Author |
Topic: League Feedback (Read 36318 times) |
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender: 
Posts: 104
|
 |
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #75 on: Mar 28th, 2010, 2:37pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Mar 28th, 2010, 11:53am, Fritzlein wrote:
Exactly. If there wasn't a severe penalty for playing chessandgo, you would just use him every round and rack up an automatic three points for the win. My personal feeling is that if the budgets mean that chessandgo and I only get trotted out once or twice in the whole season for special occasions, that's fine. That would be good for the league, not bad. Let's don't raise the budgets so high they are meaningless and we land right back at the league winner being the team that has chessandgo on it.  |
|
I like the logical way megajester used to calculate the rating cap. Using the peak WHRs with that logic should make it a fairly optimal cap.
As for possible problems with the default 1500 rating peak, we could define the peak as a maxima. Ie. the peak has to be at the end of an upward trend, otherwise use current WHR. So if someone hasn't won a game in their history, their current rating is used.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
azgreg
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4723
Gender:
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #76 on: Mar 28th, 2010, 2:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| and we land right back at the league winner being the team that has chessandgo on it |
|
But that's my goal, right? 
Seriously, though, I see your point. Ultimately, we want to get lots of different players into the league games, not just the top-rated ones, and make more fun for everyone. The +150 (2000 avg) seems to be a good number to use.
Man, I'm ready to start playing right now! This will be fun!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
novacat
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #751
Gender:
Posts: 119
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #77 on: Mar 28th, 2010, 8:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 28th, 2010, 6:14am, Adanac wrote:
Oh well, it shouldn't be too bad because everyone in the League currently has a rating above 1500. |
|
We actually do have a member that is below 1500, however I expect their rating will grow as they only have a record of one game.
On a separate note, I wanted to mention for anyone that didn't see megajester's video that losing on time is considered a forfeit. I don't have a problem with this but wanted to let others know as I could not find it specifically mentioned elsewhere, and it is (as far as I know) a change from the norm.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #78 on: Mar 28th, 2010, 9:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 28th, 2010, 2:22pm, knarl wrote:
I still don't quite see the need for this step, because if a substitution can only happen after 15mins of game time, the original player always has the option to play. He just has to make sure he's there on time (which is the case anyway).
|
|
Erm, I think the rules have been misunderstood. The sections "Substitutions" and "Player Absence" represent two separate scenarios. The "Substitutions" section is for when a player knows in advance he won't be able to make it. He lets the team know, and the captain has the opportunity to make a reasoned decision. From that point onwards, as LC, I accept that substitute as the official player. If nobody shows up on the day, I charge the forfeit to the substitute, not the original player. The "Player Absence" section is so that, if when the time comes the player doesn't show up and somebody happens to be around, that person can step in and prevent an outright forfeit.
on Mar 28th, 2010, 2:37pm, knarl wrote:
As for possible problems with the default 1500 rating peak, we could define the peak as a maxima. Ie. the peak has to be at the end of an upward trend, otherwise use current WHR. So if someone hasn't won a game in their history, their current rating is used. |
|
I think this will be very difficult to implement, since it might be difficult to make a graph to work out whether somebody who's dipped below 1500 has had an increase in ratings at some point. (Example: Player A played 5 games. If graph shows 1500, 1485, 1450, 1405, 1398 it means he is dropping like a stone, has had no maxima, and should be rated 1398. If the graph shows 1500, 1485, 1405, 1450, 1398 then there was a spike to 1450 and that is the player's maxima. We can't know that without the graph and I don't know how practical it is to produce one.) I reckon benchmark 1500 should be fine.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #79 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 2:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 28th, 2010, 8:15pm, novacat wrote:
On a separate note, I wanted to mention for anyone that didn't see megajester's video that losing on time is considered a forfeit. |
|
Quite right, sorry! I will be adding this to the rules as well ASAP.
(Where is my password reset token )
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #80 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 2:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
Oh right, so it doesn't reset your password it just send you a reminder... Gaah!
Anyway at long last I am proud to announce the latest draft of the rules: League Rules v2010.03.29
Of course official rules are a bit clunky, and it's only the captains really who have to know it all off by heart. So I would like to make a nice straightforward "how-to" video just so everybody's clear. For that reason I would like to have a final draft by Monday next week, April 5th.
Thanks very much for all of your comments and suggestions, I'm sorry we haven't been able to include everybody's ideas. I think we've ironed out all the major creases, but if there's still anything outstanding that you feel could be a serious problem, please do mention it before Monday. Thank you all again.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
azgreg
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4723
Gender:
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #81 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 10:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
This is very nitpicky, but worth defining. We're losing 1 league point for every 350 overspent on our budget, and I assume that means we lose the point by overspending by 1-350 points. If we go over by 351-750, we'll lose 2 league points, and so on.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #82 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 12:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2010, 10:08am, azgreg wrote:| This is very nitpicky, but worth defining. We're losing 1 league point for every 350 overspent on our budget, and I assume that means we lose the point by overspending by 1-350 points. If we go over by 351-750, we'll lose 2 league points, and so on. |
|
Ah now there you see, I had assumed the opposite, ie. 0+ loses you 0 points, 350+ loses you 1 point, 700+ loses you 2 points etc. I'm sure we'd all agree that it would be going overboard to penalize a team a whole point for exceeding their budget by 5 points or something...
