The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:55 pm

devoncop wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:26 pm
Interesting discussion I am just picking up on. One disadvantage of only requiring a 10% or 15% lead to get a marginal victory is it would allow a classic horse archer shoot and scoot whereby the first 5 turns would be spent peppering the opponent to get to the threshold and the rest is spent trying to run away.....

In the last tournament I enjoyed the Classical Antiquity and Enemies of Rome sections by far the best as they had few horse armies...coincidental ?
What if I removed the "worst culprit" horse archer armies from the army lists from Season 3 onwards? I am thinking of Saka/Skythians, Indo-Skythians, Kushans, Parthians, Sassanids, Turkish, Hepthalites and Huns (except Attila's late Western Hunnic army 376-454AD)? This would leave mounted armies such as the Rhoxolani, Vandals, Avars and Germanic Horse Tribes still in the lists. Then by way of compensation I could make an extra effort to include some of the horse archer armies in the Themed Event where they would fight other horse archer armies (e.g. Sassanids v Hepthalites). How many players would say, "I am not entering then!" - none probably?

Remember though that the massed archer armies will be returning for Season 3.

nobbynobbs
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:27 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by nobbynobbs » Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:17 pm

I dont like the idea of disallowing armies, but they may be due to my fondness of playing them in wargames constantly, not just FoG. (I actually use Skythians in another historical wargame, they aren't as good as they are here though)

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:53 am

I don't like bannings outside something be egregiously too good. It never solves anything other than removing the need for players to adapt and find solutions. If there is the risk of Horse Archer armies being able to exploit the scoring system rule, then there is a problem with the scoring system, not with the armies. The right way to minimize draws is to incentivize playing for the built-in victory conditions of the game.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by melm » Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:38 am

Here is my two cents of scoring system.

We shall utilize the rout percentage information.
If we still use winner got 4 pts, the rule can go like below.

Winner got 4 pts, loser got 1 point if he routs >35% of the opponent army, plus the points for every 10% more than base 35%.
(I don't know whether Pete would like to introduce decimal points into the scoring or just stick to the integer. If we can use decimal pts, 9% more than 35% can be counted as 0.9, otherwise it contributes nothing to the total score)

Here is two example for win situation.

Eg.1 57-60. It seems Side B is a little unlucky not reaching 60 first. However, since he routs >35%, he got 1 pts + (57-35)% more, which is 2 pts. So totally he got 3 pts for the game. Thus, final score is 4 vs 3.

Eg.2 20-50. Side A has clear advantage and Side B fails to achieve 35%. Thus, final score is 4 vs 0.


And about the draw. I think there are three scenarios.
1. No one wants to move, waiting for the opponent going forward until time runs out. Usually it results 0-0.

2. Players engage. However, after several troops routing, one side decides to run for their lives to avoid utter defeat. It may goes like 38-58, or 25-48.

3. Players engage. They fight till the end of the turns, but with no clear winner. The score may resemble the above.


If using the rule
Scenario 1, 0-0 Both sides got 0 pt since no one achieves base 35% in order to get 1 pt.

Scenario 2, 38-58. Side A is going to win but is forced to accept a draw. As he passes 35 threshold, he got 1, plus 20% more, which is 2 pts. So totally 3 pts. Side B passes 35 threshold, he got 1. So finally it is 3 v 1.

Scenario 3, 20- 40. It is still a draw. The final score is 1 vs 0.

Scenario 4, If two sides made a tie, which means breaking at the same turn. Still applying the rule, if both sides pass 35 threshold, it will be 1 pt + the pts per 10%. I think it may always give 3 vs 3.


In this way, I try to penalize the un-engaging draw behavior to make them both sides scoring 0. But I don't want to penalize engaging draw with some score awarded. For the side running to preserve the their army, I award the other side with the score from opponent's troop routing.
And for unlucky loss, we shall award the loser side some pts, as they already rout certain amount of opponent's troops.

