Kabill wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:05 pmI think the issue of new players is a red herring.
No, new players and players "promoted" to a higher grade because other players have not returned to the league are central to this idea. This is a group of players who may be outclassed in the season so if there are ways to help them a little bit then we should. If we have a system where the lowest rated player gets allocated their army first then that will also help.
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?).
No, you are completely misunderstanding the idea. If you go back and read the post where I did the Classical Antiquity Division A again with the new idea you will see that I only used Mike's army guide just the once. The scenario you have devised about yourself has nothing to do with what I am suggesting. If you had put Gauls, Spanish and British as your armies then you would have got the first one available on your list after other lower rated players had been given their choices. The only possible time this would apply to you is if you were put in a higher division because other players had not returned for the next season.
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).
It is not that I want to make a change. I am just trying to address player concerns about negative play and I think army allocation may have a part to play in the number of drawn matches there are. I am just suggesting ideas so I can see what the responses of players are. If we come up with something good we can introduce it.
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:44 pm
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.
Well, I have never seen players fighting defensive battles as a problem, and from next season onwards defensive players will have to think a bit harder about how they are going to get their points as they will need to inflict a minimum of 20% damage before they start scoring.
As I have said, I thought the only way to win was to defeat your infantry in the forest and then move forward later in the battle. Unfortunately for me the melees in the forest went on far too long and I could not get an advantage. It is interesting that you say you would have sought to avoid contact in the second half of the battle if my infantry had prevailed in the wood. I thought you were against such defensive measures.
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:01 pmNo, new players and players "promoted" to a higher grade because other players have not returned to the league are central to this idea. This is a group of players who may be outclassed in the season so if there are ways to help them a little bit then we should. If we have a system where the lowest rated player gets allocated their army first then that will also help.
Sorry, my point there was only that the issue RBS had raised wasn't specific to new players (but see below...).
No, you are completely misunderstanding the idea. If you go back and read the post where I did the Classical Antiquity Division A again with the new idea you will see that I only used Mike's army guide just the once. The scenario you have devised about yourself has nothing to do with what I am suggesting. If you had put Gauls, Spanish and British as your armies then you would have got the first one available on your list after other lower rated players had been given their choices. The only possible time this would apply to you is if you were put in a higher division because other players had not returned for the next season.
Yes I have been - you introduced the idea as getting rid of preference-ranking so it seemed like you would pick from each of the armies chosen by a player which you thought would be strongest instead. But I can see going back over the example that this isn't what you're doing. Sorry for the confusion, although I hope you can see where it has come from.
It seems, then, what you were proposing is more or less what pantherboy outlined above, only without a formal statement of preference and with the opportunity for discretion on your part to make some slightly alterations for new players, or in view of the division's army lists as a whole. If that's the case, then I'm more or less on board, but would still argue that it would be better for there to be formal ranking, even if ranking beyond the first choice was advisory rather than definite (i.e. if a player's first choice has already been taken by a lower ranked player, you'll default to a player's second choice but might select the other if you think it will work better in the division given the other armies/the player in question).
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915
Right, I have done a second exercise using Classical Antiquity Division C from this season's competition. The players in the division, with their FOG2DL ratings and army choices are as follows . . .
Ludendorf is a completely new player with no rating so he will get the first allocation. He has chosen a good army - Carthaginians in Africa - so he can have that one. Next is ahuyton who does not have a rating but did play in one division in Season 1. His rating score for those 9 matches was 4.44 so it could be argued that he should be the fourth player to get an army, but for this example I have treated him as no rating, but with a little tournament experience. He has chosen the Greeks, which can be a bit of a dodgy army but as he has played before I am not going to interfere. If ahuyton had been a completely new player then I think I would have given him the Spartan army instead of the Greeks. batesmotel is an experienced tournament player so gets the Gallics; Trogilus can have the Seleucids, Ulysisgrunt is also very experienced and can have the Jewish army. XLegione gets the Romans, SpeedyCM, the Samnites and it is not until I get to Hendricus that I have to look beyond the first listed army to allocate him the Macedonians (as the Romans have already been taken). nyczar can have the Pontics and Cunningcairn has to have the Ptolemaics as his other two choices have been taken.
