Author |
Topic: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage) (Read 20026 times) |
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender: 
Posts: 883
|
 |
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #150 on: Aug 26th, 2011, 9:01am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Aug 26th, 2011, 8:19am, megajester wrote:I apologize for the inconvenience to you of having to propose and debate this rule, and my delay in getting back to you. Not including this provision in this season's rules was an oversight.
If I have understood the proposal(s) correctly, they would be covered by the following rule changes (deletions struck through, additions underlined):
8.2.2 Volunteers rated no more than 100 points higher than the original player may put their name forward in the chatroom to play at the same time slot as the scheduled game. No player may serve as a substitute who was on the original roster or has already served as a substitute in the current round.
8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substituted player's rating is higher, the substituted player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substituted player forfeits.
Along with a provision from last season:
6.3.3 Managers 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 only applies to the initial roster submitted; if a substitution causes this limit to be exceeded no penalty shall be applied.
I propose that these changes take immediate effect and be applied retroactively. If accepted, Europa's budget balance will be corrected by -340 points. |
|
I was substituted down, so budget spent in planning phase should be equal to budget used after the substitution.
There was someone recalculating budget according Heyckies rating meanwhile?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #151 on: Aug 26th, 2011, 9:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yes, because according to the old rules the substituted player's rating was deducted instead of the original player's rating. According to the proposed rules, you being the original player and more highly rated, your rating should have been used instead of his. The difference is 340.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #152 on: Aug 27th, 2011, 8:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
A few comments on your proposed changes:
on Aug 26th, 2011, 8:19am, megajester wrote:8.2.2 Volunteers rated no more than 100 points higher than the original player may put their name forward in the chatroom to play at the same time slot as the scheduled game. No player may serve as a substitute who was on the original roster or has already served as a substitute in the current round. |
|
This should also apply with the other kind of substitution at 8.1.2, but rather than to maintain duplicate text all the time, it would be better to take any commonality and consolidate them under a general substitution section. Right now, 8.3 is fulfilling that role, but rather than end the substitution chapter with these general provisos, it should begin with them.
Quote:8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substituted player's rating is higher, the substituted player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substituted player forfeits.
|
|
My inner pedant would like to point out that the special case of an equal rating remains unaddressed. I also realize that any mention of "substituted player" is actually ambiguous.
Quote:| 6.3.3 Managers 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 only applies to the initial roster submitted; if a substitution causes this limit to be exceeded no penalty shall be applied. |
|
Although I can understand that it would be too harsh for virtual ratings arising from upwards substitutions to determine league point penalties, this does open an avenue for manipulation involving substituting upwards to bypass the per-round expenditure limit. Using the earlier-mentioned higher of the two ratings here would fix that, although, admittedly, it would make things more complicated.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Boo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6466
Gender:
Posts: 118
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #153 on: Aug 28th, 2011, 1:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think megajester should add links to official tournament rules and results to his signature. Would be a lot easier to find.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #154 on: Aug 28th, 2011, 2:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Wish granted. Lookyyy!
|
|
V
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #155 on: Aug 28th, 2011, 2:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 27th, 2011, 8:06am, aaaa wrote:A few comments on your proposed changes:
This should also apply with the other kind of substitution at 8.1.2, but rather than to maintain duplicate text all the time, it would be better to take any commonality and consolidate them under a general substitution section. Right now, 8.3 is fulfilling that role, but rather than end the substitution chapter with these general provisos, it should begin with them.
My inner pedant would like to point out that the special case of an equal rating remains unaddressed. I also realize that any mention of "substituted player" is actually ambiguous.
Although I can understand that it would be too harsh for virtual ratings arising from upwards substitutions to determine league point penalties, this does open an avenue for manipulation involving substituting upwards to bypass the per-round expenditure limit. Using the earlier-mentioned higher of the two ratings here would fix that, although, admittedly, it would make things more complicated. |
|
Thank you aaaa. Razor-sharp as always.
I hear you about the duplicate text, but I'd rather leave that sort of redraft to the next season.
I am adjusting 8.3 to take your points into account.
I see where you're coming from with 6.3.3. This provision was there in the last league, and the rationale behind it is it means the manager can make dead certain his team won't go overbudget. Otherwise it would be possible for a teammate to substitute on the spur of the moment and put the team overbudget without realizing it. And it keeps things simple, as you say.
