The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[General Shapur]

And yet some players still would camp in an "impregnable" position, and it would not be fair to their opponent if he must suicide to avoid losing 4 points.

Perhaps in a standoff 4 points loss if you do not leave your half of the field - other player gets 0. Would that fix it?

I'd love that, get my horse archers into the opponent's half of the board, before they can get any units over my line, play for a draw, then see the opponents score get trashed. Conversely with my infantry army, I'd make sure I got one light unit over the line and hide it in a bush, play for a draw, walk away without losing any points.

I guess if people will game the system - theres no solution. You will just get one or 2 crap games a season.

[DanZanzibar]

I should like to see a points deduction where we currently have a 0-0 draw. Thus when 2 sides decide not to engage they incur a 4 point loss each. It would be very hard to take a decision to hide in the bushes in such cases.

And yet some players still would camp in an "impregnable" position, and it would not be fair to their opponent if he must suicide to avoid losing 4 points.

As a professional game designer, would you have any suggestions for how to handle this is the DL? The system in place for the Swiss chess automated tournaments works great but obviously must be handled differently in this structure.

I’m not putting pressure on Pete to change things, just curious what ideas you may have... who knows maybe for a new tournament.

[paulmcneil]

Perhaps in a standoff 4 points loss if you do not leave your half of the field - other player gets 0. Would that fix it?

I'd love that, get my horse archers into the opponent's half of the board, before they can get any units over my line, play for a draw, then see the opponents score get trashed. Conversely with my infantry army, I'd make sure I got one light unit over the line and hide it in a bush, play for a draw, walk away without losing any points.

I guess if people will game the system - theres no solution. You will just get one or 2 crap games a season.

Compensation drives behaviour

[General Shapur]

I just wish people in the automated tournaments would close out their loosing games. . I always hope for a match up with people who play DL so I get thru a game - dosnt happen often though.

[paulmcneil]

I just wish people in the automated tournaments would close out their loosing games. . I always hope for a match up with people who play DL so I get thru a game - dosnt happen often though.

Yeah it's annoying when your opponent disappears and limits you to the default 75 pts, in a three round tournament it can make or break your position at the end. Prefer 5 round tournies for tis reason.

[Swuul]

If the 0-0 draws become a major issue (which they really aren't, are they?) because of camping, then one solution would be to award 1 point for at least attempting for the side who has brought more than 75% of their troops on the opponent half (ie if the score was at the end 19-11, the side who actually had moved most of their army to the other half would recieve 1 point). The more active side at least in theory would have a slightly higher chance to loot stuff from the opposing camp at dusk. However, personally I do not believe the 0-0 draws are an issue, I always charge in anyway, even when it wouldn't make much tactical sense.

[rbodleyscott]

I should like to see a points deduction where we currently have a 0-0 draw. Thus when 2 sides decide not to engage they incur a 4 point loss each. It would be very hard to take a decision to hide in the bushes in such cases.

And yet some players still would camp in an "impregnable" position, and it would not be fair to their opponent if he must suicide to avoid losing 4 points.

As a professional game designer, would you have any suggestions for how to handle this is the DL? The system in place for the Swiss chess automated tournaments works great but obviously must be handled differently in this structure.

I’m not putting pressure on Pete to change things, just curious what ideas you may have... who knows maybe for a new tournament.

Not for me to say.

[rbodleyscott]

While we are discussing potential changes to the tournament rules, I would like to see more players relegated or promoted each season, rather than normally 1 per division - maybe 2 or even 3 per division.

I find myself stuck as one of the least successful players in Division A and would welcome relegation to Division B which I feel would be more my level. Frankly, being tonked in match after match in a system which is supposed to roughly have players of similar ability in each division is simply depressing. But unfortunately I mostly do just well enough to avoid relegation, but not well enough to enjoy the process much!

Even if it meant see-sawing back and forth between divisions, at least I might enjoy the tournament every alternate season.

I do appreciate that this may be an issue which mainly affects Division A, which (along with the lowest Division) may have a wider range of ability than the other Divisions, but a bit more mobility between Divisions might suit players in other Divisions too.

I don't know if anyone else feels the same. Does anyone else feel they are stuck in the wrong Division, doomed to be walked over repeatedly but not quite manage to get relegated to their proper level - like some nightmarish Groundhog Day?