And that's it. I have not had to intervene at all in this division, I have not had to refer to Mike's army classification at all and I have ended up with eight players getting the first army they put on the list, one with the second army and the highest rated player in the division ended up with the third name on their list.
So the army allocation is this and it is exactly the same as that produced by the current system.
Again, I was able to form the division from just three army choices although players number 8 and number 10 to receive their armies only had one option left to allocate when it came to their turn.
Kabill wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:36 pm
Yes I have been - you introduced the idea as getting rid of preference-ranking so it seemed like you would pick from each of the armies chosen by a player which you thought would be strongest instead. But I can see going back over the example that this isn't what you're doing. Sorry for the confusion, although I hope you can see where it has come from.
It seems, then, what you were proposing is more or less what pantherboy outlined above, only without a formal statement of preference and with the opportunity for discretion on your part to make some slightly alterations for new players, or in view of the division's army lists as a whole. If that's the case, then I'm more or less on board, but would still argue that it would be better for there to be formal ranking, even if ranking beyond the first choice was advisory rather than definite (i.e. if a player's first choice has already been taken by a lower ranked player, you'll default to a player's second choice but might select the other if you think it will work better in the division given the other armies/the player in question).
Yes, it seems that there is quite a bit of support for the idea that the lowest rated players should get their army allocations before the higher rated ones. I am quite happy with that idea. This "order of preference" thing seems to be a sticking point though. If you have a more formal system where players list their choices 1-2-3 then that might cause a problem if I have intervened in a division to give a bit of help to a new player, or someone who has been "promoted" up a division because other players have not returned that season. Using the Classical Antiquity Division C example above, supposing ahuyton had not played in the FOG2DL before and I had decided to give him the Spartans because they were a stronger army than the Greeks, and suppose either Hendricus or Cunningcairn had chosen Spartans as their first choice. They might then feel aggrieved that they could not have their first choice when they could have done if I had given ahuyton the Greeks, the army that he had originally chosen. So, if players still want a formal system then I would not really be able to intervene.
If, on the other hand, we had a more informal "order of preference" system where we said to players that you will get one of your three (or four) choices, and where possible we will give you the first army that you name on your list, then the second and so on, then that might take the sting out of the situation. I could give ahuyton the Spartans and the other players who had chosen Spartans as well would probably be more likely to accept other armies further down their selection list because they know the organiser has a bit of leeway to intervene. The truth is that when I did both these exercises with the Classical Antiquity divisions today, I mostly used the first army given by players on their list anyway.
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:01 pmSo, if players still want a formal system then I would not really be able to intervene.
Nobody that I am aware of actually wanted you to intervene. (Even if Kabill has since withdrawn his opposition, which isn't quite the same thing).
Personally, if I was a "new player", and a tournament organiser took it upon himself to "upgrade" my preferred army, I would take it as a personal affront. There is such a thing as learning by experience. And none of the players are actually going to be true newbies anyway, except in the lowest Division of each section.
By all means ask such players if they would like to switch the order of their preferences, provided that nobody else in the Division gave the army you deem more effective a higher preference. But don't change a player's preference without their permission, and don't do it if it will prevent someone else who put that army as a higher preference from playing with it.
I vote for a formal system of preferences, with lower ranked players getting first dibs, and absolutely no discretionary intervention from the organiser (other than advisory, where there is no clash with the other players' choices).
[Note that I am about to be relegated to Division B in the Early Classical section, so, if I understand you correctly, will get last choice next season in that Division. That is fine by me, it is as it should be.
And Steve will get first choice in Division A in whichever sections he enters, but he will probably pick something that nobody else has thought of anyway.]
pantherboy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:52 pm
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.
Emphasis mine
Sorry, I missed the discussion since I am at work when you boys get to chat about these things but I really want to say that Pantherboy's stance is congruent to mine. I join these tournaments to have fun and to test my skills against other players. It is very unfun to march across the map all the while looking at the turn timer trying to figure out how much risk in order to force a decision knowing all the while that the risks being taken are largely one-sided. This isn't the same as a Slitherine Tournament where you get handed armies where the imbalances are ridiculous sometimes and you are playing a mirror that everyone else has to play. These are armies you picked to play with so I expect an honest effort out of everyone.