I don' t know whether people are happy with this system. I may miss some scenario. Please point out if I do.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:05 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:53 am
I don't like bannings outside something be egregiously too good. It never solves anything other than removing the need for players to adapt and find solutions. If there is the risk of Horse Archer armies being able to exploit the scoring system rule, then there is a problem with the scoring system, not with the armies. The right way to minimize draws is to incentivize playing for the built-in victory conditions of the game.
I tend to agree but sometimes a bit of intervention can be helpful. One of the things we did in the FOG1DL that worked quite well was the 50/10 rule, which limited army size to a maximum of 50 units with only up to 10 skirmisher units allowed. I have just had a look at the horse archer armies in the FOG2 lists and we could stipulate that if you are choosing these armies you may only choose up to a maximum of 10 light horse archers. This would keep the armies in the lists but it would reduce the amount of excruciation that players experience when playing against them. It wouldn't bother me doing this as players who are not excruciated by these armies can play them in other tournaments/campaigns and friendlies.

A 10 light horse unit cap would affect the following armies (I may have missed one or two). The negative number shown after their name shows how many LH archer units the cap would remove from their maximum . . .

Hepthalites -2
Hunnic (Western 250-375AD) -6
Hunnic (Western455-559) -6
Hunnic (Sabir) -6
Indo-Parthians -16
Indo-Skythians -6
Kushans -6
Parthians -16
Saka -2
Saka/Skythian -2
Skythian -2
Turkish -4

So the Indo-Parthians and Parthians would be hardest hit, but they are not chosen that often. Losing up to 6 light horse archer choices is quite a big deal but a player wanting to use the Huns could choose Atilla's list, which is unaffected. The Saka/Skythians would be barely affected by the cap and the Sassanids are not impacted at all. So there would still be a horse archer option in the army lists if something like this was introduced.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:37 am

melm wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:38 am
Here is my two cents of scoring system.

We shall utilize the rout percentage information.
If we still use winner got 4 pts, the rule can go like below.

Winner got 4 pts, loser got 1 point if he routs >35% of the opponent army, plus the points for every 10% more than base 35%.
(I don't know whether Pete would like to introduce decimal points into the scoring or just stick to the integer. If we can use decimal pts, 9% more than 35% can be counted as 0.9, otherwise it contributes nothing to the total score)

Here is two example for win situation.

Eg.1 57-60. It seems Side B is a little unlucky not reaching 60 first. However, since he routs >35%, he got 1 pts + (57-35)% more, which is 2 pts. So totally he got 3 pts for the game. Thus, final score is 4 vs 3.

Eg.2 20-50. Side A has clear advantage and Side B fails to achieve 35%. Thus, final score is 4 vs 0.
This is a coherent system, melm, but it is not one that I favour because it really squeezes the points gap between winning and losing. In battles, there were no prizes for coming second because often most casualties occurred during the pursuit phase (which we do not play) so I favour quite a decisive points system 4 for a win, 0 for a loss. And no, I definitely would not want to introduce decimal points into the scoring. :wink:
And about the draw. I think there are three scenarios.
1. No one wants to move, waiting for the opponent going forward until time runs out. Usually it results 0-0.

2. Players engage. However, after several troops routing, one side decides to run for their lives to avoid utter defeat. It may goes like 38-58, or 25-48.

3. Players engage. They fight till the end of the turns, but with no clear winner. The score may resemble the above.
About one-third of draws fall into the first category at the moment (I regard these as the most important problem) and they should largely disappear in Season 3 when we introduce the rule allowing players to re-start matches within 2 turns. The second group is the smallest one and they can be frustrating for the pursuing player if the enemy is mostly mounted. If we introduce a marginal victory rule next season then these should diminish as well. Well over half the draws fall into the third category and, as far as I am concerned, these are "good" battles and they don't require any attention.
If using the rule
Scenario 1, 0-0 Both sides got 0 pt since no one achieves base 35% in order to get 1 pt.

Scenario 2, 38-58. Side A is going to win but is forced to accept a draw. As he passes 35 threshold, he got 1, plus 20% more, which is 2 pts. So totally 3 pts. Side B passes 35 threshold, he got 1. So finally it is 3 v 1.

