Author |
Topic: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage) (Read 20004 times) |
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
 |
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #105 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 1:26pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jul 25th, 2011, 12:50am, megajester wrote:| But if you don't do it by averages then a tie between two teams where one team has x wins, y losses and 0 forfeits, and the other has one more win and two more forfeits, the tiebreaker is going to be more about how many games were actually played than how long those games lasted. |
|
One could argue that that would actually be a good thing.
Quote:Point taken.
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 659 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point, with an additional point deducted for every 350th rating point. |
|
That doesn't fix the problem. I'd go with the following:
| Deviation from ideal | Penalty | | 1-350 | 0 | | 351-700 | 0 | | 701-1050 | 2 | | 1051-1400 | 3 | | etc. | etc. |
Notice the equal size of the penalty classes. One way of getting this would be:
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point plus the number of excess rating points divided by 350 rounded up.
Quote:| Firstly, I think being behind the "main score class" you would otherwise be in is penalty enough in itself. Secondly, this would also function as a "yellow card/red card" system, in that a second forfeit puts you firmly in the next class down. |
|
The penalty-card system does provide a nice analogy in the justification of 2/0/-1.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: 
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #106 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 3:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 25th, 2011, 1:26pm, aaaa wrote:
One could argue that that would actually be a good thing.
|
|
True. OK guys, forfeiting doesn't just lose you a point, it seriously dents your move difference as well. Just so everybody's clear on that.
on Jul 25th, 2011, 1:26pm, aaaa wrote:
That doesn't fix the problem. I'd go with the following:
| Deviation from ideal | Penalty | | 1-350 | 0 | | 351-700 | 0 | | 701-1050 | 2 | | 1051-1400 | 3 | | etc. | etc. |
Notice the equal size of the penalty classes. One way of getting this would be:
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point plus the number of excess rating points divided by 350 rounded up. |
|
I'd never have noticed the equal size of the penalty classes if you hadn't pointed it out, so thoughtful of you...
Now let's try to make it understandable for mere mortals such as myself.
How about this:
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point, with an additional point deducted for every 350th rating point exceeded after the 700 point mark.
Which would make for:
| Deviation from ideal | Penalty | | 1-350 | 0 | | 351-700 | 0 | | 701-1050 | 1 | | 1051-1400 | 2 |
on Jul 25th, 2011, 1:26pm, aaaa wrote:
The penalty-card system does provide a nice analogy in the justification of 2/0/-1. |
|
Why thank you.
If there's anything left to discuss can we have it now so I can draft the rules and get this party started?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #107 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 4:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Sorry, but apart from the starting penalty being lowered (against dree12's suggestion), my natural reading of the proposed text still leads to an off-by-one error compared to the table. For example, I simply interpret 1050 rating points away from the norm as being the minimum of a penalty class rather than the maximum. Using your words, better make it:
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 2 league points, with an additional point deducted for every 350th rating point exceeded beyond 701 points.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #108 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 4:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 25th, 2011, 4:17pm, aaaa wrote:Sorry, but apart from the starting penalty being lowered (against dree12's suggestion), my natural reading of the proposed text still leads to an off-by-one error compared to the table. For example, I simply interpret 1050 rating points away from the norm as being the minimum of a penalty class rather than the maximum. Using your words, better make it:
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 2 league points, with an additional point deducted for every 350th rating point exceeded beyond 701 points. |
|
700 + 350 = 1050. Exceeding that, ie. 1051 or above, loses you another point.
I had forgotten about dree12's suggestion though, you're quite right about that.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #109 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 5:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
You're just asking for trouble with that phrasing and intended interpretation, so I'm going to take another shot:
Captains may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point plus a point for every 350 rating points or part thereof in excess after the 700 point mark. This would nicely drive home the point that, apart from the starting cost, one is effectively buying a budget dispensation worth 350 rating points per league point, but the disadvantage would be that the fact that the penalty must be 2 points at minimum would be implied rather than stated explicitly.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #110 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 5:49pm » |
Quote Modify
|
OK fair enough.
I will make a draft as soon as I can and post it here. Last orders everybody, last orders. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #111 on: Jul 29th, 2011, 11:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
My latest draft of the League Rules are here:
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/League_Rules
You'll notice I've set a start date for this coming Monday, the 29th of July, as the start the first match cycle. On that day I will be posting the fixtures list and the ratings list. Captains will then be sending me rosters by the following Tuesday for games to be played that week. I'm looking forward to it!
I hope I've been able to incorporate most of the suggestions made on this thread so far. Please feel free to mention anything you feel might be a problem, but seeing as we're this far into the process I'd be very grateful if we could not "sweat the small stuff." 80/20 rule and all that.
If everybody on the Legislators Committee feels that this draft is ready, please say so on this thread, and then we're good to go!
Edit: Of course, Monday is the 1st of August. I will adjust the rules accordingly. Sorry for the mixup.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 30th, 2011, 9:04am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #112 on: Jul 29th, 2011, 5:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The rules look OK. Thanks, megajester.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #113 on: Jul 29th, 2011, 11:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I just have a few questions since I haven't played in the league before:
1) Shouldn't it state somewhere that their is a limit on to how far in the future someone could reschedule? I would think you wouldn't want to cut in to the following weeks games.
2) What happens if a player loses on time and it truly is a network issue?
3) Could the league last longer than 6 weeks? That seems like too short of a time frame. I want to play for longer...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
novacat
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #751
Gender:
Posts: 119
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #114 on: Jul 30th, 2011, 6:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 29th, 2011, 11:35pm, mistre wrote:| 3) Could the league last longer than 6 weeks? That seems like too short of a time frame. I want to play for longer... |
|
Keep in mind each match includes a week of planning and a week of playing. That puts us at the end of October with a clear winner or at the end of November if there is a 3 or 4 way tie for the lead.
