Author |
Topic: League Feedback (Read 34777 times) |
|
azgreg
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4723
Gender: 
Posts: 37
|
 |
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #30 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 10:23am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Quote:| But I still keep coming back to the idea that we should stick with the original roster. |
|
I kind of agree. Not having the ability to sub increases a player's commitment level when s/he says they're available. By putting them on the roster, the captain is saying, "OK, kid, you said you're ready, get in there and don't let us down!" No subs will eliminate late shenanigans based on knowing the other team's roster, too. "Oh, Fritzlein isn't playing this week? Suddenly I'm available, how about that?"
----
Quote:| On another question that Nombril raised, how do people feel about making it mandatory to sequence players in order of strength? |
|
I'm in favor of that. Somehow it strikes me as unfair to sacrifice board 1 in hopes of beating up on boards 2 and 3 (or more). If we're judging team against team we should pit best against best, 2nd best vs 2nd best, down the line.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #31 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 11:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
First, regarding the order of strength of the players on each board. Suppose we have:
Team A = 2600, 2050, 1700
Team B = 2350, 1850, 1300
With no restrictions on board order, the captain of Team B might decide to place the weakest player on board #1 in the hopes of winning the series 2-1 rather than losing 0-3. But the captain of Team A might simultaneously decide to switch his top two boards in anticipation of just such a tactic. I don’t like that too much because these shenanigans might result in lots of imbalanced boards and that’s contrary to the spirit of the World League.
In the 1970 chess match USSR vs. the Rest of the World the ROTW almost but didn’t quite place their players in order of strength. For example, Bent Larsen was on the top board while Bobby Fischer was #2 despite being rated 70 points higher than Larsen (the fact that Fischer didn’t throw a tantrum and refuse to participate after this “demotion” may have been due to his strong desire to crush the USSR  ). I think it’s nice to have this type of flexibility when two players are close in rating, but I don’t like it when players are separated by hundreds of points and the swap is a transparent attempt to grab extra victories at the expense of a “sacrificial lamb”.
The idea of a rating cap on the lower tables is one great way to prevent the types of tactics described in the first paragraph. For example, the captain of Team A above would have only 2 options (leave the players in order or swap the first two) while the captain of Team B would have 4 options. Without restrictions, they would each have 6 options. A different idea might be to award extra points for the higher boards. For example, boards 1, 2 and 3 might be worth 5, 4 and 3 points respectively. That would increase the incentive to place the top player on board #1. But I don’t like this idea because it would send the message that some games aren’t as “important” as others.
After considering the pros & cons I like the status quo:
- Players are sorted according to rating
- Switching the order of 2 players should only be allowed if they are very close in rating, and must be announced at the end of Week 1
- Place a rating cap on the lower boards
- All boards are worth the same number of points
Next, regarding the substitution of players. My main concern is that if we don’t allow any substitutes then some players will never get a chance to play. For example, suppose a team has 7 players. Three can play 100% guaranteed. Three cannot play at all. The seventh player has an 85% chance of being able to play but because of family or professional obligations there’s always an unpredictable 15% chance of a forfeit. So the captain chooses the 3 players that are guaranteed not to forfeit. In the next round, the 3 participants from the previous game are all on vacation. But the 3 players that couldn’t play previously are all now 100%. The seventh player is still stuck in the situation where he probably can play but there’s still a 15% chance of a forfeit. So again the captain chooses his roster based upon the most reliable players who won’t stick the team with a 0-point forfeit. The irony is that the only player on the team who didn’t get a chance to play in either of the first two rounds was the one player that was available to play both rounds. And such a pattern could continue for the entire season.
If we want to give the captains the flexibility to select <100% players without the full risk of a 0-point forfeit then we could choose 1 potential backup player for each game. But we would want to limit abuses. Some suggestions might be:
- Backup cannot be above the table maximum rating
- Limit the number of substitutions by deducting the 1 forfeit point anyway if the original player doesn’t show up. So the backup could gain 3 victory points but loses the forfeit point regardless of whether or not the game is completed.
