D1 has a level of inactivity where I just don't believe the last week, or even the week after that, will solve anything. The resolution will be simple there: nobody promotes (unless of course they really surprise me in the last week).That seems hard for Aidan Millow who played
D1 has a level of inactivity where I just don't believe the last week, or even the week after that, will solve anything. The resolution will be simple there: nobody promotes (unless of course they really surprise me in the last week).That seems hard for Aidan Millow who played34 matches and only did not played against moharimo and ashersky (both with no matches). Are you sure, he is at fault too?
EDIT: It is even 4 matches.
rank | name | average | points | #played | 2nd | 3rd |
1. | a mad mongoose - marvelously | 4,5 | 4.5 | 1 | 0 | 42 |
2. | moharimo | 4,0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 38 |
3. | mikemike | 3,0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 28.5 |
3. | ConMan | 3,0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 28.5 |
5. | Aidan Millow | 2,3 | 9.5 | 4 | 0 | 32 |
6. | ashersky | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
For starters, I think it's going really well. I see a lot of people playing a lot of matches and enjoying it. I especially liked the little sub-communities that arose in some of the groups.
In most groups it's also really close who is going to win.
Next season, I'll introduce some rules on playing matches. They will probably be
* after week 2, you need to have finished 1 match
* after week 3, you need to have finished 2 matches
* after week 4, you need to have finished 3 matches
If at any point you cannot comply to these rules, send a message to the organisation and explain why. If you don't, you'll be removed from your group.
Also, I intend to get together an 'organizing committee' and assign a member to every group.
In the meanwhile, have fun with your remaining matches. After you finished your last match, please post a message in your own groups scheduling thread stating your intentions for next season (I'll be back / I'm quitting).
My first thought was to just declare all the matches against E void, but that doesn't sound fair either,That sounds fair to me if it is in the rules and you know it before playing the first match.
D1 has a level of inactivity where I just don't believe the last week, or even the week after that, will solve anything. The resolution will be simple there: nobody promotes (unless of course they really surprise me in the last week).
Fair enough. But for the record, I think we'll have most of our matches done by the deadline (which is when, exactly, by the way? I can't find that info). Ashersky has played 2 or 3 half matches, and I have reached out to all those I haven't played yet.Just getting those matches played is off course by far the best resolution. You can find info about scheduling here (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11125.msg378738#msg378738).
What was most difficult for me this first season was being placed in a division where I am halfway across the world from my 5 fellow D1ers. A ~12 hour time difference is maybe something I could deal with 2 or 3 times, but having to schedule all 5 matches at a time that is probably weird for both parties is asking a lot (especially, for me, while school is going on, which it is now not as of last week, which I why I saved most of my matches for the end).I'm sorry for that. Timezone-wise, you're in the worst D-group, I think only A is worse. 12 hours is overdone though, unless I'm mistaken your time differences with the other players are 8, 7, 6, 6 & 4.
You're going to receive a lot of messages this season, since it's mid-summer. Would you be up for extending the summer season a few weeks ?created a poll.
I was thinking about 3 people each assigned 5 groups.QuoteAlso, I intend to get together an 'organizing committee' and assign a member to every group.
That would mean 15 people - I think that's a bit much.
It already has been in there for two weeks (?)QuoteIn the meanwhile, have fun with your remaining matches. After you finished your last match, please post a message in your own groups scheduling thread stating your intentions for next season (I'll be back / I'm quitting).
Stef : could you post this in the Season 2 thread too ?
What happens if in a group with players A, B, C, D and E, player E has only played against A and C and then drops out, either because he just vanishes or because your rules force him to?
Particularly, what if all other players played all their matches, and the points are such that A would promote and D and E demote as it is, but with a good result against E player B could pass A and player D pass C?
My first thought was to just declare all the matches against E void, but that doesn't sound fair either, because if A beat E with 6-0 and also had some great results against C and D, he'd likely play a bit less focussed and driven against B, or at the very least be more willing to take ties than had he known beforehand that the 6-0 against E wouldn't count.
At this point, D1 is farther along than a few other divisions. I think most of the games in all the divisions will be completed in time, and there will be just a couple people which you might need to send to division E, if any.Somehow the stars aligned and I think about 3 or 4 pairings managed to get their matches finished yesterday, at least that I'm aware of (and likely more).
