Author |
Topic: League Feedback (Read 34776 times) |
|
Korhil
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #5160
Gender: 
Posts: 27
|
 |
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #150 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:08pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm, novacat wrote:| I would prefer if the forfeit is not up to the opposing player in the future. The opposing player must then either accuse someone of being a cheater, look like a jerk for claiming a forfeit for an innocent mistake, or do nothing and feel like someone may be taking advantage of them. |
|
The context is different between the scenarios you mention.
If someone is considered to be cheating, the decision will likely be made by the Leage Director.
For the latter two, the player can use their own discretion.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
novacat
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #751
Gender:
Posts: 119
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #151 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 5:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I am just trying to say that many people are too nice to ask for a forfeit even if they would like to, and should not be forced to do so seeing as they were not in error (much like granting a rematch).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #152 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 5:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm, novacat wrote:| I would prefer if the forfeit is not up to the opposing player in the future. The opposing player must then either accuse someone of being a cheater, look like a jerk for claiming a forfeit for an innocent mistake, or do nothing and feel like someone may be taking advantage of them. |
|
I agree. The conditions of a forfeit should be laid out in advance, and if anyone (player, spectator, organizer, administrator) points out within 24 hours that the conditions for forfeit existed, the forfeit should be enforced. This is a suggestion for future rules, not a suggestion for what to do in this case, where it seems to have been written into the rules that the burden is placed on the player.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ChrisB
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2339
Gender:
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #153 on: Jun 23rd, 2010, 9:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm, novacat wrote:| I would prefer if the forfeit is not up to the opposing player in the future. The opposing player must then either accuse someone of being a cheater, look like a jerk for claiming a forfeit for an innocent mistake, or do nothing and feel like someone may be taking advantage of them. |
|
I agree also. I would have handled the situation similar to the way strajots did.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #154 on: Jun 23rd, 2010, 9:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
OK, agreed. In future Leagues it will not be left up to the opposing player. If the player was logged into the chatroom, and it's noticed within 24 hours, it's a forfeit. The end.
Just for the record, the reason behind leaving it up to the opposing player was so that the rules could take into account the human perception of fairness, a grey area that legal systems can never completely cover. Meaning, in cases where it's clearly an honest mistake, I wanted the opposing player to be free to let it go instead of having a rigid forfeit rule that neither player would see as "fair" in that situation.
You may well disagree with the wisdom in that, and I'm not sure of it myself. But as I'm sure is becoming more apparent to everybody as time goes on, I've always believed that people will only take the League seriously and get enthusiastic about it if they feel it is predictable and fair, and that the only way to ensure that is to apply the rules to the letter. Zero irregularities. And I was worried that if I made a forfeit rule that seemed overly draconian, not taking human error into account, a situation exactly like this one could arise. I had visions of everybody saying it was an honest mistake and the game should stand, and me being the only guy saying "Hey we need to apply the rules here."
As I say, an unfounded fear perhaps.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #155 on: Jun 23rd, 2010, 12:51pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Oh I didn't notice the Korhil case is duscussed in this thread.
... I suppose you have already checked if the IP adress from which he was in Chatroom does not agree with the IP adress he was playing on. I have expected he has several open connections from different computers.
I know it means nothing in either case  , it just improves the probability ... .
I always start important games by mentioning I am leaving the chatroom (and I am checking my opponent is doing as well). It is good habbit.
I appologize that I were not taking attention while commenting the game, but Korhil in the left top corner is like a chatroom logo I do not even consider  so I have not connected it to the player until he started commented the game.
... May the players would be marked with the count ... form how many IP adresses they are logged in the chat room ... just kidding.
And I do think this case is simillar to case where players agreed on rescheduling missed game and it was forbidden as the players has no right for it and may be captains would.
It seems to me from that principle player cannot conclude he don't mind his opponent had to lose by rules and may be captains would.
I understand the rule as "Only captains (representing the team will) have the right for forgiveness".
This is just general principle not implying I think the game rusult should be changed.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 23rd, 2010, 1:07pm by Hippo » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #156 on: Jun 29th, 2010, 2:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
1) The Round 6 rosters have now been announced. Could all players please check their emails and/or forum inbox (by clicking on the "you have X messages" link at the top). If the game time in the gameroom doesn't work for you, you need to correct the scheduler and let me know before 00:00 GMT Thursday (Wednesday night).
2) There has been talk of another League after this one. After messaging the captains, there are concerns about availability over the summer months. Please could all players fill in this really short survey to help us out. Thanks!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #157 on: Jun 29th, 2010, 6:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
What about some sort of virtual trophies at the end of the season, just for grins. There'd be the Arimaa Cup or similar for the winning team, maybe an MVP, either as voted on by the players or mathematically by earned points/points expected based on rating... Perhaps an Ironman for most games played, and/or a Stalwart Castle awarded to the player who lost the longest game... maybe some silly ones too, like Cat Killer, or I <3 Rabbits (fewest rabbits lost per game, and most cats killed overall, irrespectively.)
Well, that's all I have for now, feel free to suggest your own, or maybe draw pretty pictures. (I don't know how to draw pretty pictures, for sadness.)
P.S.: I apologize in advance if these look stupid by the light of day : () )
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #158 on: Jun 29th, 2010, 7:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2010, 5:53pm, Korhil wrote:| Perhaps I was overly cynical to have thought of this tactic. I do however still like Fritzlein's concept of making the point system zero sum. |
|
Nah, your post wasn't cynical. The word you are looking for is paranoid. 
