The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

You have said that you will select the "best" of their choices for "some" players. You are effectively forcing those players, however few they may be, to play with the army you deem "best".

If you are not going to do that, then I don't know what we are discussing, because that seems to be the heart of your proposal.

I have given you a clear example where I think the idea might be helpful. This might happen 3 or 4 times a season across the league. In that hypothetical case I would have allocated the Roman army instead of the Pontic army to Nosy_Rat for a quite specific reason. And I would be doing that in the context of a system which was not asking players to provide an "order of preference" for their choices, but choosing three or four armies that they would be happy using in that part of the competition. If you don't want to use a particular army then do not include it in your selection. You might just as well argue that I am forcing players to use armies that they have indicated they want to use, for all the sense it makes.

[stockwellpete]

I would stick with just letting players pick their armies by order of preference. Maybe check in with newer players to alert them to the fact their army has a bit of a bad record by the statistics, but that's as far as I'd go, and even that I'm leery about because it may unnerve new but talented players out of picking an army that nobody else has figured out how to use well, but which they actually have a really good strategy with. I'm quite comfortable playing with a 'low-tier' army if that's what I want to do; generally, if a player wants to take that kind of army into the league, they have some experience using it to compensate, or they just want to challenge themselves.

If someone wants to take an army out onto the field that's statistically a bit sub-par, I say let them. They may well give the other players a bit of a surprise in the event!

If you or Richard want to play with The Kappadokians or the Moorish army I am not going to stop you. But if I have a new player in an A or B division who has included one of them in their list along with Romans, Carthaginians and Gauls then I would be allocating them one of the better armies in that first season for the reasons that I have already mentioned.

[rbodleyscott]

You have said that you will select the "best" of their choices for "some" players. You are effectively forcing those players, however few they may be, to play with the army you deem "best".

If you are not going to do that, then I don't know what we are discussing, because that seems to be the heart of your proposal.

I have given you a clear example where I think the idea might be helpful. This might happen 3 or 4 times a season across the league. In that hypothetical case I would have allocated the Roman army instead of the Pontic army to Nosy_Rat for a quite specific reason. And I would be doing that in the context of a system which was not asking players to provide an "order of preference" for their choices, but choosing three or four armies that they would be happy using in that part of the competition. If you don't want to use a particular army then do not include it in your selection. You might just as well argue that I am forcing players to use armies that they have indicated they want to use, for all the sense it makes.

I have already explained this once but I will do so again.

Say you are an experienced MP player, who has so far not taken part in the FOG2DL. You would like to try playing the "Blue Hottentots", but that is the only "non-meta" army you want to play. You have to put down three armies (supposedly in case more than one person chooses the same army) so you put down the "Blue Hottentots", "Romans" and "Carthaginians", in the hope that nobody else will choose the "Blue Hottentots".

The tournament organiser, "for the greater good" makes you play with Romans, even though nobody else wanted to play with the "Blue Hottentots".

Don't you think that that player would have cause for resentment?

[pantherboy]

I guess we are entering the world of semantics. Either players are making a preferential selection whereby you should allocate in order of their wishes irrespective of the armies being selected in a group as per the rules governing first second choice selection or you are asking players to present a group of armies they'd like to play and the umpire is adjudicating which fits best into the grouping.

[rbodleyscott]

I would stick with just letting players pick their armies by order of preference. Maybe check in with newer players to alert them to the fact their army has a bit of a bad record by the statistics, but that's as far as I'd go, and even that I'm leery about because it may unnerve new but talented players out of picking an army that nobody else has figured out how to use well, but which they actually have a really good strategy with. I'm quite comfortable playing with a 'low-tier' army if that's what I want to do; generally, if a player wants to take that kind of army into the league, they have some experience using it to compensate, or they just want to challenge themselves.

If someone wants to take an army out onto the field that's statistically a bit sub-par, I say let them. They may well give the other players a bit of a surprise in the event!