- An alternate deterrent would be to limit the number of substitutions per team per calendar year (perhaps 2 or 3?)
- The same player can be nominated as backup for multiple boards, but can only play once per round
- Backup must play in the same time slot as the original game, but must wait 15 minutes before replacing the original player.
- Backup player can be rated no higher than 50 points above the original player
- Backups must be announced within 24 hours after the schedules have been determined
For example, my team might hypothetically announce a list like this (original player/potential backup):
Board 1: Adanac / Simon
Board 2: The_Jeh / knarl
Board 3: Eltripas / knarl
Now if board #2 is scheduled for 12:00 and The_Jeh doesn’t show up by 12:15 then knarl can challenge the opposing player (or possibly the opposing backup if neither of the original players show up) using the same time controls as the original game. This game becomes the official game, regardless of whether or not Megajester happens to be logged in, which addresses the fail-safe issue. Knarl, having played on board #2 is no longer eligible to play on board #3 so my team would no longer have a backup for board #3. But if both The_Jeh and knarl failed to show up to the previously mentioned game by 12:15 then we obviously lose by forfeit and knarl is still eligible to act as the backup on board #3.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2010, 12:14pm by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #32 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 2:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 11:44am, Adanac wrote:Next, regarding the substitution of players. My main concern is that if we don’t allow any substitutes then some players will never get a chance to play. For example, suppose a team has 7 players. Three can play 100% guaranteed. Three cannot play at all. The seventh player has an 85% chance of being able to play but because of family or professional obligations there’s always an unpredictable 15% chance of a forfeit. So the captain chooses the 3 players that are guaranteed not to forfeit. In the next round, the 3 participants from the previous game are all on vacation. But the 3 players that couldn’t play previously are all now 100%. The seventh player is still stuck in the situation where he probably can play but there’s still a 15% chance of a forfeit. So again the captain chooses his roster based upon the most reliable players who won’t stick the team with a 0-point forfeit. The irony is that the only player on the team who didn’t get a chance to play in either of the first two rounds was the one player that was available to play both rounds. And such a pattern could continue for the entire season.
|
|
I hadn't thought about that. Thanks for bringing it up.
on Mar 26th, 2010, 11:44am, Adanac wrote:If we want to give the captains the flexibility to select <100% players without the full risk of a 0-point forfeit then we could choose 1 potential backup player for each game. But we would want to limit abuses. Some suggestions might be:
- Backup cannot be above the table maximum rating
[...]
- The same player can be nominated as backup for multiple boards, but can only play once per round
- Backup must play in the same time slot as the original game, but must wait 15 minutes before replacing the original player.
[...]
- Backups must be announced within 24 hours after the schedules have been determined
For example, my team might hypothetically announce a list like this (original player/potential backup):
Board 1: Adanac / Simon
Board 2: The_Jeh / knarl
Board 3: Eltripas / knarl
Now if board #2 is scheduled for 12:00 and The_Jeh doesn’t show up by 12:15 then knarl can challenge the opposing player (or possibly the opposing backup if neither of the original players show up) using the same time controls as the original game. This game becomes the official game, regardless of whether or not Megajester happens to be logged in, which addresses the fail-safe issue. Knarl, having played on board #2 is no longer eligible to play on board #3 so my team would no longer have a backup for board #3. But if both The_Jeh and knarl failed to show up to the previously mentioned game by 12:15 then we obviously lose by forfeit and knarl is still eligible to act as the backup on board #3.
|
|
I think this combination of suggestions will probably work quite well .
The only issue I have is with it is with this one, "Backups must be announced within 24 hours after the schedules have been determined." I will be scheduling the games by GMT 00:00 Wednesday, and the players will have a 24-hour cooloff period to request a reschedule, so the games are finalized by GMT 00:00 Thursday, which is the theoretical earliest time for which a game can be scheduled.
