Best posts made by ksmckay

@trulpen I would reconsider. While I find playing with no edit rules too stressful (even if I rarely make mistakes), Andrew was very upfront about his policy and you agreed to it. If you were similarly upfront about the bump policy, then this would clearly be a case of ‘rules are rules.’

But instead you made multiple mentions saying the bumps dont mean anything until with no notice given, you changed your mind and applied a rule that in this community is never applied like this and probably should be amended based on this.

@Colt45554 Its been an issue in the playoffs the last 2 years minimum and it can easily/likely be an issue this year as well.

Saying it doesn’t matter is like saying all the league rules dont matter because everyone will always agree on what should be done. There is a disagreement in the league and the beginning of the year is the time to deal with it.

Its been said that rules can only be changed at the beginning of the year (despite rule changes being made in the middle of the year) so now is the time to deal with it.

I think there shouldnt be any restriction on joining multiple tournaments if you qualify. There is no reason the best player in BM cant be the best player in OOB and PTV. Just need to set number of games to qualify appropriately (which as others have said needs to be different for different games).

This year there were 16 total games of OOB (at least as of 12/1/20). If you make the barrier to get in the different tourneys too high or too restrictive, there wont be a meaningful playoff to worry about.

this nullification business is nonsense.

Andrew said he wanted a game with no edits and up to this point no edits. Andrews policy is if you make mistakes you live with him and right now the only person not willing to uphold that is Andrew. Andrew getting up in arms about a nullification just because he offered one is silly. Andrew was more than welcome to offer whatever he wants but that doesnt require trulpen to do the same.

Andrew wants a black/white rules policy just to get away from things like this and yet he is the one looking for and expecting gray right now.

Trulpen made a bad decision trying to claim the game with bumps but beyond that everything else is now on Andrew. Just move on Trulpen and neither of you waste your time on things that arent fun.

This issue popped up two years ago in the playoffs and was never properly addressed then unfortunately.

Last year there were about 20-25 games out of 375 that were played with OOB rules. Most of those games involved a small handful of players who clearly prefer OOB but were nowhere near the playoffs so it wasnt an issue last year.

This year There were 16 out of 350 or so games played with OOB rules with 11 of them played by one player and a few other random games. Thought this year is complicated because of the addition of P2V which actually represented quite a few games.

Just to put some numbers in. But for the most part I think this conversation was sidetracked.

In 2018 this issue came up in the middle of the playoffs. Thankfully it was avoided in main bracket in 2019 (though it came up in second bracket). Im trying to avoid dealing with this issue in 2020 as I know I wont be the only one who has an issue with this rule and so trying to start the conversation and deal with it before games are started. Its not a question of what the rules say, as that is clear, but the rules clearly (in my opinion of course) dont reflect the current league climate and opinions. I think the rules need to be adjusted for 2021 at minimum.

If the rest of the main bracket is fine with things as is, then all is well, if not then I think its worth discussing and dealing with ahead of time.

@AndrewAAGamer

Finally for me OOB is an official Axis and Allies game. Yes, it requires a bid but it is still the official version. BM3 and PtV are not official and playing them instead of OOB fractures the gaming community. I guess a question could be what is the point of the League and this website. To promote any wargaming or promote Axis and Allies wargaming?

Games evolve over time, in part due to sites like this. What you call OOB doesn’t match the game out of the
Box unless you have second edition so clearly AA games can evolve. Probably Larry and company should have done more to continue to evolve the game but they are a business and continuing to support a game well after being released is probably challenging (though at some other they still support it).

I think most of us play the game for fun. Obviously that means different things for different people.

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

As for default game, I think it has to be the version that’s available to the world outside this site (out of the box version, basically) - we have very few players who refuse to play “balanced mod”, although of course it does happen, and I think it’s the way it should be… Makes more sense to force someone to play the “public” version than to force someone to play a mod, even if 95% of players only play that mod on this forum. It’s not welcoming to potential newcomers if they have to learn a different version of the game than they’ve been playing.

I completely disagree with this. All leagues of all kinds have their own rules. Playing in the league means you play by the league rules. As an example, you could say American football is a game with defined OOB rules. But every league out there has their own version of it. From kids to college to XFL to NFL. Rules arent defined by some accepted OOB format but by what the league decides.

