Author |
Topic: League Feedback (Read 34771 times) |
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender: 
Posts: 292
|
 |
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #45 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 7:12am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
One of the disconnects in our resent discussions finally became apparent to me last night. We are spending a lot of time talking about being fair, even, balanced, etc. But the teams themselves have been formed by player self selection. So we are starting from a potentially unfair position of unbalanced teams, and everything we are suggesting to make things "fair" will be a band-aid (repair/patch/workaround) on the unfair starting point.
That said, the ratings budget seems to be a reasonable way to approach getting to a point of "fairness". It is possibly better than having a team rating cap or running a draft for picking teams, since the players actually playing the games are being regulated, rather than just the composition of the overall team. (It sounds complicated to me - so I'll leave it to the captains to decide if they want to deal with it!  )
Just for fun, here is an alternative proposal, that would be on the reverse side of the spectrum of fairness and regulation. If the idea of the league is to have fun, show some team spirit, and learn about the game, why not play unrated games? Each team could have a teamspeak channel (or use the public or a private chat room), and they can shout advice from the sideline to their teammate who is playing. You could forget about rating caps, ranking tables, U-1800 tables, concerns about cheating, etc.
on Mar 27th, 2010, 5:07am, megajester wrote:| But there doesn't seem to be; there really should be no excuse for 1 (apart from acts of God), |
|
Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but I don't consider my boss coming to me with a last minute project that will require working the weekend, or my 3 year old deciding they don't want to go to bed on time, or any other number of other unplanned events as being acts of God. If you implement the ratings budget, I don't see any draw back of allowing unrestricted substitutions as regular game room challenges 15 min after the start time in case the original player doesn't show up.. Yes - if it is a tough time, there might not be any teammates watching, but hey, at least there is an opportunity to avoid a forfeit and have a game played.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #46 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 8:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 5:07am, megajester wrote: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. |
|
This will be interesting. I support this system for the inaugural season and if it doesn't work out then we can always try new ideas in future years.
Will ratings be fixed at the start of the season to prevent "sand-bagging"? i.e. the possibility that a player might lose just enough rating points leading up to a match so that he fits "under budget". Or we could use lifetime highest rating so that ratings can go up but not down? Or maybe there's an even easier method?
There have been cases in Arimaa history where people have distorted their ratings by hundreds of points for various reasons, so I think we need to be vigilant about this.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 27th, 2010, 8:20am by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ChrisB
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2339
Gender:
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #47 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 8:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 5:07am, megajester wrote: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. |
|
I'm all for the ratings budget. Until we reach the point of having different level of leagues, I think the budget approach provides the best opportunity for giving enthusiastic low-to-middle-rated players the chance to play.
Subs vs. no subs is a tougher call for me, but I'm leaning toward trying the unrestricted substitutions as proposed by Nombril, with the budget penalties proposed by Fritzlein to help avoid abuse. To further avoid abuse, it might help to increase the penalty for substitutions beyond the first few (or even the first) in the same season.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #48 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 8:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:12am, Nombril wrote:One of the disconnects in our resent discussions finally became apparent to me last night. We are spending a lot of time talking about being fair, even, balanced, etc. But the teams themselves have been formed by player self selection. So we are starting from a potentially unfair position of unbalanced teams, and everything we are suggesting to make things "fair" will be a band-aid (repair/patch/workaround) on the unfair starting point.
|
|
I think we're disagreeing about the nature of fairness. In sports, fairness means that both players play under the exact same conditions so that the winner is the better player. "May the best man win." Not "Let's all have a draw." Player self-selection is what gives the clubs their own distinct atmosphere, identity and is what inspires the players with loyalty. Of course they're going to be unevenly matched. The point of playing is for the better team to win, for it to be a genuine test of Arimaa prowess. What we are arguing about is not evening out team strengths per se, but making sure that a team's winning is not affected by outside conditions. We're trying to make sure a team is rewarded for their commitment and skill, not for taking advantage of the rules...