Scenario 3, 20- 40. It is still a draw. The final score is 1 vs 0.

Scenario 4, If two sides made a tie, which means breaking at the same turn. Still applying the rule, if both sides pass 35 threshold, it will be 1 pt + the pts per 10%. I think it may always give 3 vs 3.


In this way, I try to penalize the un-engaging draw behavior to make them both sides scoring 0. But I don't want to penalize engaging draw with some score awarded. For the side running to preserve the their army, I award the other side with the score from opponent's troop routing.
And for unlucky loss, we shall award the loser side some pts, as they already rout certain amount of opponent's troops.

I don' t know whether people are happy with this system. I may miss some scenario. Please point out if I do.
I have problems with this. Compare the points awarded in scenarios 2 and 3. One match is scored 3-1 and the other is scored 1-0. I would feel a bit hard done by if I was the player who had just failed to win scenario 3. I don't actually see a great deal of difference between the two matches here. Both could end on the next turn and I cannot possibly see how the player ahead in scenario 2 is worth three times as many points as the player ahead in scenario 3. They should be getting the same number of points, which they will do if we have a marginal victory rule with a 10% winning threshold next season. Also there is a big anomaly between scenario 4 and scenario 3 where a player who has tied a match gets three times as many points as a player who was ahead 40-20 in their game. That just doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

melm
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by melm » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:00 am

It's all based on the assumption that more engaging, more routing. So I uses the routing percentage as the proxy for the willingness of fight. I want to reward the people who want to engage the enemy other than who camps or hides. It's just my rough idea.

Thus, 20-40 and times runs out. Either the players may stand still or move back and forth until very late stage they finally engage(not enough time left), or who gets 40% routing starts to hide or running away. So I wants to penalize such situation comparing with 38-58. They may fight earlier before inferior side starts dodging.

Anyway, if the scoring system prefers "winner takes all", then perhaps making a "winner" from draw is more consistent with the idea.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:02 am

melm wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:00 am
It's all based on the assumption that more engaging, more routing. So I uses the routing percentage as the proxy for the willingness of fight. I want to reward the people who want to engage the enemy other than who camps or hides. It's just my rough idea.

Thus, 20-40 and times runs out. Either the players may stand still or move back and forth until very late stage they finally engage(not enough time left), or who gets 40% routing starts to hide or running away. So I wants to penalize such situation comparing with 38-58. They may fight earlier before inferior side starts dodging.

Anyway, if the scoring system prefers "winner takes all", then perhaps making a "winner" from draw is more consistent with the idea.
Oh yes, I understand where you are coming from with this idea and thanks for posting it. Obviously part of my job is to look at the various ideas that come forward and test them for consistency. I can agree with some of what you are saying in relation to draws, but then your ideas for draws have to fit in with what we are doing with the vast majority of matches that are not draws. And that then raises a lot more issues. I have already talked about the anomalies in relation to ties, but what about a comparison with a match that is won overwhelmingly by a player by 40-0. They would get 4 points for that while a player drawing a match 58-38 would get 3 points. That doesn't seem right to me at all. And you cannot say that the player scoring 58 in a high scoring draw was more ready to engage than the player winning 40-0. The 40-0 match might have been all over in 10 turns.

And in your 40-20 example above, the player scoring 40 might have been trying to engage the whole time, but if he was chasing a horse archer army then it might have been a very frustrating battle. So to give just 1 point compared to 3 that other drawn players are scoring is rubbing salt into the wounds a bit. :wink:

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by TheGrayMouser » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:52 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:31 am
I have just been looking at the various suggestions in order to ascertain whether anomalies might occur. Obviously we need to avoid them as much as possible. So using the same list as I did above I have identified the following issues . . .

