Revamping the league

[pantherboy]

I think the new format is worth a go. Perhaps some of the player problems we've been having are due to the old format becoming stale. A new format may attract new players and encourage better sportsmanship and behavior -- and move the focus away from politics and towards playing.

One thought. One of the best planners I ever met said, "if you plan for that which is going to happen anyway, your plan will always succeed". Steve, you may want to bake into the format that some number of players are always going to drop out and some are going to play slowly. Perhaps a tournament structure that expects and accommodates this will be better than a rules heavy, disciplinary approach to manage these inevitable aspects of player behavior.

John
flatsix518

I agree with you John. The splitting of a season is there to assist these matters plus I will implement some mechanics that I hope will further alleviate these issues.

[stockwellpete]

I think whatever system or structure that you come up with there is always going to be a problem with slow play and players dropping out. The real issue is how this problem impacts on the tournament.

Under the current system of LOEG a recent innovation has been the idea of the "reserve list" which can be used to fill gaps if players drop out in the early part of the tournament. I actually think that this idea could have been used more robustly than it has been whereby players not registering a result in a division in the first month of competition ran the risk of being replaced by someone from the reserve list - for players dropping out in the second month of the competition, I think it would have been possible to have filled those gaps either by taking players from the reserve lists and allowing them to enter just one division, or by allowing players who were new that season to enter a third division provided they had completed all, or nearly all, of their matches in the two divisions that they had entered at the start - players dropping out in the last month of the season would just have their games adjudicated. The implication of this is that recruitment to the reserve lists stays open for two-thirds of the tournament and this recruitment should be "active".

Furthermore, setting an adjudication point at the half-way stage for "problem matches" occurring in the first month of the season would also send an unambiguous signal to players about what was required of them by the tournament organisers. Finally, imposing sanctions on players who did not complete their matches in the previous season is an important tool for tournament organisers. So if players have overall completion rates around 65% or 75% (after any games adjudicated in their favour are taken into account) then they just cannot expect to be allowed to enter next time. And players of completion rates of around 85% (after any games adjudicated in their favour are taken into account) must expect that the number of divisions that they be allowed to enter is going to be reduced. Tournament organisers should make it absolutely clear from the outset that the expectation is that you will complete all your matches in the tournament.

Using these methods I think tournament organisers can, over a number of seasons, gradually reduce the amount of disruption that occurs in their competitions. And if the different competitions that we have running now started to co-ordinate their tournament rules with regards to this issue then that might be extremely beneficial to everyone.

[voskarp]

Why not using pantherboys new format for LoEG Classical-Imperial, and an other one for LoEG Darkages-Medieval (with a more medieval flavour to it)?

[Jonathan4290]

Or even run LOEG as usual and have one themed tournament run by Pantherboy? There seems to be a lot of new players this season (myself included) and maybe some players (old and new) are interested in one or the other? I'd definitely sign up for all 4 LOEG divisions and this idea.

[Jonathan4290]

Additional thought with respect to first round matches where elite players face average players: if the tournament/league was run exactly as Pantherboy describes, with pools of 6-7, I'd be aiming to get 4th. This means that I'd play the bottom 3-4 players normally with an intent to win. For the top 2 players in my pool, I'm playing for a tie. I'll be very satisfied to get 1 point for a draw playing against Pantherboy. While this could be interpreted as poor sportsmanship, it makes the tournament a little more interesting because suddenly it's as if there's a handicap in play. The top players are going to have to work a little harder to get the win against a bottom player who knows he won't win and is just hoping to stand his ground and win 1 point.

[rexhurley]

Without bothering to read the fine details anything that is suggested by panther I'm for, originally when I started playing I thought LOEG was a group of elite players after some encouragement I applied was accepted and have significantly improved my playing, that said i have enjoyed the League and its continuance however Season 10 being extended has been a drag and has allowed for long slow games if at all.

Drop it back to what Steve suggests is good but also possibly allow a fringe tournament(gladatorial perhaps) and once the newbies have earned their munus they can play and the lowest player drops back.

Anything large and grandious is just a drag and who needs that as we have enough crap like that in real life so make it small, make it easy, make it work for the key organiser and if you dont like it run your own events

Cheers Rex

[voskarp]

...
Drop it back to what Steve suggests is good but also possibly allow a fringe tournament(gladatorial perhaps) and once the newbies have earned their munus they can play and the lowest player drops back.
...

I totally agree about this sub division idea (that's been mentioned earlier) for newbies and reserves.