on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:12am, Nombril wrote:| That said, the ratings budget seems to be a reasonable way to approach getting to a point of "fairness". It is possibly better than having a team rating cap or running a draft for picking teams, since the players actually playing the games are being regulated, rather than just the composition of the overall team. (It sounds complicated to me - so I'll leave it to the captains to decide if they want to deal with it! ) |
|
Well, you could say it's changed the objective from "may the best man win" to "may the man who most excels himself win."
on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:12am, Nombril wrote:Just for fun, here is an alternative proposal, that would be on the reverse side of the spectrum of fairness and regulation. If the idea of the league is to have fun, show some team spirit, and learn about the game, why not play unrated games? Each team could have a teamspeak channel (or use the public or a private chat room), and they can shout advice from the sideline to their teammate who is playing. You could forget about rating caps, ranking tables, U-1800 tables, concerns about cheating, etc.
|
|
We could do that but it would completely kill any "sports league" atmosphere, which at least for me is the point of the exercise.
on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:12am, Nombril wrote:| Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but I don't consider my boss coming to me with a last minute project that will require working the weekend, or my 3 year old deciding they don't want to go to bed on time, or any other number of other unplanned events as being acts of God. If you implement the ratings budget, I don't see any draw back of allowing unrestricted substitutions as regular game room challenges 15 min after the start time in case the original player doesn't show up.. Yes - if it is a tough time, there might not be any teammates watching, but hey, at least there is an opportunity to avoid a forfeit and have a game played. |
|
Fair enough, let's codify it.
If a substitution is to be made after 00:00 GMT Thursday on Week 2, the following procedure must be implemented. ("Rating" refers to WHR rating.)
1) Official player states in his team's forum clubhouse that he will be unable to play at his scheduled game.
2) Volunteers rated no more than 100 points higher than the original player put their name forward to play at the exact same time as the scheduled game. If the captain is unavailable to decide who will play, the highest rated volunteer takes precedence. All such discussions take place in the team's forum clubhouse. The captain has the final decision as to who will be the substitute, but he may not change that decision unless the substitute subsequently resigns his position as per step 1.
3) At the game time, the substitute must sign into the chatroom to prove he is present. He must issue a challenge to his opponent as the exact same color and with the exact same time controls as the scheduled game. He must state in the challenge that he is the substitute player. If these conditions are met the opponent must accept.
4) Before clicking Start, both players must enter the chatroom and state the game number and that they accept it as the official game.
5) Any rescheduling of the game is subject to the original opponent's agreement. If there is a rescheduling, both must state their agreement to it either in the forum or in the chatroom. When the agreed time arrives, both must sign into the forum to prove their presence, and adhere to steps 3 and 4.
Player Absence
If the scheduled player has not carried out step 1 and does not appear for his match, after 15 minutes of the game time, one of his teammates present that are rated no more than 100 points higher than he is may make a challenge in accordance with steps 3 to 5 above. If more than one such player is present, they may discuss who will play in the chatroom, however the highest rated among them takes precedence. If the captain is present, he makes the final decision.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #49 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 10:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 26th, 2010, 5:49pm, megajester wrote:| 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. |
|
This is how I felt about the World League when it was purely geographical. Specifically I wanted the United States to beat up on Europe. I wanted it to be about who has the team that is better, period. I wanted revenge for the lone U.S. vs E.U. match where the U.S. got clobbered.
But now that the U.S. has been split up and the Ring of Fire has self-selected, my attitude has totally changed. Now it makes more sense for the league to be about enthusiasm, participation, and everyone on the team fulfilling a role.
Not only does the budget per se make the likely winner more about team spirit than about team skill, my proposed penalty for substitutions makes it even more so. The teams whose players show up every time they commit to play never have to pay a penalty. I don't get the rationale for allowing the order of the boards to be swapped around (even given close ratings) and allowing free substitutions (even given close ratings). It's a hassle that is open to abuse. Next we'll be proposing allowing one takeback per game in case somebody might mismouse. We wouldn't want to penalize someone for mismousing, would we? 
