League Rule Changes for 2014 AAG40 2.0

[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.

[seth4god]

@Cmdr:

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.

Incorrect.

@Cmdr:

4 - Game & rules default - AA40 Alpha +3 (as posted on or prior to 2 November, 2012), ]ADS, NO’s, No Tech, 8 Europe or 6 Pacific VC win, Auction Bid.  (Rules posted here: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149)

(Bold my emphasis)

You did go back and rewrite the number four and it’s subheaders but you didn’t mention anything else that I saw about LL or ADS. That’s probably a simple oversight on your part rather than an intended change. You covered everything else in number four with your revisions, but with more detail.

Regardless, LL is not a part of the official rules. It’s not covered in the game manual, the official errata, league rules, etc. Bidding can’t be found in the game manual either. But the league rules cover the bidding rules to be used quite comprehensively. A lack of rules disallowing LL doesn’t inherently mean LL is therefore allowed in the league.

[seth4god]

@Cmdr:

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.

You already have agreed that LL is different than dice. What you’re suggesting is the same as taking a top 10 college football team, pitting them against a college soccer team, and then dinging them in the football polls for losing. Or to take the example further, it’d be the same as thinking that since the soccer team beat a top 10 football team on the soccer field than that soccer team has earned the right to play in a BCS bowl game.

[Jennifer]

I stand corrected, LL is currently disallowed in league play.

I do not personally have an issue with allowing low luck in league play for next year.  What I like about allowing it is that it gives players choices.  What I don’t like about it is that it is a different game on a tactical and strategic basis.

I believe the two can be compatible for next year’s league.  If we do not want to include it that’s fine as well.

[gamerman01]

I am opposed to allowing LL in league next year.

[Jennifer]

So far we have 1 supporter for LL, 1 “I don’t care either way” (me) and a few opposed.  Unless something drastic changes, I’d say consensus is no LL next year.

[boldfresh]

LL is for whimps.  all the fun of this game is the variability that dice introduce (even for those of us that REGULARLY get hosed by withering dice).  :-D

[Jennifer]

I almost always give my opponent one or two LL revisions if he is getting REALLY hosed by the dice.  Like MrRobot got creamed like 3 times in a row against the British navy or RAF.  But that should really be an offer by one player to another player, not a requirement or even expected.

I agree ADS is fundamental to the game, but I would also point out that LL can be fun to play as well.  It’s just not the same. You KNOW that 2 AA Guns WILL get 1 hit against 6 planes but in ADS you might get no hits or 6 hits (for some reason TripleA seems to always have them hit 5 or 19 times even when there are only 1 or 2 guns present.  Yes I know, they can only get 6 hits with 2 guns, but you get TripleA to explain how it hit 19 times. :P  Exaggeration for humor of course.)

[MrRoboto]

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

[gamerman01]

@MrRoboto:

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

I think she means an inordinate amount of 1’s rolled so that it FEELS like it’s rolling more.

[Jennifer]

@Gamerman01:

@MrRoboto:

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

I think she means an inordinate amount of 1’s rolled so that it FEELS like it’s rolling more.

Exactly.  It feels like tripleA rolls 2 or 3 hits per AA Gun on an unusually high basis.

[allweneedislove]

@Cmdr:

@Gamerman01:

@MrRoboto:

Hm so far I’ve seen tripleA handle AAA correctly. 3 Planes per AAA.

I think she means an inordinate amount of 1’s rolled so that it FEELS like it’s rolling more.

Exactly.  It feels like tripleA rolls 2 or 3 hits per AA Gun on an unusually high basis.

i think that feeling comes from remembering the 3% outlier battles more because they are extraordinary and cause the most havoc on your plans.

everyone remembers that big battle where the whole game hinged on the outcome and you were mathematically favoured to win but the scales were tipped against you because the aaguns hit that 3% outcome.

no one remembers that battle months ago where you took 3 fighters and overwhelming force into a battle and your opponent missed all 3 aagun shots.

triplea is not rigged, the numbers(dice) are random, it is just how we perceive luck.

