League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

[gamerman01]

Good ideas there, I can see myself doing that or something quite similar - thanks for helping to mold the future

[Jennifer]

If we adjust for tiers, perhaps it should be quarterly instead of every 5 games.  That way gamer doesn’t spend his entire life readjusting.  Keep in mind, some players can do 5 games in 3 days (hell, I used to play upwards of 10 games at a time!  Course, I am not that involved anymore, but still, precedent is set for it.) Â

If we say adjustments by 30 March, 30 June and 30 September that gives us 3 pretty evenly spaced adjustment dates.  The 4th, of course, being the first Monday of November when we determine who will and will not be playing in the playoffs for the year.

[boldfresh]

means and methods by you guys - i am just drawing broad strokes.

[allweneedislove]

@Cmdr:

Let’s start discussing what the player community would like to have changed for next year’s league.  Gamerman and I will then take the suggestions and attempt to reason out which ones have the most support and don’t conflict with other ideas, and codify next year’s rules.  AKA same as last year, only instead of me doing it by myself, Gamer will help out (which will at least make me feel a lot less guilty about declaring things!)

great idea jen.

@Cmdr:

I see bidding as the follows:

A.  You are bidding for units to be placed at the start of the game.
B.  Bids are for the allies, negative bids are not allowed.
C.  You must place as much of the IPC awarded to you for winning the bid on the board prior to the start of the game.  (ie, you may ONLY retain 1 or 2 IPC to be spent during your first round’s purchases.)

NEW:
D.  You may not bid units for China (therefore no risk of stacking Yunnan, no question on if you can bid a second fighter, etc.  Don’t even have to worry about if they can bid for tanks or artillery or flying foo-foo pink bunnies with huge teeth and thus Japan won’t need Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch to win.  This is humor of course!)
E.  You are limited to 3 units in any specific territory or sea zone from your bid.  (Regardless of what is present already, you may only add up to three more) and these units can only be placed in a territory or sea zone that you control and start with at least one unit in at the start of the game.
F.  No bid units in Victory Cities (there, problem of stacking France, etcetera fixed.)

bidding is the most fair way to determine sides.
it should be left up to the two players to decide what is fair.
adding restrictions such as your C, D, E, F, and the first half of your B should not be needed.
the problem with the first half of B is there is not unanimous agreement that allies need a bid…

i would set a very basic default template for determining sides and then have an option to allow the 2 players to exercise additional bid rules and restrictions.

however, i have seen many requests for the restriction of one unit per territory. because of the popularity of this restriction, i would recommend having this be part of the basic default template and only allowing it if both sides agree to the option.

possible wording could look like the following.

Determining sides.

When setting up a game both players ‘Player A’ and ‘Player B’ declare their preference to play as the Axis or Allies.
If the players both want to play opposite sides the game begins.
If both players want the same side an auction begins.

The Auction
‘Player A’ offers ‘Player B’ the side that he/she does not want and adds a bid to entice ‘Player B’ to accept.
‘Player B’ has two options decline the offer and increase the bid or accept the offer and the game commences.
If ‘Player B’ declines the offer and increases the bid it is now up to ‘Player A’ to decline the offer and increase the bid or accept the offer. The bidding goes back and forth until both player are happy with their side.

Bids
Bids are an IPC amount that is added at game setup.
The player that received the bid can divide up the IPCs among the powers that he/she controls as they see fit.
The player can use the IPCs to purchase units pregame or add to the powers existing IPCs.
Purchased units can only be placed in territories or sea zones that currently have units from that power.
here is where you might addNo more than one bid unit can be added to any one territory or sea zone.

Optional bid rules if both players agree to the option.
Bids that alter rules of the game manual are not allowed.

Players can add restrictions to bids such as but not limited to;
no bid IPCs can be added to a specific power, such as China,
all IPCs must be used to purchase units pregame and not allowed to be added to a powers existing IPCs,
certain territories or sea zones may not have units added to them,
No more than one unit purchased with bid IPCs can be added to any one territory or sea zone.

Players can add optional styles to the bids such as but not limited to;
adding a specific technology breakthrough to a power,
adding a specific unit to a specific territory, such as a Soviet bomber to start in Moscow,
a certain power will/will not declare war on specific turn.
units purchased with bid IPCs can be placed in territories that you control that do not already have existing units,
units purchased with bid IPCs can be added to friendly powers territories,
units purchased with bid IPCs can be added to any sea zone.