[Jonah75]

Without bothering to read the fine details anything that is suggested by panther I'm for, originally when I started playing I thought LOEG was a group of elite players after some encouragement I applied was accepted and have significantly improved my playing, that said i have enjoyed the League and its continuance however Season 10 being extended has been a drag and has allowed for long slow games if at all.

Drop it back to what Steve suggests is good but also possibly allow a fringe tournament(gladatorial perhaps) and once the newbies have earned their munus they can play and the lowest player drops back.

Anything large and grandious is just a drag and who needs that as we have enough crap like that in real life so make it small, make it easy, make it work for the key organiser and if you dont like it run your own events

Cheers Rex

Wise words

[ericdoman1]

Missed playing and work got the better of me, as many of you guessed. Loved the job but it didn't love me back, stressed out big time, lost about 18 pounds in weight and a lot more grey hairs have appeared. Resigned and now looking for a new job.

As for suggestions so far, having had a brief look. I think allowing newbies to play against the veterans of the game is all down to everybody really.

If they are looking to improve their game then being beaten by a vet is a way of learning. However I do agree that it may well scare or put a lot of lot of people off. It depends on how competitive they are. Playing any game means you are competitive.

Pete had implemented a handicap system (points differences) in his KO comps and other organisers have given first choice of army to the lowest ranked/experienced player in a period with only a few armies. Both have worked well.

However I am still against them in that I feel a newbie isn't really going to learn from those games, they are not a level playing field. Part of the art of the game is choosing an army and then customizing it.

As we have all spent a bit of money buying all of the books the idea of not being in a position to use all armies is not a good idea for LOEG. LOEG stands out as the no. 1 comp and would therefore be copying other comps if it goes down the limited army usage.

Slow players - They should be reduced to half the number of divisions, possibly not be invited at all.. If once more they are slow, then unortunately they will have to be removed. Bringing in the reserves early on is a good idea based on not having played a game in the first month and or maybe even 1 or 2 in total in all diviions after the first month.

Ponts scoring system - There are quite a few options but as Chris has mentioned to me, keep it simple. Possibly 5 pts for a win, 3/2 pts for a winning draw (where both armies have routed, 3pts for the winner, 2 pts for the loser), 2/1 pt for a draw (neither army have routed but player with the better bp kill ratio receives 2 pts, 1 pt for loser) and 0 points for a loss.

I think sticking with the same 4 periods is the way to go. Also army choices should be sent to the organisers privately. I know this will be time consuming once more but I also know that voskarp, bagration and Turk to name but a few will be willing to help. This will make it more interesting when it comes to army choices.

Unity is on it's way and so we will all probably be equal as it is a very different game (I believe). If another LOEG season using current rules is to be run then stick with the same format. When unity is released, scrap the rankings and start from scratch. 4 periods, 3 - 4 divisons per period, top 2-3 finishers start in Div A the next season etc.

[stockwellpete]

Pete had implemented a handicap system (points differences) in his KO comps and other organisers have given first choice of army to the lowest ranked/experienced player in a period with only a few armies. Both have worked well. However I am still against them in that I feel a newbie isn't really going to learn from those games, they are not a level playing field. Part of the art of the game is choosing an army and then customizing it.

I think the position that I have come to now is that my handicapping system is appropriate for my KO tournament and for other smaller invitation events (e.g. my "peasants" versus "nobles" medieval events that have a team element to them as well as the normal individual competition). But handicapping would not be appropriate for the main FOG competitions such as LOEG or The Companions Cup.

And the point about the handicapping system in the KO tournament is not so much about newer players learning from individual games - rather it is that allows a greater range of players to experience the later stages of a competition. As I wrote at the end of the 2nd KO tournament, "Just one statistic really - there were 22 matches in the competition where one player had 300pts and the other player had either 350pts or 400pts. 18 of those matches were won by the players with the smaller army and only 4 were won by the player benefitting from the handicap. Despite this, if you look at the quarter-final draw, you can see that a number of players who do not normally feature near the top of the "A" divisions in LOEG were represented there. This was the purpose of introducing the handicap - to broaden out the range of players who would be able to compete at the later stages of a tournament."

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 95&t=37212

If you look at the 8 players who reached the quarter-finals last time - iversonjm, mortonj, ericdoman1, macsen, Aristides, TheGrayMouser, Morbio and Radio - then I think most people would agree that is a very good spread of players with maybe 3 or 4 names there that would come as a surprise to many of us. That was what I was hoping for from the competition and it is why the handicap system will be retained for KO Cup number 3 (this will start as soon as the Unity version is released).