Someone made a comment about not wanting to force everyone to charge mindlessly across the field. No one is saying that. I take defensive positions all the time. But that defensive position is only part of a larger plan of attack where the defensive position is there to only to provide an obstacle to protect the active part of my army. If you don't solve the position, you risk losing the game. That is in stark contrast to full turtle mode where if someone doesn't solve your position the result is a draw since you have no plan of winning other than hoping your opponent attacks with a plan that your defence will withstand. I understand the numbers of these games may be small, but for me, all it takes is for one or two of the games that I have going on concurrently to be in such a state to cause me to tune out.
These games consume a disproportionate amount of effort and time so it occupies a disproportionate amount of my experience and it is something I would rather not have to deal with. So for me, if a scoring change can be implemented to disincentivize such behaviour and to reward active players who might lose every game but ended up scoring tons of points in the process, I am all for it. We talked before about it being a work load issue. I agree that some of these scoring modifications are workload intensive but I am sure there are players out there who would be more than ok being an accountant for you in various divisions or sections. I am more than ok helping out with such tabulations myself. That would free yourself and others in your adjudication team to deal with real issues like non-responsive players or dropouts.
Being a (somewhat) new player I don't think I'd stand alone in saying I picked my armies more on historical interest/fun than much knowledge of their competitiveness. Only the really experienced players start to get an eye out for which army lists are the stinkers (and even then I think I've only ever played one army which I felt was genuinely terrible.. the Illyrians) so it isn't even necessarily an advantage giving the new comers first pic.
Additionally the best way to learn army composition and knowledge of counters, which units are cost effective in which scenarios etc is by playing a wide variety of lists.
Besides, I agree with MikeC_81 that active loser should be rewarded some points than defensive player with no plan. Maybe more points than draw.
However, Pete may take more concerns on such issue that one army is definitely not suitable to fight against the opponent in the open. So the player chooses to turtle as passively as possible. Pete may not want such player to be punished by active-player-rewarding system, so he may regard the system contains anomaly. But still we shall not exclude such open-field-unsuitable army in the tournament because the terrain is pot luck. It may be quite strong on difficult terrain map. Both current FOG2DL scoring system and proposed active-player-rewarding system have positive part.[/quote]
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:01 pmSo, if players still want a formal system then I would not really be able to intervene.
Nobody that I am aware of actually wanted you to intervene. (Even if Kabill has since withdrawn his opposition, which isn't quite the same thing).
Personally, if I was a "new player", and a tournament organiser took it upon himself to "upgrade" my preferred army, I would take it as a personal affront. There is such a thing as learning by experience. And none of the players are actually going to be true newbies anyway, except in the lowest Division of each section.
By all means ask such players if they would like to switch the order of their preferences, provided that nobody else in the Division gave the army you deem more effective a higher preference. But don't change a player's preference without their permission, and don't do it if it will prevent someone else who put that army as a higher preference from playing with it.
I vote for a formal system of preferences, with lower ranked players getting first dibs, and absolutely no discretionary intervention from the organiser (other than advisory, where there is no clash with the other players' choices).
[Note that I am about to be relegated to Division B in the Early Classical section, so, if I understand you correctly, will get last choice next season in that Division. That is fine by me, it is as it should be.
And Steve will get first choice in Division A in whichever sections he enters, but he will probably pick something that nobody else has thought of anyway.]
Richard, do you understand what "brainstorming" is? Players have raised the issue of the increased number of draws and negative play in the FOG2DL with me. In my attempt to be a reasonably competent organiser I have therefore looked at this development from all possible angles and have concluded that the way armies are allocated in the FOG2DL might have some impact on the issue. So I have spent some time looking at alternatives. Already we seem to be reaching agreement that I should use the player ratings in relation to the order in which the armies are allocated, so new players or players "promoted" because others have not returned in the next season will be slightly advantaged if we make this change. I had forgotten that this system had been used before because I would have implemented it much sooner.
