Slitherine

Hi to all past, present and future players,

I have been on hiatus from the game for the past year but recently returned for Season 10 with the intent of only playing. When I left I decided to postpone league play until I returned refreshed and less busy but some players requested to carry on in my absence (Seasons 8 & 9) so I agreed and passed on the mantle of leadership. Due to recent events, which have now settled, I felt obliged to step in and help guide the league back on track. What I have realized is that the league needs some revamping to create a more interesting experience for players and streamline its management. The following proposal is something I have thought about for a while so I hope it meets player’s tastes and needs.

I will be using this thread to explain my ideas and another thread for a poll on different aspects of my proposal plus probing general feeling regarding sundry topics. Please note that I have always run the league with an open mind but ultimately made the final decisions. At this scale I feel it is wiser and more efficient to have a single guiding figure to streamline decision making and maintain a cohesive and organized structure. I welcome all contrary opinions but reserve the right to be the final arbiter and as such to have my decisions respected with the knowledge that I am endeavoring for the good of the whole league.

Cheers,

Steve

………………………………………………………………………………….

Civis Romanus Sum
I am a Roman citizen

The essence of my proposal is an absolute overhaul of the traditional league and division format. A number of problems exist primarily because of this format. Normally a player or team will play in a single league for a season, be it darts, soccer or Formula 1. This allows them to remain focused and motivated. By having so many leagues some players trap themselves with too many matches to play and can find it taxing to complete. Also the ladder system plus promotion/relegation only works with a consistent base of players. In addition players end up competing with the same individuals time and again with little chance for lower ranked players to have a crack at top seeds. It is because of these reasons plus a number of others that I would like to effect a change.

My intent is still to keep the leagues though I will be advocating for the combination of Classical & Imperial as one and Medieval & Dark Ages as another. To be able to understand how this is possible we have to look at the new structure of divisions. My vision for the league is to mimic Roman society to add flavor and a bit of fun into something that I feel has become rather dry and lacking in fanfare. It will also remove the need for league ratings thus cutting one administrative process. As such the divisions will be replaced with the following six classes:

Senatores (Senatorial Class)
Equites (Equestrian)
Plebs (Commons)
Peregrini (Foreigners)
Libertini (Freed People)
Servi (Slaves)

Each league season will be broken into two rounds. The “Alea iacta est” (the die has been cast) followed by the “Civis romanus sum” round. Each round will use a different period thus allowing the combinations I talked about earlier. The “Alea iacta est” will have 36 players divided into 6 groups with each group drawing a player from each class at the end of the previous season (for the first time this will be based on league ratings). The first group will take all players who won their respective classes. The second group will be comprised of the runner ups. The third group will be those that placed third and so on.

The next step will be army selection. At the moment I am envisaging 6 or 7 different armies based on period/theme/historicity etc. that each player will select from. The Servi will pick first followed by the Libertini then the Peregrini and so on until the Senatores makes the final choice. In this way there will be a natural balancing mechanism for the mixed class of players. The players will then go on to play each other based upon whatever match style and scoring system that has been ascribed.

At the end of the “Alea iacta est” players will be ranked in their respective groups from first to sixth. At this point the “Civis romanus sum” will begin. Once again the same 36 players will be divided into six groups based upon their ranking at the end of the “Alea iacta est”. All players who came first will enter the Senatores class, those second the Equites class and so on down to the Servi. Players will carry their scores over from the previous round and then select armies from the new category in order of lowest to highest. This will mean the most successful player in each class will receive a limited choice while the least will have carte blanche to choose.

At this point players will play out the “Civis romanus sum” to establish final rankings. It is from these rankings that players will be divided into the next season’s league with one Senatores going to the top of each group followed by an Equites and so on. Also at the end of the “Civis romanus sum” awards and status will be determined to help create a sense of community and interest in the final results without it only being meaningful to the top few.

