Author |
Topic: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning Stage) (Read 20034 times) |
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender: 
Posts: 116
|
 |
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #90 on: Jul 15th, 2011, 11:44am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Then one could field, for example, C&G, Adanac, and Fritz every game at the cost of one win for the season. The current scale of losing a point for every... I don't remember the exact number, but I believe Fritz worked it out formulaically at 300ish rating points you're over, ceilinged, is probably the way to go.
Megajester, in the event of a playoff, how do you fairly determine the rating limit? How do you determine overspending penalties? The current method doesn't really work because it becomes a straight bilateral zero-sum game, so if you can overspend by 800 points for a good chance at three wins, you're in the black, especially considering substitutions.
Also, I'm not entirely clear on the difference between 3,1,0 which we had last year and 2,0,-1 when the game number is fixed. Any particular reason for this change?
The awards seem decent, although it seems like there are a lot of them for a season containing only 36 games. (I think, 2 simultaneous sets of 6 matches at 3 games/match)
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
dree12
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #4082
Gender:
Posts: 27
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #91 on: Jul 15th, 2011, 12:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Then maybe penilize a win just for going over, and then half a win every 350? I think the budget should try to become more... budgetlike, with a large penalty for overspending rather than only one point for the first overspend.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #92 on: Jul 16th, 2011, 2:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 15th, 2011, 11:44am, Sconibulus wrote:Megajester, in the event of a playoff, how do you fairly determine the rating limit?
|
|
I say we remove the rating limit. Of course part of the purpose of the League is to encourage new players to join, but by the time we have our tiebreaker we will have achieved that. Clash of the titans!
on Jul 15th, 2011, 11:44am, Sconibulus wrote:
Also, I'm not entirely clear on the difference between 3,1,0 which we had last year and 2,0,-1 when the game number is fixed. Any particular reason for this change?
|
|
Because aaaa argued that it's the same both ways, and I see his point that psychologically it makes more sense to punish forfeits than to reward people for turning up. And there were no objections. I see no point in arguing with people when their way works just as well as mine.
on Jul 15th, 2011, 11:44am, Sconibulus wrote:
The awards seem decent, although it seems like there are a lot of them for a season containing only 36 games. (I think, 2 simultaneous sets of 6 matches at 3 games/match)
|
|
It means you have a lot of talking points each match, which has to be a good thing. If you could prune the list which ones would you prune?
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 16th, 2011, 2:45am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #93 on: Jul 16th, 2011, 2:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 15th, 2011, 12:53pm, dree12 wrote:| Then maybe penilize a win just for going over, and then half a win every 350? I think the budget should try to become more... budgetlike, with a large penalty for overspending rather than only one point for the first overspend. |
|
Last year's rules read as follows:
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.
The reason our limit is 700 is to give captains a bit of freedom to make tactical decisions on budget spending depending on which team they're playing this week. Perhaps to incorporate dree12's suggestion we could penalise a team's exceeding the limit by 2 points instead of 1, and keep the 1 additional point for every 350th rating point.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #94 on: Jul 16th, 2011, 9:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
If I had to prune some, it'd probably be the silver and bronze Rising Stars, changing man of the match to man of the week, and the Most Innovative Opening, it seems to fall reasonable into the realm of Innovative Strategy.
Note: I'm not saying pruning is necessary, I was just commenting that giving out 22 awards for 36 games seems like a lot.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #95 on: Jul 19th, 2011, 9:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
OK I think that sounds reasonable. I think we could open a Man of the Match thread for each match for people to make nominations in, not quite sure about how we'd decide but we can hammer this out in the coming days.
Woh! I've lost the link to that page where I could download the WHR ratings for everybody in the League, could you send it to me again?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #96 on: Jul 19th, 2011, 1:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 19th, 2011, 9:57am, megajester wrote:OK I think that sounds reasonable. I think we could open a Man of the Match thread for each match for people to make nominations in, not quite sure about how we'd decide but we can hammer this out in the coming days.
Woh! I've lost the link to that page where I could download the WHR ratings for everybody in the League, could you send it to me again?
|
|
It's under the Players -> Top rated players from the gameroom.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 19th, 2011, 1:23pm by Hippo » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #97 on: Jul 20th, 2011, 12:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 19th, 2011, 1:22pm, Hippo wrote:
It's under the Players -> Top rated players from the gameroom. |
|
Sorry, I meant the "wiki-ready" page. Woh?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
woh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2128
Gender:
Posts: 254
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #98 on: Jul 20th, 2011, 12:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
megajester, you can find it here
I haven't followed this thread closely, so I am not sure last year's version can still be used
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #99 on: Jul 21st, 2011, 12:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 20th, 2011, 12:08pm, woh wrote:megajester, you can find it here
I haven't followed this thread closely, so I am not sure last year's version can still be used |
|
Thanks woh. How simple is it to update the list of players? If not I can copy the standard WHR page into Excel and work something out.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
woh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2128
Gender:
Posts: 254
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #100 on: Jul 21st, 2011, 7:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
The page is updated now.
