So a strong team might field players of strengths 2400, 2200 and 1800, against a weaker team fielding 2100, 1900 and 1600. The weaker team would still stand a reasonable chance.
 
on Mar 25th, 2010, 4:37am, Adanac   wrote:

 
- Is the World League going to consist of 3-game matches against each of the other 3 teams?  And then will the winner be the team with the most accumulated points out of those 9 games?  Or will the score continue to accumulate through all World League events throughout 2010?

It's going to be a double round robin. You play the other 3 teams twice each, once as gold ("home game") and once as silver ("away game"). Therefore 6 rounds x 2 weeks = 12 weeks = 3 months. That'll take us to the beginning of July. If people think that's too short I had been thinking about some sort of  Clubs' Cup knockout tournament afterwards, but we really shouldn't be starting that conversation now. Smiley
 
on Mar 25th, 2010, 7:01am, ChrisB wrote:

After further thought .....One thing I do not like about my suggestion is that it would be risky for a team to put lower-rated players on the roster, since few or no replacement players would be available for those players.  (The safest approach would be for a team to submit the highest-rated players allowed and then replace as needed.)  So, I think my previous suggestion is not good yet, but perhaps some tweaking can fix it.

I really don't think changing rosters is going to work, and I think the "order of strength+Table 3 is U-2000" rule I outlined above should be a fairly decent workaround. But please don't misunderstand me as being set in my views, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
 
I think it's better to have fail-safe rules that might seem slightly draconian instead of fuzzy ones that could end up turning into misunderstandings and unfair situations that will leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. Every single point counts. Just one forfeit can and probably will make the difference between a single team taking first place and two teams going to a tiebraker. So we need simple, crystal clear rules.
« Last Edit: Mar 25th, 2010, 9:17am by megajester » IP Logged

Adanac
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #892

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 635
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #23 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 9:51am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 25th, 2010, 9:12am, megajester wrote:
I appreciate the concerns about rating differences. After all this isn't a party game, we're trying to start something serious and competitive. Therefore teams may be expected to field the best player they have. That's why Table 3 is U-2000, so that beginners don't get left behind. I'll tell you what, how about we rewrite the rule as follows: "The three players shall be fielded in order of strength, and player 3 shall be rated under 2000." So a strong team might field players of strengths 2400, 2200 and 1800, against a weaker team fielding 2100, 1900 and 1600. The weaker team would still stand a reasonable chance.

 
Thanks for the explanations, everything is clear now  Smiley  I have two suggestions regarding the rules above:
 
1.  We should probably use WHR rating rather than Gameroom rating, just as we did in the World Championship, so that players are ranked according to their Human vs. Human ability rather than their bot-bashing skills.
 
2.  Ratings might fluctuate from the beginning of Week 1 to the beginning of Week 2.  That could cause players to play on a different board than originally expected.  So how about:  (a) ratings will be based upon WHR rating on the final day of Week 1; and (b) captains can switch the order for any two players so long as there is no more than a 50-point difference in their ratings.
 
That last point 2(b) is intended to provide a bit of flexibility in case two players have virtually identical ratings but one is more willing than the other to play on a higher board.  Or perhaps to get a more favourable time zone pairing for certain players, or because two players really want to play against one another, etc.
 
But if people think 2(b) would be unfair then I'm okay with dropping that option.   For example, if
 
Team A = 2300, 2100, 1900
 
Team B = 2300, 1950, 1920
 
then Team B has the flexibility to switch players 2 & 3 but Team A does not.  Switching players could provide a better time zone pairing but it might also motivate Team B to switch players 2 & 3 if the captain knows that the 1920 player is particularly good at defeating the 2100 player.
IP Logged


megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #24 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 1:32pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 25th, 2010, 9:51am, Adanac wrote:

1.  We should probably use WHR rating rather than Gameroom rating, just as we did in the World Championship, so that players are ranked according to their Human vs. Human ability rather than their bot-bashing skills.
 
2.  Ratings might fluctuate from the beginning of Week 1 to the beginning of Week 2.  That could cause players to play on a different board than originally expected.  So how about:  (a) ratings will be based upon WHR rating on the final day of Week 1...

Yep definitely.
 
on Mar 25th, 2010, 9:51am, Adanac wrote:

 
So how about: ... (b) captains can switch the order for any two players so long as there is no more than a 50-point difference in their ratings.
 
That last point 2(b) is intended to provide a bit of flexibility in case two players have virtually identical ratings but one is more willing than the other to play on a higher board.  Or perhaps to get a more favourable time zone pairing for certain players, or because two players really want to play against one another, etc.
 
But if people think 2(b) would be unfair then I'm okay with dropping that option.   For example, if
 
Team A = 2300, 2100, 1900
 
Team B = 2300, 1950, 1920
 
then Team B has the flexibility to switch players 2 & 3 but Team A does not.  Switching players could provide a better time zone pairing but it might also motivate Team B to switch players 2 & 3 if the captain knows that the 1920 player is particularly good at defeating the 2100 player.

Have you actually got players who've indicated they might not want to play on a high/low board?
 
On the other points... Something else I probably should have stated more clearly is that one team doesn't know the other's roster until both are announced simultaneously. At least in theory, it shouldn't be possible to plan so that specific players face one another. (Of course, if we're now saying that players are sequenced in order of rating that does make it easier to guess who will be at which table. So maybe we should make some private sections in the forum or get the captains to use the messaging system more.)
 
I get the feeling this rule would unnecessarily complicate things without providing much benefit. But so long as it's clearly defined and everyone's happy with it, why not.
 