Here is an example for Season 11:

“Alea iacta est” Round

Group 1 (at start of “Alea iacta est”)
pantherboy (last army pick)
cheahn (5th pick)
batesmotel (4th pick)
claymore (3rd pick)
stockwellpete (2nd pick)
rexhurley (1st pick)

Group 1 (at end of “Alea iacta est”)
1st cheahn 10 pts (enters Senatores for “Civis romanus sum”)
2nd pantherboy 9 pts (enters Equites)
3rd rexhurley 7 pts (enters Plebs)
4th claymore 5 pts (enters Peregrini)
5th stockwellpete 4 pts (enters Libertini)
6th batesmotel 2 pts (enters Servi)

“Civis romanus sum” Round

Senatores Class (at start of “Civis romanus sum”)
ianiow 14 pts Group 6 (last army pick)
hidde 12 pts Group 3 (5th pick)
cheahn 10 pts Group 1 (4th pick)
lysimachos 9 pts Group 2 (3rd pick)
Tiavals 8 pts w/better BP's Group 4 (2nd pick)
morbio 8 pts Group 5 (1st pick)

Senatores Class (at end of “Civis romanus sum”)
1st hidde 20 pts (will take position 1 of Group 1 in Season 12 of “Alea iacta est”)
2nd lysimachos 18 pts (will take position 1 of Group 2)
3rd ianiow 17 pts (will take position 1 of Group 3)
4th cheahn 14 pts (will take position 1 of Group 4)
5th Tiavals 12 pts (will take position 1 of Group 5)
6th morbio 10 pts (will take position 1 of Group 6)

Now if everything goes according to plan I see one season running for 2 to 3 months approximating 4 to 6 weeks for each round. With either 5 games to play for a single league round or 10 if you enter both thus making it possible to have quicker turn arounds and keeping motivation high as every player is still in contention for winning their respective classes in the second round (remember that the Servi class will be comprised of all the lowest scoring players from each group and then the very lowest will have first pick of armies). Finally at the end of a season I'm imagining a 1 or 2 month break in which all administration for the closure of the season will take place and the preparation for the the next season will occur.

Earlier I alluded to the “Civis romanus sum” resulting in achievements called awards and status. I feel these elements will be key in generating longer lasting interest in player placement at the end of each season. What follows is a general breakdown of what they mean.

Status

Status will not only be used for creating the classes for the “Civis romanus sum” but also for ranking a player's ability in general terms without the necessity of an individual score. At the end of each season a player will enter the class that they played in during the “Civis romanus sum”. His current status will be termed his family. Thus at the end of each season there will be new Senatores down to new Servi. As the seasons pass by players will more than likely end up serving in multiple classes thus generating a history which will be termed their ancestry. A players ancestry will be considered whichever class they have spent the most seasons in. If tied then they will count as belonging to the lower status class. Look at this following example;

Pantherboy has completed 5 seasons. He has been a Senatores twice, an Equites once and a Servi twice. The last season he played in the Equites class and thus his current family holds the title Equites. As for his ancestry he has been equally a Senatores and Servi twice and as such his ancestry will be considered from the Servi since we must take the lower class of the two. If in his sixth season he competes in the Senatores class then his new family will be Senatores and his ancestry will change to Senatores aswell since it will be his longest serving class.

By using this system we can immediately gauge a players current ability by looking at his family and comparing it to his ancestry. In later seasons when some players take a break and then return later we will use their ancestry for placement in the “Alea iacta est”. I prefer this system over definitive scores as it creates stratas rather than precise divisions. Also I would like to create a kind of senate where players can vote on options with their current family and ancestry weighting their influence.

There will also be one final caveat to make things a little more interesting. At the end of each season the player coming first in a class will be considered the next class higher when determining ancestry and equally the player at the bottom will be considered the next class lower but family won't change. As an example a player coming first in the Peregrini will still have his family considered Peregrini for placement in the following season and for sitting in the senate but for recalculating his ancestry then the current season will be counted as Plebs. In one way this will replace promotion/relegation and provide added incentive for coming first and trying to avoid last place. For the player coming first in the Senatores class and last in the Servi then they will recieve a special award instead.

Awards

I would like to do away with the medal system since it won't match with the smaller groupings and doesn't really fit into the new theme. Rather I would like to take Roman historical awards (phaleri) for military service. The player coming first in each group will recieve an award that will impact upon the league system in some way. The player coming last in the Servi will also recieve a title and reward.

