harveylh wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:06 pm
I'm new to the Digital League, having just finished my first set of matches. However I would strongly object to not being able to submit my armies in order of preference. I don't mind lower ranked players getting their first choices, but I do want to use my preferred remaining army.
The reason that I am suggesting that it might be better, on balance, to remove "order of preference" from the army selection procedure relates to our discussion about the increasing number of drawn matches this season in the FOG2DL. My suspicion is that some players really only focus on their first choice army so that when they eventually get allocated a second or third choice preference they can sometimes be a little less confident about using it. And this diminished confidence may, on occasions, result in more defensive play. I am fairly certain this does happen although I am less certain about how often it happens and therefore how significant an issue it is. One possible remedy is to remove the "order of preference" feature and ask players to just indicate the three (currently) or four (possibly in the future) armies they would like to use in a season. By having "no order of preference" it will hopefully require players to focus on all three (or four) armies rather than just the one.
The way that I allocate armies to players now happens like this. First I put players into the divisions based on promotion and relegation, player ratings and form in other tournaments if the player is entering the FOG2DL for the first time. Army choices play no part at all in the procedure at this stage. Once I have all the divisions set up I then start working through them, one at a time. I take a sheet of paper and write down in a column all the names of the players in a division and I put their three army choices on the same line as their name. I then try and maximise the number of first choices and then second choices from the "pattern" of army selections in front of me, remembering that I can only put one army from each nation into the final line-up. Sometimes the pattern will allow me, say, six first choices and four second choices (which I write as 6-4-0, where there are no third choices) and this is a good outcome. But, on other occasions, the best that I might be able to come up with is 3-5-2, often because the players in that division have tended to pick similar armies. Sometimes I will have a choice to make between, say, 4-6-0 and 5-3-2, and I would always choose 4-6-0 because I try to avoid allocating third choices where possible, because often a player will give much less thought to a third choice army. If I am forced to allocate a third choice army then I make a note of the player's name so that they do not get another third choice allocation that season, or in the next one. The important point is that while I am doing this allocation procedure the names of the players are completely irrelevant to me. I am just trying to get the best pattern so that most players will be reasonably happy.
This has been a very robust system in the 6 seasons of the FOG1DL and FOG2DL and I have barely had a complaint in all that time. So, if a change is going to be made now, then it would have to be for a very good reason. My next post (later on today) will look at an alternative way of doing things.