1)TGM - no points for a draw - this would mean players drawing a bloodbath 55-55 would get the same as players tamely agreeing a 0-0 draw
My answer would be, in this unlikely scenario so what? To elaborate, the incentive to not try to win isn’t there, unless you just enjoy denying you opponent points. If it was s case of a truly unplayable map, both players have every reason to simply agree to try another( and they could do this whether sanctioned by the rules or not, and no one wold be the wiser)

As Mike_c succinctly put it, a player should only be thinking about how to win the battle at hand, not strategizing the current season scorecard.

As a player noted a few posts back, he played for draws so he could stay in his division. isn’t this temptation/ necessity something to be avoided?

Although the alternates presented imho would be fine maybe for a mini tournament etc, they don’t address the basic issue. The reward for risking all to get a victory. And they add much complexity that can further gamemen ship.

Also such points differentials certainly can put some armies at s disadvantage. It also discourages the concept of defending.

We all of us are subject to the rendering of the map, the ease of calling a draw to some degree negates the value of terrain. Perhaps we should only play on prairies? :)

Anyways some thoughts ( btw , what is the fascination with points for indicisive results? Seriously? )

1
Revert to the scoring of the DL in fog 1:
3 win, 2 tie ( both armies break) 1 for draw.
That way it at least takes 3 draws to equal a win.

2
Players are allocated a (A)ttacker role or (D)efender role in each matchup wth other players in the division ( random and known at the start of the season). In a case of an odd #, the organizers would adjudicate who gets the xtra attack or defend role base on league standing( the better player getting the xtra attack role)

The assumption is the army defending just just needs to be intact at the end of the game to get some points, while the attacker it’s all or nothing. So as an example win 4 points, loser zero, in a draw the attacker gets zero , the defender 2, or just 1. A tie, both get 3(these are really rare in fog2 imho). There is nothing that would prevent the defender from being the aggressor.

I won’t list proes and cons for the second one as I’m sure there are many, perhaps to radical change anyhow.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:39 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:52 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:31 am
I have just been looking at the various suggestions in order to ascertain whether anomalies might occur. Obviously we need to avoid them as much as possible. So using the same list as I did above I have identified the following issues . . .

1)TGM - no points for a draw - this would mean players drawing a bloodbath 55-55 would get the same as players tamely agreeing a 0-0 draw
My answer would be, in this unlikely scenario so what? To elaborate, the incentive to not try to win isn’t there, unless you just enjoy denying you opponent points. If it was s case of a truly unplayable map, both players have every reason to simply agree to try another( and they could do this whether sanctioned by the rules or not, and no one wold be the wiser)
Well, I am surprised that you have to ask, TGM. Throughout the time I have been running FOG1DL and FOG2DL there have always been queries raised about the scoring system of the league in relation to various issues. And gradually the scoring system (and the rules of competition) have evolved to improve the situation for players. And the 55-55/0-0 scorelines have not been unlikely situations up to now as my list of draws from Late Antiquity shows. Hopefully, it will be a rather more unlikely situation in the future with the new re-start rule (btw most players abide by the rules as they are written). But a player in a match where he feels his opponent is far superior may not agree to a map change if he believes the map suits his army more than his opponent, so there will still probably be a few 0-0 results.
As Mike_c succinctly put it, a player should only be thinking about how to win the battle at hand, not strategizing the current season scorecard.

As a player noted a few posts back, he played for draws so he could stay in his division. isn’t this temptation/necessity something to be avoided?
I disagree entirely. The FOG2DL is a league and, of course, players can be looking beyond individual battles to their fixtures as a whole if they wish to. Playing for draws is not a very effective way of achieving anything really but, on occasions, where you may be up against a better opponent, or you are facing difficult terrain, then players are perfectly entitled to make it as hard as possible for their opponent to defeat them.
Although the alternates presented imho would be fine maybe for a mini tournament etc, they don’t address the basic issue. The reward for risking all to get a victory. And they add much complexity that can further gamemen ship.
Also such points differentials certainly can put some armies at s disadvantage. It also discourages the concept of defending.