Class --------------------- Phaleri ------------------------- Award
Senatores - "Vir Triumphalis" (Man of Triumph) - will select the 6/7 armies to be used in the next season “Civis romanus sum” round
Equites - "Corona Graminea" (Grass Crown) -
Plebs - "Corona Civica" (Civic Crown) -
Peregrini - "Corona Muralis" (Mural Crown) -
Libertini - "Corona Navalis" (Naval Crown) -
Servi (first) - "Hasta Pura" (decoration for merit) -
Servi (last) - "Ego sum Spartacus" (I am Spartacus) - will select the 6/7 armies to be used in the next season “Alea iacta est” round

At the moment I'm thinking about what would make interesting awards for the other Phaleri. Possibly a permanent increase when voting, the ability to apply certain conditions on league play, a one time benefit to restart a match after seeing the map etc. As for the two awards for deciding the next seasons army choices I'm thinking that the "Vir Triumphalis" will submit 2 or 3 proposals for voting in the senate by citizens (Senatores, Equites, Plebs) while "Ego sum Spartacus" will put their choices to a vote amongst the lower classes (Peregrini, Libertini, Servi).

At this point I would like to throw open the doors to player opinions. If things look positive then I will continue to flesh out the idea and begin setting up polls for players to vote upon various aspects.

So your intention is to make the league much smaller then, Steve?

Some statistics for everyone regarding the number of individual players entering LOEG in the past 5 seasons . . .

Season 6 - 49 players (playing in various numbers of divisions across the league)
Season 7 - 45 players
Season 8 - 43 players
Season 9 - 47 players
Season 10 - 48 players

This represents a fairly consistent pattern and it is a larger range of players than is likely with the new system of just 2 groups of 36 (with the merger of Classical/Imperial and Dark Age/Medieval).

Another way to measure the degree to which the league will shrink is this . . . assuming a standard LOEG format of 4 sections, 3 divisions in each section, and 10 players in each division - this will give you the possibility of 540 matches in total if all fixtures are fulfilled. But with the new format of just 2 sections, 6 divisions in each, and 6 players in each division, then this will give you the possibility of only 360 matches in total if all fixtures are completed - a substantial reduction of one-third.

I am very surprised by this apparent change in direction; I was expecting a blueprint for an expansion of the league given that the new version of FOG will be on the market soon along with "Wolves From the Sea" and other expansions.

As I pointed out earlier the current format doesn't really work because of the number of sections and inability for consistency. Trying to expand things will bring in more new players but also greater instances of drop out, intolerance, issues relating to play, administrative complexities etc. Crunching it back down and creating a more interesting format should engage players to persist in the league and then once the wrinkles are ironed out it will be easier to revert back to 4 sections if needed. Remember also that a simple shifting from 6 to 7 turns 36 into 43. Another option would be to limit players to one section and thus allowing 72 players. As for the new version of FOG and another expansion coming soon I feel that it is more wishful thinking than a reality. And as such it is better to accomodate what exists now and then incorporate what comes later into a functioning model.

At first glance I really like your idea Steve. I will look over it in more detail later and give you my two penith,

I do share Pete's concern that not everyone who wants to play will get in. Perhaps those that are not already a member of a class (Senator-Slave) can fight pre-season in a Gladiatorial contest for a position on the waiting list?

Looking forward to it all.

I think it will be a fun format of the league, but I also agree with Pete that it would be bad making it smaller when so many players want to enter.

Another measure of how much smaller the new LOEG will be is to consider the number of matches individual players will have. Under the current system a player entering all four sections will get around 36 matches to play; under the new system a player entering both sections will get only 20 matches to play - just over a half the number of matches that they are used to.

stockwellpete wrote:Another measure of how much smaller the new LOEG will be is to consider the number of matches individual players will have. Under the current system a player entering all four sections will get around 36 matches to play; under the new system a player entering both sections will get only 20 matches to play - just over a half the number of matches that they are used to.

To be fair, not many people play all four leagues any more. Mainly due to exhaustion. I'm only doing 4 this time because of the extended time period to complete the games - and I'm still regretting the decision! 20 games is more than enough imho.

ianiow wrote:To be fair, not many people play all four leagues any more. Mainly due to exhaustion. I'm only doing 4 this time because of the extended time period to complete the games - and I'm still regretting the decision! 20 games is more than enough imho.