At this point, D1 is farther along than a few other divisions. I think most of the games in all the divisions will be completed in time, and there will be just a couple people which you might need to send to division E, if any.Somehow the stars aligned and I think about 3 or 4 pairings managed to get their matches finished yesterday, at least that I'm aware of (and likely more).
rank | name | average | points | #played | 2nd | 3rd |
1. | michaeljb | 3,6 | 14.5 | 4 | 0 | 194 |
2. | Alan Malloy | 3,6 | 18 | 5 | 0 | 228 |
3. | kylar | 3,3 | 13.5 | 4 | 4 | 185 |
4. | GeoLib | 3,1 | 15.5 | 5 | 0 | 209 |
5. | MtMagus | 2,7 | 13.5 | 5 | 2 | 184 |
6. | kipkoan | 1,8 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 130.5 |
I'll be streaming my match with kylar, but I'm afraid it will be a silent stream. My computer's pushing five years old, and the fan goes nuts when doing all the processing to get the stream going, and I don't have an external microphone so you mostly just hear the fan instead of me talking.
We're planning to start the game at 6:30pm PDT tomorrow evening. Tune in at http://www.twitch.tv/michaeljb_13
rank | name | average | points | #played | 2nd | 3rd | Season2? |
1. | Monsieur X | 3,6 | 14.5 | 4 | 0 | 217 | ? |
2. | yed | 3,5 | 17.5 | 5 | 0 | 222.5 | ? |
3. | silverspawn | 3,0 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 195.5 | Yes |
4. | Mr Anderson | 2,8 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 208 | Yes |
5. | Jean-Michel | 2,7 | 13.5 | 5 | 0 | 189 | Yes |
6. | MarkowKette | 2,3 | 9.5 | 4 | 0 | 133.5 | ? |
B2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11130.0) (93%)Yes, MarkowKette you can do it!Monsieur X - yed: 3 - 3
rank name average points #played 2nd 3rd Season2? 1. Monsieur X 3,6 14.5 4 0 217 ? 2. yed 3,5 17.5 5 0 222.5 ? 3. silverspawn 3,0 15 5 0 195.5 Yes 4. Mr Anderson 2,8 14 5 0 208 Yes 5. Jean-Michel 2,7 13.5 5 0 189 Yes 6. MarkowKette 2,3 9.5 4 0 133.5 ?
Monsieur X - silverspawn: 5 - 1
Monsieur X - Mr Anderson: 4 - 2
Monsieur X - Jean-Michel: 2.5 - 3.5
yed - silverspawn: 4.5 - 1.5
yed - Mr Anderson: 1 - 5
yed - Jean-Michel: 3 - 3
yed - MarkowKette: 6 - 0
silverspawn - Mr Anderson: 4 - 2
silverspawn - Jean-Michel: 4.5 - 1.5
silverspawn - MarkowKette: 4 - 2
Mr Anderson - Jean-Michel: 3.5 - 2.5
Mr Anderson - MarkowKette: 1.5 - 4.5
Jean-Michel - MarkowKette: 3 - 3
So MarkowKette have to win 4,5 points to save his B2 place
And Monsieur X have to win 3 points to go in division A
B2 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11130.0) (93%)Yes, MarkowKette you can do it!Monsieur X - yed: 3 - 3
rank name average points #played 2nd 3rd Season2? 1. Monsieur X 3,6 14.5 4 0 217 ? 2. yed 3,5 17.5 5 0 222.5 ? 3. silverspawn 3,0 15 5 0 195.5 Yes 4. Mr Anderson 2,8 14 5 0 208 Yes 5. Jean-Michel 2,7 13.5 5 0 189 Yes 6. MarkowKette 2,3 9.5 4 0 133.5 ?
Monsieur X - silverspawn: 5 - 1
Monsieur X - Mr Anderson: 4 - 2
Monsieur X - Jean-Michel: 2.5 - 3.5
yed - silverspawn: 4.5 - 1.5
yed - Mr Anderson: 1 - 5
yed - Jean-Michel: 3 - 3
yed - MarkowKette: 6 - 0
silverspawn - Mr Anderson: 4 - 2
silverspawn - Jean-Michel: 4.5 - 1.5
silverspawn - MarkowKette: 4 - 2
Mr Anderson - Jean-Michel: 3.5 - 2.5
Mr Anderson - MarkowKette: 1.5 - 4.5
Jean-Michel - MarkowKette: 3 - 3
So MarkowKette have to win 4,5 points to save his B2 place
And Monsieur X have to win 3 points to go in division A
I suggest to remove all players, who only played 2 games or less (<40 % or <50% of the games is also reasonable) . To be fair regarding de-/promotion, the results of the matches played by those players should be removed as well. It will be often the case, that Player X was able to play a match against the removed player, while player Y wasn`t, although he tried to contact him.
