Author |
Topic: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage) (Read 20024 times) |
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
 |
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #75 on: Jul 2nd, 2011, 10:43am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Determining how many regular losses should equal one win only makes sense if you start with a baseline of having only forfeits, and surely that can't be the idea. Rather, a forfeit should be considered a violation of the norm, which is penalized by what amounts to a (de facto) point reduction, even if it's hidden by an offset.
If rather the starting point is that one normally expects players not to forfeit their games, then, again, you merely need to answer the question how severely to punish forfeits in terms of wins, in order to determine the number of points to give for a win.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: 
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #76 on: Jul 2nd, 2011, 11:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
OK so do you actually have a proposal or are you just redefining the wheel?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #77 on: Jul 2nd, 2011, 11:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
Having a forfeit cost half a win looks about right to me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #78 on: Jul 2nd, 2011, 11:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
I see.
So to give a practical simulation, a team that wins 3 games, loses 1 and forfeits 2 should rank the same as a team that wins 1 game and loses 5? Whether you call it rewarding losses or penalizing forfeits, this is what it comes to.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 2nd, 2011, 11:49am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #79 on: Jul 2nd, 2011, 12:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 2nd, 2011, 11:47am, megajester wrote:| So to give a practical simulation, a team that wins 3 games, loses 1 and forfeits 2 should rank the same as a team that wins 1 game and loses 5? |
|
No, the former would be ahead by one net win or, equivalently, 2 points. The teams would be even if a forfeit cost a whole win.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #80 on: Jul 2nd, 2011, 12:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quite right. How foolish of me.
Still, a team with 3 wins, 1 loss and 2 forfeits would rank equally with a team with 2 wins and 4 losses. Of course this is nowhere near as preposterous a proposal as I made it appear with my earlier post. If others agree that it would be logical then we can go with it.
Just to make a comparison, if we said wins were worth 3 points instead of 2, the first team would be 1 point ahead of the second team.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #81 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 1:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
I've been mulling this all over and I think that either a 2/0/-1 or a 3/0/-1 points system (for win/loss/forfeit) is logical and will receive the most support from the community. Please feel free to chip in on which of the two you feel is better, bearing in mind mine and aaaa's recent comments.
However we still have the tiebreaking issue. I'm not convinced that tiebreaking based on move difference (?average? number of half-moves in lost games minus ?average? number of half-moves in won games) will work out all that differently to my idea of awarding a different number of points for a win depending on how long the win took.
Therefore I propose that in the event of a tie we have a playoff for the title. In the event of a three- or four-way tie, I propose that move difference be used to seed the teams.
So in a four-way tie, 1st team by move difference would play the 3rd team while the 2nd would play the 4th, with the winners of each match going through to the final. In a three-way tie, the 2nd and 3rd teams by move difference would play one match to decide who plays the 1st team for the title.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #82 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 9:39am » |
Quote Modify
|
A playoff would serve to make the season longer, so anyone in contention would either have to hold cap in reserve, or, if the cap were abolished for the playoff, it'd be the top three players who are available. I don't really see a problem with any of the current proposed tiebreaks, although I'm going to suggest an order for them now, including a few that haven't been mentioned yet but seem reasonable.
The reason Move Differential is more fitting as a tiebreak than as a point value is this, imagine a team that goes 8-4 in 80 move games, that would have 96 points at last proposal, right? Compare that with a team that goes 7-3-1-1 with all the wins coming in 20 moves, even though they have a forfeit and a loss on time, and one fewer win, they still have 98 points, and would win.
1. Most Wins
2. Head-to-Head Record
3. Move Differential
4. Remaining Budget
5. Fewest Timeouts/Resignations
6. Fewest World League Games by Player with most.
7. Fewest World League Games by Player with second most.
...
N. Flip a coin.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #83 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 9:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 7th, 2011, 9:39am, Sconibulus wrote:
The reason Move Differential is more fitting as a tiebreak than as a point value is this, imagine a team that goes 8-4 in 80 move games, that would have 96 points at last proposal, right? Compare that with a team that goes 7-3-1-1 with all the wins coming in 20 moves, even though they have a forfeit and a loss on time, and one fewer win, they still have 98 points, and would win. |
|
I didn't get this part. 8-4 vs. 7-3-1-1?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #84 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 10:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
That was supposed to represent 8 wins at 80 turns(at 10 points), 4 losses (at 4 points), versus 7 wins at 20 turns (at 12 points), 3 losses (at 4 points), 1 timeout (at 2 points), 1 forfeit (at 0 points)
Sorry I wasn't clear.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #85 on: Jul 7th, 2011, 10:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
Running the same simulation with the 2/0/-1 system, 8 wins at 80 turns gets 16 points. If the 4 losses are all 80 moves as well then we have to decide whether we calculate the move difference based on averages or totals. Totals would wind up with -320, going with averages turns up 0. Averages makes much more sense IMO.
The other team with 7 wins at 20 turns gets 14 points, but loses 1 point for the forfeit. The timeout depends on which move it occurred on. Let's assume that happened on move 20 as well, so we've basically got 4 losses. Going with totals gives us a move difference of -60, averages give us 0.
I think we're agreed that the simple points system is the best. However if the season ends in a draw, I don't like the idea of the League Champion being decided by a simple move difference or any other statistical tiebreaker. OK, with a playoff you have an extra round, but what a round!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #86 on: Jul 14th, 2011, 5:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
Seeing as how it's the last week before the tourney begins, I'd like to make one last proposal: awards.
The Legislators Committee or another panel will be responsible for awarding these prizes (actually titles). Some of them may be subject to a community vote. The ideas I have so far are as follows, please feel free to make suggestions for different awards or methods of selecting the winners.
- Player of the Match
- Player of the Season (Awarded at the end of the season, community vote? between Player of the Match winners)
- Most Spectacular Comeback (ditto)
- Most Innovative Strategy (ditto)
- Most Innovative Opening Setup (ditto)
- Rising Star Gold Trophy (for new players)
- Rising Star Silver Trophy
- Rising Star Bronze Trophy
- Shortest Game (automatic)
- Longest Game (automatic)
- Managers' Award
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2011, 5:22am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #87 on: Jul 14th, 2011, 11:05am » |
Quote Modify
|
I have not read the whole discussion ... but the penalty for team overranking should be considered as well when you consider resizing win, loss, forfeight scoring.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #88 on: Jul 15th, 2011, 12:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 14th, 2011, 11:05am, Hippo wrote:| I have not read the whole discussion ... but the penalty for team overranking should be considered as well when you consider resizing win, loss, forfeight scoring. |
|
You mean overspending with the budget, right?
Yes you're right. I think we need to penalize in whole points, so the decision to be made is how many points' overspend should equal one point.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
dree12
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4082
Gender:
Posts: 27
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #89 on: Jul 15th, 2011, 10:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think an overspend should cost a win, no matter how much. This avoids penaltizing a disadvantaged team too much. Also why not have budget remaining as a tiebreaker?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print