[allweneedislove]

@Cmdr:

I have no problem with this for this year, but are we disallowing Low Luck for next year?  I’d say LL has to be denoted as such in the Subject line so that if Gamer or I are called in to moderate a dispute we can clearly see it is a LL not ADS game.

i agree

@Gamerman01:

I am not aware of a single LL game having been played in 2012-2013 in league.  My opinion is that they should not be allowed in league play at all, so yes, I think we should disallow LL for next year as you said.

Reason is, it is a different game.
If you want to play LL, nobody is stopping you - play in the “Play boardgames” section, but not in league.

@seththenewb:

I agree with no LL for League play. LL brings a completely different strategy to the table and LL and dice strats aren’t interchangeable… But the games themselves should all be dice…

i agree that lowluck creates a different game, but players that like to play lowluck should not be excluded from the league. if you don’t like lowluck you do not need to agree to a lowluck game. it might be more difficult for them to find games if they exclusively want to play lowluck.
allowing lowluck is very congruent to allowing tech in league play.

the main argument that gamerman and seth present for not wanting to allow lowluck is that it creates a different game. technology also creates a different game and is being welcomed.
the base league rules should be regular dice and no technology. if both players agree to play with either lowluck and/or technology they should be allowed to. let’s make the league more inclusive and allow our games to be more diverse.

[allweneedislove]

@Cmdr:

Next Year’s ranking system:

PPG
ELO
Percentage
Other

@alexgreat:

…

• Remove win percentage as criterium for play-off / finals 
  …

@seththenewb:

…I like the ELO idea, but it’s a ranking system that would be better used in a league that doesn’t reset every year. And as Gamer said, he’s not a computer…

@MrRoboto:

…You actually convinced me, that ELO might not be the best solution in our case. And that’s mainly because a game lasts so long here. Thus, some players don’t play a lot of games and ELO system actually needs, as you stated, a certain number of games to accurately measure strength…

ELO is great for larger data. however, most participants will not have enough games played in a year to make ELO work
percentage is not the best way to determine rank as it does not factor skill level which should be the main focus of rank. it also encourages noncompetitive games.

point per game is the best system. the tricky part is determining the point system

[allweneedislove]

@Cmdr:

What if your tier is determined by the previous year’s record?

@Gamerman01:

… I’m currently thinking about implementing Jenn’s suggestion, at least in part.  Players who have played many games and we know where they stand, will have a fixed tier based on 12-13…

this is a great idea for the start of next season assuming we use a tier system.
however, i do not think that the opening tier should be fixed for the whole season. for all the reasons that a fluid system is good for this year are all the reasons why it will be good for next year.
i think a point per game system should be used for determining rank and playoff inclusion. i like gamerman’s current system(maybe some tweaks can be done) of tiers and basing points off of those tiers. it is a great tool to find players of similar strength which creates great competitive games.

@Cmdr:

I’d then say top players are tier 4, new or not so strong players are tier 1.  What tier you are is how many points you are worth if you are beaten by your opponent.

the problem with new players being assigned in the weakest tier is that they could be a very strong player.

@MrRoboto:

…
And I still disagree with you, concerning always gaining points when winning.
Grinding on weak players should still award me with some kind of reward, albeit very little of course. Maintaining a near 100% Winchance, even against weak opponents, is a feat by itself. So if I decide to put so much effort and time into defeating newbies (since A&A is a long game and I would need LOTS of games against newbies), then that could be a potential way to slowly work on my ranking…

@Cmdr:

Perhaps we could devise a way to rank players where wins gain you points and losses don’t cost you any points but you don’t earn any points either?  The stronger the player the more points you earn for beating them?  Not sure how that would look exactly, but it’s just an idea.

it is an interesting suggestion but is open to abuse and creates noncompetitive games. i would leave it out.

[gamerman01]

@allweneedislove:

however, i do not think that the opening tier should be fixed for the whole season. for all the reasons that a fluid system is good for this year are all the reasons why it will be good for next year.

I agree.  Hadn’t thought it through yet.

the problem with new players being assigned in the weakest tier is that they could be a very strong player.

Agreed

Thanks for taking the time to make those posts, allweneed
It’s gradually coming together and taking shape, thanks to everyone’s thoughts

[seth4god]

Say hypothetically that there are several players who play LL and one of them amasses enough games/wins to qualify for the end of year playoffs and gets in. Now what are Gamer and Jenn supposed to do? LL and dice are SO different that a strategy that might works with one won’t for another. Forcing the LL player to play dice will likely just result in him getting trounced faster than it takes me to write this sentence. Forcing the dice player to play LL will result in the opposite result and no purpose will be served in taking either player outside their game. Maybe in the future there will be enough players interested in LL to form their own league and playoffs. But unless that happens there’s too many differences between the two game styles that they may as well be AAR and G40.