We all of us are subject to the rendering of the map, the ease of calling a draw to some degree negates the value of terrain. Perhaps we should only play on prairies? :)

Anyways some thoughts ( btw , what is the fascination with points for indicisive results? Seriously? )

1
Revert to the scoring of the DL in fog 1:
3 win, 2 tie ( both armies break) 1 for draw.
That way it at least takes 3 draws to equal a win.
I disagree here too. It is not a case of fascination. It is about dealing with a specific category of results in the optimum way. This season some players have been lobbying me to look at drawn matches again so that is what I am doing. As for your proposal, how would going back to a discarded points system where there were less points for a win help at all? Under the current scoring system you get 4 points for a win, 2 points for a tie and 1 point for a draw. So four draws equal one win. Surely that is an improvement on three draws equalling one win?
2
Players are allocated a (A)ttacker role or (D)efender role in each matchup wth other players in the division ( random and known at the start of the season). In a case of an odd #, the organizers would adjudicate who gets the xtra attack or defend role base on league standing( the better player getting the xtra attack role)

The assumption is the army defending just just needs to be intact at the end of the game to get some points, while the attacker it’s all or nothing. So as an example win 4 points, loser zero, in a draw the attacker gets zero , the defender 2, or just 1. A tie, both get 3(these are really rare in fog2 imho). There is nothing that would prevent the defender from being the aggressor.

I won’t list proes and cons for the second one as I’m sure there are many, perhaps to radical change anyhow.
Yes, this is a non-starter for me because I have to look after 70 or 80 players each season, so I need to avoid complications where I can. Otherwise I am going to be spending too much time sending PM's backwards and forwards explaining things. You would really have to try this idea out in a separate tournament to see if it could work, but it is not something that I would support for the FOG2DL.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by TheGrayMouser » Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:10 pm

Well I had to ask because I dropped out of the league soon after the revelations of the rear charge bug, so I hadn’t really been part of any of those discussions.

My bad on the points thing, for some reason I had it in my head draws were two points. That’s what I get for posting in haste while at work and on my phone.

Anyway, we just have different opinions on the matter, and it’s your show.

For the record I’d rather things remain as is versus graduated points etc. Two many things to juggle during a battle without the addition of multiple conditions of partial victories etc. to worry about, cheers!

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:54 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:39 pm
.... you may be up against a better opponent, or you are facing difficult terrain, then players are perfectly entitled to make it as hard as possible for their opponent to defeat them.
Except this creates a situation where it is actively not enjoyable for the person on the receiving end of this treatment.

What if next season every opponent of Pantherboy or Ludendorf decided to find the best terrain on their deployment zones and just sat there to deny them wins? What kind of fun is that?

And is it fair to them or anyone else facing this treatment when the two players are now playing different games?
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:59 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:54 pm

Except this creates a situation where it is actively not enjoyable for the person on the receiving end of this treatment.

What if next season every opponent of Pantherboy or Ludendorf decided to find the best terrain on their deployment zones and just sat there to deny them wins? What kind of fun is that?

And is it fair to them or anyone else facing this treatment when the two players are now playing different games?
Why would that happen? It is just a ridiculous argument. Most of the players in Division A are capable of beating pantherboy or Ludendorf on their day, given the right combination of army match-ups, terrain and form. And if we introduce a marginal victory rule then the likelihood of ultra-negative tactics happening on a regular basis will be considerably reduced.

shadowblack
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by shadowblack » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:14 pm

It seems as if some want the players to just line up and charge forward irrespective of terrain and/or army match ups so somebody can be called a winner. If you don't feel you can win a battle what's wrong with playing for the next best thing? Or should you just throw your troops forward to be slaughtered by your opponent? At least he'll have had an enjoyable game and can claim a win.
The issue is to try and incentivise people into there being some reward for actively seeking battle rather than taking a 0-0 by sitting in/on terrain.
I don't feel there is a need to ban cav armies (or even limit them). That sets a dangerous precedent for the future when someone wants to complain about something. I for one, won't be picking one in Late or Classical and suspect neither will rbs or klayeckles. IMHO they are not division winning armies and will be reduced in number next season through natural selection.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:21 pm

Further to my reply to MikeC_81 above, I just want to say something more about the issue of "elite players" being disproportionately on the receiving end of negative play. The term "elite players" is a bit problematic because up to now it is arguable if there are any such players in the FOG2DL. It was certainly the case in FOG1DL that there were 5 or 6 players in the A divisions who were a grade above everybody else and dominated most seasons, but that situation does not really pertain in the FOG2DL . . . not yet anyway.