The community that plays on this site is the league and is responsible for making rules that the league wants to play with. There is zero reason that has to be anything other than what the community wants. If someone wants to participate in the league, then they should be willing to adopt the rules of the league whether thats the actual rules of the game, definition of the league, bidding, disagreement handling, etc.

Most of the players in the top tier said they had no interest in playing OOB and would rather pass on the playoffs then be forced into playing it. To me that means there is a problem.

@dawgoneit said in League General Discussion Thread:

gamer has a lot on his plate. i think what he decides should be.

No.

With no disrespect to Gamerman, he doesnt even play in the league.

I greatly appreciate everything Gamerman does (and he does a lot) but he doesnt own the league or define it, the players in the league do and so need to decide the rules of the league.

And all this talk about flipping a coin is silly.

We have two players in the top tier playoffs with a combined total of 1 league BM3 game. One of those players has exclusivley played P2V in this league and the other mostly OOB (one game BM3, one game P2V). Most of the other players have played zero league games of OOB in the last few years. The games are so different that forcing someone to play a different game is effectively an autoloss at the high level.

Most of the participants already stated they have no interest in playing a different version than what they normally play and arent interested in forcing another player to play a different game either.

This has been an issue for several years and particularly now that P2V has been released, it needs to be addressed.

@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:

@ksmckay said in League General Discussion Thread:

I am fine with it, but I dont think its ok for the rules to be unclear.

I think they’re actually quite clear and straight-forward. A player can always push for the default rules to be active.

I meant I am fine with adjusting things. The existing rule is not unclear. But if it needs to be changed (or players want it changed), then it should be changed. And I think the beginning of the year is an appropriate time for such a discussion.

@trulpen No moves to make?! I have been waiting ever so patiently, anxious to make my next move!

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

I hear you, and I’ve listened to these arguments for years. This is my philosophy, however. League ranked play is not the place to learn from a much stronger player - play outside of league ranked play if that’s what you want. As many hours as this game takes to play, a tier M really doesn’t need to be messing around with 2’s and 3’s, frankly there’s such a huge difference in ability they’re not even competitive games. League ranked play is intended for competitive play

Very well said. I agree 100%.

I’ve never had ANYONE else pipe up and volunteer to handle all these calculations, updates, and rankings, so until that happens, my system stands.

So much talk of an ELO system or something else. Nothing keeps someone from doing a beta in the background. If someone is that interested in an alternative and thinks its that much better, than take the time and implement it and we can look at things a year from now.

@trulpen

Looking at the current rankings, you have 2 wins of T3 opponents. If you took those games away you would be in basically the exact same position you are now. If you learned absolutely nothing from those games then I suppose you are right, you are worse off then you would be otherwise. But the impact on your rating was relatively minimal and my guess is you got something from the experience that maybe helps you win another game.

Last year, if you changed out your loss against koala to a loss against an E player, you would have ended up in the exact same position, so again minimal impact.

None of this is meant as a counter to your point - that the system struggles with players with minimal games but once you get up to 8 games seems like the impact is relatively minor.

I dont think any system can deal well with players that only have one game played.

What is the plan for the league playoffs this year.

The league rules are a bit outdated and I don’t believe they reflect the league as it is being played. Up until the release of PTV this year 99% (didnt actually calculate but its close to this) of the games the last few years have been BM3. The 2018 playoffs and 2019 playoffs were both conducted using BM3 since that is the game the the league actually plays. This year things are a little different as PTV was released and allowed with league rules.

The rankings as they are (with one exception) reflect BM3 play. I dont see how its reasonable to have any game other than BM3 used to determine league champion. I also think league champion means absolutely nothing outside of the context of this community so I think its perfectly reasonable for the community to decide how things are considered which is why I am asking.

I think at minimum there should be a league playoff where the sole game played is BM3. If there is enough interest I think there could also be a PTV bracket. But I think that would be better for next year when the game has time to be further developed. The PTV game as it is has been changed several times throughout the season and while I like the idea of a PTV tourney, I dont think there is a real way to determine participants based on exisiting scoring. Cant just take the top 8 and put them in a PTV tourney since a good portion of the top 8 have played almost no PTV.