[SimonLancaster]

I think there may be some flexibility from Pete. When he is putting the divisions together at the start of the season it isn’t always just promotions that go up. New players and players not coming back make things more fluid. Perhaps it is more static in Div A.

[Ludendorf]

This sort of approaches the idea Richard was talking about from the side... but I did have the idea for a team based tournament that mixed players from different divisions together. You could have four six-person teams in a group, and each team could have an even distribution of Division A, B, C, D, E and F division players. (This is going off Classical this year; I know there aren't usually six divisions available.) All the players in a team then fight all the other players in the other team, and the team that wins is the team with the most wins overall.

Obviously, you could get stuck with a team that loses dramatically despite your own strong showing, but the idea is less to be competitive and more to create a sort of training field environment where players of different levels have a chance to go up against one another, and you could still have medals for individual distinctive play. To get into the whole team spirit of things, you could even have two weeks after initial team formation where members of each team are encouraged to play against each other and learn each other's tricks and strategies. Which isn't just a chance for the lower division players to learn the upper division members' tricks, but also for the upper divisions to encounter the kind of fresh thinking that often trickles up from newer players to the game. I've received some nasty shocks from new or relatively new players who nonetheless managed to beat me or fight me to a standstill that I wasn't expecting.

It could freshen things up a bit, giving lower division players a chance to stretch themselves a bit playing against opponents from higher divisions, or shaking up veterans who feel stuck in a tactical rut. As long as everyone goes in with the mindset that it is for fun and as a learning experience, it could work.

[stockwellpete]

If the 0-0 draws become a major issue (which they really aren't, are they?) because of camping, then one solution would be to award 1 point for at least attempting for the side who has brought more than 75% of their troops on the opponent half (ie if the score was at the end 19-11, the side who actually had moved most of their army to the other half would recieve 1 point). The more active side at least in theory would have a slightly higher chance to loot stuff from the opposing camp at dusk. However, personally I do not believe the 0-0 draws are an issue, I always charge in anyway, even when it wouldn't make much tactical sense.

Just a quick stat from Classical Antiquity. So far this season there have been 234 results posted and only 3 of them have been 0-0 draws, which represents less than 1.5% of the total. I agree that 0-0 draws are hardly an issue as it is scored now as if both players have lost the match.

[Ludendorf]

Just a quick stat from Classical Antiquity. So far this season there have been 234 results posted and only 3 of them have been 0-0 draws, which represents less than 1.5% of the total. I agree that 0-0 draws are hardly an issue as it is scored now as if both players have lost the match.

Hmm... curious that it keeps coming up in discussion. Did any of those cases decide victory/relegation in a division?

[stockwellpete]

I think there may be some flexibility from Pete. When he is putting the divisions together at the start of the season it isn’t always just promotions that go up. New players and players not coming back make things more fluid. Perhaps it is more static in Div A.

Yes, I think this is right. Further down the league structure I will sometimes promote 4 or 5 players because there can be a great variance between who registers each season. But I do think this tightens up the nearer you get to Division A. The bottom player in Division A will always be relegated if they return the next season and then I can usually expect that at least 2 other players will not return to play in that section. Sometimes they have decided to enter a different section and occasionally they have dropped out altogether. In those circumstances it is not always possible to "discretionary" relegate the player who came ninth the previous season with only 2 wins.

[stockwellpete]

Just a quick stat from Classical Antiquity. So far this season there have been 234 results posted and only 3 of them have been 0-0 draws, which represents less than 1.5% of the total. I agree that 0-0 draws are hardly an issue as it is scored now as if both players have lost the match.

Hmm... curious that it keeps coming up in discussion. Did any of those cases decide victory/relegation in a division?

Well, not decide exactly, but they had a certain amount of influence. In Division C NikiforosFokas may not win automatic promotion because of a 0-0 draw with markwatson360 and SLancaster was pipped by Challenge1 because the SLancaster v elrawen match was 0-0 draw. There is provision in the rules for an agreed re-start of a match if the terrain is suggestive of a stalemate so I don't think there is much more to be done about this really. I am certainly not looking to change anything for Season 9.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, Elrawen started telling me not to move to the rough ground. He wouldn’t fight me and started retreating. I just said let’s agree a draw because it wasn’t pleasant.

