Ever-Green League - 300 BC

[dim30]

The original idea behind the EGL, hence the name, was it would be an ongoing ladder played at a casual pace; players would be free to come and go as demands of RL or other games/tournaments took up their time. Thus, it has tended be a bit quiet when other tourneys or league seasons were in full swing. It generally picks up in between such events. I know for myself, I'm more active in those cases at least. I would be sad to see the format change in that respect.

Of course, as the organizer, you are free to make changes as to how you want to run things.

A couple of changes I think might help would be:

1. Simply divide it into an EGL Ancients and Medieval. That would give a much broader range of armies, but would sacrifice a bit of the historical match up flavor.

2. Allow players to switch to a new army more regularly; maybe once every six months.

My 2 cents,

Karvon

I'd rather make decisions by consensus or with majority support from participants.

I think it's a good idea to allow the change of armies sometimes. Does anyone else have thoughts?

For my part the EGL format is perfect for me. I haven't time to fully involve in DTC and other time consuming competition, so the casual game of EGL are great. Playing with non choosen army is also a thing that I like. It's perfect to adapt the playstyle.
But as you do the bad work, I'll play with your choices without problem.

[Blagrot]

Blagrot Greek 460-281 BC beat Karvon Lysimachid 320-281 BC 61% - 40%

The first half of the game was feints, maneouvres and skirmishing that ended with the pikes arranged on a low hill and the Greeks with an extended line to the left and some reserves behind the main group. The reserves proved critical as they found space in the main fight to double up on other hoplites and a gap between the main fighting and a stand off on the right that allowed them to flank the phalanxes and take the win. Thanks for another great game

[SawyerK]

I like the relaxed atmosphere of EGL 300 as well as playing the games without a strict time limit so my initial reaction was to avoid making changes. But when I considered the issue I realized that not having an end to the season causes two problems: First, someone considering the league could decide not to join given the large and daunting lead of the players at the top given their longer playing time. This issue becomes larger if the league continues for two or more years as the leaders gain a point score that is simply insurmountable for someone just starting. Setting an end date could therefore encourage someone to join at the start of a new season.

Second, having no defined end date encourages lax play on the part of participants. Not having a set time period to finish a game is something I actually like, especially when the TDC or similar large tournament is underway, but it also means people could decide not to play for months at a time and still keep the same point score. If we set a time limit for a season then I would assume players would initiate more games to improve their position especially if they were near the top and could end up winning.

I would appreciate thoughts from others on setting a time limit for a season.

[deeter]

I wish to change my army to Ptolemaic. Thanks.

Deeter

[angusosborne]

I wish to change my army to Ptolemaic. Thanks.

Deeter

I believe you originally chose Bosporan, so that's fine by the existing rules.

[deeter]

Good. That's how I thought it worked.

Deeter

[angusosborne]

I like the relaxed atmosphere of EGL 300 as well as playing the games without a strict time limit so my initial reaction was to avoid making changes. But when I considered the issue I realized that not having an end to the season causes two problems: First, someone considering the league could decide not to join given the large and daunting lead of the players at the top given their longer playing time. This issue becomes larger if the league continues for two or more years as the leaders gain a point score that is simply insurmountable for someone just starting. Setting an end date could therefore encourage someone to join at the start of a new season.

Second, having no defined end date encourages lax play on the part of participants. Not having a set time period to finish a game is something I actually like, especially when the TDC or similar large tournament is underway, but it also means people could decide not to play for months at a time and still keep the same point score. If we set a time limit for a season then I would assume players would initiate more games to improve their position especially if they were near the top and could end up winning.

I would appreciate thoughts from others on setting a time limit for a season.

I still think declaring a champion after a year and then resetting would be good, but I don't want to put time limits on games as I agree with others that the relaxed pace is a useful alternative to other tournaments.

Has anyone had a problem with slow play? I've had one or two games that go fairly slow, but I haven't found it a problem. I think it's more annoying when I made a challenge which was never answered, but drop outs will be inevitable.

[SawyerK]

Deeter, are you available for a match against my Etruscans? Please let me know. Thanks.

[deeter]

Sure. Please set up a challenge.

Deeter

[SawyerK]

Sure. Please set up a challenge.

Deeter

Match accepted and started. The password is 'EGL300'.

[deeter]

Challenge accepted.