[allweneedislove]

@alexgreat:

@Seth: I can see why tiers are practical, but do they dont feel very objective…who is tier 2, who is tier 3, who draws the borders and where, which exceptions should apply etc. If tiers are necessary to decide how much a win is worth, then there should at least be an objective way to create them, easy to understand for all players.
Surely not easy to find a better system than the one we have, though, and I dont claim I have one. More sophisticated systems also would likely need much more work from the ones doing the rankings, and you cannot ask more from them with the current commitment so high already. Using the current ranks of both players as modifiers of base points and bonus points for beating the qualifying positions surely sounds like a lot of work, for example.

@Boldfresh:

gamer draws the lines very clearly between tiers - so that is objective no?

no, gamerman’s opinion is the opposite of objective, it is subjective.

@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, like when Bold was tier 1 all year but reported some losses and got all the way down to about 3.3.  Again, this is where human beats computer.  I figured he would win some games and get back to tier 1, and also he told me he was winning some games.  He is already up to 3.43.,

gamerman’s knowledge of history of players is a great asset.

@Boldfresh:

i think that once a player is a known quantity to gamer he can assign a tier value to that player.  if gamer has a record to go on for the previous year, he can feel pretty comfortable making that determination.  I think a good compromise would be to make 5 tiers.  give new players tier 1 status for the first 5 games, then have gamer adjust the tier as appropriate.  no retroactive changes in points after the new tier change.  then if there is further improvement over the next 5 games the player could be moved up again…

i also have faith in gamerman’s assessments
@Boldfresh:

…remember, the goal for all of this is to give the best approximation of skill levels in the league so good matches can be found and a rightful champion can be crowned right?

i agree

@Boldfresh:

if someone thinks gamer would make changes in tiers without good reason, i challenge them to show me once that it happens.

i dont think anyone could challenge gamerman’s ethics as he has always shown to do the right thing.

gamerman has done yeoman’s work in creating and maintaining the rankings.

gamerman, i think you have done an excellent job assigning tiers and no one can challenge this as it appears you do it without bias and are always accurate over time.

despite the accuracy of gamerman i think we should move to a tier system based on ppg.
this would

1. alleviate any new player’s concerns that do not know gamerman
2. be easier on gamerman
3. allow the league to continue in gamerman’s absence. gamerman might not always be around. i know he has been a fixture for many years but we never know if/when he has to take an extended break from the league for personal reasons, loses interest, or just does not have enough time.
4. transparency for all
5. becomes objective(not necessarily better than subjective for the reasons we have pointed out above)

assuming we still use gamerman’s point per game system i would suggest

tier 4 is 0-1.49ppg
tier 3 is 1.5-2.49ppg
tier 2 is 2.5-3.49ppg
tier 1 is 3.5+ppg

i am interested to hear everyone’s opinion on this but have particular interest in what gamerman has to say.

gamerman would you feel like this makes things easier on you? would you feel like some of your power and influence has been taken away?

[Seador]

Bit late to this conversation I suppose, but I’d throw these thoughts in.

The way I have read this thread, most of the comments are directed toward the league rules.  I think there should be discusion about what people want the league to look at, rather than the actual details of the rules.  Come up with a philosophy and then let Jen and Gamer draft a rule set.

For me, the attraction of online league play is the ability to play a pile of games in a short time and try all kinds of crazy stuff I wouldn’t want to try in a 2 or 3 times a year get together ftf.

So, I’d like to see a league framework that is wide open, rather than detailed, to make it as inclusive as possible.

Tech, tech tokens, LL, bids for tech.  All of these have had opinions given on.  Totally agree that we need a base line, but after that everything permitted in the rules should be fair game for two willing players.

This year has seen an explosion of players; it would be a real shame to chase away new people just because their prefered style of play isn’t an option.