Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Mar 29th, 2024, 9:40am

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 ... 5 6 7 8 9  ...  13 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: League Feedback  (Read 34702 times)
knarl
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #1648

   


Gender: male
Posts: 104
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #90 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:17pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:07pm, Adanac wrote:

 
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.

 
I wonder how much higher peak rating will be than current rating anyway. We'll have to wait and find out I suppose. Maybe it will result in a generous budget anyway.
 
Cheers,
knarl.
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #91 on: Mar 29th, 2010, 9:35pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:07pm, Adanac wrote:

 
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.

Well, we must be doing something right if we're down to arguing over 50 ratings points! Smiley
 
Even if you could work out by how much somebody's WHR increases over a 3 month period, it wouldn't be valid because the League will probably bump up the rate at which everybody plays HvH games while increasing their level of concentration. A semi-regular player in the League should come out of it a better Arimaa player. At this stage in the game, I think we need a bit more of a consensus that 150 is too high before we change the rules.
 
On a similar note, what does everybody think about the overspending penalty? The reason I made it that way is that, especially because this is a small League and will therefore be a short League, 1 point can and probably will make all the difference. It has in pretty much every simulation I've run of the League so far. This is why I want to be lenient on very slight overspends. But if everybody feels it just amounts to an extra 349 points, fair enough.
IP Logged

Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #92 on: Mar 30th, 2010, 6:10am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 29th, 2010, 9:35pm, megajester wrote:
At this stage in the game, I think we need a bit more of a consensus that 150 is too high before we change the rules.

150 is too high.  Wink  
 
Having a high budget reduces the flexibility of the captains.  The higher the budget, the more the proper strategy is just "field your strongest available players".  You don't have the flexibility to not field them.  With a budget that is only slightly above league average rating, there is substantial room for strategy.  The team that has a greater number of willing players has more strategic options, and thus has an advantage towards getting favorable pairings.  With a budget that is relatively tight, the league winner will very likely be the most enthusiastic team (i.e. no forfeits, many different players available every week).
 
That said, I agree that we're getting pretty close when we're arguing about 50 points per game in the budget.  Smiley
 
Quote:
On a similar note, what does everybody think about the overspending penalty?

Your argument about going over budget by 1 rating point doesn't hold water, because no matter where you draw the line it is true.  If you allow a little overspending, it is like having a slightly higher budget, which is what I am advocating against above.  For my intuition, it should work like azgreg guessed it would work:
 
over budget 1 to 350 rating points = -1 League point  
over budget 351 to 700 rating points = -2 League points  
etc.
 
On further reflection, though, I think it would be a refinement to deduct partial points for overspending.  This would break a tie between two teams that had equal League points but overspent by different amounts.  Say that each team finishes with 42 points, but one team was over budget by 3 rating points and the other over budget by 177 rating points, the final score would be 41.991 to 41.494.  That makes more sense to me than a tie.
 
« Last Edit: Mar 30th, 2010, 6:23am by Fritzlein » IP Logged

Adanac
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #892

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 635
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #93 on: Mar 30th, 2010, 6:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:10am, Fritzlein wrote:

150 is too high.  Wink  
 
Having a high budget reduces the flexibility of the captains.  The higher the budget, the more the proper strategy is just "field your strongest available players".  You don't have the flexibility to not field them.  With a budget that is only slightly above league average rating, there is substantial room for strategy.  The team that has a greater number of willing players has more strategic options, and thus has an advantage towards getting favorable pairings.  With a budget that is relatively tight, the league winner will very likely be the most enthusiastic team (i.e. no forfeits, many different players available every week).
 
That said, I agree that we're getting pretty close when we're arguing about 50 points per game in the budget.  Smiley
 
Your argument about going over budget by 1 rating point doesn't hold water, because no matter where you draw the line it is true.  If you allow a little overspending, it is like having a slightly higher budget, which is what I am advocating against above.  For my intuition, it should work like azgreg guessed it would work:
 
over budget 1 to 350 rating points = -1 League point  
over budget 351 to 700 rating points = -2 League points  
etc.
 
On further reflection, though, I think it would be a refinement to deduct partial points for overspending.  This would break a tie between two teams that had equal League points but overspent by different amounts.  Say that each team finishes with 42 points, but one team was over budget by 3 rating points and the other over budget by 177 rating points, the final score would be 41.991 to 41.494.  That makes more sense to me than a tie.

 
I agree with everything that Fritzlein said, but I think for simplicity we could use integer values for the standings.  Perhaps we could add a tie-breaker rule that in the event of a tie, the team that used fewer rating points during the season will win?  That would add an extra layer of strategy in the final round.
 