[ericdoman1]

The above comment was meant for LOEG so we agree.

[stockwellpete]

The above comment was meant for LOEG so we agree.

Yes. And I think we would also probably agree that Steve's new proposal represents a radical break from the traditional format and, in this sense, is suggesting the launch of a brand new competition rather than a "re-vamping" of LOEG. I do think there is a place for "historical theming" in LOEG, but as a general rule, I would say that it should be possible to use any army from any book in any two consecutive seasons. So, for example, if War of the Roses armies were excluded from the medieval section in Season 11 due to reasons of "historical theming" then they should most definitely be available for players to use in Season 12. In that way players who have purchased all the books will be able to use armies of their choice on a regular basis. I agree that this was one of the strongest points about LOEG.

At the root of my disagreements with Steve are two basic issues really - firstly, that the LOEG format is not broken; and secondly, that with the imminent arrival of the Unity version of FOG we should be looking to expand our competitions rather than consolidate, or even re-trench them. And linked to this second idea is the premise that the key to expanding our competitions in the next period is our ability to reach out to those players playing on-line now who have never entered our competitions before. I recently identified over 50 such players in just a week.

[ericdoman1]

I am presently against the revamping of LOEG, again all armies should be made available. I think LOEG should stick to the same format. Otherwise LOEG becomes a "similar" comp to others and will lose it's uniqueness. However with the release of Wolves and Oath. The number of choices may well be too big. So possibly there may have to be a split. One season 500 BC to 745 AD and next season 746 AD to 1500 AD, with 4 seperate periods ( east and west dark ages/medieval) and 3 to 4 (or more) divisions.

Unity will change the format as there will be no out and out vet or top players. I myself have no idea about the system so I would be classed as a relative newbie. Others who have been beta testing it and even figuring out a way of how to download links, will be possible vets? There must be a dummy proof system to do so with simple and easy step by step procedures.

Iain Mcneil had said that I could promote comps on any link within Slitherine, I did so for last LOEG but was not that successful.

You and other players who organise your own comps should ask Iain if you could do the same thing.

Also some tt players may well choose to have a go. Although having to spend another £100+ might be a put off.

Possibly those pc players who do not enter comps, are not so "competitive" or maybe they do not know that Leagues and Tournaments exist! I would play quite a lot of friendly games a few weeks before a "big" comp agst a name I didn't recognise and I brought on board a few newbies by mentioning the comp. If all/other players did the same thing I think that will be a big help.

Yes it would be good to have more players possibly you or somebody else should open up a seperate link, asking for suggestions?

[pantherboy]

Just for everyone's notice I have summer vacation for three weeks starting next Monday. Besides taking my wife away for the first week I will be taking it easy at home so I will begin posting for opinions on some of the changes that will occur. Probably the first will be how many armies to use in the the opening round so that I can make some sample lists for debate. My goal will be to have everything sorted by the end of this current season with the complete mechanics presented.

Cheers,

Steve

[stockwellpete]

I am presently against the revamping of LOEG, again all armies should be made available. I think LOEG should stick to the same format. Otherwise LOEG becomes a "similar" comp to others and will lose it's uniqueness. However with the release of Wolves and Oath. The number of choices may well be too big. So possibly there may have to be a split. One season 500 BC to 745 AD and next season 746 AD to 1500 AD, with 4 seperate periods ( east and west dark ages/medieval) and 3 to 4 (or more) divisions.

Unity will change the format as there will be no out and out vet or top players. I myself have no idea about the system so I would be classed as a relative newbie. Others who have been beta testing it and even figuring out a way of how to download links, will be possible vets? There must be a dummy proof system to do so with simple and easy step by step procedures.

Iain Mcneil had said that I could promote comps on any link within Slitherine, I did so for last LOEG but was not that successful.

You and other players who organise your own comps should ask Iain if you could do the same thing.

Also some tt players may well choose to have a go. Although having to spend another £100+ might be a put off.

Possibly those pc players who do not enter comps, are not so "competitive" or maybe they do not know that Leagues and Tournaments exist! I would play quite a lot of friendly games a few weeks before a "big" comp agst a name I didn't recognise and I brought on board a few newbies by mentioning the comp. If all/other players did the same thing I think that will be a big help.

Yes it would be good to have more players possibly you or somebody else should open up a seperate link, asking for suggestions?