I just find your argument about players being offended to be ludicrous. And you are muddling up two systems. Under the new idea as I originally suggested it, there would be no formal "order of preference" and so there would be no "upgrading" by me as you put it because all the player choices would be of equal status. So in the ahuyton example above, he would have been given the Spartans instead of the Greeks if he had been a completely new player who I didn't know much about. Why he would be offended by this when he had already indicated that he wanted to use the Spartans is beyond me. If I was allocating him an army that he had not chosen at all then I can see your point, but I definitely would not be in favour of intervening in that way.
It is very likely that you will get last choice in Classical Antiquity Division B next season, although someone moving rapidly up through the divisions may now have a higher rating than you and so they would be allocated their army after you. Steve will almost certainly be in the top 5 of the rankings after this season and so he will not get the first allocation of army in the various A divisions that he enters. Again you are muddling up the way Steve allocated armies in LOEG with the way it has been suggested I do it in the FOG2DL.
pantherboy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:52 pm
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.
Emphasis mine
Sorry, I missed the discussion since I am at work when you boys get to chat about these things but I really want to say that Pantherboy's stance is congruent to mine. I join these tournaments to have fun and to test my skills against other players. It is very unfun to march across the map all the while looking at the turn timer trying to figure out how much risk in order to force a decision knowing all the while that the risks being taken are largely one-sided. This isn't the same as a Slitherine Tournament where you get handed armies where the imbalances are ridiculous sometimes and you are playing a mirror that everyone else has to play. These are armies you picked to play with so I expect an honest effort out of everyone.
Someone made a comment about not wanting to force everyone to charge mindlessly across the field. No one is saying that. I take defensive positions all the time. But that defensive position is only part of a larger plan of attack where the defensive position is there to only to provide an obstacle to protect the active part of my army. If you don't solve the position, you risk losing the game. That is in stark contrast to full turtle mode where if someone doesn't solve your position the result is a draw since you have no plan of winning other than hoping your opponent attacks with a plan that your defence will withstand. I understand the numbers of these games may be small, but for me, all it takes is for one or two of the games that I have going on concurrently to be in such a state to cause me to tune out.
These games consume a disproportionate amount of effort and time so it occupies a disproportionate amount of my experience and it is something I would rather not have to deal with. So for me, if a scoring change can be implemented to disincentivize such behaviour and to reward active players who might lose every game but ended up scoring tons of points in the process, I am all for it. We talked before about it being a work load issue. I agree that some of these scoring modifications are workload intensive but I am sure there are players out there who would be more than ok being an accountant for you in various divisions or sections. I am more than ok helping out with such tabulations myself. That would free yourself and others in your adjudication team to deal with real issues like non-responsive players or dropouts.
I understand your point of view, Mike, and why you support an alternative scoring system. But it is not a position I share and it is not something that I want to introduce into the FOG2DL. And I certainly do not want to be liaising with a team of accountants twice a week in order to keep the league tables up to date. It would just slow things down incredibly whereas now I can update everything very quickly when I have a bit of spare time. I am assisted at the moment by hidde and ianiow and we work very well together as a small team and I see no reason at all to change this arrangement.
As a compromise between Pete's stance of helping newbies by automatically allocating stronger armies for them if he feels they have made a bad selection and Richard's stance of throwing them in at the deep end and making them learn by their mistakes (aka 'Nanny' and 'Draconian' as i like to call it! lol ), maybe Pete could be allowed to change the newbie's army pick on condition that he ASKS PERMISSION of the newbie first and that the new choice doesn't conflict with another player's selection further up the division. Would that be acceptable to both parties?
melm wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:01 am
Besides, I agree with MikeC_81 that active loser should be rewarded some points than defensive player with no plan. Maybe more points than draw.
However, Pete may take more concerns on such issue that one army is definitely not suitable to fight against the opponent in the open. So the player chooses to turtle as passively as possible. Pete may not want such player to be punished by active-player-rewarding system, so he may regard the system contains anomaly. But still we shall not exclude such open-field-unsuitable army in the tournament because the terrain is pot luck. It may be quite strong on difficult terrain map. Both current FOG2DL scoring system and proposed active-player-rewarding system have positive part.