14 out of the 48 players entered all four sections in Season 10, Ian, and another 12 players entered three sections - so over half the current players of LOEG (26/48) will have the prospect of playing somewhere between a third and a half less games next season. Not an insignificant number I would suggest.

My overall view of Steve's proposals is that they would be a superb idea for "historical theming" of the Classical section and that the 6-7 armies selected for each division could then be taken from the various stages of Roman history. But I think the proposals are inappropriate for LOEG as a whole, largely because it has a far greater historical range than just the Roman Empire, or any other major polity in the ancient or medieval world for that matter. I am also quite disturbed by Steve's idea about a "Senate" whereby it seems to be suggested that the better players will have more say about the running of the league than anyone else. It is my belief that we should all be treated as equals regardless of our level of skill. LOEG is the "property" of all of us who play in it. Could you clarify your intentions here please, Steve?

I do not agree with Steve that the current format of LOEG is "broken". I would rather say that it is in disarray at the moment. In my view, there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the failure to adjudicate matches at the end of Season 9. Secondly, the failure to apply sanctions against players who did not complete their matches in Season 9. Both these decision sent the signal that it doesn't really matter if you complete your matches or not. The decision to extend the playing season for an extra month was also mistaken and some players have still not registered a result in some sections two months after the starting date of the competition!

The remedy is simple. A proper adjudication at the end of Season 10 and a rigorous application of sanctions against those players who fail to fulfil their fixtures - and these measures should be linked to a more active recruitment policy for Season 11 that will bring in many more new players than is usual. I believe that LOEG should continue with 4 sections as before, but historical theming should be introduced into one section - and smaller divisions with mirror matches introduced into another. So Season 11 would be a mixture of the old and the new and it would still be able to cater for the "hard-core" players as well as the more occasional ones. The LOEG ratings and medal systems should also continue as before.

stockwellpete wrote:
14 out of the 48 players entered all four sections in Season 10, Ian, and another 12 players entered three sections - so over half the current players of LOEG (26/48) will have the prospect of playing somewhere between a third and a half less games next season. Not an insignificant number I would suggest.

Based off of this then 36 should be sufficient. 26 play in both sections leaving 10 slots open in each for a total of 46 players. Also not every player may qualify for both since they may have been tardy in completing their matches in season 10. Also if I expand to 7 then that would actually force the creation of a seventh class (probably Latini - born in Italy but not citizens) with 7 players per class to allow for placement and other processes to work smoothly which then would increase numbers from 36 to 49. As for number of games played this system is better since each player must play 10 matches to get a ranking which is the equivalent of 11 players in a division (which is rare especially in the A divisions). The net total of games played is irrelevant except as a statistic.

stockwellpete wrote:
My overall view of Steve's proposals is that they would be a superb idea for "historical theming" of the Classical section and that the 6-7 armies selected for each division could then be taken from the various stages of Roman history. But I think the proposals are inappropriate for LOEG as a whole, largely because it has a far greater historical range than just the Roman Empire, or any other major polity in the ancient or medieval world for that matter. I am also quite disturbed by Steve's idea about a "Senate" whereby it seems to be suggested that the better players will have more say about the running of the league than anyone else. It is my belief that we should all be treated as equals regardless of our level of skill. LOEG is the "property" of all of us who play in it. Could you clarify your intentions here ?

The fact that FOG encompasses a wider range than the Roman Empire has nothing to do with my proposal. All I'm doing is planting a theme over the structure to bring life to it and inspire creativity and interest. Using the Roman Empire was an arbitrary choice which could of been equally mirrored by using a Feudal system. It also ties in well with the Senate theme. In effect I could remove this flavouring to have an identical system with bland explanations and labels. I could even apply it to the current model replacing medals with crowns, divisions with classes etc.

As for the senate that will be a means for allowing the community to make choices when I don't feel it is necessary for me to rule on something (simply imagine me as Caesar ). In regards to equality of vote I'm not particularly concerned. The intent is to use it for relating to game/play decisions where the most experienced players I feel will have the best insight into game/play effecting decisions rather than voting on administration of the league. For an example players are now debating the merits of restricting the Dailami. To be honest I don't see them as such a powerhouse but that it mostly due to my experience and knowing how to overcome their strengths and as such I don't favour them. They are a great army if you don't want to win a league I feel since they can turtle but if the opponent has enough missile power then they can attrition them into defeat. Here experience is a valuable tool for measuring opinion and as such a new player to the league will have less influence than a veteran but both will be able to contribute to the final decision. Everyone will be allowed to share their opinion and then it will be called to a vote. Also earning more influence in the senate will be another goal for players.