Now, we can either shift the whole process one day backwards to allow another 24 hours for the backups to be assigned, or we can say the captain announces them together with his roster. Problem being that the game might be scheduled for a time that doesn't work for the backup at all...
In which case I suggest the following: A single list of backups for all the tables. There will be three names in any order the captain likes. If the assigned player doesn't show up within 15 minutes of the assigned game time, the highest in order of preference available (ie. logged into the chatroom) makes the challenge. But I still think there should be a rule that both players confirm the game number in the chatroom before they click start, or at least 2g.
Example: Captain submits the following roster
Table 1: A (2200)
Table 2: B (2050)
Table 3: C (1700)
Backups: X (2350), Y (1850), Z (1300)
Player A doesn't show up. Y and Z are available. Y challenges.
Player C doesn't show up. X and Z are available, but X is too highly rated so Z challenges.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2010, 2:26pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #33 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 2:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
OK, here's my 2c worth. It's just an attempt to think about the rostering differently so subs might be less complex.
Lets say, instead of captains releasing a roster of who will play, they just release a list of "injuries" (the players on their team that aren't available for the match). The director can then schedule the top three uninjured players, allowing for any rating caps.
As far as subs go, if the original player is 15 mins late, any uninjured player of lesser rating that isn't already playing in the match can sub in by challenging with the correct time controls.
To stop overuse of substitutions, put a cap on the number of subs per season.
I don't know if that solves any problems, or creates more. I was just trying to come up with something simple that allows substitutions, because I don't think I'll ever get a game with three tables, being the lowest rated player on my team, which seems a shame if we got any forfeits.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
azgreg
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4723
Gender:
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #34 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 3:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
What happened to keeping it simple? I get that as captains we want to avoid forfeits, but is the solution to make 3 subs log in and wait on every game in case their player doesn't show?
Even a player who is 85% or 50% on availability should be able to answer a straightforward, "Can you be available for one game the week of 4/19? If the answer is yes, I will try to get you in. If you can't commit to one game, just say so."
With zero subs, players who are in the match know they need to make the effort to make their game happen or else the team will forfeit. And players who are out of the match can forget about the league for two weeks.
As the league progresses, I believe that someone who's available most of the time, but still out of the top 3 on their team, will still get worked in for several games as the top 3 will want a break periodically. I want my team to win, of course, but I want everyone on the team to have a good experience to keep them coming back. Someone who's always available but never plays will simply drop out, and then they're not available when my top board goes on holiday.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #35 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 4:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
OK, here's another go at thinking laterally:
Assuming there's no substitutions allowed, how about a different rating cap style, to keep with the spirit of the league (include all skill levels).
Something like: The captains roster anyone they like, but after the first round of matches an overall rating cap for the season will be introduced.
The overall rating cap would be extrapolated from the team that fielded the lowest average ratings for the first round. So by the end of the season, the teams will have fielded roughly the same number of rating points, which should make it a close competition and lowly rated players will inevitably be used to get under the rating cap.
Cheers,
knarl
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #36 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 5:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 4:33pm, knarl wrote:| Something like: The captains roster anyone they like, but after the first round of matches an overall rating cap for the season will be introduced. |
|
Brilliant. Captains will have a budget of rating points to spend however they like during the season. Teams are inherently equalized, but cleverness of the captains and flexibility and dedication of the team members still counts. Everyone will get to play because everyone is attractive either through winning chances or through being cheap. Captains who don't recruit at least one low-rated player (and use him) will be in a world of hurt.
Possible extension: if you burn through your rating budget unwisely early in the season, you don't have to forfeit or recruit 1100-rated players later in the season. Instead your team's total score is penalized by one point per 350 rating points you go over budget. That's assuming 3 points per win and 1 point per loss scoring. That penalty was chosen to be the smallest such that going over budget is never an advantage according to the Elo formula. In other words, those who stay in budget will have an advantage from doing so, but those who go over won't automatically lose the season.