Current draft:
8.1.2 Volunteers rated no more than 100 points higher than the original player may put their name forward in the chatroom to play at the same time slot as the scheduled game. No player may serve as a substitute who was on the original roster or has already served as a substitute in the current round.
8.2.2 Volunteers rated no more than 100 points higher than the original player may put their name forward in the chatroom to play at the same time slot as the scheduled game. No player may serve as a substitute who was on the original roster or has already served as a substitute in the current round.
8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher or if both players' ratings are the same, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substitute player's rating is higher, the substitute player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substitute player forfeits.
6.3.3 Managers 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 only applies to the initial roster submitted; if a substitution causes this limit to be exceeded no penalty shall be applied.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 28th, 2011, 2:35pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #156 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 12:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
What about ... substituted player rating plus absolute value of difference of rosted and substituted player.
... I don't like cases at all. I like that for the middle case both branches gave the same result, but I don't like mentioning all the three cases. Mentioning one of them and using otherwise sounds better to me.
It's just an idea, feel free to ignore it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #157 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 6:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 29th, 2011, 12:25am, Hippo wrote:What about ... substituted player rating plus absolute value of difference of rosted and substituted player.
... I don't like cases at all. I like that for the middle case both branches gave the same result, but I don't like mentioning all the three cases. Mentioning one of them and using otherwise sounds better to me.
It's just an idea, feel free to ignore it. |
|
I think it's better to leave aesthetic things for the next season.
What does the committee think about Hippo's idea of adding the whole difference between the ratings and not just half?
My personal opinion is that when changing rules mid-season it's more important that our solutions are workable than perfect. Perfection is something to strive for between seasons. As I understand it most are reasonably happy with the proposal as it is. If aaaa, Eltripas, Fritzlein and woh signal their approval in this thread I can put the change into effect.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #158 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 7:12am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 29th, 2011, 6:07am, megajester wrote:
What does the committee think about Hippo's idea of adding the whole difference between the ratings and not just half? |
|
If I read correctly, Hippo is not proposing a change of substance, he is merely using the absolute value function to state the same rule more simply. Mathematicians are always interested in stating things in the most compact way possible. They like to use half as many words even if it takes just as long (or longer) to understand it. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #159 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 7:27am » |
Quote Modify
|
Oh of course, the current proposal is already to add 100% of the difference... never mind me...
OK, can we vote on this?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #160 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 10:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
I approve of the proposal described five posts ago, as well as it being applied retroactively.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #161 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 2:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 29th, 2011, 7:12am, Fritzlein wrote:
If I read correctly, Hippo is not proposing a change of substance, he is merely using the absolute value function to state the same rule more simply. Mathematicians are always interested in stating things in the most compact way possible. They like to use half as many words even if it takes just as long (or longer) to understand it. |
|
Yes, mathematican would write rs+|rs-rr| not to use words at all. And he would somehow expect it is readable for other humans as well.
But what is surprising, from my formula megajester deduced all 100% penalty is to be applied ... and just after a while he finds it was on original rules as well.
So may be it is more readable at the end  .
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 29th, 2011, 2:36pm by Hippo » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
woh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2128
Gender:
Posts: 254
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #162 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 3:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 29th, 2011, 10:02am, aaaa wrote:| I approve of the proposal described five posts ago, as well as it being applied retroactively. |
|
I second this.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Eltripas
Forum Guru
Meh-he-kah-naw
Gender:
Posts: 225
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #163 on: Aug 29th, 2011, 8:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 29th, 2011, 7:27am, megajester wrote:Oh of course, the current proposal is already to add 100% of the difference... never mind me...
OK, can we vote on this? |
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Boo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #6466
Gender:
Posts: 118
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #164 on: Aug 30th, 2011, 2:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
After joining a team I noticed that Europe is the most numerous one. I think it might be because Atlantics and Europa correspond to a geographical region and other two (Ring of Fire and Rockies) do not. I think all teams should have the same number of members (+/- 1). Having the same number of people in a team would allow to organize matches with 4 boards, not 3.
I think the league regulations should at least say something about conditions that should be met if new team wants to join the league. (Is it geographically based or not?)
P.S. If other teams have difficulties gathering 3 people, I can join some other team.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print