Ok ive read through Steves revamp of LOEG and i really dont like it at all. Firstly this season has had its dramas which we have hopefully put behind us and moved on.Slow play though still hasnt been addressed as there are players who have disapeared and others who have only completed 1 game.Sure we can adjudicate at the end of the season and we will but players need to be more considerate and i dont think that will change with your new Proposal Steve.
So the new competion will have 6 divisions with 6 players in each.This is ok for the top 4 divisions but how about the new players ?This will mean your only taking on 6 new players per season and that is very unfair.I havent counted the number of new players this season but it must be at least 12. It isnt the new players that are the problem as the players dropping out and playing slow are in B division. With your new proposal i feel this will continue as it hasnt been dealt with efficently yet.I think a time limit should be set to play a game once started it must be completed with 14 days.I have run 2 competitoons with this guide line and have only had to abdudicate once.After all either you want to play or you dont. Taking 6 weeks to play a game is very poor form in my opinion, especially if the other player deliberatly does so.
In the second round of your proposal it will be 6 different classes in the same division although it is a good idea to have different levels of players competing against one another it will cause mass drop outs. The bottom players wont stand a chance against the top three ,as they are relative newcomers to Fog and will end up totally demoralised.I think personally the first half of the competition will have a good attendance but the second half there will be a lot drop out. After all its no fun being thrashed by a player who is far better than you. Why not just have 2 rounds the same and at the end of the season decide who is overall winner of each division and give them each a crown?

Cheers Turk

Steve thanks for putting a lot of thought and work behind this. Overall , its radically different but I like it.

On a personal level, my interest in the league had declined once the individual ranking system started. I like how you have incorporated more of a true "sports" league system where you are placed per your performance prior season and mid season. I think that will go a long ways for encouraging mutual player respect and prevent many issues.

The only issues I can see (not concern for me per se but I can assume many/some ? might feel different) are:

Will having the season broken out into two parts with a necessary administrative pause, potentially give rise to players maybe disappearing between parts? My experience in playing in other comps or campaigns is , any break often leads to a dribbly often incomplete finish....

Will limiting armies reduce the interest in the league ? A lot of players likely will have become very used to , attached to , the idea of an open army selection (currently only limited if a lower ranked player selects the same army and thus snags it from you )

My suggestion would be to have, instead of just 6 armies (assuming 6 players per roman rank ) is to have the army selections be maybe 10 or 12. This might lead to less issues of a player being forced to select the "best of the worst" (from his perspective) and feeling their next 6(or whatever) games are are hopeless because they are playing with any army they have no affinity/interest/skill in playing. Open up a wider range and this could be mitigated to some extent.

Cheers!

Turk1964 wrote:Ok ive read through Steves revamp of LOEG and i really dont like it at all. Firstly this season has had its dramas which we have hopefully put behind us and moved on.Slow play though still hasnt been addressed as there are players who have disapeared and others who have only completed 1 game.Sure we can adjudicate at the end of the season and we will but players need to be more considerate and i dont think that will change with your new Proposal Steve.

The proposal above has nothing to do with the mechanics of play. It is about a totally radical approach to the league. Addressing concerns over player conduct is another topic and will be discussed at a later time when I start polling. But I do feel splitting a season into two stages will mitigate some of these issues as from a psychological point a player will find it a lot easier to start and finish 5 games then 10. Plus the deadline for the 5 will be closer and players will have more realistic ideas of whether they can complete them in time or not before signing up.

Turk1964 wrote:So the new competion will have 6 divisions with 6 players in each.This is ok for the top 4 divisions but how about the new players ?This will mean your only taking on 6 new players per season and that is very unfair.I havent counted the number of new players this season but it must be at least 12. It isnt the new players that are the problem as the players dropping out and playing slow are in B division. With your new proposal i feel this will continue as it hasnt been dealt with efficently yet.