I also agree that setting the rating cap too high or too low reduces flexibility because it forces the captains to over-rely on the same players over and over again (either always fielding the strongest or weakest players, depending upon the cap).  There's a middle ground that maximizes the flexibility and I think that +100 is much closer to the mark than +150.  I'd be happy to try the first season at +100 and then after the season we can debate whether we need to increase/decrease the adjustment in 2011.
IP Logged


azgreg
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #4723

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 37
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #94 on: Mar 30th, 2010, 8:24am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:10am, Fritzlein wrote:

150 is too high.  Wink  
 
Having a high budget reduces the flexibility of the captains.  The higher the budget, the more the proper strategy is just "field your strongest available players".  You don't have the flexibility to not field them.  With a budget that is only slightly above league average rating, there is substantial room for strategy.  The team that has a greater number of willing players has more strategic options, and thus has an advantage towards getting favorable pairings.  With a budget that is relatively tight, the league winner will very likely be the most enthusiastic team (i.e. no forfeits, many different players available every week).
 
That said, I agree that we're getting pretty close when we're arguing about 50 points per game in the budget.  Smiley
 
Your argument about going over budget by 1 rating point doesn't hold water, because no matter where you draw the line it is true.  If you allow a little overspending, it is like having a slightly higher budget, which is what I am advocating against above.  For my intuition, it should work like azgreg guessed it would work:
 
over budget 1 to 350 rating points = -1 League point  
over budget 351 to 700 rating points = -2 League points  
etc.
 
On further reflection, though, I think it would be a refinement to deduct partial points for overspending.  This would break a tie between two teams that had equal League points but overspent by different amounts.  Say that each team finishes with 42 points, but one team was over budget by 3 rating points and the other over budget by 177 rating points, the final score would be 41.991 to 41.494.  That makes more sense to me than a tie.
 

 
I also agree with Fritzlein.  A budget of 36000 with a penalty for overspending by 351 is the same as a budget of 36350 and overspending by 1.  If our method of calculating that initial budget is sound, with enough cushion to allow for ratings growth, etc, we should be set that as an absolute maximum to be spent without penalty.  
 
My earlier post was in jest, but it's true that we impose a game-loss penalty for someone who exceeds the time control by one second, so why not start imposing penalties for exceeding the ratings budget by 1?  
 
I know I brought up the whole "increase the budget" argument because of chessandgo, but Fritz is right that the budget should be as low as we can stand.  It should cause some pain for a captain to field a 2200+ player, enough to make it a somewhat infrequent event.  That average rating we use to calculate the budget should be the average of the player we want most represented in the league.
 
Using "fewest rating points spent" as the tiebreaker adds an interesting twist to the league endgame.  Each captain will know (or suspect) going into the last round where they will stand in case of a tie and be able to plan accordingly.  It also lets the league finish after 6 rounds no matter what.
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #95 on: Mar 30th, 2010, 1:02pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:10am, Fritzlein wrote:

150 is too high.  Wink  
 
Having a high budget reduces the flexibility of the captains.  The higher the budget, the more the proper strategy is just "field your strongest available players".  You don't have the flexibility to not field them.  With a budget that is only slightly above league average rating, there is substantial room for strategy.  The team that has a greater number of willing players has more strategic options, and thus has an advantage towards getting favorable pairings.  With a budget that is relatively tight, the league winner will very likely be the most enthusiastic team (i.e. no forfeits, many different players available every week).
 
That said, I agree that we're getting pretty close when we're arguing about 50 points per game in the budget.  Smiley

I understand all this. I was just thinking that higher rated players are probably more likely to be available than weaker ones, for the simple fact that getting a high rating requires having a fair amount of time to play Arimaa whereas obviously a low rating doesn't. On that basis someone could easily have come along and said it should be higher still, so that captains don't end up in the situation of "players players everywhere and not a man to field"... this is why I wanted a consensus Wink
 
So, +100 it is then. Hell even azgreg agrees. Cheesy
 
on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:10am, Fritzlein wrote:

Your argument about going over budget by 1 rating point doesn't hold water, because no matter where you draw the line it is true.  If you allow a little overspending, it is like having a slightly higher budget, which is what I am advocating against above.  For my intuition, it should work like azgreg guessed it would work:
 
over budget 1 to 350 rating points = -1 League point  
over budget 351 to 700 rating points = -2 League points  
etc.

Yeah that was silly of me. Right again, azgreg.
 
on Mar 30th, 2010, 6:36am, Adanac wrote:

 
I agree with everything that Fritzlein said, but I think for simplicity we could use integer values for the standings.  Perhaps we could add a tie-breaker rule that in the event of a tie, the team that used fewer rating points during the season will win?  That would add an extra layer of strategy in the final round.

Maybe it's just because they don't do this in football leagues, but having fractions of a point just sounds weird to me. We can however say that teams are ranked first by league points, and then by ratings budget remaining, just as Adanac suggested.
 