Deeter

[Karvon]

I like the relaxed atmosphere of EGL 300 as well as playing the games without a strict time limit so my initial reaction was to avoid making changes. But when I considered the issue I realized that not having an end to the season causes two problems: First, someone considering the league could decide not to join given the large and daunting lead of the players at the top given their longer playing time. This issue becomes larger if the league continues for two or more years as the leaders gain a point score that is simply insurmountable for someone just starting. Setting an end date could therefore encourage someone to join at the start of a new season.

Second, having no defined end date encourages lax play on the part of participants. Not having a set time period to finish a game is something I actually like, especially when the TDC or similar large tournament is underway, but it also means people could decide not to play for months at a time and still keep the same point score. If we set a time limit for a season then I would assume players would initiate more games to improve their position especially if they were near the top and could end up winning.

I would appreciate thoughts from others on setting a time limit for a season.

I still think declaring a champion after a year and then resetting would be good, but I don't want to put time limits on games as I agree with others that the relaxed pace is a useful alternative to other tournaments.

Has anyone had a problem with slow play? I've had one or two games that go fairly slow, but I haven't found it a problem. I think it's more annoying when I made a challenge which was never answered, but drop outs will be inevitable.

I've not had any issues with particularly slow play so far. I've never had an opponent simply stop playing either. Given the idea this is supposed to be a more laidback/relaxed sort of event, I'm fine with how things seem to be going in that respect.

The concept behind ladders is for long term competition, not just a single season. In many other games they are long running for years. Resetting a ladder is generally only done if the competition format or scoring system is significantly altered. Thus, I would prefer not to reset our current ladder.

While it's true new players may be daunted by the scores of older ones, active play can move you up the ladder fairly quickly. The current scoring system rewards aggressive play, so you still can rack up points when losing. Not everyone is equally active, certainly any number of newer players have passed me already as I don't have EGL games running constantly.

While I like the swapping armies idea, I do think having the option to pick a new army to use every six months would be a better change, rather than whenever you happen to get your original army. I think that would also be easier to administer.

Karvon

[angusosborne]

Karvon: well argued. If you look at the scores as a ladder rather than as a league table it all makes sense to keep it open ended.

I will drop my suggestion to reset scores after the year. Let's give players an opportunity to change armies when the year is up though, 21/9/2022

[Karvon]

Karvon's Greeks challenges dim30's Selucids.

PM sent

Karvon

[Karvon]

My only other thought is one I mentioned earlier, simply having two ladders, one of Ancients and one for Medieval encompassing the full time period for each.

Karvon

[dim30]

Karvon's Greeks challenges dim30's Selucids.

PM sent

Karvon

Hi Karvon.
Challenge accepted ! I wait for the pw.

[Karvon]

Karvon's Greeks challenges dim30's Selucids.

PM sent

Karvon

Hi Karvon.
Challenge accepted ! I wait for the pw.

Match is up

pw karvon

pm sent

[deeter]

Here's a change I suggest: When making a challenge, you must specify what allies (if any) you intend to bring.

I just surrendered a game that was billed as Etruscans vs. Antigonids. I accepted figuring it would be a heavy infantry matchup. My Etruscan opponent showed up with Samnite allies. As the Antigonid army only has a few feeble mediums, I would never have accepted the challenge.

Deeter

[angusosborne]

Here's a change I suggest: When making a challenge, you must specify what allies (if any) you intend to bring.

I just surrendered a game that was billed as Etruscans vs. Antigonids. I accepted figuring it would be a heavy infantry matchup. My Etruscan opponent showed up with Samnite allies. As the Antigonid army only has a few feeble mediums, I would never have accepted the challenge.

Deeter

I agree. I think the challenger should say what allies they intend to use in the challenge, and then the other player could either reply with allies they would like to use, or set up the challenge themselves.

[Karvon]

Here's a change I suggest: When making a challenge, you must specify what allies (if any) you intend to bring.

I just surrendered a game that was billed as Etruscans vs. Antigonids. I accepted figuring it would be a heavy infantry matchup. My Etruscan opponent showed up with Samnite allies. As the Antigonid army only has a few feeble mediums, I would never have accepted the challenge.

Deeter

I agree. I think the challenger should say what allies they intend to use in the challenge, and then the other player could either reply with allies they would like to use, or set up the challenge themselves.

Originally, the idea was a challenger could opt for allies as a bonus for taking the initiative in posting the challenge. However, I don't have any problem with the idea of allowing the defender the option of selecting an ally as well and then creating the match.

I'm not in favor players declining challenges simply because they don't like the match ups, but I don't see a viable way of policing such a rule, as players can simply say they are too busy or whatnot. Perhaps players who have challenges declined should earn 1 pt for their initiative?

Karvon