If we look at the top 10 of the Player Ratings after Season 1 of the FOG2DL . . .

1-klayeckles (18-186)=10.33
2-ruskicanuk (18-180)=10.00
3-stockwellpete (18-150)=8.33
4-Sennacherib (18-135)=7.50
5-Cunningcairn (45-332)=7.38
6-rbodleyscott (18-132)=7.33
7-shadowblack (43-305)=7.09
8-Dortmund (21-147)=7.00
9-Lysimachos (23-157)=6.83
10-schmolywar (23-156)=6.78

So if there is a nascent "elite" group then you might expect to find it substantially among these players. So how have they fared in Season 2 of the FOG2DL? klayeckles is involved in a relegation battle and was knocked out of the Themed Event at the group stage; ruskicanuk is mid-table; I had a stinker in my one division and I'm retiring from competitive play because running the tournament/doing scenarios is enough for me; Sennacherib, Lysimachos and schmolywar all did not enter; Cunningcairn has had a much more mixed bag of results this season; rbodleyscott is in a relegation battle in one of his divisions; and Dortmund is still looking for his first point with 5 days left in the tournament. So none of the top 10 are showing signs of progression while the most upwardly mobile players right now include the likes of hidde, pantherboy, Ludendorf, Nosy_Rat, DzonVejn and MikeC_81. It remains to be seen whether they can go on and dominate the FOG2DL in the way the elite group really did back in the FOG1DL days.

One area where I might be able to address this issue of "elite players" being faced with ultra-defensive play is to do with army allocation in sections like Classical Antiquity, Late Antiquity And Early Middle Ages (new in Season 3) where players are asked to make three choices and then are given one of them. In Season 1 and 2 I have tried to maximise the number of first choices for players without almost any regard to the ratings of players in a division. So, if you are a top-rated player and have put Carthaginians or Romans as your first choice army then you have been given it wherever possible. What I could start doing from Season 3 is to allocate the armies starting with the lowest rated player in a division first. This would mean that if you are, say, in the top 5 of the player ratings, then you would not be getting one of top tier armies such as the Carthaginians or the Romans very often.

I can use MikeC_81's army tier list in conjunction with the player ratings for these army allocations. See these threads . . .

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=83417&hilit=MikeC_81
viewtopic.php?f=501&t=80847

What I might also need to say is that players should choose 4 armies at the outset (instead of 3) and that players no longer should indicate a preference. You pick 4 armies you are prepared to use and you will get one of them. I will have to test this to see whether the selection of a fourth army is absolutely necessary. I think it might be because the system that I am proposing here will have less flexibility than the one that I am using currently (me just choosing armies for everyone).

I think that this very mild form of handicapping (because that is what it is) could reduce the number of matches where a player feels he is outclassed by both his opponent and by his opponent's army and therefore resorts to negative play. My feeling is if a player in mid-table or below feel they have got a slightly better army than a top player, and they have not been stitched up by the terrain generator, then they are much more likely to have a go at winning a game rather than sitting in terrain.

Would this, along with a new marginal victory rule and the new 2-turn restart rule, help to reduce the problem of negative play?

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

This poll is now closed.