As Pete has pointed out the number of players consistently sits in the 40 range. This is due to the fact there is some turnover and as such my proposal is better suited to this situation. Because of the transient nature of players the division system doesn't function well with players often forced into a division where they may not want to be. This is especially true with Division A. Assuming a similar turnover for the future then new players will simply fill the empty group slots without bumping another player into a higher division. Remember players will have 5 games and then be grouped with other equivalent players. So if you get a newbie who is a natural they will be able to immediately play in a higher group rather than starting in the lowest division.

Turk1964 wrote:I think a time limit should be set to play a game once started it must be completed with 14 days.I have run 2 competitoons with this guide line and have only had to abdudicate once.After all either you want to play or you dont. Taking 6 weeks to play a game is very poor form in my opinion, especially if the other player deliberatly does so.

Once again this doesn't speak to what I'm trying to do but will rather be addressed at some later point regarding conduct. But I do caution people to consider that there are multiple view points so what one considers inappropriate another may feel is OK. In regards to this I will bow down to whatever the community wants as long as it carries a substantial majority when I poll the issue.

Turk1964 wrote:In the second round of your proposal it will be 6 different classes in the same division although it is a good idea to have different levels of players competing against one another it will cause mass drop outs. The bottom players wont stand a chance against the top three ,as they are relative newcomers to Fog and will end up totally demoralised.I think personally the first half of the competition will have a good attendance but the second half there will be a lot drop out. After all its no fun being thrashed by a player who is far better than you. Why not just have 2 rounds the same and at the end of the season decide who is overall winner of each division and give them each a crown?

I disagree with your analysis. I actually feel it will have the reverse effect. If we look at division C now across all sections we have in Imperial one player 0-7 and another 0-8, in Medieval 1-7, 3-7 and 0-6, Classical, 0-7, 1-7 and 1-5 and finally Dark Ages 2-1-6, 2-7, 1-5 and 2-5. If you are correct then I expect those players to drop out but from my experience they are the likely ones to return. Under my system these players would all end up in the same group for the second stage turning it into an exciting finish where any of them could win and if they can rack up one win prior then they will have a small lead to start with. Remember that each group will have a spread of skill levels and playing against better players is the surest way to improving quickly. And if we take one of the 0-7 examples (where they haven't played any veteran players) if they had played the first stage of my system then they would be 0-5 but only after learning some valuable tips from players they never would normally play against which may improve there results in the following stage. Finally if we have two rounds of the same players then that will defeat the purpose of what I'm proposing and make things less dynamic.

TheGrayMouser wrote: Will having the season broken out into two parts with a necessary administrative pause, potentially give rise to players maybe disappearing between parts? My experience in playing in other comps or campaigns is , any break often leads to a dribbly often incomplete finish....

I can't say for sure but my gut feeling is no. With only 5 games to finish in 4 to 6 weeks players are more likely to get things done on time. Also I'm considering being rather strict about no extensions since the number of games to be played will be small. Probably a week before the end of the first stage I'll request for which games are unlikely to be finished in time and that will require an ajudication so that there will be no down time for the community as a whole (though the second stage I will be more lenient [basically listening to excuses] as long as it isn't abused by players). As such the transition from stage 1 to 2 should take me less than an hour as long as I have an easy method of posting the groupings. My intent is to try and shift as much as possible back into the forums so that people can easily access information.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Will limiting armies reduce the interest in the league ? A lot of players likely will have become very used to , attached to , the idea of an open army selection (currently only limited if a lower ranked player selects the same army and thus snags it from you )

My suggestion would be to have, instead of just 6 armies (assuming 6 players per roman rank ) is to have the army selections be maybe 10 or 12. This might lead to less issues of a player being forced to select the "best of the worst" (from his perspective) and feeling their next 6(or whatever) games are are hopeless because they are playing with any army they have no affinity/interest/skill in playing. Open up a wider range and this could be mitigated to some extent.