If you or Richard want to play with The Kappadokians or the Moorish army I am not going to stop you. But if I have a new player in an A or B division who has included one of them in their list along with Romans, Carthaginians and Gauls then I would be allocating them one of the better armies in that first season for the reasons that I have already mentioned.

We understand that. We just don't agree with it.

[rbodleyscott]

I guess we are entering the world of semantics. Either players are making a preferential selection whereby you should allocate in order of their wishes irrespective of the armies being selected in a group as per the rules governing first second choice selection or you are asking players to present a group of armies they'd like to play and the umpire is adjudicating which fits best into the grouping.

Indeed.

And I guess that those should be the choices in a poll.

I am willing to bet that most people would prefer to be able to state their order of preference, and have it respected if nobody else is competing for their first choice.

If some armies are going to be deemed "unsuitable" then just display the list of armies from which players can choose, rather than arbitrarily deciding that an army is excluded at the division stage, for whatever reason.

[stockwellpete]

In regards to army allocation when I ran LOEG I avoided army duplication in divisions so as to add greater variety to match-ups. As such I simply asked players to submit three armies by preference and awarded them on a basis of past performance. The lowest rated player received their first pick and so on up the chain. This invariably led to most first preferences except for the players at the top of their division who may of ended up with their second or in rare instances third preference. I agree that the umpire shouldn't attempt to deduce anyone's wishes. If a group ends up with some powerhouse list for a player than so be it. Let the chips fall as they may.

Yes, I have carried that anti-army duplication idea from LOEG into the FOGDL. I had forgotten how you went about allocating the armies - it must be 6 or 7 years ago now. So you actually intervened in the army selection procedure in LOEG in a similar way to that I am suggesting might happen with this new idea? I cannot remember now but did you have any form of player ratings, or did you assess players on a completely subjective basis? In effect, you were actually running a very mild form of handicapping system in the LOEG, weren't you?

[stockwellpete]

I have already explained this once but I will do so again.

Say you are an experienced MP player, who has so far not taken part in the FOG2DL. You would like to try playing the "Blue Hottentots", but that is the only "non-meta" army you want to play. You have to put down three armies (supposedly in case more than one person chooses the same army) so you put down the "Blue Hottentots", "Romans" and "Carthaginians", in the hope that nobody else will choose the "Blue Hottentots".

The tournament organiser, "for the greater good" makes you play with Romans, even though nobody else wanted to play with the "Blue Hottentots".

Don't you think that that player would have cause for resentment?

I think this is a fairly unlikely scenario because I do look at what is happening in other tournaments and campaigns quite frequently. I do this for recruitment purposes more than anything as I send out over 150 invitations by PM each season. So I do know about non-FOG2DL players and that is why someone like Nosy_Rat was fast-tracked this season. If a situation like this did occur then the player might indeed feel a bit miffed that they didn't get their Blue Hottentots army if no-one else had chosen them. But then there is nothing to stop them sending me a PM asking for an explanation, particularly as I always encourage new players to ask for clarifications. I hardly think anyone would pull out of the FOG2DL over something like this and I definitely don't think it is a very strong argument against the idea in itself.

[pantherboy]

In essence you just reverse the order of player rankings in the previous season with any demoted players counting as being the top ranked player in their new division and promoted players being bottom ranked. So if you take Zhou to Chen as an example Gorrick gets first pick in group A while hidde gets last (which still leaves the likelihood of almost everyone receiving their first preference) based on this seasons results and Okie gets first choice while cunningcairn gets last in Group B. There was never any selection by myself except in deciding where new players sat in preferences. I even had a personal criterion which applied to them in the form of first come first served e.g. first to sign up got first choice.

[stockwellpete]

Indeed.

And I guess that those should be the choices in a poll.

I am willing to bet that most people would prefer to be able to state their order of preference, and have it respected if nobody else is competing for their first choice.

If some armies are going to be deemed "unsuitable" then just display the list of armies from which players can choose, rather than arbitrarily deciding that an army is excluded at the division stage, for whatever reason.

