The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

Another question; Do you envision Silk Road replacing Biblical with pre-defined battles as is currently being done in Biblical Season 11? That would be my preference instead of selecting one's own army to play against other player selected armies as is done in the other divisions. Thanks.

Not sure yet. We'll see if players prefer Silk Road over Biblical for Season 12 first and then decide. I'll have a look at possible historical match-ups tomorrow.

[SpeedyCM]

I'd rather see a separate silk road section than lose biblical for a season.

[Ray552]

I'd rather see a separate silk road section than lose biblical for a season.

I voted for Silk Road, but SpeedyCM's idea is something I like even better.

Of course, that might not be feasible, given your (Pete's) time and energy already spent running the rest of the DL.

[tyronec]

I would be in favor of Silk Road instead of Biblical for a season, having not entered Biblical because it has less appeal than the other periods.

[stockwellpete]

I'd rather see a separate silk road section than lose biblical for a season.

I voted for Silk Road, but SpeedyCM's idea is something I like even better.

Of course, that might not be feasible, given your (Pete's) time and energy already spent running the rest of the DL.

I am against doing this because it is likely that separate Biblical And Silk Road sections will end up with around 20 players in each. This would mean having either 3 or 4 divisions with 6 players in each and some of these divisions might be a bit unbalanced. You could end up with C-rated players in Division A or D-rated players in Division B, for example. I wouldn't know exactly until everyone had signed up, but aiming from the start to get 6 divisions of 6 players for just one section is the best way to ensure we get more balanced divisions.

[ilpars]

I tried Silk Road in solo games. I really liked it. I like to try it in DL.

[Cunningcairn]

Pete would you consider including armies that are geographically close to China such as Indian and Kushan for example? Some provide some really interesting match ups against the Silk Road armies.

[stockwellpete]

Pete would you consider including armies that are geographically close to China such as Indian and Kushan for example? Some provide some really interesting match ups against the Silk Road armies.

Possibly. But if I am going to provide historical match ups for this section then I don't think they will make it, certainly not the Indians anyway. The Kushans were geographically closer than the Mauryan Empire, but they were still a fair distance from most of the armies depicted in the Silk Road Mod.

[stockwellpete]

I am going to let the poll run until the weekend, but it is looking very good to have the Silk Road Mod for one season in the tournament now.

[stockwellpete]

Here is an initial list of historical match-ups we could use. There are 6 of them and I only need 5 so 1 will have to be discarded (maybe the 3 Kingdoms civil war match up).

Chinese (Zhou) 1046-701 BC versus Beidi 1046-701 BC
Chinese (Han) 206-100 BC versus Xiongnu 200 BC -155 AD
Chinese 3 Kingdoms (Wei) 220-265 AD versus Chinese 3 Kingdoms (Shu) 221-263 AD
Chinese 3 Kingdoms (Wu) 222-280 AD versus Chinese (Jin) 266-316 AD
Chinese (Jin) 317-420 AD v Sixteen Kingdoms 304-439 AD
Chinese (Sui) 582-617 AD v Chinese (Chen) 557-589 AD

[Badger73]

I like it!

[Giacofa93]

Time to study some Chinese history. I feel such a ignorant westerner...

[stockwellpete]

I think the current score in the poll suggests that there is sufficient support for a Silk Road Mod v1.7 section in Season 12 of the FOG2DL, starting on October 1st. The Biblical section will return in Season 13, starting February 1st 2022 and players will be choosing their own armies.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in the poll and discussion.

[tyronec]

The second Time Control check is completed and everyone has passed. There was no-one left on just 1 match completed and I am satisfied that the handful of players still on 2 matches completed have multiple matches in progress. One or two of you are skating on very thin ice though and, in future seasons, you need to be a bit busier issuing challenges of your own so you can get moving. It is not enough just to depend on the challenges of other players. I will look at the wording in the invitation, rules and player's guide and see if I can beef it up a bit in this regard for next season.

