Author |
Topic: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage) (Read 20003 times) |
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender: 
Posts: 553
|
 |
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #45 on: Jun 22nd, 2011, 6:11am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
On the point system:
What was used last year?
First off, I really like that the partial points for losing on time and through play vs forfeiting. That might give extra incentive to show up and play the game to conclusion. However, the amount of points given is slightly too low when compared to wins. Also spread out the range a bit. I don't think you should get fewer points until the game goes over 60 moves. The average length among human games is 45 if I had to guess.
I would recommend:
Win before move 30
6 points
Win by forfeit or move 30-60
5 points
Win on or after move 60
4 points
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #46 on: Jun 22nd, 2011, 8:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
The points system before was simply 3 for a win, 1 for a loss and 0 for a forfeit ( = losing in any way other than losing in the actual game).
In a way, my latest proposal is like saying that a loss because of time should be 0.5 points and not 0, and that there should be a three-tiered points system for winning: 2.5, 3, and 3.5. And then I'm just multiplying everything by two so we don't have half-points.
I don't think we should reduce the difference in points reward between winning and losing. Let's not forget, we're rewarding losses not draws. Although there is a good rationale for it, namely giving people an incentive to keep fighting in an apparently lost position, losing should usually mean losing. Nul points. In a points system where just losing can win you a whole 2 points, wins should be rewarded all the more to compensate. IMO.
As for the move numbers, I'd like to hear what other members of the community think as well. I'm sure we'll find a happy medium.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 23rd, 2011, 12:35am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender:
Posts: 292
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #47 on: Jun 23rd, 2011, 3:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I don't like awarding points based on how long the game takes. Some people fight to the end, others make a hopeless reckless attack, some resign, etc. It seems the length of game depends strongly on: a. the difference in skill between the opponents, b. playing style, and c. "loosing" style.
I'm not sure any of these things are good to award points for.
Besides pushing for a faster paced, high scoring game for the spectators to watch, is there another reason for basing points on the number of moves?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #48 on: Jun 23rd, 2011, 4:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
My position has been clear on this: I don't want to see the primary score be affected by the length of games; it should only be determined by whether a game was won, lost over the board in any way, or forfeited. In order to mildly discourage timeouts and resignations and encourage drawing out lost games, I've already proposed cumulative move difference (cf. goal difference) as the first tiebreaker. To really squeeze out the toothpaste here, it could even be half-moves, so that Gold, when losing, would still be better off letting Silver make the winning move.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Eltripas
Forum Guru
Meh-he-kah-naw
Gender:
Posts: 225
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #49 on: Jun 23rd, 2011, 5:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
At first I didn't want the score to be affected by the length of the games, but thinking about it I realized that it will encourage the players to fight to the end, plus it can make the things really interesting in the last round if winning margin is small between the leading teams, also if a player makes a big blunder he is not hopeless anymore, he now can change his goal to be resist long enough to prevent the other player from taking more points.
I would recommend:
Win before move 25
6 points
Win by forfeit or move 25-50
5 points
Win on or after move 50
4 points
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #50 on: Jun 23rd, 2011, 6:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The idea of points based on game length seems like a bad idea. It penalizes sharper, more aggressive play on the part of the losing player. As you said, if a player makes a blunder, their goal becomes to turtle, to me, the more exciting response to a blunder is a flurry of aggression that dangerously sharpens a position and can lead to major material gains or losses, or even a quick goal. Why should we reward that response less when it is more exciting both for the players and for the spectators?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ocmiente
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #3996
Gender:
Posts: 194
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #51 on: Jun 24th, 2011, 11:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
The penalty for losing by timing out was too high. I would prefer that the score for a loss is the same as the score for timing out.
I don't have any preference either way with respect to resignations - but I don't think there should be any difference for that either. Resigning by pressing the 'R' button, rather than killing one's own pieces, or pushing/pulling the opponent's rabbit to goal is not really much different except for the time it takes. Even top players seem to let the game terminate early rather than fighting to the brutal end when the game seems clearly lost, so why penalize a team for someone pushing a button?
The timeout issue was brought up at the end of the previous season.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #52 on: Jun 24th, 2011, 11:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the link, Ocmiente.
I agree with Nombril's suggestions - put resignations and time-outs in the 1 point category and only award no points for no-show forfeits.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #53 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 11:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 23rd, 2011, 6:01pm, Sconibulus wrote:| The idea of points based on game length seems like a bad idea. It penalizes sharper, more aggressive play on the part of the losing player. As you said, if a player makes a blunder, their goal becomes to turtle, to me, the more exciting response to a blunder is a flurry of aggression that dangerously sharpens a position and can lead to major material gains or losses, or even a quick goal. Why should we reward that response less when it is more exciting both for the players and for the spectators? |
|
I take your point.
on Jun 23rd, 2011, 4:19pm, aaaa wrote:| My position has been clear on this: I don't want to see the primary score be affected by the length of games; it should only be determined by whether a game was won, lost over the board in any way, or forfeited. In order to mildly discourage timeouts and resignations and encourage drawing out lost games, I've already proposed cumulative move difference (cf. goal difference) as the first tiebreaker. To really squeeze out the toothpaste here, it could even be half-moves, so that Gold, when losing, would still be better off letting Silver make the winning move. |
|
Sorry aaaa, would you mind explaining again what you mean by "cumulative move difference"?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #54 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 2:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I mean sum of lengths of all lost games minus sum of lengths of all won games (where I now propose length is measured in half-moves); the higher this number, the better. Even if timeouts and resignations end up not being penalized as much as forfeits, I would still not like to see them be so influential such that they affect the main score.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #55 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 2:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I see, so if move numbers are going to be taken into account, you want it done as a tiebreaking measure...