[allweneedislove]

using your hypothetical example the lowluck player reaches the playoffs and states his/her desire to play lowluck. their opponent can accept or decline and play by the default mode which is standard dice.

the standard would still be regular dice and lowluck would only be played if both players want lowluck.

i think you might have an incorrect perception that players that like lowluck(such as myself) do not enjoy/are bad at playing regular dice games.

i do not think there is any harm or negative in allowing lowluck games in the league.
it might attract new players to the league or enhance the playing experience for some that are already in the league(such as myself)

[gamerman01]

Wow.  First off, I have to admit I’ve never tried even a single turn of low luck.  But I understand how it works, and I’m with Seth, FWIW.  I disagree with the comparison with tech for multiple reasons.
Tech is an official optional rule in the rule book.  There is no sign of low luck in the rule book, of course.

An analogy is playing chess with dice.  You wouldn’t mix regular chess players and chess with dice players in the same league.

[seth4god]

I’ve tried a couple games of LL for other games triplea supports and it’s a totally different animal from dice games. I can see why some people prefer it, but it’s not my taste. By removing the element of luck it almost turns the game into pseudo-chess; just on a bigger board and with many more pieces.

[allweneedislove]

gamerman and seth,

i understand that you do not like lowluck and even why many players do not like lowluck.
i do not understand why you would not want other players in the league to be able to play lowluck.

it gives more game play options for those that do enjoy lowluck(such as myself)

i understand that technology is an official option in the rulebook but bidding is not and we allow it.(i encourage it as it is the most fair way to determine sides and have an evenly matched game).

[allweneedislove]

@alexgreat:

…- No retroactive changes in ranking if someone gets into a new tier (see final item)

@MrRoboto:

…However, I still don’t like the retroactive changes…

@seththenewb:

…My opinion is use the same ranking system without retroactive point changes with tier changes. Maybe make it 20 game minimum to qualify for the playoffs; 8 of those games have to be played agaist the top 50% of the ranked players and 2 of the 20 come against the top 25%? Using this year’s rankings, that effectively means at least 8 games against tier 1 or 2 players and two games against tier 1 players. I was using percentage in case there’s some downturn in activity or something.

@MrRoboto:

@Boldfresh:

why no retroactive tier changes?  i don’t get it.

Well I don’t like the idea of losing PPG, just because one of my earlier opponents messed up a game or got diced, thus dropping a tier.

Or I don’t like getting free PPG, just because one of my earlier opponents improved a lot, thus gaining a tier. I didn’t defeat him, when he was strong - only, when he was still weak - so I don’t deserve these extra PPG.

@alexgreat:

…In sports, you beat a player on day x and get the points the player is worth at that time, no? Not what he has been worth 2 weeks before that, when he was ranked 10 places better or worse.

If retroactive changes are kept, nobody will complain, but it feels counter-intuitive. If you play a beginner, you have it easier. 20 games on and this beginner will be better, but still the earlier win was against a “worse” player and should always be counted like that…

@Gamerman01:

The two issues are related:
Retroactive changes and clear boundaries at tiers.
…
Also, without retroactive changes, then how many points does the first guy to beat him get?
See, with my system, if it turns out that newbie you played was a star, you will later get credit for playing a star.
If he’s a hopeless newbie, that also will be reflected later.
Under the proposals I’m reading, you would just get some average prize for defeating this new player to the league, but there is a very wide disparity in competence levels among new players!

…  No system is perfect.  But there are strong merits to retroactive changes in A&A (please don’t compare to sports - it’s not the same IMO), and OVERALL it seems to average out and work out.
…  The system is definitely working…

@Gamerman01:

The purpose of retroactive points is to correct for earlier inaccurate ratings.  I understand the downside is that you could be getting “free” points by the fact that a guy you beat earlier has improved.  As far as losing points because your past opponent later did something stupid or got diced - I say that will work itself out.  If he’s really tier 1 quality and dipped to tier 2, then he will win and get back to tier 1 and you will get your points back.  This is one of the reasons I am slow to change tiers on somebody…

@seththenewb:

Ok, yeah that all makes sense and you’ve convinced me that the retro point/tier changes are the way to go.