I will admit that I am biased to this discussion. As things stand now if everyone in top 8 were to participate in tourney I as the 4th seed would probably be forced into playing OOB which I wont do as I have played zero games of OOB. I rejoined the league after a several year hiatus 3 or so years ago and at that time the league was playing BM3 almost exclusively so recognizing that that was the game the league was playing, that is the game I chose to play. Having an OOB game determine playoffs in a BM3 league makes no sense (and would only be considered because the league rules were never really updated and so a loophole exists that doesnt reflect play in the league).

Sorry for the long post…

no, other way around. higher seed means higher placed seed.

@majikforce

Is someone crying?

This discussion started with changing the rules and that is what it is about. The rules can only be changed at the beginning of the year and guess what that is now.

@wheatbeer said in League General Discussion Thread:

I haven’t played PTV … is the game mechanically similar enough that a person with a good PTV record is likely to have a good OOB/BM3 record?

Or conversely, is there any player who’s very sucessful at PTV but very poor at OOB/BM3?

At first you probably wont be at the same level, but once you play a few games and learn the rules and basics you will be fine. In order to be a good player in this game you need to make good decisions, be able to develop strategies and adapt as needed, and such. All those things apply to all the versions. The different versions have their own nuances but if you are good at fundamentals you can learn the new games with just a bit of effort.

@regularkid said in League General Discussion Thread:

Is there really enough interest to support separate playoffs for all three? I doubt it. Keeping the playoffs unified with a default map (probably the most played map from that year) prevents fracturing and ensures a robust pool of players. Also maintains the prestige of a single title of “league champion” rather than a bunch of mini titles that were contested by only a smattering of people.

Each game is different, but as others have state, the skillset you use to win is largely transferable between them–justifying a single title.

For this reason I support Gamerman’s proposal. Three separate standings. One end-of-year tourney.

I think you are misinterpretting things. Nobody is advocating for what you are saying . Thats basically what we have now and is a big problem.

@majikforce said in League General Discussion Thread:

Good discussion. One that needed to be had. But on a side note the more playoffs there are the longer it will take to crown a champ. The playoffs already take quite some time. And being crowned a 2021 champion when its almost 2023 loses a little something in my book.

Dont think that makes any sense. Still a best of 8 which is no change from what we have now. Playoffs are usually over by middle of the year (3 games).

1/6 * (-14) + 5/6 (5.5) = 2.25 expected ipc gain

Previously was about 2.6.

Sorry if this has been answered but I didnt see a definitive answer despite a lot of discussion on the topic regarding mixed forces.

Scenario
US attacks an empty Phi with a cruiser loaded with a US marine.

How do Kamikazes work in this situation?

Currently TripleA prompts for Kamikaze usage allowing targeting of the cruiser. Independent of the results of the kamikaze (meaning even if Kamikaze is successful and the cruiser is sunk) the marine is able to unload and take Phi.

Is this the desired behavior? Both regarding the marine unloading (successful no matter what) and the ability to use kamikazes?

@simon33 The French volunteered to hold off the Germans. They have been training for 9 rounds for this defense.

I agree with you dem even though I think a J1 attack actually makes it easier to get to DEI as you dont have to worry about allied units on the ground in the DEI.

I think that a UK 2 attack could be a good counter to a planned J3 attack.  Not sure yet but if that is true than maybe its worth attacking J2 to get rid of the advantages of the UK2 attack which if Japan isnt planning on it can be a pain.

Kind of a nice thing about this game.  At least right now with more options available to everyone on the first few turns it makes it a little less cookie cutter than previous games where openings were almost always the same with just slight differences.

I’m trying to get a rules answer, and hoping this is the right thread for it since it’s a scenario unique to balance mod. Seems silly that a marine unloaded from a transport with zero combat involved would be that much different than a marine unloaded from a cruiser with zero combat. There had been talk in this thread about not being able to have kamikazes if there was no combat. But never an actual decision as far as I can tell.

I don’t care what the answer is I would just like to see where the rule was already answered or hear the consensus on the rule from the designer. It’s not a rare scenario so I’m sure it has come up before and just looking for the answer to the rules question.

@simon33 Sure, the scrambling worked out fine and was probably the right call. But you have to be willing to trade some other objectives in exchange for killing the luftwaffe. I think after you scrambled, you could have ignored the sub and did some different things in the indian ocean so that if Italy went for Egypt you could defend it. It just seems like you went for almost every UK option available and that means you were too thin to defend Egypt which is a lot to give up in the early game. You cant do everything.

ehh, dont worry about it. Probably a bad decision anyway. Im good with things as is.