By the way, I like the no subs rule for simplicity. But with the rating budget, there's a simple solution:
A) If you sub in someone lower-rated, you still have to pay the rating of the original player
B) If you sub in someone higher-rated, you have to pay the higher rating plus the difference. For example, subbing in a 1900 for an 1800 means you get charged 2000 against your budget.
So you can sub all you want, but it will hurt you unless the original player wasn't going to be able to make it. The less the difference in rating, the less the sub hurts you.
Also I think the budget/subs rules in conjunction eliminate any need for switching the order of players. Captains will have plenty of room for strategy without being allowed to shuffle the order of who plays which board. Your original roster must be in order of rating, and if you want to shuffle it then you can pay the substitution cost.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2010, 5:41pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #37 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 5:49pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:06pm, Fritzlein wrote:
Brilliant. Captains will have a budget of rating points to spend however they like during the season. Teams are inherently equalized, but cleverness of the captains and flexibility and dedication of the team members still counts. Everyone will get to play because everyone is attractive either through winning chances or through being cheap.
|
|
Hmmm... ingenious... a little complicated but workable.
It would work, but for me it would fundamentally change what the League represents. What would it mean in sports leagues if, instead of having rich and poor clubs, all were given exactly the same budget?
I don't know about you but part of what I like about the concept of sports leagues is you have different clubs, some are rich some are poor, some are brilliant and some aren't but they're together because of a common loyalty. They give it all they've got so they're the best they can be, even if that doesn't mean winning. But the winner really is the winner, the best team out there.
A "ratings budget" however means you're deliberately tying the hands of the stronger teams so they can't be the best they can be. All winning such a league would prove is that the winning team's players are underrated and the losing team's players are overrated.
You could say that having a rating limit on certain tables comes to the same thing but it feels different. It's like taking the aggregate score from a match between two official national sides and their U21 teams. Both have still been the best they can be.
I dunno, I'm not keen, but if everyone likes this idea let's do it.
on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:06pm, Fritzlein wrote:
By the way, I like the no subs rule for simplicity. But with the rating budget, there's a simple solution:
A) If you sub in someone lower-rated, you still have to pay the rating of the original player
B) If you sub in someone higher-rated, you have to pay the higher rating plus the difference. For example, subbing in a 1900 for an 1800 means you get charged 2000 against your budget.
So you can sub all you want, but it will hurt you unless the original player wasn't going to be able to make it. The less the difference in rating, the less the sub hurts you.
Also I think the budget/subs rules in conjunction eliminate any need for switching the order of players. Captains will have plenty of room for strategy without being allowed to shuffle the order of who plays which board. Your original roster must be in order of rating, and if you want to shuffle it then you can pay the substitution cost. |
|
OK, when does he make the substitution? Does the captain have to continually check up on game status?
Or are you talking about Adanac's idea of proposing a separate backup for each table?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #38 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 5:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
By the way, here is the latest draft of the League Rules. A work in progress to be sure...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #39 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 6:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:49pm, megajester wrote:
What would it mean in sports leagues if, instead of having rich and poor clubs, all were given exactly the same budget?
|
|
They do exactly that in some sports leagues by using a salary cap don't they? I'm not big into sports, but I always hear talk about the salary cap in the NRL (Australian rugby league) here, and I assumed it was to negate the richness of the clubs and make a closer competition that's better for spectators. I thought the same would work for arimaa.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #40 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 6:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:04pm, knarl wrote:
They do exactly that in some sports leagues by using a salary cap don't they? I'm not big into sports, but I always hear talk about the salary cap in the NRL (Australian rugby league) here, and I assumed it was to negate the richness of the clubs and make a closer competition that's better for spectators. I thought the same would work for arimaa.
Cheers,
knarl. |
|
Oops. I looked on Wikipedia and it seems they specifically don't do it for European football. Which would explain why it seems a strange idea to me. Fair enuffsky.
We're still back to the question of how substitutions are gonna work though.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #41 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 6:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Also, I see benefits in the way it would encourage recruitment and nurturing of up and coming talent, because someone with a rising rating would be better value. The same way a salary capped sporting team would look for young talent that gets bang for their buck.
