2. If a good new player joined, we try to insert at a sensible level
Quote2. If a good new player joined, we try to insert at a sensible level
I really dislike this. I understand the reasons for it, but I think it is a too sensitive issue to leave at the organization's will. Basically, I am worried that some people can be easily offended. So, I would either specify a deterministic algorithm beforehand or insert people disregarding "good player" considerations other than last performance in the league.
but I think it is a too sensitive issue to leave at the organization's will.
3. for each game you won, add the total score of that opponent
It means that if I won 4 games against player X, and player X won 12 games in the league, I get 48 tiebreaker points from my matchups with player X.3. for each game you won, add the total score of that opponent
Rather than a suggestion, I simply have a question: what does this mean? It's unclear to me.
It means that if I won 4 games against player X, and player X won 12 games in the league, I get 48 tiebreaker points from my matchups with player X.3. for each game you won, add the total score of that opponent
Rather than a suggestion, I simply have a question: what does this mean? It's unclear to me.
It's a strength of schedule thing.
Considering everyone has same schedule (well, excluding themselves) it just assumes win against strong player and lose to weak is better then win against weak and lost to strong
Considering everyone has same schedule (well, excluding themselves) it just assumes win against strong player and lose to weak is better then win against weak and lost to strong
Yes, I was thinking that, is that reasonable? Or at least, more reasonable than the opposite? I would ask for scrapping that tie-breaker, unless someone has a good argument for using it in this all-vs-all setting.
Considering everyone has same schedule (well, excluding themselves) it just assumes win against strong player and lose to weak is better then win against weak and lost to strong
Yes, I was thinking that, is that reasonable? Or at least, more reasonable than the opposite? I would ask for scrapping that tie-breaker, unless someone has a good argument for using it in this all-vs-all setting.
Well, chess use it in almost all tournaments, so it should not be completely unreasonable
Considering everyone has same schedule (well, excluding themselves) it just assumes win against strong player and lose to weak is better then win against weak and lost to strong
Yes, I was thinking that, is that reasonable? Or at least, more reasonable than the opposite? I would ask for scrapping that tie-breaker, unless someone has a good argument for using it in this all-vs-all setting.
Well, chess use it in almost all tournaments, so it should not be completely unreasonable
It is reasonable for swiss system, but seems unreasonable for all-vs-all.
Quote2. If a good new player joined, we try to insert at a sensible level
I really dislike this. I understand the reasons for it, but I think it is a too sensitive issue to leave at the organization's will. Basically, I am worried that some people can be easily offended. So, I would either specify a deterministic algorithm beforehand or insert people disregarding "good player" considerations other than last performance in the league.
I really disagree with this. It will be by far the most fun for everyone if all players are matched up with opponents as close to their skill level as possible. If you insert a high-ranked player into the lowest league that will create local distortions over the course of many seasons, putting players matched up with him at a significant disadvantage relative to their peers in parallel leagues.
I really don't see the potential for offending people. Well, some people will take offense at basically everything, but that's their own problem, not ours.Quotebut I think it is a too sensitive issue to leave at the organization's will.
I trust Stef's judgment in this matter over any algorithm.
I don't like inserting people in the top division out of nowhere, but in the end the League is supposed to be fun and making a top-ranked player join in the bottom division is fun for exactly nobody.
this basically covers it. you just have to set priorities here.
II. OrderingWhat if there's 3 players tied? How is a coin flip going to decide that?
4. Coin flip
Signing up for season 1 does not imply signing up for season 2, you will have to rejoin in due time.I think having to sign up for each season will be annoying. As long as someone players all his/her matches in a season, I don't see any reason not to automatically put him/her in the next season.
Tables, both of your suggestions break the league structure and purpose. The whole point of a longer season with round robin is to not have to play specific people on specific weeks and allow for flexibility of scheduling.
The whole point of the exponential increases is that, well, it's a king of the hill structure with a literal pyramid. Doing it without that is basically just a ladder and we already have two ranking systems for that.
Just checking, is it fine for me to schedule all my games in the last 2.5-3 weeks of the season then? I have exams until 3rd June (ish), and so am really busy before that, and free almost all the time after that, so will definitely be able to play them all in that time frame.
I changed my mind about adding new people to non-bottom division and agree with soulnet. What I propose is following algorithm to fill vacations in order of priority:
1. Sit-outs not higher than their division
2. Second places in next division ranked by Isotropish rating
3. Third places and so on
I'm just going to assume that people like to play dominion, and they won't leave for a season and re-enter just to game the system.