I would also ban these removed players for one season from league. As the active players shouldnt suffer from the inactive ones, the removed player should count as a demoted player. So in Division C1 where already one player has been removed (5 player division now), only #5 in the final standings should demote.
also, a question: if we stay in the same division, will be be in the same group within the division i.e. i'm not getting promoted from D6, so will I stay in D6 for next season, or get moved to another D league possibly? I guess it depends on if you restructure D and E as suggested before.
The season is supposed to have ended yesterday, right? But it looks like only four of the fifteen divisions are at 100% completion. Do we now send hired goons to menace those who aren't finished?
As far as handling inactive players goes I think people who didn't play at least 2 matches can be removed only if they fail to explain themselves.Off course I will never remove anyone without trying to contact them and asking why / what happened.
...
I've enjoyed the league but my biggest challenge has been scheduling.
Grouping by timezone has not been good for me. The best time for me is usually around 4-6 am in my time zone. In fact, I can play at those times almost every day. Yet most of my opponents have an easier time scheduling in the evening which only occasionally works for me especially when they are one or two time zones west of me.
To the extent that it is possible, I would be interested in seeing groupings for season 2 according to when folks are usually able to play rather than where they live.
Hey Stef. Can we get a little more information on how promotion/demotion/inserting and removing people is going to work? I read your post in the rules and regulations, and there were a lot of "may's" and conditionals in it. It might be better to have some sort of ironclad algorithm set out before you release season 2 divisions. The more vague the rules are the more people will complain.
promotion and demotion is pretty straight forward. bottom 2 of divisions in A-C drop down, top 1 of B-D get promoted. E isn't decided yet and you can't promote from A, obviously. And inserting and removing seems pretty clearly left to his judgement in every individual case on purpose.
The rest gets divided between the people that ended #2 in C divisions. Currently they're all very close to each other on the leaderboard.
I think its more fair/consistant letting a player promote based on a criterion, that belongs to the given performances in the League.
If it becomes relevant, that a free slot will be given to a #2 of the C devisions, i'd rather see the player with the most total points promoting (or in this case the player with the best average score, because C1 has only 5 players remaining) instead of the best on the Leaderboard.
I think its more fair/consistant letting a player promote based on a criterion, that belongs to the given performances in the League.
next season I'll use different codes for players, probably something with letters in stead of numbers.
These codes are way too confusing for people with ranks, I'd estimate about 20% of the results posts mix them up.
D8: hugovj 0.5 - QwertZuiop 5.5
D8-2 hugovj - D8-6 QwertZuiop 0.5 - 5.5QwertZuiop wins
Is anyone served by players having a code at all?yes, I am.
code | name | timezone |
B2mo | Monsieur X | 2 |
B2ye | yed | 2 |
B2mr | Mr Anderson | 2 |
B2ma | MarkowKette | 2 |
B2si | silverspawn | 2 |
B2je | Jean-Michel | 3 |
I use league data wherever I (think I) can, and use the leaderboard for the rest. For instance, I will only consider #2 for a free promotion, even if #3 is higher on the leaderboard.
More importantly, is the leaderboard working properly these days? I haven't played in a week, but I think between goko not generating logs and some bugs in the leaderboards, recent rankings have issues and it would be especially important to not use it. I would go as far as to suggest using goko's ranking instead (ignoring their ridiculous variance through AI's work).
The bugs in the isotropish leaderboard seem to show up in visually obvious ways at least, really high numbers of games and high skill/deviation.
Also I couldn't find the justification for use of game points over match points.
I have enjoyed the matches played this season. However a couple of thoughts, it is possible to play multiple games in one week or to play games spread out over weeks. I would suggest rather than insisting one match per week. Perhaps two matches every two weeks. Or just enforce and schedule the matches ie. 1 v 2 week 1. 1 v 3 week 2.I don't understand everything you say.
Also I couldn't find the justification for use of game points over match points. Basically if you get thrashed in one match (like I did!) then you can't win because you shipped so many points. Now the group still did come out right, in that rabid is clearly better than me. But I could have just told you that. Leagues (in sport) don't normally mind one off drubbings- you can still capitalise on other slip ups. Anyhow good fun and thanks to stef for organising.The justification is really simple - more accurate results. If you want to use only matchpoints, you really need at least 12 matches for it to be meaningful, probably 18+. Otherwise far too many people will end up on equal scores.
So, I wouldnt change too much there, but can see your point. So, why not combine best of both worlds? It may be worth considering, to maintain the point system as it is and give a bonus point as reward for a match-win.If a lot of people like this idea I'm open for it. One or two bonus points for the winner could make close matches more tense. Although to be honest I don't think it changes that much, and perhaps it doesn't justify complicating the rules.