Allowing unlimited substitutions, but at a cost, would not be open to abuse, and no team will ever use the feature at all unless they have to. It won't be a strategic option used for maximizing team total score, it will be a last resort to avoid forfeits. The less the feature is used, the less there is hassle for having the feature available. But the possibility of substitution will still be there so that people who can't ever commit 100% because of real life still can participate in the league.
Adanac, I understand and share your concern about the rating budget causing sandbagging. A budget creates an incentive for people to lower their ratings. Therefore the idea of using lifetime highest rating instead of current rating is very appealing. We should ask woh to include peak ratings in his WHR table. I think that will require only a modification of his display, i.e. no extra calculation, because the whole history ratings by definition retain the whole history.
Whatever the rules end up being, everything will be fine. The rules can always change next year depending on how things work out this year. Just look at how all the other events around here have evolved over time. 
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 27th, 2010, 10:34am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #50 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 12:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 10:21am, Fritzlein wrote:| But now that the U.S. has been split up and the Ring of Fire has self-selected, my attitude has totally changed. |
|
Ooh I don't know about that, you still seem fairly enthusiastic about whacking the Yankees Just kidding, I get you totally...
I know everybody is bound to have a different concept of what the League should be, but I still think that we have managed a reasonable compromise deal. Fritz, I think your idea of making subs expensive is good. I've included it in the latest draft of the rules, though you'll notice I've made it a bit more uniform for simplicity. I hope it suits.
League Rules v2010.03.27a
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 27th, 2010, 12:58pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #51 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 1:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 12:47pm, megajester wrote:| Ooh I don't know about that, you still seem fairly enthusiastic about whacking the Yankees |
|
Heheh, that's just my emotional scars from when I followed baseball as a lad, and the Yankees always beat my beloved Royals.
Quote:| Fritz, I think your idea of making subs expensive is good. I've included it in the latest draft of the rules, though you'll notice I've made it a bit more uniform for simplicity. I hope it suits. |
|
Thanks! But is this what you meant?
"Take whichever of the two ratings is higher, the originally fielded player or the substituted player. Add the difference between the two."
I was suggesting
"The cost is the rating of the substituted player plus the difference in rating between the original player and the substituted player."
My proposed penalty for subbing up or down is the same, namely a cost that is higher than your player's strength. Under your language, subbing in a weaker player incurs twice the penalty (relative to actual playing power) of subbing in a stronger player.
Anyway, under either method of penalizing, there is no reason to limit substitutes to 100 points stronger. Go ahead and sub in someone 350 points stronger; your bugdet will suffer a full two-point penalty, so even if you win the match you gain nothing, and if you chance to lose you have really shot yourself in the foot. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #52 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 2:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 1:14pm, Fritzlein wrote:| My proposed penalty for subbing up or down is the same, namely a cost that is higher than your player's strength. Under your language, subbing in a weaker player incurs twice the penalty (relative to actual playing power) of subbing in a stronger player. |
|
I agree with Fritzlein in this concern. If a 2500 player is absent and he is replaced by a 1600 player, according to the current wording this should be a 3400 "cost" against the rating budget. Ouch! The team is better off forfeiting (I assume that a forfeit would still cost 2500 in this case).
Also, I like all the new rules but I think one modification is required. The total rating budget of 34200 was determined based upon current ratings. But now that we've switched over Peak rating we'll probably need to increase the budget a bit more.
Other than that, I think everything looks great. I'm getting a lot more excited about the World League now that all the rules are nearly in place.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #53 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 4:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Excellent! I like the way you calculated the rating cap Megajester. I also agree it would be best to use peak WHR for both the rating cap calc and player cost.
Regarding substitutions, I like the idea of the bare bones penalty system. Ie. No restrictions on the sub, you just pay the appropriate penalty. That way the captain can work out their own club rules for subs.