@alexgreat:

I think that retroactve changes dont reflect the learning curve…If someone is a genius all along, then it would be correct to change retroactively, but I think thats not the norm. People dont have the same strenght from first to last game played. You have, Gamerman, but everyone starting compete here likely improves.
I feel this is a valid side of a coin, to be discussed as we do, and if not seen that way by the majority, not enacted, with no one left disappointed. Easy.

to summarize the past conversations alexgreat, mrroboto and originally seth do not want retroactive changes due to

1. if an opponent’s skill level changes over time the retroactive point changes do not reflect the skill of opponent at the moment in time that the game was played
2. not knowing how many points you can gain before accepting a match
3. it feels counterintuitive

gamerman points out the benifits of retroactive changes

1. no need to assign a fictitious tier or how many points to award a win against a new player that no one knows the skill level of yet.
2. the system is already working
3. retroactive points corrects for earlier inaccurate ratings.

both have legitimate and opposite points of views.
retroactive point changes is best at assigning rank assuming a player has a level of play and does not improve or worsen over the season
no retroactive point changes assumes that all new players start at one level and get better over time.

the essence of the argument should be do we have more players that will improve through the season or more players that will stay the same.*

i believe that most new players in the league will not improve or worsen greatly.
so i think retroactive point changes make sense

*improve skill wise in relation to the rest of the field.  we should all be improving throughout the season as we gain more experience/play games.

[seth4god]

Gamer’s convinced me that the benefits of retroactive changes outweigh the negatives. So I’m all for it now.

allweneedislove, I’m not against LL games or even having a LL league if enough people are interested. But I do think that LL and dice games can’t mix in the same league. That would be akin to having a league where AAR & G40 games are both played. It’d result in too many negatives to be effective.

Let’s say hypothetically that I do play LL, and not only that but that I’m good at it. Now let’s pretend that I improve my record some next season in dice games. Not enough maybe to qualify me for the end of year playoffs, but I’m right there on the cusp. Now let’s also pretend that I manage to find enough LL opponents to get 6 LL league games and I win all of them.

Where do I get ranked now? How can you possibly rank me accurately? I would now have a spot in the playoffs, but how will Gamer/Jenn rule or what about the league reaction? Because the ability of my LL opponents can’t be accurately measured in relation to the dice players, there’s no right answer here. Am I ridiculously good at LL or were my opponents only average players?

It’s because of that inability to accurately rank LL players, players who mix LL & dice, and dice players that we can’t mix them in the same league. You can still play LL players to play non league games. You’re also free to reach out to the community and see what kind of interest there’d be in LL games. If you get a big enough response, there’s absolutely no reason why there can’t be a LL G40 league in addition to the current league. But trying to jumble LL and dice in the same league is a recipe for disaster IMO.

[gamerman01]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into that summarizing post, Allweneed!  Thanks.

I agree that few players really improve a lot in a short period of time, compared to the rest of the field (based on my observations over the past year).  Hobo and Snake eyes are the only 2 I’ve identified that started out losing a few, and then had much more success and improved a lot.  And as I pointed out, people who played Snake eyes or Hobo early when they were tier 3 (for a short time) only have 1-2 points extra as a result.  The limit of 3 or 5 games per opponent helps keep the effect of retroactive changes from being very great.

[Jennifer]

I have played quite a few low luck games in the past.  I have found them entertaining, but I agree they are completely different games from the standpoint of what to bid, tactics and strategies.

My opinion would be to allow LL in normal league play, but to disallow it in league playoffs.

Keep in mind, league playoffs are played by “the best of the best of the best” as they said in Men in Black.  If they cannot adapt to ADS games then they deserve to be eliminated quickly.

[seth4god]

Uh Jenn, how exactly do you propose LL and dice games get accurately ranked? Did you read my previous post?

If a tier one decides to try a LL game and loses, does the winner get credit for beating a tier one? Maybe that player is really horrible at LL and yet his opponent would get credit for beating a tier one player?

If you have separate rankings for LL and dice, then what’s the point of having an integrated LL and dice league?

As league moderator, you should know better to propose such a massive departure of the previous rule set without thinking things through or proposing how such a thing would work.

[MrRoboto]

I’m against LL games for the league as well, for reasons already stated above.

[Jennifer]

There is currently no rule against low luck games.  Continuing to allow them next year is being discussed now, but allowing them to stay wouldn’t be a departure from the standing rules.  Just to clarify.

Also, the default rules would be ADS.  If both players choose to play LL that is between them.  No one could be forced to play LL, however playoffs would be forced to be ADS I think.  That is, in the way I am seeing things, if that’s not how it ends up it isn’t, I am just voicing an opinion here.

And yes, if a top tier player chooses to play LL of his own free will and losses, then his opponent gets full credit.  Just like if a top tier person gives his opponent 148 ipc bid with out limit to placement an losses.

If we decide to lock down the game so that all bids are 9 IPC and no more, and that all bid placements are always +1 ANZAC infantry in New Guinea and +1 British submarine in SZ 98 then that’s what will happen.  I don’t like it, but if that’s how the league votes then I am good with enforcing it.

I do not think I would play any LL games personally, just wondering if we should bar others from playing them.