I have adjusted the rules to read that we penalize by 1 league point for every 350th ratings point by which teams overspend.
League Rules v2010.03.29a
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
azgreg
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4723
Gender:
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #83 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 2:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Hey, why not? We penalize players by making them lose the whole game for going over on time by 1 second!
But seriously, that's great. Thanks!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #84 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 2:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
*Groan*
We were talking about having a simplified 200-point substitute penalty weren't we?
Guess what. Another draft! v2010.03.29c
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 29th, 2010, 2:34pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #85 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 3:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2010, 12:39pm, megajester wrote:
Ah now there you see, I had assumed the opposite, ie. 0+ loses you 0 points, 350+ loses you 1 point, 700+ loses you 2 points etc. I'm sure we'd all agree that it would be going overboard to penalize a team a whole point for exceeding their budget by 5 points or something...
I have adjusted the rules to read that we penalize by 1 league point for every 350th ratings point by which teams overspend.
League Rules v2010.03.29a |
|
In reality that just means the budgets are 350 points higher. I think the first penalty should kick in as soon as you go over budget, otherwise, for the final games captains can intentionally go over budget by less than 350 knowing they won't get penalised.
Regarding the 1500 default rating. Woh tells me in the other forum, that WHRs update previous ratings, so people's first rating should be meaningful. So that's solved.
Since we're on the budget subject; I wasn't going to mention it, but I think the +150 in the budget calculation is arbitrary, and shouldn't be there. I think it spoils a logical calculation, the peak WHRs should make an appropriate budget without throwing in extra numbers, but it's not a big deal.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #86 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 3:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I just remembered that megajester explained the +50 (now +150) in the rating cap calculation as correcting for increased average ratings throught the season. Maybe instead of guessing the number, there's a way of predicting the increase using the WHRs, or we could actually update the budget after each round (obviously only if the average rating increases, not decreases).
But like I said before. It's no big deal. I'm probably being way too picky =)
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #87 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2010, 3:45pm, knarl wrote:Since we're on the budget subject; I wasn't going to mention it, but I think the +150 in the budget calculation is arbitrary, and shouldn't be there. I think it spoils a logical calculation, the peak WHRs should make an appropriate budget without throwing in extra numbers, but it's not a big deal.
Cheers,
knarl. |
|
I think the +150 serves a few useful functions:
1. Peak rating will be higher than current rating for most players, so we need a buffer.
2. We need another buffer to account for rating improvements during the next 3 months, especially for the newer players on the upswing.
3. Using the average rating for the entire league as the benchmark without a +150 adjustment would make it virtually impossible for some of the stronger players to participate. For example, Chessandgo probably would never get a chance to play even one game if we didn't add that adjustment factor in, because of his high rating and because his strong teammates will also be using up a lot of the budget.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:03pm by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #88 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:07pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:01pm, Adanac wrote:
I think the +150 serves a few useful functions:
1. Peak rating will be higher than current rating for most players, so we need a buffer.
2. We need another buffer to account for rating improvements during the next 3 months, especially for the newer players on the upswing.
3. Using the average rating for the entire league as the benchmark without a +150 adjustment would make it virtually impossible for some of the stronger players to participate. For example, Chessandgo probably would never get a chance to play even one game if we didn't add that adjustment factor in, because of his high rating and because his strong teammates will also be using up a lot of the budget.
|
|
Oh, I just re-read the latest draft of the League Rules and it appears that we're adding 150 points to the average peak rating. If we're adding this amount to the peak rating then I'd prefer only a +100 adjustment. Otherwise the rating cap will be so high that it will start to lose some of its usefulness.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
knarl
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1648
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #89 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:01pm, Adanac wrote:
I think the +150 serves a few useful functions:
1. Peak rating will be higher than current rating for most players, so we need a buffer.
|
|
I assumed the peak ratings would be used in the calculation?
Quote:
2. We need another buffer to account for rating improvements during the next 3 months, especially for the newer players on the upswing.
|
|
Yeah, remembered that after posting, oops.
Quote:
3. Using the average rating for the entire league as the benchmark without a +150 adjustment would make it virtually impossible for some of the stronger players to participate. For example, Chessandgo probably would never get a chance to play even one game if we didn't add that adjustment factor in, because of his high rating and because his strong teammates will also be using up a lot of the budget.
|
|
Point taken. Maybe it would actually be higher than 150 that we need to add if we had some systematic way of estimating this parameter.
Cheers,
knarl.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print