A lot depends on the terrain you get for a battle. In my battle against pantherboy I was using the Chinese Chen army, which is full of fairly poor conscript infantry units while Steve was using the Northern Zhou which have loads of lancers. The battlefield was flat and open except for a large wood on one flank. So I headed into it because the lancers, with infantry support, would have destroyed my army easily. I was hoping to defeat his infantry in the woods so that I could attack later on in the battle. However, if the battlefield had given me some slopes to defend then I would have stayed in the centre and tried to use my better infantry units against the lancers. That would have been a much more enjoyable battle.
Next season players will be able to agree a complete re-start to a match within the first two turns if the terrain looks like it will contribute to a stalemate. If that rule had been in effect when I played my match against pantherboy I would have asked for a re-start and I would have indicated that I was heading for the trees if he wanted to keep the map. I don't know whether he would have agreed to a map change but if he didn't then he really would not have much ground for complaint about me going into the wood.
If you look at the poll, my idea that players will only get a point for a draw if they have inflicted 20% damage on the enemy is clearly ahead now and I think it will force very defensive players to think about their tactics for next season. Agreeing 0-0 draws will get you nothing in future.
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:44 pm
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.
Well, I have never seen players fighting defensive battles as a problem, and from next season onwards defensive players will have to think a bit harder about how they are going to get their points as they will need to inflict a minimum of 20% damage before they start scoring.
As I have said, I thought the only way to win was to defeat your infantry in the forest and then move forward later in the battle. Unfortunately for me the melees in the forest went on far too long and I could not get an advantage. It is interesting that you say you would have sought to avoid contact in the second half of the battle if my infantry had prevailed in the wood. I thought you were against such defensive measures.
As I said during the match time would be an issue and as such if things went awry then I would simply withdraw back to my corner as you had left yourself no options for pursuit. So I was presented with the task of going into the woods leaving half my army behind which couldn't operate versus your foot heavy army. I was fortunate that you deployed poorly in defense and was able to just manage a victory by 25% a turn or two before the final buzzer. My reference regarding withdrawal is not in relation to defensive play but simply an attempt to deny you points for a victory if my troops had gotten the worse of it. Your scoring system doesn't reward fighting to the bitter end so if I felt victory wasn't achievable at all by me then I would withdraw out of animus since I wouldn't want to reward such defensive play. If you remember I had some units rout and there was a lull in the fighting where I could of withdrawn and I mentioned that the game was looking to be a draw and you offered to end the battle at that point with a mutually agreed draw. I said to play on anyway as I couldn't lose and I wanted to force you into playing out the full 24 turns but by committing some cavalry into the woods I was able to break the deadlock when the flanks opened up. Ultimately you are saying I should accept half my matches as draws unless I am willing to headbutt players who turtle since your proposed scoring system doesn't alleviate the issue. If I want to win a division then I have to win battles and players could simply phase me out by all turtling which wouldn't hurt them but would be detrimental to my score and not reflect my capabilities. I feel that if neither player is willing to attack then it requires only one player to demand a restart rather than an agreement by both. If neither want to restart than they should both score nothing. If one player feels the map presents them with an opportunity to win then they go for it and no restart is needed. In the past I never regulated restarts simply leaving it up to the players involved to self-judge and it never led to any issues. I think the most restarts was 2 in LOEG.
ianiow wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:58 am
Regarding the picking of armies debate -
As a compromise between Pete's stance of helping newbies by automatically allocating stronger armies for them if he feels they have made a bad selection and Richard's stance of throwing them in at the deep end and making them learn by their mistakes (aka 'Nanny' and 'Draconian' as i like to call it! lol ), maybe Pete could be allowed to change the newbie's army pick on condition that he ASKS PERMISSION of the newbie first and that the new choice doesn't conflict with another player's selection further up the division. Would that be acceptable to both parties?
Yes, OK. I think Richard has suggested something similar. It would not involve a great deal of extra work as it only happens 3 or 4 times a season but it might help to reduce the number of sterile matches a few notches more.
So what are we saying now?