If I can just say that preliminary discussions between myself and Slitherine have taken place already about the future of my KO competition, as well as the launch of a brand new competition once the Unity version has been released. With LOEG initially becoming smaller under the new proposals, it is my view that there will be space for another major tournament alongside LOEG once Unity is out there because there will be many more new players buying FOG once the publicity by Slitherine starts to take effect.

The key factor will be to recruit players who are playing on-line but who have not entered competitions yet. It is possible to reach this group of players in a number of ways - from sending them PM's to accepting their challenges on the system and inviting them to join. I think a lot of the newer players either do not know about the competitions or are a bit uncertain about the standard of play and the procedures etc. Sometimes a player just needs to make contact with one other person so they can ask questions while they are learning the ropes in their first season. So our organising committee will be recruiting a number of "ambassadors" to help us actively build the tournament from the outset.

There is no great secret about the structure of the new competition that we are hoping to run - in this thread there are various proposals that I have made and if you join them all up you will get the basic outline of the competition. So it will be very similar to the LOEG format that is about to be discarded (except that it will have a limited historical theming aspect to it). However, most armies will be available for selection each season and every army will be available for selection across consecutive seasons.

In terms of the current LOEG ratings, they are likely to continue as the FOG Digital ratings in the future and may well use data from a number of tournaments instead of just one. I don't think it will be necessary to start the ratings from scratch - the top players will still be the top players even if the Unity version has some new aspects for us all to get to grips with.

[Cunningcairn]

I am new to this and have no idea about what went on previously. I do like Aristedis' proposal to have both the old and new systems. As a new player I am keen to play in these tournaments. I noticed with the Digital League that I've recently entered not everyone was included. Can the system not be flexible with respect to the number of entrants? My understanding (very limited) of the problems experienced in earlier LOEG tournaments is that they can be eliminated by good management. Why can't it be put to the vote as in a modern democracy to stay with a better managed old or go with the new?

[Tiavals]

I believe the problems come with voluntary work. The only reason we have the leagues is that some people are generous enough to allocate their own free time in running them, for absolutely no compensation, for which I am extremely grateful. It's my experience that voluntary work can work only if the people who do it like it and are allowed to do it the way they want. Thus, any change ought to come from the people who sacrifice their time for the sake of others, and only if they want to do so. I have seen many times in my life that volunteer work collapses when it changes too much from the original, especially if the change itself is "forced" upon the volunteers by popular opinion or such, since it demoralises them and gives a feeling that their work wasn't appreciated that much in the past, if people clamor for change. Of course, since the reasons for revamping are(unless I misunderstood) due to expansion of the league because of FOG itself growing, that is a bit different. More armybooks and 2.0, means it may become unwieldy due to it's size. In my opinion, the more leagues and tournaments we have, the better, since not everyone HAS to join all tournaments, even though they may feel compelled to do so.
I know I have a tough time not joining every and all competition, though I did give up the Campaigns a long time ago already. =)

[Cunningcairn]

Wise words Tiavals!

[ericdoman1]

Cheers Tiavals

This is for all players who organise a tourney. I don't think some people realise how much time you have to put into the game.

[fogman]

the key i think is to keep it small to keep it sane. i was able to make the lords tournament hum for five straight editions, one right after the other, because it was kept to less than 10 players and a time frame of about one month and a half. the last one petered out half way because several participants like flatsix and bagration and indeed myself were disillusioned with multiplayer play in general following the debacle of loeg that was unfolding at the time. interestingly two of the main protagonists in the loeg collapse are now running the tournament that has for all intents and purposes displaced loeg.

but the one thing that made it worthwhile from my point of view is that being the organizer i was able to impose my own vision of what a tournament game should be: paired games, open terrain, plausible historical encounters historically and geographically, and above all, army composition restrictions (including a ban on light troops, probably my biggest annoyance with the system!). i wasn't going to deviate from that. i feel that most tournaments will go that route eventually, in one way or another, and i was satisfied to have seen shades of that recently. ideally, like tiavals said, there should be a series of such small tournaments run by people with different visions which are nonetheless complementary. a huge one size fits all approach would tend to atrophy the game and interest in the long run.

if one looks at it, organizing a tournament is merely the act of arranging dag games in a more or less competitive setting. the smaller the meeting space, the more intimate, the friendlier it is. i wish the current organizers best of luck since i am not one to denigrate anybody who works for free for the benefit of the fog community but i'm curious to see how this huge undertaking is going to pan out over several editions.