We create two new positions, called "champion" and "challenger". While everyone else plays out a regular season, these two play a 20-game duel. The winner of the duel is the new champion, while the loser falls back into division A. The winner of division A gets to be the next challenger. (so it's the equivalent of having a 2-player division on top of A)
So, I wouldnt change too much there, but can see your point. So, why not combine best of both worlds? It may be worth considering, to maintain the point system as it is and give a bonus point as reward for a match-win.If a lot of people like this idea I'm open for it. One or two bonus points for the winner could make close matches more tense. Although to be honest I don't think it changes that much, and perhaps it doesn't justify complicating the rules.
We create two new positions, called "champion" and "challenger". While everyone else plays out a regular season, these two play a 20-game duel. The winner of the duel is the new champion, while the loser falls back into division A. The winner of division A gets to be the next challenger. (so it's the equivalent of having a 2-player division on top of A)
I really like this idea too, fwiw. I like the chess system, and this really is the same.We create two new positions, called "champion" and "challenger". While everyone else plays out a regular season, these two play a 20-game duel. The winner of the duel is the new champion, while the loser falls back into division A. The winner of division A gets to be the next challenger. (so it's the equivalent of having a 2-player division on top of A)
I REALLY love this idea. I'm all for it, and would also like giving non-playing commentary if the players themselves want to focus on the match.
yea, that. If you start counting match wins, all it does is make some games be worth more than others, that's not a good thing. keep it as it is.So, I wouldnt change too much there, but can see your point. So, why not combine best of both worlds? It may be worth considering, to maintain the point system as it is and give a bonus point as reward for a match-win.If a lot of people like this idea I'm open for it. One or two bonus points for the winner could make close matches more tense. Although to be honest I don't think it changes that much, and perhaps it doesn't justify complicating the rules.
Ugh, please no, it pollutes with arbitrary vagueness a system that is pure and elegant as it is.
So, I wouldnt change too much there, but can see your point. So, why not combine best of both worlds? It may be worth considering, to maintain the point system as it is and give a bonus point as reward for a match-win.If a lot of people like this idea I'm open for it. One or two bonus points for the winner could make close matches more tense. Although to be honest I don't think it changes that much, and perhaps it doesn't justify complicating the rules.
Ugh, please no, it pollutes with arbitrary vagueness a system that is pure and elegant as it is.
Leagues (in sport) don't normally mind one off drubbings- you can still capitalise on other slip ups. Anyhow good fun and thanks to stef for organising.
Also, for next season, I propose "finishing time of his/her last game" as 3rd tie-breaker. It is unlikely enough to be used for people not to care, and rewards people for keeping the schedule. Maybe finishing week is better, but you get the idea.How about "finished all matches in time" as first tie breaker, and if both players have "yes" or "no", the second tie breaker decides? then it might actually be a motivation.
That being said, I would rather use any sort of league-data for deciding (could be average points, result against #1, or something in between like points against non-demoting players), or even choose/break ties randomly.We continue to disagree, but it looks like you're in luck for next season. Some of the new organizers (especially hvb) seem to think more along your lines, so when we will start discussing free promotions for season 3 probably we end up using more league-data. Not for now though.
I don't like the idea of the champion/challenger...
I REALLY love this idea. I'm all for it, and would also like giving non-playing commentary if the players themselves want to focus on the match.Strong opinions on both sides... I will discuss this with the others first, perhaps followed by a poll to make an actual decision.
... I do like the idea of having better streams, but that can be easily pulled off with the current format.can you elaborate a bit more on this? Although in theory possible, I don't see how we could get this going in practice. Selecting sets is a lot of work, and you don't want to do that for just about every match. Also scheduling 2 players + commentators + people actually watching... we don't have that many spectators in the first place.
can you elaborate a bit more on this? Although in theory possible, I don't see how we could get this going in practice. Selecting sets is a lot of work, and you don't want to do that for just about every match. Also scheduling 2 players + commentators + people actually watching... we don't have that many spectators in the first place.
Apart from it being a lot harder to schedule a game when four specific people need to be there rather than just two, do people/you actually prefer external commentary?
I definitely prefer just having one of the players talking, and I quite enjoy commenting on my own games, I'd only be willing to give that up if I really cared about the match (b.c. commenting makes me play a bit worse), which may or may not be the case with some kind of final or challenger/defender match, but definitely not with regular A league games.
Apart from it being a lot harder to schedule a game when four specific people need to be there rather than just two, do people/you actually prefer external commentary?
I definitely prefer just having one of the players talking, and I quite enjoy commenting on my own games, I'd only be willing to give that up if I really cared about the match (b.c. commenting makes me play a bit worse), which may or may not be the case with some kind of final or challenger/defender match, but definitely not with regular A league games.
The schedule difficulty is the same for any match, making it champion/challenger won't change that.