The reason I said 6 or 7 was that I believe it is easier to find a smaller group of evenly matched armies rather than larger. Plus it sets a greater challenge for the currently in form players. Even further is why would there be any unwinnable armies in the group in the first place. The intent is for the senate to vote on the next season choices as presented by the top and lowest player (maybe they will be required to provide the senate with 12 armies which will then be voted down to 6 or 7). The reason I selected them was that the top player would probably have an excellent grasp at selecting a balanced mix as it would further their personal interests to do so as they are likely to pick last in the next season. Conversely the player at the bottom will be a bit of a wild card and will be getting first choice in the opening round of the next season. So they may pick a rather diverse group which will push stronger players to try and win with tougher choices. But ultimately there choices will have to be voted on. I feel the senate will be a fun interlude between seasons with a lot of potential. (Ultimately though I'm going to put it to a poll in regards to how wide the choices will be but now I hope you understand a bit better of what I'm seeing)

Cool!

pantherboy wrote: Based off of this then 36 should be sufficient. 26 play in both sections leaving 10 slots open in each for a total of 46 players. Also not every player may qualify for both since they may have been tardy in completing their matches in season 10. Also if I expand to 7 then that would actually force the creation of a seventh class (probably Latini - born in Italy but not citizens) with 7 players per class to allow for placement and other processes to work smoothly which then would increase numbers from 36 to 49. As for number of games played this system is better since each player must play 10 matches to get a ranking which is the equivalent of 11 players in a division (which is rare especially in the A divisions). The net total of games played is irrelevant except as a statistic.

Well, you also have 14 players who entered just 2 divisions in Season 10 and many of these are experienced LOEG players of many seasons standing. So a model of 6 groups of 6 is definitely going to impact right through your current demographic in LOEG. If you add a 7th player for each group (the "Latini") then that will give you 504 matches overall and that takes you much closer to the 540 figure that I have used as the default figure for LOEG as it is organised now. The only players negatively impacted then are likely to be the "hard-core" players who usually enter all 4 sections. So I think a 7th player should be added to your model.

pantherboy wrote:I disagree with your analysis. I actually feel it will have the reverse effect. If we look at division C now across all sections we have in Imperial one player 0-7 and another 0-8, in Medieval 1-7, 3-7 and 0-6, Classical, 0-7, 1-7 and 1-5 and finally Dark Ages 2-1-6, 2-7, 1-5 and 2-5. If you are correct then I expect those players to drop out but from my experience they are the likely ones to return.

I am not sure about that, Steve. Another statistic for you all . . .

65% of Season 6 players returned for Season 7
49% of Season 7 players returned for Season 8
65% of Season 8 players returned for Season 9
76% of Season 9 players returned for Season 10

I think we can probably ignore the 49% figure for Seasons 7/8 as that was when Steve stopped running LOEG and then there was a big gap before a group of us came up with the stunning name of "Temporary League" , which subsequently was designated as Season 8. Nevertheless, I think the other figures show that somewhere between a quarter and a third of players do not come back and play in the following season. Most of these non-returning players are from the lower reaches of the league; C Division players are particularly prone to "drop out".

Under my system these players would all end up in the same group for the second stage turning it into an exciting finish where any of them could win and if they can rack up one win prior then they will have a small lead to start with. Remember that each group will have a spread of skill levels and playing against better players is the surest way to improving quickly. And if we take one of the 0-7 examples (where they haven't played any veteran players) if they had played the first stage of my system then they would be 0-5 but only after learning some valuable tips from players they never would normally play against which may improve there results in the following stage. Finally if we have two rounds of the same players then that will defeat the purpose of what I'm proposing and make things less dynamic.

I initially thought that the "Alea Acta Est" round would be the most even in terms of player's skill levels and then the "Civis Romanus Sum" round would see players of much different skill-levels playing each other, but it seems from what you are saying here that it will be the other way round. What is certain that the league will have one phase of more competitive matches and then one phase where some less experienced players are going to be "cannon fodder" for the top players. This will undoubtedly lead to more drop-outs than we have now, particularly at the half-way point. Players do not like getting slaughtered and only the top players (i.e. the ones who are doing the slaughtering) seem to think that it is in some way educational.

My initial thought was that it's worth trying out and after reading the good discussion for and against, I still think it's worth trying out. If it works, great, if it doesn't, we just revert back to old LOEG or try something else. I think the basic idea is good although details obviously need to be worked for optimal results.

Among these details is getting a little more variety in armies. Hopefully they'd also be representative so you can have some horse-archer armies, horde armies etc in each division.