That being said, many people do want to play for longer as evidenced by having two League tournaments last year.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #115 on: Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
- What are "ratings-limited tables" (6.3.1)?
- Substitutes can be rated up to 100 points higher than the original player (8.1.2 & 8.2.2), but I don't see anything about how that would affect rating expenditure and possible assorted penalties. In particular, what's stopping a team from employing a deliberate bait-and-switch strategy to get more out of their budget?
- How can an emergency substitute only become "the official player when 15 minutes have passed after the official game time" (8.2.1) and "play at the exact same time as the scheduled game" (8.2.2)? I'm guessing it should actually read "time slot" in the latter case.
- 10.4.2 could be construed as allowing a player in a playoff match to serve as a substitute who was on the original roster or has already served as a substitute.
- 10.3 omits the color selection for the final (second-round) match in both the cases of a three- and a four-way tie.
- Like I said before, a playoff match still has a theoretical chance of ending in a tie, but perhaps that's exactly the kind of stuff for section 4 to handle.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
woh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2128
Gender:
Posts: 254
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #116 on: Jul 31st, 2011, 9:50am » |
Quote Modify
|
The league rules confuse me regarding the start date.
The given date is July 29 which is a Friday. Shouldn't that be a Monday like it was in the previous edition of the WL? A Friday falls in the middle of the period where the games are scheduled.
Apart from that the rules are fine by me.
A practical question: will there be a specific page for the players to set their preferred time slots like in the previous editions?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #117 on: Aug 1st, 2011, 3:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm, aaaa wrote:- What are "ratings-limited tables" (6.3.1)?
|
|
The expression dates back to when we were discussing whether or not we should make Table 2 U-2000 and Table 3 U-1800 or some such scheme to guarantee newer players being included. In the end we opted with ratings budgets instead.
on Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm, aaaa wrote:
- Substitutes can be rated up to 100 points higher than the original player (8.1.2 & 8.2.2), but I don't see anything about how that would affect rating expenditure and possible assorted penalties. In particular, what's stopping a team from employing a deliberate bait-and-switch strategy to get more out of their budget?
|
|
Just to make absolutely clear I've made the following amendment:
"8.3 When one player substitutes for another, his rating is deducted from the team's ratings budget instead of that of the original player."
on Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm, aaaa wrote:- How can an emergency substitute only become "the official player when 15 minutes have passed after the official game time" (8.2.1) and "play at the exact same time as the scheduled game" (8.2.2)? I'm guessing it should actually read "time slot" in the latter case.
|
|
This means that if the originally rostered player turns up 14 minutes late he is still the official player, and not the person volunteering to play as substitute.
Although you're technically right that there is a seeming contradiction between 8.2.1 and 8.2.2, it wouldn't be a problem in practice. The intention is clear and if there were a dispute the Director would rule accordingly. Still, I have adjusted the rules to read "time slot" in 8.2.2.
on Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm, aaaa wrote:
- 10.4.2 could be construed as allowing a player in a playoff match to serve as a substitute who was on the original roster or has already served as a substitute.
|
|
The rule that a substitute may not be rated higher than the player rostered for the next table above removes any potential for bait-and-switch tactics.
As for the other I have added the following statement: "No player may play twice in the same playoff match."
on Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm, aaaa wrote:- 10.3 omits the color selection for the final (second-round) match in both the cases of a three- and a four-way tie.
|
|
OK I have added: "In all cases the team with the higher move difference chooses color."
on Jul 30th, 2011, 3:38pm, aaaa wrote:- Like I said before, a playoff match still has a theoretical chance of ending in a tie, but perhaps that's exactly the kind of stuff for section 4 to handle.
|
|
Seeing as each match consists of 3 games, a tie is only possible if both players manage to forfeit on the same table. With all the provisions available for substitution etc. I seriously doubt that that would happen.
However the purist in me agrees with you that this still isn't good, so I have made the following amendment:
"10.4.3 Points will be scored as normal. In the event of a tie in any playoff match, the team with the greater move difference for that match will be declared the winner."
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #118 on: Aug 1st, 2011, 3:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 29th, 2011, 11:35pm, mistre wrote:I just have a few questions since I haven't played in the league before:
1) Shouldn't it state somewhere that their is a limit on to how far in the future someone could reschedule? I would think you wouldn't want to cut in to the following weeks games.
2) What happens if a player loses on time and it truly is a network issue?
3) Could the league last longer than 6 weeks? That seems like too short of a time frame. I want to play for longer... |
|
For 1) I have added the following statement:
7.4 If a game is terminated and/or a player loses on time due to issues within arimaa.com systems, the result shall be discarded and the game rescheduled under the same procedure outlined in 7.1, for a time within 96 hours (4 days) of the originally scheduled time. If the players cannot agree to a game time within this timeframe, one or both of the players should contact the Organizer so he and the Director can agree on a solution.
For 2) I have added this statement to 7.1:
"A game must be played within 96 hours (4 days) of its originally-scheduled time."
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #119 on: Aug 1st, 2011, 3:34am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks to aaaa and mistre for their helpful pointers.
I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead with the League, even though the current draft rules are still awaiting approval from the Legislators Committee (Fritzlein and woh have given approval although I'd still like confirmation for the latest adjustments, Eltripas and aaaa have yet to make their opinion clear). I will assume the rules are more or less finalized and proceed accordingly.
So, Welcome to the 2011 Arimaa World League! It's time to visit your clubhouse and tell your manager you're available, because he has until next Tuesday to submit a roster.
I will be posting official player ratings, the fixtures list, and a link to the scheduler page by the end of the day...
Edit: Done! Click here for the 2011 AWL front page.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2011, 5:26am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print