I too am getting excited about the league start now that it's down to minor tweaking of the rules. I'm looking forward to spectating games as well as playing, and loose geographical grouping means I shouldn't have to get out of bed to spectate most of our games. I planned to watch the final games of the WC, but didn't manage to drag my butt out of bed at 5am =)
Go Ring Of Fire!!!
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Eltripas
Forum Guru
Meh-he-kah-naw
Gender:
Posts: 225
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #54 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 7:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 1:14pm, Fritzlein wrote:
"The cost is the rating of the substituted player plus the difference in rating between the original player and the substituted player."
|
|
Isn't this just the rating of the original player?
x+(y-x)=y
Or I'm misunderstanding something?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #55 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 8:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 7:03pm, Eltripas wrote:
Isn't this just the rating of the original player?
x+(y-x)=y
Or I'm misunderstanding something?
|
|
I think you're misunderstanding "substituted player". It's more like:
y+(y-x)
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #56 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 8:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
No wait, I should say:
cost = y+|y-x|
Where y is the replacement player, and x is the original player. But somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #57 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 10:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If the simplified explanation is confusing people, we could always revert to the original explanation:
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.
Yes, this explanation has two cases instead of one, but the extra verbiage might be justified by folks understanding it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
amalgam
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #3973
Gender:
Posts: 14
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #58 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 10:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm not quite sure how to express this algebraically, but perhaps it could be something like this:
Let x = original player
Let y = substituted player.
If my original 1600 player doesn't come, and I substitute him for a 1500 player, I pay 1600 points. The same would apply if I substituted a 1600, 1400, or 400 rated player.
Now, if x < y, then points paid = y + (y-x).
So if my original 1600 player doesn't come, and I put in a 1700 player, I pay 1700 + (1700-1600) = 1800 points. So by substituting a player 100 points higher, I must pay 200 points more than I originally would have.
Hence, the hybrid function is:
If x >y , or x = y, points paid = x.
If x < y, points paid = y + (y-x) or 2y-x.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #59 on: Mar 27th, 2010, 11:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 27th, 2010, 2:13pm, Adanac wrote:I agree with Fritzlein in this concern. If a 2500 player is absent and he is replaced by a 1600 player, according to the current wording this should be a 3400 "cost" against the rating budget. Ouch! The team is better off forfeiting (I assume that a forfeit would still cost 2500 in this case).
|
|
Doh yeeah!  This occurred to me in bed last night, and I kicked myself to sleep... I am restoring Fritzie's original rule. I'm sorry I doubted you Fritz...
on Mar 27th, 2010, 2:13pm, Adanac wrote:Also, I like all the new rules but I think one modification is required. The total rating budget of 34200 was determined based upon current ratings. But now that we've switched over Peak rating we'll probably need to increase the budget a bit more.
|
|
Doh yeeah! This one hadn't occurred to me at all. I had assumed that since WHR ratings are based on HvH games they should be lower than gameroom ratings. Maybe but not peak WHR ratings. I'm adjusting the rules page to just state the method of calculation, and say we'll actually calculate it on April 12th.
[10 minutes later] I really shouldn't try to access the wiki using Google Chrome. It works fine in Firefox but before discovering that I reset my password, idiot...
So, when I can access the rules, the edited section will read as follows (adjusted sections underlined):
At the league start captains are given a ratings budget to last for the whole season. A captain must "pay" for each player he fields, even if he forfeits, and the "cost" of each player is that player's rating.
The total ratings budget for 2010 will be *?* (calculated as follows: *?* [average peak WHR rating of all members of all clubs as on April 12, 2010, rounded up or down to the nearest ten + 50] x 3 players per match x 6 matches).
[...]
6) The "cost" of a substituted player is paid instead of that of the original player, however this is not simply his rating. If the substitute's rating is lower than that of the original player, the cost is the original player's rating. If the substitute's rating is higher than that of the original player, the cost is the substitute's rating plus the difference between the two ratings. If a substituted player forfeits, this cost is still paid.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 27th, 2010, 11:17pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print