I could have asked for a restart but we weren’t on sporting terms. I also really prefer to play on what is in front of me. Every time I see someone on a hill or on rough ground I should ask for a restart?

[stockwellpete]

This sort of approaches the idea Richard was talking about from the side... but I did have the idea for a team based tournament that mixed players from different divisions together. You could have four six-person teams in a group, and each team could have an even distribution of Division A, B, C, D, E and F division players. (This is going off Classical this year; I know there aren't usually six divisions available.) All the players in a team then fight all the other players in the other team, and the team that wins is the team with the most wins overall.

Obviously, you could get stuck with a team that loses dramatically despite your own strong showing, but the idea is less to be competitive and more to create a sort of training field environment where players of different levels have a chance to go up against one another, and you could still have medals for individual distinctive play. To get into the whole team spirit of things, you could even have two weeks after initial team formation where members of each team are encouraged to play against each other and learn each other's tricks and strategies. Which isn't just a chance for the lower division players to learn the upper division members' tricks, but also for the upper divisions to encounter the kind of fresh thinking that often trickles up from newer players to the game. I've received some nasty shocks from new or relatively new players who nonetheless managed to beat me or fight me to a standstill that I wasn't expecting.

It could freshen things up a bit, giving lower division players a chance to stretch themselves a bit playing against opponents from higher divisions, or shaking up veterans who feel stuck in a tactical rut. As long as everyone goes in with the mindset that it is for fun and as a learning experience, it could work.

The team-based tournament that needs to make a comeback at some point is the very much missed Companions Cup which divided players into teams from various parts of the world - the Americas, Europe, UK and Rest of the World etc.

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=25125

[stockwellpete]

Yes, Elrawen starting telling me not to move to the rough ground. He wouldn’t fight me and started retreating. I just said let’s agree a draw because it wasn’t pleasant.

I could have asked for a restart but we weren’t on sporting terms. I also really prefer to play on what is in front of me. Every time I see someone on a hill or on rough ground I should ask for a restart?

If you want to. If you don't ask . . .

[stockwellpete]

While we are discussing potential changes to the tournament rules, I would like to see more players relegated or promoted each season, rather than normally 1 per division - maybe 2 or even 3 per division.

I find myself stuck as one of the least successful players in Division A and would welcome relegation to Division B which I feel would be more my level. Frankly, being tonked in match after match in a system which is supposed to roughly have players of similar ability in each division is simply depressing. But unfortunately I mostly do just well enough to avoid relegation, but not well enough to enjoy the process much!

Even if it meant see-sawing back and forth between divisions, at least I might enjoy the tournament every alternate season.

I do appreciate that this may be an issue which mainly affects Division A, which (along with the lowest Division) may have a wider range of ability than the other Divisions, but a bit more mobility between Divisions might suit players in other Divisions too.

I don't know if anyone else feels the same. Does anyone else feel they are stuck in the wrong Division, doomed to be walked over repeatedly but not quite manage to get relegated to their proper level - like some nightmarish Groundhog Day?

One way for you to achieve the desired effect is to change sections next season. If you were to enter Classical Antiquity or Early Middle Ages then your relatively low FOG2DL rating (because of this season's losses) then you would probably be in Division B next time. I had this conversation with NikiforosFokas before this season and he changed sections and ended up in Division C (which he still might win).

[SimonLancaster]

Getting bashed in Div A and having fun in lower divisions for other sections sounds reasonable!

[MikeC_81]

Yes, Elrawen starting telling me not to move to the rough ground. He wouldn’t fight me and started retreating. I just said let’s agree a draw because it wasn’t pleasant.

Without seeing the map it is tough to say who had what alternatives available to them other than choosing not to engage but I always go by the general rule that if your entire strategy depends on someone coming to you and you have active movement of your own to win the game, there is something wrong there. The fact that it got unpleasant is awful.

here is provision in the rules for an agreed re-start of a match if the terrain is suggestive of a stalemate so I don't think there is much more to be done about this really. I am certainly not looking to change anything for Season 9.

You could try allowing for a one off map veto ability for each side per match. Removing the need for there be a mutual agreement prevents the the conflict of social pressure vs the desire to keep a map that is desirable for their own army. Each player essentially has a terrain mulligan so to speak that has to be excercised wisely since asking for a veto on a marginally disadvantageous map could see you rolling an even worse map.