I think that for returning entrants, they should never be placed higher than they were when they left*
Question: Can we request bye's if we dont have time to do a match?Half-point splits awarded by mutual agreement? 1.5 points to each side for the match of 6 games? But I think the flexibility of being able to schedule the matches ANY time during the season should help byes be needed very infrequently.
Question: Can we request bye's if we dont have time to do a match?Half-point splits awarded by mutual agreement? 1.5 points to each side for the match of 6 games? But I think the flexibility of being able to schedule the matches ANY time during the season should help byes be needed very infrequently.
Okay thanks.Question: Can we request bye's if we dont have time to do a match?Half-point splits awarded by mutual agreement? 1.5 points to each side for the match of 6 games? But I think the flexibility of being able to schedule the matches ANY time during the season should help byes be needed very infrequently.
Surely people can find enough slots in 5-6 weeks to play all their games? If not, I think the above idea is good, so as not to get weird results in the week i.e. people agreeing to draw, as it is mutually beneficial.
this basically covers it. you just have to set priorities here.
That's why I proposed an algorithm. If someone gets offended with an algorithm, well, I do not care. Judgement calls like "this is a good player and this other is not" or the like are bounded to upset people. Algorithm is also bounded to upset some people, but at least is something established and sitting out, joining late, etc, can be done at own risk.
Also, I like the basic idea algorithm I proposed, though it can be tweaked.
Important points: it should be explicitly stated that staying players will never be demoted to make room for return players or newcomers. It should also be explicitly stated if return players are going to be judged by their placement before leaving or by their ranking at the moment of rejoining (I advocate for the former).I agree with your first statement. If I ever *really* want to make room for someone, this can only be done if the extra demotion is announced before the season even starts. You will never demote 'out of the blue'. The only exception here may be if an entire new level is created (more on that below).
Yes, I was thinking that, is that reasonable? Or at least, more reasonable than the opposite? I would ask for scrapping that tie-breaker, unless someone has a good argument for using it in this all-vs-all setting.Yes, it's arbitrary, but that's why two more sensible criteria are in front of it. It's exactly as good as the opposite would be, I just prefer it to coin flipping.
Also, I think it might be best if new/returning players aren't added into the top level, even if their skill indicates they should. Those empty spots should, I think, always need to be played for via at least one promotion, since that is the top division.agreed.
Question: Can we request bye's if we dont have time to do a match?As a general rule of thumb: no, you can not.
about the possibility of restructuring.
For now it looks like we'll start with a lot of very good players. So no problems whatsoever in the top 2 (3?) levels.
However, the lowest level may have a huge diversity in players strength. If it stays that way, that's no fun, and we may have to change the nature of the pyramid a bit.
The most likely change now would be that in stead of 8 level-4 divisions, we'd go with 4 level-4 divisions and 4 level-5 divisions.
Season 1 will not change, and if I want to change season 2 that will only happen if I announce it before season 1 starts.
Well, I was wondering: will you always hold on to 8 groups in D, or is it possible there'll be 6? With 35 participants in this level, you'll get 3 groups of 5 and 5 of 4 if you'd go for 8, if you'd go for 6 leagues you will have one with 5 and 5 with six people.
If you go for 6, you can do something like advancing the two best numbers 2 to match the difference in promotion/degradation.
Something that sounds fair to me is to compare the iso ranking of all #1s and pick the one with the highest ranking. Then the best #2 is he who finished 2nd in the highest ranked #1's group.
Alternatively you could pick as best #2 he who won the most games against the #1 of his group, with perhaps using the #1s iso-ranking as a tie-breaker.
morally superior
morally superior
Wow, I would have never suspected you were a religious guy.
morally superior
Wow, I would have never suspected you were a religious guy.
I like this in theory, but it has the potentially undesirable quality of having rank in the league partially determined by non-league games.I agree it's a disadvantage, but it's still (a lot) better then something close to entirely random.
Something that sounds fair to me is to compare the iso ranking of all #1s and pick the one with the highest ranking. Then the best #2 is he who finished 2nd in the highest ranked #1's group.I like this one. Either looking at #1's rank, or #2's rank, or their combined rank... would all be fine with me.