But I don't even select the armies like that at the moment. The individual doesn't really come into it and I don't take particular notice of player's names when I am allocating armies. What I have is a column of players with a pattern of army choices in front of me on a sheet of paper written in pen. I then seek to maximise the number of first choices and then second choices from the pattern using a pencil and rubbing it out again if the pattern doesn't work. And quite often I will end up with competing patterns, such as a 4-4-2 pattern and a 5-2-3 pattern and a 3-7-0 pattern and then I have to choose the best option from them. I would always choose the 3-7-0 pattern because I try and minimise 3rd choices as players often select the third army as an afterthought. That often means that less players get the first choice and less players get their third choice for "the greater good".

If you want the order of preference of individual players respected then you would need to move to a system where the lowest rated player was allocated their army first (i.e. a mild handicapping system), which is a substantial part of the new idea that I am presenting in any case.

No armies are being deemed unsuitable. I think it is completely over the top to say that. I may not have given the Pontics to Nosy_Rat in that hypothetical example of Classical Division A, but any of the other players could have been allocated the Pontics had they chosen them. And the Ptolemaics would have made for better match-ups in that division than the Saka.

[stockwellpete]

Just got back from Okinawa so forgive me for being late to the discussion. In my opinion the current scoring system is open to gamey play. Across my 27 matches this season I would say a half or just over half were players sitting in the best defensive position looking to earn a draw or expecting me to walk into obvious traps. This was irrespective of whether they had the better army or not. Some even stated on turn one that they wanted a draw and would be happy with that. The only match I could not force was versus Ironclad as the battlefield made it impossible for either player to attack without being slaughtered. The matches I lost or I had a tight run were only with players who actively maneuvered. Imagine going to a soccer match were one team is rated better than the other so the weaker team forms an 11-player tortoise with the ball in the center and then they do not move so as to score a draw or push it to a penalty shoot out. If you do not fight a battle then you should not earn any points at all as no battle occurred for a draw to result. Once again imagine two chess players simply sitting down and doing nothing more than agreeing to a draw without moving a piece. You would not call that a game. And to talk about losses coming from pursuit or clever positioning for a draw or whatever to justify such play or scoring systems is rubbish in my opinion. These are meant to be competitive matches to rank players upon performance. The goal is to do your best with the army at hand whether you selected it or not. That is why I used the following scoring system for the Pike and Shot tournament that I ran and which Slitherine have picked up for their tournaments. The problem with the way Slitherine are using it is that the match samples are too small and you get blowouts from mismatches. A skilled player could face a relative novice in the third round by simple fortune. In a group where you play everyone then the system shines. I feel winning a 60% to 59% match where the simple cast of the die may have decided the winner should not be an all versus nothing score. I feel a player who looses every match but pushed every one of their opponents to within a percentage point or two of breaking must of played well and deserves to have that reflected in their tournament scoring as compared to someone who wins one match but looses everything else dismally who would be rated higher. The idea of playing for a draw to stop being demoted is insane. If you do not deserve to be in a lower bracket than the next season you will trounce your opponents and be promoted back up. This scoring system encourages you to fight a battle regardless of the conditions or match up as the better you do the more points you will earn. I am not implying that you can not take up strong defensive positions but doing so with the hope of dissuading your opponent to attack and concede a draw should not be the motive. In such a case you should both restart the match as many times as necessary till one of you feels that they can force a result. The goal is to have a competitive match pitting skill versus skill (plus luck) so that you can get a fair approximation of where you stand in the rankings.

There are a lot of points here and some I disagree with. Obviously your reputation preceded you and many of your opponent's were fearful of a severe beating (including myself considering our army match-up and terrain ). Next season we will be moving to a situation where players will only score a point from a drawn match if they have inflicted 20% or more losses on an opponent, so a battle will have to occur for players to get anything at all from a match (see the poll). With the re-start rule this should substantially deal with the issue of negative play. We can re-assess at the end of Season 3.