But surely under that system if all teams have won exactly the same number of games, the ones that drew out the losses and won quickly rank higher than teams that lost games quickly and won only after long drawn-out games. Which theoretically would still discourage losing players from trying crazy stunts to try to get back in the game...
Actually, I'm not convinced that the points system such as what I proposed earlier really does discourage sharp play from a losing player. It doesn't penalize the loser for a quick loss, it rewards the winner for a quick win. There is a difference.
If I'm losing, I don't gain more points simply because I draw the game out. Whether I lose on move 10 or move 100, I get 2 points. Only if my position is utterly completely beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt lost might I have the motivation to draw it out as long as possible just to spite my opponent. But if the position's that far gone, chances are it's out of my hands anyway.
In a position where I'm in a two-dogs-down kind of lost position, I might still have some chances. I'm gonna get 2 points anyway, so I've got nothing to lose. My choice is between waiting around to be crushed, or taking my chances to try for 5, 6, or more points. And the longer I leave it to take those chances the greater the likelihood of them slipping away. My guess is that these factors will weigh much, much more on a player's mind than making sure his opponent gets 5 points instead of 6, or whatever.
Edit: Just to answer an earlier question from Nombril, the reason why I feel a need to spice up the points system is because when you have a game with only two possible outcomes (win or loss, no draw), four teams in a round robin tournament is a perfect recipe for a dead draw. I just feel like slapping a tiebreaking scheme on to that dead draw won't be quite as exciting as adding some colour to the points system itself. And I think it should be more about rewarding skillful wins, instead of punishing players who don't turn up.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2011, 2:54pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #56 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 2:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Opponent gain is equivalent to player loss, in every situation except when the opponent's team is mathematically removed from contention. There is no value to a point except that it makes you closer to having more points than your opponent, so the only thing you're playing for (in the league, as opposed to a regular game) is to maximize the net difference between your score and your opponent's, thereby earning your team a better chance to win.
I don't really have a problem with aaaa's idea, because tiebreakers are rather unlikely to make a difference, so players won't be as intent on maximizing them, although possibly after rating cap remaining.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #57 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 3:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2011, 2:53pm, Sconibulus wrote:| Opponent gain is equivalent to player loss, in every situation except when the opponent's team is mathematically removed from contention. There is no value to a point except that it makes you closer to having more points than your opponent, so the only thing you're playing for (in the league, as opposed to a regular game) is to maximize the net difference between your score and your opponent's, thereby earning your team a better chance to win. |
|
Surely being in a league changes everything. In a regular game +1 for my opponent means -1 for me, but in a league game +1 for my opponent means -1 for me divided by the number of rival teams.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2011, 3:04pm by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #58 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 3:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Why is it divided by the number of rival teams? Your opponent is still that much ahead of you, and if they're ahead of you, then you're that much further away from winning the league. The only time it doesn't break this way is when someone is back far enough that they're not in contention, or wouldn't be in the event of a loss. (not necessarily mathematical, I overstated the case earlier, psychological is quite sufficient.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #59 on: Jun 29th, 2011, 4:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 29th, 2011, 3:45pm, Sconibulus wrote:| Why is it divided by the number of rival teams? |
|
Imagine I take a gamble seven times over the course of the season. The first six times I fail (twice to each opposing team), giving +1 to the opponent and -0 to me. The seventh time I succeed, meaning -3 to the opponent and +3 to me. If you add it up carelessly, you could say that compared to baseline I have given away net three points and gained net three points, for no net benefit. But taking it team by team we see:
My team vs Team A: +3 vs. -1
My team vs Team B: +3 vs. +2
My team vs Team C: +3 vs. +2
It doesn't net out to zero: My team has gained on all of the other teams!
on Jun 29th, 2011, 3:03pm, megajester wrote:| Surely being in a league changes everything. |
|
No, it doesn't change everything. It just means that the reward for prolonging a loss is less than it first appears, so relatively speaking a desperate attempt at a comeback it still fairly worthwhile. This won't please a purist because it still means that sometimes it will be correct to trade away a small chance of winning for zero chance of winning but a large chance of drawing out the game. It's a question of degree, but the objection remains in principle: you have de-emphasized winning by adding the objective of prolonging the game.
I can see both sides. I generally don't like resignations, whether by timeout, not trying, intentionally bad moves, or clicking the resign button. Changing the scoring system brings the various types of resignation closer to par with each other. On the other hand, there are rare cases where I feel resignation is appropriate, so that I wouldn't always want to reward prolonging the game, but I would always want to reward winning. Also I am not sure that a slow, steady control win should count for less than a wild, bloody, attacking win.
I don't really care about this issue as much as I care about the budget mechanisms, so I'll go with whatever the consensus is.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2011, 4:59pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print