Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[-Stef-]

Hi everyone,


Season 3 of the league is slower then usual. A lot of groups are far behind schedule, and I just removed yet another player for being inactive.
Should there be some kind of response from the organization? A penalty system that discourages playing all your matches in the last week, instead of just warnings and personal messages?
Or should we just accept this? Is inactivity an actual problem for some group of active players, or is the impact in fact minimal?

I also still see a large number of players that do get their matches played and seem to have a lot of fun doing so.
And a big shout out to all the new players in E who managed to get their group to 100% one week before the end of the season.


If you have any ideas or suggestions on the current situation or possible actions, please let us know.

[assemble_me]

I guess it's just normal that the overall interest in such a league decreases a bit over the first seasons. After a first hype I'd expect to see a phase of stabilization. As already seen, the biggest decrease of players has been after season one, a little less after season two. Maybe that's just another symptom of the stabilization phase.
Also, as said before, it's not that easy to recognize that the season ends at 12 Oct. I'd love to see a bold text that states the end date in the standings thread and the scheduling threads

[AHoppy]

For me, the reason I have been playing slower is I have been much busier with the start of a new semester and have had less time than I anticipated.  Also, in the time that I do have I have been having a hard time finding other people who are also free at that time. 

[soulnet]

I think people removed from the league for inactivity should not be allowed to rejoin immediately (unless they explain they have been admitted into a hospital or in jail or something) and also, must rejoin in E regardless of their rating or desire, to show that they will in fact commit to play games.

Also, in my own experience (played 3 games in the next-to-last week, have one pending for this week) the season ending on Oct 12 took me by surprise as well. I guess season 2 running longer made me more comfortable with the scheduling than it should. I agree with highlighting the dates more, and probably putting them at the very beginning of the Standings & Results OP instead of its end.

[KingZog3]

For me it's just because I'm busy since term started. I didn't know how busy I'd be and how unplanned my schedule would be. If you wish to remove me that's fine, but I'd like to have the option of still joining next season.

[theblankman]

Inactivity hasn't been a problem for me at all.  In season 2, I was the inactive one during a period where I had to travel a lot, and my division was very understanding when I had to play a season's worth of matches in the latter half.  Squeezing them all into the last week is a bit much imo, but I haven't seen that in any of my divisions yet.  Does it cause you extra difficulty when people play all their matches late in the season?  If not, then you might as well let divisions make their own schedules even if they wind up compressed.  Sometimes it's for innocuous reasons like mine in season 2, pesky real life intruding on Dominion  

Also have you had a lot of people play partial seasons but fail to finish all their matches by season's end (not the people you removed for total inactivity, but someone who, say, only plays 3 matches out of 5 in the allotted time)?  If so, maybe a rule change to incentivize finishing on time?  If the problem is more the completely inactive people, then I guess they just need to be weeded out. 

One possible rule change to encourage completion would be to take that into account when determining relegation.  Put all the 5th and 6th place finishers, plus anyone else who hasn't played all their matches, into a list sorted by total points and the usual tiebreakers, and take however many relegations you need from there.  A complete fifth place finisher might wind up ahead of someone who had a low point total only because they didn't play all their matches.  The incomplete player gets relegated, when they may have avoided it by finishing their season on time. 

[GeoLib]

I suspect that a significant number of people are starting their semesters again (as several already mentioned) and that is a big factor in slower playing. I chose to step out for this season for precisely this reason (the right decision, I think, though I miss Dominion  ).

As much as sticking people in E if they're inconsistent sounds like a good deterrent, it kind of sucks for the people who are in E because they don't feel comfortable with the level of play in the other divisions. Placing someone who's very good, but unreliable, in E just means that the others in E will have trouble scheduling their matches which will be further exacerbated by the matches not being fun when they do happen. My original impression of the E division was that it was separated from the rest of the league based on commitment, but it seems to have turned into more of a separation based on skill. Perhaps there should be two leagues underneath D. One that is for people who don't quite want to play in the D division because of skill considerations and one for people who don't feel sure they can commit the time. People who are dropped would then be placed automatically in this latter division if they rejoined without ruining things for people who have demonstrated commitment.

Another idea that could be integrated is that people who are dropped due to inactivity should have to petition to rejoin (or to get out of the new E' division), and perhaps should have to wait at least one season to do so. Maybe you should give them more credit if they notify the league that they need to step out as opposed to just failing to complete their matches. Obviously, there would be extenuating circumstances, as noted by soulnet.

[Voltaire]

Honestly, I just think a clearer indication of when the deadline is would help. Obviously there are other factors, people will always procrastinate, etc etc but that little thing should help.

[jpgerber]

I enjoyed playing in E this time round. I would prefer to not have unreliable people play in my division because I really enjoyed playing with some people who were closer to my skill level. I can't speak for the others in the division.
Geolib's suggestion of two E's sounded good to me.

[pst]

My original impression of the E division was that it was separated from the rest of the league based on commitment, but it seems to have turned into more of a separation based on skill. Perhaps there should be two leagues underneath D. One that is for people who don't quite want to play in the D division because of skill considerations and one for people who don't feel sure they can commit the time.

I think there should as many divisions as are needed for the number of players, and that the lowest division shouldn't be singled out as it is now. (In fact, I'm maybe skipping the league for now because of this.)

Before first season it wasn't clear if divisions would go up to E or only to D, and I'm sorry there weren't enough of us to get up to E then, because then I think that we would have that "normal" E that is just the division below D that I would like.

As for the original question I agree on having the date prominently shown. Since many are looking at the Standings post, and it's automatically generated repeatedly anyway, it could say "two weeks left" there and participants who are behind schedule could be rendered in a in a warning color.

[AdamH]

It seems you've given many people a lot of freedom for when to play their matches, and it may be the case that you're unhappy with how people (as a whole) are using that freedom.

My inclination would be to not give them that freedom: if they don't have two matches played by the end of week three, remove them from the league unless they have a good reason. Or something like that.

[Joseph2302]

My inclination would be to not give them that freedom: if they don't have two matches played by the end of week three, remove them from the league unless they have a good reason. Or something like that.

I agree we need this to be addressed (after 2 weeks, only 3 or 4 games had been played in my group), too many people are leaving the games until the last week of the season. Playing 1 game in 4 weeks, then expecting to play 4 games in 1 week is unrealistic, but many people have been doing it.

[soulnet]

On the other hand, it seems that only a few people do not actually finish. Had there been complaints about people being uncomfortable due to being forced to schedule games on the last week?

Maybe just requesting responsiveness (by playing or posting in the Scheduling thread) instead of actually playing could be a middle ground. It seems to take care of the people that do drop out, while it leaves the people that do happen to be more free in the last weeks able to keep playing in the league. 

[liopoil]

going into this week I only had two matches played. This was less due to not having much time, just more laziness about scheduling. I don't think a little more structured scheduling would hurt, although I am still going to get all of my matches played on time.

[theblankman]

Maybe just requesting responsiveness (by playing or posting in the Scheduling thread) instead of actually playing could be a middle ground. It seems to take care of the people that do drop out, while it leaves the people that do happen to be more free in the last weeks able to keep playing in the league.

I like this better than requiring a certain number of matches be played by a certain time... all it takes for someone to fail on a "matches in the first two weeks" requirement is a vacation, which has affected two of my groups so far (dudeabides was away for a couple weeks early in season 1 and I did the same in season 2).  In both seasons we just posted to inform our group about other commitments we had to schedule around, they were nice enough to accommodate us, and that was that.  So yeah, as with most things communication is a big deal.