Seriously, though, we should move the discussion to the feedback thread. It is a legitimate point that when a team overspends, they aren't just hurting themselves via the budget penalty, they are hurting their opponent for that round as well. It isn't currently a zero-sum game: the decisions of one team in a match can effectively hurt both teams in the match, allowing a team to play for spite rather than playing for best total score.
I don't recommend moving to a per-round budget, because I think our current system is good enough and there is no need to add complexity. For the record, though, let me lay out my thinking of how it would work.
The value of a budget point depends on how closely matched the opponents are. A rating point is worth most in an equal game and worth least in a mismatch in either direction. If two players are equally rated, they have equal winning chances, and thus an expected league points score of 2-2. One extra rating point should tip the balance to 50.144% to 49.856%, for an expected score of 2.00288 to 1.99712. Therefore, if we transfer 0.00288 league points between the teams for each point of overspend, it will offset the most a team could expect to gain, and will be a greater penalty than the actual gain for mismatches. For example, if the players are 300 rating points apart, the expected league score is 2.69804 - 1.30196, while 301 rating points apart has an expect league score of 2.69951 - 1.30049, for a gain of 0.00147 league points, i.e. about half the cost we would impose.
It is too much hassle to keep track of so many digits. Better instead to transfer one league point per 347.4 rating points overspent, or perhaps (for more granularity) to transfer 0.1 points per 35 points overspend. An example of the latter:
Say the per round-budget is 5700. Team A spends 5893 while Team B spends 5624. Team A wins two of three for a score of 7-5. But the overspend of 193 points is divided by 35 and rounded up to give a transfer of six tenths. So the final score for the round would be 6.4-5.6.
Since the transfer of league points is theoretically greater than the expected league points gained from fielding a better player, one might expect there to be no overspending ever. It is true that given a choice between overspending less and overspending more, a captain should always overspend less regardless of the circumstances, but there are border cases. A captain could find himself in a situation where the choice is between exceeding budget by 43 or falling short by 97, in which case he would have to pay two tenths of a point (the price of 70 ratings points) for an additional fielded strength of 140 points, which is worth it as long as the mismatches are 300 points or less.
on Jun 29th, 2010, 5:07pm, knarl wrote:| I might be missing something, but I don't like the idea of per round budget, because it would restrict flexibility for the captains, which in turn restricts strategy and working with team availability. |
|
Right, this would favor teams with more volunteers each round, because they can come the closest to a per-round budget without going over. Captains with fewer options would lose the ability to avoid penalties by evening out spending across the season, so they would suffer relatively speaking. That's an argument against.
The bigger argument against in my mind is the extra busywork for an already-taxed league coordinator.
The argument for a per-round budget is that it prevents spiteful play of trying to drag down a particular opponent rather than building up one's own score. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #159 on: Jun 29th, 2010, 10:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Can we allay some paranoia by just asking to captains to subscribe to a code of behaviour that states they will play to better their teams score, not for spite?
Personally, I assume the captains are upstanding members of our community, and this would be wholey unnecessary.
Cheers,
knarl.
PS. No snickering about our captains status in the community!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
leo
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 278
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #160 on: Jun 29th, 2010, 11:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2010, 6:44pm, Sconibulus wrote:| (...) Perhaps an Ironman for most games played, and/or a Stalwart Castle awarded to the player who lost the longest game... maybe some silly ones too, like Cat Killer, or I <3 Rabbits (...) |
|
I think it's an awesome idea. It reflects the variety of gameplays and games we witness in Arimaa, and it helps us highlight some things we only fuzzily perceive about it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #161 on: Jul 4th, 2010, 11:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
Rockies, Ring of Fire, and Europa each had eight different players who actually played a game. Atlantics had six. Compared to total roster size of 39 players, 30 played. Huge success, I say.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Korhil
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #5160
Gender:
Posts: 27
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #162 on: Jul 4th, 2010, 2:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2010, 7:16pm, Fritzlein wrote:| I don't recommend moving to a per-round budget, because I think our current system is good enough and there is no need to add complexity. For the record, though, let me lay out my thinking of how it would work. |
|
I just posted in the '2nd Round thread' with a concept I had - moving this discussion between threads again would make it harder to follow.
I suggest a rating min & max for each board. I think this would promote closer games on all 3 boards. There have been a number of rounds where atleast 1 board has a great disparity and the competition isn't as close.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #163 on: Jul 27th, 2010, 7:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I just realised our team is going to be penalised one league point for underspending in the first round of the season.
As far as I know, we only have three available players, but it turns out we might have been better off to roster a high rated player on table 1 who was unlikely to turn up, take the hit for a forfeit instead of underspend, but stand a better chance at winning table two and three.
This seems wrong because to maximise our points, we'd be depriving a lower rated player from playing, and throwing a game, both of which are totally against the spirit of the league.
Personally, I think the per round limits curtail the philosophy of the budget anyway. I'm sorry I missed the opportunity to argue against them when I had the chance , but I didn't follow the forum closely enough.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #164 on: Jul 27th, 2010, 8:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
knarl, since the difficulty is going to be in underspending, not overspending, you can supply a higher-rated played, and sub-in whoever you actually want to play during the period in which rescheduling is acceptable.
This still seems against the spirit slightly, but less so.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print