I take a completely different view over the scoring system and I prefer the basic tariff we have now (4-2-1-0) where a win is worth 4 times a draw (a score-draw from next season). I am not a fan of scoring systems that squeeze up the rewards between winners and losers, or gives losers more points than players who have drawn, and I certainly do not want to be fiddling about with mathematical calculations and decimal points. I am not saying it is rubbish or insane, but it is not for me and I won't be using it in the FOG2DL. I also have no problem with players treating their league season as if it was a campaign and working out where they think they can win and where they think they might need to be more defensive. It takes all sorts to make up the league and all of them are welcome in the FOG2DL.

[rbodleyscott]

If you want the order of preference of individual players respected then you would need to move to a system where the lowest rated player was allocated their army first (i.e. a mild handicapping system)

I have absolutely no problems with that.

[Kabill]

I think this is a fairly unlikely scenario that might happen very occasionally, because I do look at what is happening in other tournaments and campaigns quite frequently. I do this for recruitment purposes more than anything as I said out over 150 invitations by PM each season. So I do know about non-FOG2DL players and that is why someone like Nosy_Rat was fast-tracked this season. If a situation like this did occur then the player might indeed feel a bit miffed that they didn't get their Blue Hottentots army if no-one else had chosen them. But then there is nothing to stop them sending me a PM asking for an explanation, particularly as I always encourage new players to ask for clarifications. I hardly think anyone would pull out of the FOG2DL over something like this and I definitely don't think it is a strong argument against the idea itself.

I think the issue of new players is a red herring. This is an issue which could apply to any player. If in the next season I really wanted to play (I dunno) Spanish, but was ok with playing (say) Gauls or British if they weren't available, being assigned Gauls because I'm mid-table and you think Gauls are stronger, despite no one else wanting to play Spanish, seems to me silly. Add on top of this the fact that I might actually be better with Spanish because I've played them more and it seems doubly silly.

(I have made up the relative ranking of the two armies here, in case that's not clear. I have no sense of whether Spanish or Gauls would be considered stronger; in fact I'd probably rate them about the same, which incidentally raises the question of what you would do when there are two relatively even options to give a player - again, wouldn't it make sense for them to get the army they would prefer to play rather than you arbitrarily picking?).

If you want the order of preference of individual players respected then you would need to move to a system where the lowest rated player was allocated their army first (i.e. a mild handicapping system), which is a substantial part of the new idea that I am presenting in any case.

If you want to make a change, then this would be my preferred option. My reservations are only about the allocation of armies based on perceived strength rather than player preference; I'd be more than happy with lower ranked players in a division getting priority for army allocation as this should keep the divisions lively (and the stronger players on their toes!). It would also mean that at least the better performing players in each division would need to take their third-choice options seriously, as there's increased risk of having to play them compared with the extant system (where you go out of your way to avoid third picks).

[pantherboy]

Next season we will be moving to a situation where players will only score a point from a drawn match if they have inflicted 20% or more losses on an opponent, so a battle will have to occur for players to get anything at all from a match (see the poll). With the re-start rule this should substantially deal with the issue of negative play.

So are you saying that under the new rules for the next season you would of kept your army in the field rather than moving everyone into a forest on the back half map edge of your side of the map? Why? You would of played exactly the same with the same expectations. I had to fight so many battles where a general would of never tried but simply surrounded the enemy force cutting of their access to supplies and starved them out. When battles were fought they were usually inevitable due to the circumstances. One side could not simply allow their opponent complete freedom of movement.

[ianiow]

If you want the order of preference of individual players respected then you would need to move to a system where the lowest rated player was allocated their army first (i.e. a mild handicapping system)

I have absolutely no problems with that.

Hi Pete, I'm guessing you don't remember but this was the way of doing things in the LOEG under Pantherboy and FOG1DL under Ericdoman1. I think it was a fair and straightforward system. Players could see why they didnt get their 1st choice (because a lower ranked play got in there before them!) and it would be less subjective than 'umpire-choice' (which could cause resentment).
The lowest rated players got a higher chance of getting their first choice and this lead to the top players having to put more thought into 2nd and 3rd choices or go with an unfancied army and wrong-foot everyone (Pantherboy conquering all with Illyrians is still the stuff of legends) It was a fair system and it worked. ( Btw, I still would prefer more than one Roman and more than one Carthage army in each division but I see I am in a minority so will shut up!)