After all, helping to "train more world-class players" is an aim of the league.
By the way. I think the idea for the league was a stroke of brilliance! I see a time where there'll be 14 teams and each team will need middle management to sort out rosters because there'll be that many members! Or there'll be premier league, and leagues A through G :-D .
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #42 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 6:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:14pm, megajester wrote:
Oops. I looked on Wikipedia and it seems they specifically don't do it for European football. Which would explain why it seems a strange idea to me. Fair enuffsky.
We're still back to the question of how substitutions are gonna work though. |
|
I think need for subs goes down with the season rating cap, because captains have the flexibility to lean towards the player that is definitely available, over the higher rated player who might not make it, and he knows in the long run it'll give him some more in the rating bank, if you know what I mean?
So the simple no-subs rule looks more attractive to me in that sense, but all Fritzleins ideas are good, albeit more complex.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #43 on: Mar 26th, 2010, 6:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 6:22pm, knarl wrote:
... he knows in the long ... |
|
I should say He or She. Do we have any female captains?
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #44 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 5:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
OK, I've fallen in love with this ratings budget idea. I'm sorry I was a hard sell at first, well done knarl and Fritzlein. Genius.
Now I'm going to try and crystallize all the concerns that have been expressed into a new proposal and then explain why I think the new proposal addresses them.
At the league start captains are given a ratings budget to last for the whole season. The figure will be calculated to ensure that players of all levels get a chance to take part, taking into account that those players' ratings are likely to increase as the league progresses. Captains are free to spend as much or as little in any one match. Overspending will be penalized by 1 league point per every 350 rating points. There will be no ratings-limited tables.
During Week 1 the captain negotiates with his teammates who is available. The players fill out the scheduler for times they know they definitely will be (1st choice), are most likely to be (2nd choice), will probably be (3rd choice) and might be (4th and 5th choice) available on Week 2. Captain submits a roster by 00:00 GMT Tuesday of Week 2. He must field players in order of WHR rating on Monday of Week 1, with the exception that two players within 50 points of one another may be switched. League Co-ordinator announces the rosters and schedules the games before 00:00 GMT Wednesday. Players have until 00:00 GMT Thursday to appeal their assigned games. A player who wishes to do so must re-fill out the scheduler to reflect their circumstances, after which the League Co-ordinator will re-schedule the game. After this point no substitutions will be allowed.
Now to why I think this should be a reasonable compromise.
People have thought substitutions might be a good idea for two reasons: (1) the selected player doesn't show up, or (2) there's a massive ratings discrepancy on the tables.
As we've already said, finding a fail-safe substitution system that isn't open to abuse promises to be an administrative nightmare. Which would be fine if there were sufficient justification for it. But there doesn't seem to be; there really should be no excuse for 1 (apart from acts of God), and the combination of the ratings budget and the requirement that players be fielded in order of strength should prevent 2.
Adanac had said he was worried that people with busier schedules might get left behind without a substitution system. But to be honest, we can only accommodate such players so far. The League takes a certain level of commitment. All a player needs to do is find a week where he won't have too much on and fill out the scheduler properly. The ratings budget system will make it easier for captains to make room for such players on a given week.
The idea of assigning backup players might work, but it could be unfair on the backup players for the same reason that unregulated substitution systems could be unfair on the League Co-ordinator: it requires the backup to be around at whatever unearthly time was scheduled to suit the official players. You could make it that all players not on the roster can be backups, but it still comes to the same thing. The team logs a forfeit purely because nobody was online at the time; now whose fault is that?
I know Fritz had some ideas as to how the ratings budget system could help make player substitutions a workable option. Perhaps, but it doesn't solve the main issues with the nuts and bolts of administering them.
I think a "ratings budget plus no subs" solution will be fair, elegant and realistic, and make for a fantastic League for everyone.
What do you think guys? Please chip in with any considerations I've missed.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 27th, 2010, 5:11am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print