Alternatively you could pick as best #2 he who won the most games against the #1 of his group, with perhaps using the #1s iso-ranking as a tie-breaker.I strongly dislike this one. Suppose I would place a new hypothetical Chuck Norris player in D division who wins all his matches 6-0. I would really want to promote the #2 in that group, even though he lost his match against Chuck Norris 0-6.
...
Why do considerations of morality have to be rooted in religion?
And it seems to me that there is a significant number of players that play this way.
Anyway, to the matter at hand, I don't think it is worth it to keep fighting using Isotropish rankings, but I think even randomness could be more accurate, because Iso-ranking is biased to "people who take all their pro games seriously" and I think the league should be biased to "people who take league games seriously".
morally superior
Wow, I would have never suspected you were a religious guy.
Anyhow, I think total league points is still better than ranking (Isotropish or any other), even though the counterpoints against it are valid. Rankings are not really accurate (I have already argued this). We are already using pseudorandom metrics (see discussion above regarding tiebreakers) and this seems like a decent one (if the groups are random, opponent's should be reasonably similar in strength, and there is luck on getting an easy group, but there is luck in that to get 1st place too, and there is luck in Dominion in general). Competitions with a lot more at stake use this kind of comparison (like European World Cup qualifiers if I am not mistaken), so, why shouldn't we?
QuoteAnyway, to the matter at hand, I don't think it is worth it to keep fighting using Isotropish rankings, but I think even randomness could be more accurate, because Iso-ranking is biased to "people who take all their pro games seriously" and I think the league should be biased to "people who take league games seriously".
this is slightly off topic, but isn't the intention of having pro games precisely to take them seriously? I get that you don't to play serious all the time, but why don't you play casual/unranked whenever you just want to have fun?
FWIW, I play pro games so that I can have full-random kingdoms that people don't get to see before the game starts. I play tournament matches to focus entirely on winning the game.
I think nobody is wrong.I think you're wrong.
I think nobody is wrong.I think you're wrong.
What now?
II. Ordering
1. The number of games you won; a tie counts as half a win.
--> We do not count matchpoints
2. Number of games won counting only games between the players that are now tied
3. for each game you won, add the total score of that opponent
4. Coin flip
I think that it would be beneficial to clarify this in the rules.
If he wins exactly 4 games ...
A (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13245.0) (100%)Mic Qsenoch - SheCantSayNo: 3 - 3
rank name average points #played 2nd 3rd iso season9? 1. Mic Qsenoch (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=942) 4.0 20 5 0.0 279.5 52.6 Yes 2. SheCantSayNo (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1561) 2.9 14.5 5 0.0 219.5 47.4 ? 3. 2.71828..... (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=2149) 2.8 14 5 7.0 195.5 38.9 ? 4. Stef (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1091) 2.8 14 5 6.0 209.5 54.4 ? 5. dudeabides (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1555) 2.8 14 5 5.0 213.0 34.2 ? 6. Tao Chen (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=1138) 2.7 13.5 5 0.0 202.5 41.8 ?
Mic Qsenoch - 2.71828.....: 6 - 0
Mic Qsenoch - Stef: 4 - 2
Mic Qsenoch - dudeabides: 3 - 3
Mic Qsenoch - Tao Chen: 4 - 2
SheCantSayNo - 2.71828.....: 3 - 3
SheCantSayNo - Stef: 1.5 - 4.5
SheCantSayNo - dudeabides: 4 - 2
SheCantSayNo - Tao Chen: 3 - 3
2.71828..... - Stef: 3 - 3
2.71828..... - dudeabides: 4 - 2
2.71828..... - Tao Chen: 4 - 2
Stef - dudeabides: 3 - 3
Stef - Tao Chen: 1.5 - 4.5
dudeabides - Tao Chen: 4 - 2
... then dudeabides and Tao Chen demote.
e wins the first tiebreaker over both Stef and dudeabides. As the rules are currently stated (and as illustrated in the above table), Stef also wins the first tiebreaker over dudeabides, because the results vs. e are still included. However, e is no longer a part of the tie, so arguably his results against the two should not have any more bearing on the result than their matches with the other players. If we restart the tiebreak considering just Stef and dudeabides, they were 3-3 head-to-head, so we go to the second tiebreaker, which dudeabides wins (by virtue of the extra win against Mic Qsenoch). This seems to be more in the spirit of the tiebreaker rules, though admittedly it is a bit trickier to process.