I am enjoying reading this discussion.

[pantherboy]

I also have no problem with players treating their league season as if it was a campaign and working out where they think they can win and where they think they might need to be more defensive.

You have hit the nail on the head regarding the problem. Did you enter the forest to avoid battle or win? If it was to avoid battle then you lost as you gave up the initiative and hid like the Italian states did when Charles invaded on his way to conquer Naples. You would have never have left the forest as you believed it was unwinnable. If it was to win then it baffles me how hiding and looking to reach turn 24 achieves that. As I said I could attack at will and withdraw without fear of being caught should the fighting go against me.

[pantherboy]

( Btw, I still would prefer more than one Roman and more than one Carthage army in each division but I see I am in a minority so will shut up!)

I am enjoying reading this discussion.

I think I just stopped duplicate lists so you still could get different versions of Romans fighting each other like Julius versus Pompey or one kind of Greek list versus another which were essentially the same. I think what helped in allowing players to get their first preference was limiting players to using a list for only one season though they could take variants until they ran out. Also allowing players to vote on the 10 lists that would be used in certain seasons was fun and then letting lower ranked players have first dibs was a great equalizer. I remember getting stuck with the Numidians without Roman support. That was a traumatizing season for me

[stockwellpete]

Next season we will be moving to a situation where players will only score a point from a drawn match if they have inflicted 20% or more losses on an opponent, so a battle will have to occur for players to get anything at all from a match (see the poll). With the re-start rule this should substantially deal with the issue of negative play.

So are you saying that under the new rules for the next season you would of kept your army in the field rather than moving everyone into a forest on the back half map edge of your side of the map? Why? You would of played exactly the same with the same expectations. I had to fight so many battles where a general would of never tried but simply surrounded the enemy force cutting of their access to supplies and starved them out. When battles were fought they were usually inevitable due to the circumstances. One side could not simply allow their opponent complete freedom of movement.

I was trying to win that game. I knew you would come in to the forest because you had the hump with me for going in there. I outnumbered you in infantry and I was hoping to get the better of you in there so I could move forward in the later stages of the battle. I failed to do so but it was a reasonable tactic against a better player with a better army. The melees took much longer than I realised as I had not fought like that in a forest before. The Chinese Chen cannot stand in the open against the Northern Zhou. Yes, I would do exactly the same again with that army against the Zhou on a mainly open battlefield. If I had had some slopes to defend then I would have stayed in the open.

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete, I'm guessing you don't remember but this was the way of doing things in the LOEG under Pantherboy and FOG1DL under Ericdoman1. I think it was a fair and straightforward system. Players could see why they didnt get their 1st choice (because a lower ranked play got in there before them!) and it would be less subjective than 'umpire-choice' (which could cause resentment).
The lowest rated players got a higher chance of getting their first choice and this lead to the top players having to put more thought into 2nd and 3rd choices or go with an unfancied army and wrong-foot everyone (Pantherboy conquering all with Illyrians is still the stuff of legends) It was a fair system and it worked. ( Btw, I still would prefer more than one Roman and more than one Carthage army in each division but I see I am in a minority so will shut up!)

I had forgotten how Steve organised it. Eric ran the Temporary League (inspiring title ) rather than the FOG1DL, didn't he? It was me, Voskarp and Turk1964 who started the FOG1DL, I believe. Well, if nothing else has been achieved then we can poll the introduction of a mild handicapping system for army allocation for Season 3 after I close the other poll.

[TheGrayMouser]

( Btw, I still would prefer more than one Roman and more than one Carthage army in each division but I see I am in a minority so will shut up!)

I am enjoying reading this discussion.

I would also prefer this. Think how much simpler all this would be if you just submitted 1 army choice to the admin, then the season starts and you just start playing. If needed , I suppose players could only use the same list every( insert #) of seasons. ( which was a rule some time ago in the DL history)

I’m not sure how or why or when ( maybe from the very beginnings?) two armies became in 1 division verboten.