Also, there must be a set way of incorporating new players. This season it seemed like there were a lot of new players (such as myself) and they were easily incorporated into the structure. In the case of new players dropping out, I personally as a rookie LOEGer would have enjoyed a few matches above my skill level in a preliminary round to learn a little faster, and this format is definitely more exciting. I also enjoy how easy it is to jump a division as basically every win puts you a division higher (assuming a normal curve of course). Playing the same players over and over also will get dull so I think this format is more inclusive in that it doesn't have a new player club in Div C and a pro's club in Div A.

Worth trying it out!

Hi Steve
I tend to agree with Pete here as i cant see very much educational about a Top player anihilating a beginer. What this generally does is cause the "Newbie" to become totally disallusioned and not bother playing any further games. I do agree with a restriction on armies,which are agreed by the majority.I would though increase this to between 15 or 20 armies that players agree have reasonable chances of victory.What i have noticed is that B players who make the jump to As will probably be back down to Bs the following season. The difference betwen the top A players and the Top B players is quite substantial and if an A player were to play a C then the outcome would be very decisive.About all this will do is boost the ego of a AAA player and totally humiliate the C.

Turk1964 wrote:Hi Steve
I tend to agree with Pete here as i cant see very much educational about a Top player anihilating a beginer. What this generally does is cause the "Newbie" to become totally disallusioned and not bother playing any further games. I do agree with a restriction on armies,which are agreed by the majority.I would though increase this to between 15 or 20 armies that players agree have reasonable chances of victory.What i have noticed is that B players who make the jump to As will probably be back down to Bs the following season. The difference betwen the top A players and the Top B players is quite substantial and if an A player were to play a C then the outcome would be very decisive.About all this will do is boost the ego of a AAA player and totally humiliate the C.

I think a poll would be in order here?

Turk and SP feel there would be too much of a chance for rookie players to get humiliated in the initial phase. Jonathon however feels (as a rookie) he would welcome a few games above his skill level. I'm no rookie but personally I have found that getting regularly beaten by the likes of PB and Eric to be very educational and good for my game (although yes, it does dent the pride sometimes!)

TheGrayMouser wrote: On a personal level, my interest in the league had declined once the individual ranking system started. I like how you have incorporated more of a true "sports" league system where you are placed per your performance prior season and mid season. I think that will go a long ways for encouraging mutual player respect and prevent many issues.

TGM, one way of interpreting what you are saying here is that you think the LOEG player ratings are partly responsible for some of the "issues" currently affecting the competition. I find it very hard to understand this point of view. If people remember, there was quite a widespread demand from players that there be some sort of rating system on the forum. So I came up with a proposal a couple of years ago that was fully debated on here and it was agreed that the data from LOEG would be used to produce new ratings at the end of each LOEG season. One of the main motives I had, apart from satisfying player demand, was to produce a set of ratings that could be used by tournament organisers to create more balanced competitions with divisions/sections comprised of players of similar skill levels. And over the last couple of years I think the ratings have been quite useful in that respect and I know for a fact they have been used in a number of tournaments.

But LOEG has always been based on promotion and relegation and so it has always been the case that your performance in the previous season has had the most impact on where you would play in the current season. The player ratings would sometimes be used to allocate players to divisions if you had a situation where a lot of the previous season's players did not enter the next competition. But overall, the ratings have had a marginal effect on the constitution of divisions for LOEG over the past 4 or 5 seasons.

If it is decided that the ratings are no longer required for LOEG (as seems quite likely), I intend to adapt them to be used across a wider range of competitions - so the LOEG ratings will become the FOG ratings. One idea I have is that competitions will be assessed for the skill level of their participants and they will be given a grading and rating points will be allocated to players accordingly e.g. the "Fire in the West" tournament that has just started has a good mixture of "B" and "C" level players (in LOEG terms) and so could be rated a "B" grade tournament, while the excellent Companions Cup competition could be graded as an "A" tournament, and so on. To keep the ratings fresh then maybe results that become a year old will no longer be taken into consideration in the same way that the LOEG ratings are only based on the last 4 seasons.

Whatever happens the player ratings will definitely continue in some form. If individual players do not wish their own rating to be published on here then, of course, I will accommodate them.