"The three players shall be fielded in order of strength. However, if two players in subsequent order of strength are within 50 rating points of one another the captain may reverse their positions on the roster. Notwithstanding, player 3 shall always be rated under 2000."
IP Logged

azgreg
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #4723

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 37
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #25 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 3:08pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I really think Megajester's got a workable rule there.  If we get into more than three boards, we should consider an even lower ceiling for boards 4+, say 1800/1600/etc.  After all, we want to encourage beginners, and what better way to do so than to have a place for them to slide into the league without getting bashed.
 
 
I'm very much in favor of no substitutions once a captain has announced his three (or whatever number) boards.  As we all know, though, real life does happen unexpectedly.  It is conceivable that a player could suddenly find themselves in a drastic/tragic situation where they just could not possibly play a game.  In that case, should we consider a one-time substitution to allow for that?  Maybe it's one time per captain per season, or maybe two or three times.  I don't know. If you guys feel it should be "these things happen, just take the forfeit" then I would still support that.  Just fostering discussion.
 
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #26 on: Mar 25th, 2010, 10:33pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 25th, 2010, 3:08pm, azgreg wrote:
In that case, should we consider a one-time substitution to allow for that?  Maybe it's one time per captain per season, or maybe two or three times.
 

My problem isn't with how often captains do this, it's with me not being able to guarantee when I'll be online. I want to be able to set up the games on Tuesday, reschedule if the players request it on Wednesday, and then not need to check back every five minutes to see if the captains want to substitute.  
 
It's this kind of scenario I'm worried about: On Friday a captain says "I want to make a sub for one of my games on Saturday." I happen to be online that day, I make the substitution, that substituted player goes on to win 3 points. Following round same thing happens, but I'm on holiday so I can't make the substitution, and so that team registers a forfeit. Suddenly it's my fault.
 
Which is why we need a cut-off point. If I'm setting up the games on Tuesday, I want a final roster on Monday. I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that you should know on Wednesday if the time assigned to you for the weekend is good for you or not. Of course stuff happens, that's life, and it's a pain. I wish there was a fail-safe way to acommodate it but I can't see one.
IP Logged

Nombril
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4509

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 292
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #27 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 3:34am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Stepping back a bit on the issue of substitutions, does the game that is played have to be the scheduled game?  If some Real Life event comes up, and a teammate is able to substitute, the substitute could announce themselves in the chat room a few minutes prior to the scheduled time.  The game could be played as a manual invite at the proper time control.  Later, is it easy to change the game from casual to tournament?
 
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about substitutes.  (I know in my parents bridge clubs and bowling leagues substitutions occur without any advance notice...)  I think we should make a decision about whether or not substitutions are a good idea for league play, and then figure out how to make the system handle it.
 
On the subject of setting the boards in order of player rating:  Why have any restrictions?  I recall when my tennis team went up against a very strong team, we would often put our 6th best person at the top of the list, allowing our 1 to play the opponents 2, and so on down the list.  Yes, we were sacrificing the first game, but it gave us a better chance at the rest.  Looking at the strength of my teammates, I think this is the only way any of the other teams are going to be able to beat The Ring of Fire!   Tongue  (I do like having 1 or more boards with a max rating threshold - I see it as varsity vs. junior varsity and a good way to encourage all levels of players to be involved.)
IP Logged

azgreg
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #4723

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 37
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #28 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 4:51am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I completely see your point, MJ.  There really isn't any late-sub rule that doesn't demand that you be online all the time leading up to every game, which is obviously not realistic.  So, no subs it is!
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #29 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 9:20am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 26th, 2010, 3:34am, Nombril wrote:
Stepping back a bit on the issue of substitutions, does the game that is played have to be the scheduled game?

Yes.
 
on Mar 26th, 2010, 3:34am, Nombril wrote:
If some Real Life event comes up, and a teammate is able to substitute, the substitute could announce themselves in the chat room a few minutes prior to the scheduled time.  The game could be played as a manual invite at the proper time control.

Basically, you have to define circumstances where the League Co-ordinator accepts a normal game instead of the scheduled game. Possible, but it has to be well regulated. You have several questions.
 
1. How do you make sure the original player really won't make it and it's not a case of his teammates assuming he won't? Otherwise you could have a situation where the original player doesn't sign in for a week, his teammates panic and find a substitute, only for the original player (who was on holiday or something) to show up on the day.
2. How do you select the substitute? Captain decision? Or volunteer-based? If you get more than one volunteer how do you decide?
3. What if the substitute wants to reschedule? How do you make sure it won't be unfair on the opponent, who has already planned his week around the scheduled game?
4. The substitute was ready to challenge the player at the scheduled time, and the player didn't show up. But there are no records. How do I know who forfeited?
5. What do you do if the players start the game and one of the players says he hadn't realized it was a a league game and wants to start again?
 
And even if you do solve all of the above...
6. How do you make sure Team A doesn't abuse the system by releasing a token roster and then handpicking players according to the players Team B fields? Is it really fair if winning is as much about roster shenanigans as playing good Arimaa?
 
I have managed to write up rules that would cover 1-5. They basically require the player who can't make it to make a post in the forum, the substitute to put his name forward in the chatroom, to send a challenge in a specific format to the other player when he turns up, and for them both to specify in the chatroom the number of the game they're playing and that they accept it as the official game.
 
It's complicated. And doesn't solve 6. Nothing solves 6.
 
If people are interested in these rules I can type them out. But I still keep coming back to the idea that we should stick with the original roster.  
 
K.I.S.S.
(by the way the last "S" is for "Straightforward"Wink)
 
----
 
On another question that Nombril raised, how do people feel about making it mandatory to sequence players in order of strength?
« Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2010, 9:31am by megajester » IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4  ...  13 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

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