We will allocate armies using the FOG2DL ratings where the lowest rated player gets the first selection. We will keep the formal "order of preference". The organiser may intervene in the army selection process with regards to new players only, provided such intervention does not conflict with other player choices and the new player is in agreement with what is suggested.
ianiow wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:58 am
Regarding the picking of armies debate -
As a compromise between Pete's stance of helping newbies by automatically allocating stronger armies for them if he feels they have made a bad selection and Richard's stance of throwing them in at the deep end and making them learn by their mistakes (aka 'Nanny' and 'Draconian' as i like to call it! lol ), maybe Pete could be allowed to change the newbie's army pick on condition that he ASKS PERMISSION of the newbie first and that the new choice doesn't conflict with another player's selection further up the division. Would that be acceptable to both parties?
Yes, OK. I think Richard has suggested something similar. It would not involve a great deal of extra work as it only happens 3 or 4 times a season but it might help to reduce the number of sterile matches a few notches more.
So what are we saying now?
We will allocate armies using the FOG2DL ratings where the lowest rated player gets the first selection. We will keep the formal "order of preference". The organiser may intervene in the army selection process with regards to new players only, provided such intervention does not conflict with other player choices and the new player is in agreement with what is suggested.
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:25 am
We will allocate armies using the FOG2DL ratings where the lowest rated player gets the first selection. We will keep the formal "order of preference". The organiser may intervene in the army selection process with regards to new players only, provided such intervention does not conflict with other player choices and the new player is in agreement with what is suggested.
pantherboy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:09 amUltimately you are saying I should accept half my matches as draws unless I am willing to headbutt players who turtle since your proposed scoring system doesn't alleviate the issue.
Am I? Where have I said that? The scoring system has been quite acceptable for 6 seasons but now we have a couple of the top players complaining about negative play (yourself and MikeC_81). That is not any basis at all for changing the scoring system for everybody else entirely. Most of the other players have been quite happy with it. But because the number of draws is going up sharply I have tried to respond quickly and have suggested a modification that is well supported in the poll. In future, players who "turtle" their army have very little prospect of getting any points. That, along with the new re-start rule, represents a big shift from what we have had up to now. And we can look at the statistics at the end of Season 3 to see how much impact the change has had. I think it should alleviate the issue considerably.
If I want to win a division then I have to win battles and players could simply phase me out by all turtling which wouldn't hurt them but would be detrimental to my score and not reflect my capabilities.
Why would they do that? It sounds a bit disrespectful to me. You are not that far ahead that all the A players will feel obliged to turtle against you. A lot of the other top players are quite capable of beating you with the right army, right terrain, good form and a bit of luck. Even I would fancy my chances in those circumstances and you were way ahead of me in FOG1. If you turtle now you will get nothing. My change will render turtling more or less obsolete because players will have to devise plans that enable them to cause at least 20% casualties to your army. That pretty much necessitates a full engagement, doesn't it?
I feel that if neither player is willing to attack then it requires only one player to demand a restart rather than an agreement by both.
Next season it will be by agreement and we will see how it goes. Players can report back their experiences with it. I think allowing one player to demand a re-start may cause some resentments on occasions, so I would not want to introduce it without trying a more conciliatory system first.
If neither want to restart than they should both score nothing.
They will score nothing if they do not cause 20% of casualties to their opponent's army.
If one player feels the map presents them with an opportunity to win then they go for it and no restart is needed. In the past I never regulated restarts simply leaving it up to the players involved to self-judge and it never led to any issues. I think the most restarts was 2 in LOEG.
Yes, if one player wants to keep the map then kept it is. I don't plan to intervene in the re-start process. I wonder whether a limit of 2 re-starts should be introduced? Players can spend a lot of time setting up armies and the schedule for the FOG2DL is fairly tight. I think a maximum of 2 re-starts might be a good idea in the first season using it. Again, we can re-assess at the end of Season 3.
MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:26 pm
I personally think we should be less concerned with anomalies and more concerned with eliminating any chances that a player is given incentives to avoid combat. I would even be in favour of giving losers a point and draws 0 points just to encourage getting results.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about whatever the minimal prize support there is out there and whether any potential prize I could win is given to someone else because of some scoring anomaly. I am playing, and I hope the majority of those playing, are doing it because it is fun and we get to explore the full potential of the armies in the game pursuing the built-in victory conditions of the game. Playing to try and win while someone else is merely trying to deny you a win, instead of themselves getting a win, is probably the most unfun experience possible.