I have incorporated all of the above, plus a slight clarification in the preamble to the substitutions steps, in League Rules v2010.03.30.
IP Logged

Eltripas
Forum Guru
*****




Meh-he-kah-naw

   


Gender: male
Posts: 225
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #96 on: Mar 31st, 2010, 10:00am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

What do you guys think about having a blitz round in the league?
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #97 on: Mar 31st, 2010, 12:38pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 31st, 2010, 10:00am, Eltripas wrote:
What do you guys think about having a blitz round in the league?

This is me reading your post...

HUH...??
 
Only joking. I was just itching to use that graphic Smiley
 
But seriously, why not? Well, you could think of the League as being a kind of "deal". Everybody plays a maximum of one scheduled game every two weeks at a time that suits them. That's what everybody's signed up for and that's what the teams have been gearing themselves towards for a long time now. If I've understood correctly, you're talking about the kind of blitz tourneys we had last year, which are a completely different kettle of fish; they require that EVERYBODY, from all manner of time zones, be online at the same time. I suppose there's no reason that players from the different teams shouldn't get together and organize something. But what with all the hassle it's been drawing up fair and consistent rules for the League (a bunch of carefully phrased bullet points that would barely fill an A4 bit of paper) I don't think it would work as part of the "Arimaa World League." At least not this year.
 
But to be fair, being co-ordinator makes me more hesitant than usual about new ideas, simply because I'm the muggins who's gonna have to make it happen Smiley If you have some specific ideas of how we could make blitz rounds work as part of the World League, please do share them. But if you haven't got something clear in mind I really don't think we should be going new places in this thread, especially not before Monday. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great people are thinking about other stuff we could do with the league-slash-clubs concept. I have a couple of ideas as well, perhaps I should open a new thread. What do you think?
IP Logged

novacat
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #751

   


Gender: male
Posts: 119
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #98 on: Mar 31st, 2010, 12:59pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 31st, 2010, 10:00am, Eltripas wrote:
What do you guys think about having a blitz round in the league?

 
No thanks! I can't play that fast (took me 49 tries to beat bomb2005Blitz).  If you want to do team blitz tournaments, you can set up a separate event and invite the league teams to make a roster for it.
IP Logged

nycavri
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #2416

   


Gender: male
Posts: 44
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #99 on: Mar 31st, 2010, 2:36pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Yeah, I didn't sign up for blitz.  I'm mediocre enough with time to think . . .
IP Logged
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #100 on: Apr 1st, 2010, 12:13pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Oops! I owe Eltripas an apology. It turns out he was only talking about time controls...
 
(Which reminds me that we haven't specified that yet in the rules. I've amended it to specify the same time controls as in the WC, which are the same controls we had in the 2009 Friendly Round. League Rules v2010.04.01)
 
I think it's better to have consistent time controls throughout the League. Maybe we can do something with blitz as a separate event, I don't know...
IP Logged

knarl
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #1648

   


Gender: male
Posts: 104
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #101 on: Apr 1st, 2010, 12:39pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Where did I get the idea it was going to be 60sec time controls? Could have sworn I read it or saw it in the intro vid. Better remember to change my scheduled times.
 
knarl
IP Logged
Adanac
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #892

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 635
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #102 on: Apr 1st, 2010, 12:55pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Apr 1st, 2010, 12:39pm, knarl wrote:
Where did I get the idea it was going to be 60sec time controls? Could have sworn I read it or saw it in the intro vid. Better remember to change my scheduled times.
 
knarl

 
According to the league rules it is 60 seconds per move.  I'd recommend not changing your scheduled times  Wink
IP Logged


Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #103 on: Apr 1st, 2010, 3:08pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Mar 29th, 2010, 4:17pm, knarl wrote:
I wonder how much higher peak rating will be than current rating anyway.

Turns out that most people are at or very near their peak rating, which makes sense considering that almost everyone who is playing is improving.  Also it apparently takes a substantial game history to get rooted enough at a given rating so that a change can be registered.
 
Anyway, looks like the budget using peak WHR will not be far from the budget calculated using current WHR.
IP Logged

megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****




Istanbul, Turkey

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 710
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #104 on: Apr 1st, 2010, 11:44pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Apr 1st, 2010, 3:08pm, Fritzlein wrote:

Turns out that most people are at or very near their peak rating, which makes sense considering that almost everyone who is playing is improving.  Also it apparently takes a substantial game history to get rooted enough at a given rating so that a change can be registered.
 
Anyway, looks like the budget using peak WHR will not be far from the budget calculated using current WHR.

I think using peak WHR as opposed to current will provide that much more of a safeguard against sandbagging.
IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  ...  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.