Am not sure if requiring players to start more games early would be an improvement, it might even cause problems.
Say for example someone is playing slowly, they have 5 live games and are playing a move every two days. Require them to start 10 games and they might now play a move every 4 days. If this happened a lot then it could lead to everyone having to have more games live at any one time and playing them at a slower rate.
Personally I like to try and play at least a move a day on every game I have live but accept that some players like to play at a slower rate. What I wouldn't like to see is the rate of play slowing down over the competition.

[stockwellpete]

Am not sure if requiring players to start more games early would be an improvement, it might even cause problems.
Say for example someone is playing slowly, they have 5 live games and are playing a move every two days. Require them to start 10 games and they might now play a move every 4 days. If this happened a lot then it could lead to everyone having to have more games live at any one time and playing them at a slower rate.
Personally I like to try and play at least a move a day on every game I have live but accept that some players like to play at a slower rate. What I wouldn't like to see is the rate of play slowing down over the competition.

The problem seems to be that a few players have decided not to issue any challenges of their own in the first weeks of the season. They just pick up challenges that are issued to them. This can work OK if players are receiving 3 or 4 such challenges a section and they will then usually hit the Time Control targets. However, sometimes if they are in a slow division (about 1 in 8 divisions can be a bit on the slow side at any one time) they will not receive sufficient challenges and then they fall behind schedule.

The standard season always encompasses 10 Sundays. This season is 10 weeks plus 6 days as we started on a Monday. The Second Time Control check, on the fifth Sunday, asks for just one-third of matches to be completed, even though 5 weeks and 6 days have passed this time. I don't think that is unreasonable.

The alternative is not to have Time Control checks and then I think the tournament would start to degenerate quite quickly. A few players would drop out without saying anything, others would play very slowly or go on holiday without letting me or their opponents know, and then more reliable players would start to get frustrated and leave. You only have to see the number of non-finishers in the automated tournaments to see what could happen without some form of time control.

I am not looking to exclude people just because they are a game short of the target, but players who are way behind schedule and players who do not respond to my messages are likely to face sanctions. It is the only way I can ensure that reliable players nearly always get their 9 matches per section and that these are completed in a reasonable timeframe.

[tyronec]

The time checks and your following up with players are part of what is making the DL so much better than the Swiss tournaments - I didn't mean in any way to suggest to pull back on them.
My concern is that requiring players to start more games only works if they are going to play them. Maybe some would and that would be an improvement.

[stockwellpete]

The time checks and your following up with players are part of what is making the DL so much better than the Swiss tournaments - I didn't mean in any way to suggest to pull back on them.
My concern is that requiring players to start more games only works if they are going to play them. Maybe some would and that would be an improvement.

I am only requiring those players who regularly get caught up in the Time Control checks to be a bit more active. Most players do not need to alter their current behaviour at all. One of the things I occasionally have to do is caution a player for slow play and restrict the number of sections they can enter in the next season. Last season, slow play started to creep up a bit too much for my liking, to the extent that relegation in one division was decided by adjudication. Since then I have been trying to improve things so it doesn't happen again.

[stockwellpete]

There were 4 match-ups involving different armies (as well as an Arab civil war match-up). The results were as follows . . .

Assyrians 18 wins, Urartians 9 wins, with 3 draws
Phoenicians 25 wins, Babylonians 3 wins, with 2 draws
Cypriots 17 wins, Egyptians 12 wins, with 1 draw
Achaemenid Persians 21 wins, Medians 8 wins, with 1 draw

Obviously, the Phoenician v Babylonian match-up was not a good one, but I think the other three were OK. The Medians got 8 wins and a draw, which is just under a third of battles where they avoided defeat. When you have match-ups like this that are a bit unbalanced, but not too much, it does help to make the divisions more competitive. Weaker players can sometimes get a morale-boosting win from them, while a really dominant player will still often manage to win the match-up.

Any comments?

[Giacofa93]

I think in such a historical section it makes sense to have some more balanced matchups and some less balanced. Honestly it doesnt bother me to have a very unbalanced match up, if it's only 1 in 5

[Kroche]

I enjoyed playing the historical match ups. Maybe unbalanced matches determine the results for top players more than their own input, but even in those leagues there was generally a clear winner.