Vote for option 2 then. Along with the new 2-turn re-start regulation we should be making a big impact on negative play in Season 3. You will have to inflict 20% damage on an opponent to start scoring points in future.
IMO playing defensively is a valid tactic with certain armies or in certain match ups. Just the match up can be an incentive to avoid combat so why penalize the player on the wrong end of that scenario. For example a MI army wants to sit defensively in terrain against a horse archer army. The 20% in that match up heavily favors the horse archers. Having match ups which result in draws is bound to happen with an open style tournament. Personally I will play with whatever system is used but I see no reason to overcomplicate the scoring. I say add the map change rule and see how that goes before adding in a new scoring system. In table top games you do have winning draws and most scoring systems give you some points for a loss as well, similar to the Slitherine system.
One of the issues I see coming from the TT game is that the pot luck terrain can vary quite wildly giving a whole map with rough hills for example. Playing TT this would never happen and more often you get terrain around the flanks of the battlefield not in the center. Obviously nothing we can change but I see it as a factor as we get more missile armies who like the rough terrain or horse archers who don't.
This is the third and final exercise and this time I am using the compromise formulation for army selection that emerged this morning on the forum . . .
Armies will be allocated to players using the FOG2DL ratings where the lowest rated player gets the first selection, the second lowest rated player gets the second selection and so on. Players will submit their army choices in order of preference. The tournament organiser may intervene directly in the army selection process only with regards to players in their first season, provided such intervention does not conflict with other player choices and the player is in agreement with what is suggested to them.
The players in Classical Antiquity Division B with their FOG2DL rating and army choices were . . .
edb1815 (1.14) Carthaginians (Hannibal in Africa), Achaemenid Persians, Romans.
ggarynorman (2.30) Romans, Seleucids, Thracians.
Aryaman (no full rating, 3.33 from 9 matches) Seleucids, Lysimachids, Pyrrhics.
devoncop (4.20) Ptolemaics, Macedonians, Lysimachids.
markwatson360 (4.38) Parthians, Romans, Skythians.
pbuck777 (4.74) Achaemenid Persians, Pontics, Syracusans.
shawkhan2 (5.14) Ptolemaics, Macedonians, Romans.
rexhurley (5.97) Carthaginians (Hannibal in Italy), Indo-Skythians, Syracusans.
DzonVejn (no full rating, 6.11 from 9 matches) Rhoxolani, Skythians, Achaemenid Persians.
Ironclad (no full rating, 6.77 from 12 matches) Romans, Seleucids, Carthaginians (Hannibal in Aftica)
This division has highlighted two issues relating to the proposed new procedure that need attention. The first one is that there are three players in this division with no full rating, but they have played in the FOG2DL before. At the moment a player needs to complete 15 matches to get a full rating so I think we should change this to 9 matches in future. Then, players entering just one division in a season will qualify for the full rating. For this exercise I have used the partial rating of the three players concerned to fit them into the list above showing the order in which the armies will be allocated.
The process was very straightforward for the first six players on the list (from edb1815 down to pbuck777) as they all got their first army selections. shawkhan2 was given the Macedonians as his first army had been taken, the same happened to rexhurley and DzonVejn was able to get his first choice Rhoxolani. The second issue occurred with Ironclad because all of his selections had already been taken so he would have had to make a fourth choice. As I had previously suggested this system is less flexible than the current one (where I actively seek out ways to both maximise first choices and minimise third choices with very little regard to the names of the players in the division) so I think it will be necessary to ask players to make four selections in future instead of three.
The final allocations were (7-2-0*) as follows with 4 players getting a different army (the army they actually used is shown in brackets) and one player having to make an extra selection . . .
), maybe Pete could be allowed to change the newbie's army pick on condition that he ASKS PERMISSION of the newbie first and that the new choice doesn't conflict with another player's selection further up the division. Would that be acceptable to both parties?