It should include all current players.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #101 on: Jul 21st, 2011, 9:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 21st, 2011, 7:55am, woh wrote:The page is updated now.
It should include all current players. |
|
I'm not maintaining the wiki list of players anymore, I've been updating the first post in the team threads here... If you show me how to do it I could update the player list myself if you wanted, I just don't want it to be any trouble for you.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #102 on: Jul 24th, 2011, 9:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 7th, 2011, 1:58am, megajester wrote:| (?average? number of half-moves in lost games minus ?average? number of half-moves in won games) |
|
I think it's better to avoid fractional values where one can and not take the average. This would also slightly penalize forfeits even more.
Quote:| 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. |
|
A playoff match itself could still end in a tie, thus still not relieving us from the need of having a (set of) tiebreaker(s). [EDIT]Of course, this cannot happen unless there are double forfeits or a forfeit costs a full win.[/EDIT]
Quote:| 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. |
|
Surely it should be first versus fourth and second versus third then.
One thing I oppose is the use of head-to-head record as a tiebreaker after a round robin competition, except perhaps when it's far down the list.
on Jul 16th, 2011, 2:42am, megajester wrote:| Because aaaa argued that it's the same both ways, and I see his point that psychologically it makes more sense to punish forfeits than to reward people for turning up. And there were no objections. I see no point in arguing with people when their way works just as well as mine. |
|
Just to get this straight: I didn't actually express any opinion on which functionally equivalent point system to use, although I can see how my reasoning could be used as support for having a forfeit actually be explicitly marked as a literal loss.
on Jul 16th, 2011, 2:51am, megajester wrote:
Last year's rules read as follows:
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.
The reason our limit is 700 is to give captains a bit of freedom to make tactical decisions on budget spending depending on which team they're playing this week. Perhaps to incorporate dree12's suggestion we could penalise a team's exceeding the limit by 2 points instead of 1, and keep the 1 additional point for every 350th rating point. |
|
Just a minor thing, but it's a bit weird to have uneven gaps between penalty increases: 350 rating points between successive penalty sizes, except between the first and the second one, where it's 349.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2011, 11:12am by aaaa » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #103 on: Jul 24th, 2011, 12:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Here is an argument in favor of having a forfeit cost at least half a win: Assuming forfeits are exceptional events, the score will primarily be determined by whether games are won or lost. Therefore, score differences only really become significant in terms of wins. Now, in case one forfeits while having a score equal to an integral number of wins, one will of course fall behind compared to the case of having a regular loss. Also, a forfeit leading to a suchlike score can also be considered significant, because one went from being ahead of a "main score class" to being equal to it.
However, if a forfeit were to keep one strictly between two such classes, then that would likely not make a difference, meaning that, in that case, it would be little of a penalty.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: AWL 2011 Comments and Suggestions (Planning St
« Reply #104 on: Jul 25th, 2011, 12:50am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 24th, 2011, 9:58am, aaaa wrote:
I think it's better to avoid fractional values where one can and not take the average. This would also slightly penalize forfeits even more. |
|
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.
on Jul 24th, 2011, 9:58am, aaaa wrote:
Surely it should be first versus fourth and second versus third then. |
|
Whatever
on Jul 24th, 2011, 9:58am, aaaa wrote:| One thing I oppose is the use of head-to-head record as a tiebreaker after a round robin competition, except perhaps when it's far down the list. |
|
OK good
on Jul 24th, 2011, 9:58am, aaaa wrote:| Just to get this straight: I didn't actually express any opinion on which functionally equivalent point system to use, although I can see how my reasoning could be used as support for having a forfeit actually be explicitly marked as a literal loss. |
|
For goodness sake, why argue so long and hard for something you're not in support of Please please please can we not waste each other's time through pointless pedantry.
on Jul 24th, 2011, 9:58am, aaaa wrote:| Just a minor thing, but it's a bit weird to have uneven gaps between penalty increases: 350 rating points between successive penalty sizes, except between the first and the second one, where it's 349. |
|
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.
on Jul 24th, 2011, 12:04pm, aaaa wrote:Here is an argument in favor of having a forfeit cost at least half a win: Assuming forfeits are exceptional events, the score will primarily be determined by whether games are won or lost. Therefore, score differences only really become significant in terms of wins. Now, in case one forfeits while having a score equal to an integral number of wins, one will of course fall behind compared to the case of having a regular loss. Also, a forfeit leading to a suchlike score can also be considered significant, because one went from being ahead of a "main score class" to being equal to it.
However, if a forfeit were to keep one strictly between two such classes, then that would likely not make a difference, meaning that, in that case, it would be little of a penalty. |
|
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.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 25th, 2011, 6:57am by megajester » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print