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:02 pm

This is an indicative poll to see how players feel about the issue of drawn matches and negative play. There are 5 options and you can vote for up to 3 of them. The poll will run until Sunday August 19th. You may change your votes if you want to. The player's name indicated in brackets after the option is the person who first suggested the idea and will be helpful to players new to the discussion which has spread over a few pages now.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:04 pm

Right, the poll is up now.

viewtopic.php?f=501&t=87240

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by TheGrayMouser » Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:29 am

shadowblack wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:14 pm
It seems as if some want the players to just line up and charge forward irrespective of terrain and/or army match ups so somebody can be called a winner. If you don't feel you can win a battle what's wrong with playing for the next best thing? Or should you just throw your troops forward to be slaughtered by your opponent? At least he'll have had an enjoyable game and can claim a win.
The issue is to try and incentivise people into there being some reward for actively seeking battle rather than taking a 0-0 by sitting in/on terrain.
I don't feel there is a need to ban cav armies (or even limit them). That sets a dangerous precedent for the future when someone wants to complain about something. I for one, won't be picking one in Late or Classical and suspect neither will rbs or klayeckles. IMHO they are not division winning armies and will be reduced in number next season through natural selection.

Not sure whose advocating mindless charges regardless of terrain...

I do agree that armies shouldnt be banned at all, not even a horde of Numidian light infantry haha.

BTW this thread took a strange turn where now it seems that we are worried about elite players "suffering " from defensive play? In my experience players that are way better than me often play the most defensive AND/OR call for the draw well before less experienced opponents :)


Pete can you explain the new army selection more? 3-4 choices per "tier" ( which might be accurate or not, pretty subjective in many cases , obviously clear as glass on some armies though) but then allocated based on player rating? Difficulty getting your choice seems a little heavy for what, the top 4-5 in every division?.. And what this supposed to remedy? I suppose you dont want to bring back the old once you use an darmy you dont get tuse it again for several seasons ( booking keeping work)

NikiforosFokas
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by NikiforosFokas » Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:31 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:01 pm
NikiforosFokas wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:57 pm
100% agree,
edit: I like so much the idea to give the loser points too. I am just thinking why not dropping the % to 12? Why? Because 12,5 + 12,5 = 25% and this is the score to win. Right? So 2 points from the score and 2 for the victory. So i think it will be more just to set the percentage to 12%. A game which ends 62-46 it is a close one, so the loser will be rightly given 3 points (one less than the victor). That is a lot better than playing for the one point of the draw.
I am not absolutely clear how you are scoring the matches in this idea. 2 points for a win, is it? How many for a tie or a draw? None? The same as a loss? Then players get 1 point for every 12.5% losses they cause to their opponent? So the following results would be scored like this . . .

63-52 = (2 points for the win +5 points for 5x12.5=62.5) v (4 points for 4x12.5=50.0) = 7 points for the winner and 4 points for the loser. Is that what you mean?

40-0 = (2 points for the win +3 points for 3x12.5=37.5) v (0 points for scoring less than 12.5% damage) = 5 points for the winner and 0 points for the loser.

63-61 (a tie) = (anything for the tie? +5 points for 5x12.5=62.5) v (4 points for 4x12.5=50.0) = 5 points for one player and 4 points for the other (if there is no extra point for the tie).

42-33 (a draw) = (presumably no point for a draw? +3 points for 3x12.5=37.5) v 2 points for 2x12.5=25.0) = 3 points for one player and 2 points for the other.

I think you are into a world of anomalies with this scoring system as per my example above. A player white-washing an opponent would only score one more point that somebody losing a game and would score 2 less points than someone achieving a narrow victory. And a loser in a high scoring game would score more than both players in a drawn game and the same as some players in a tied match. The other thing is that it would mean a lot more extra work for me calculating the exact points allocation and PM'ing players to clarify results (I have to do enough of this already). So, if I have understood it correctly, this would get a big thumbs down from me.
You are right Pete!
For Byzantium!!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9586
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:26 am

TheGrayMouser wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:29 am
Pete can you explain the new army selection more? 3-4 choices per "tier" ( which might be accurate or not, pretty subjective in many cases , obviously clear as glass on some armies though) but then allocated based on player rating? Difficulty getting your choice seems a little heavy for what, the top 4-5 in every division?.. And what this supposed to remedy? I suppose you dont want to bring back the old once you use an darmy you dont get tuse it again for several seasons ( booking keeping work)
It would be a very simple procedure. Once I have formed up the divisions of ten players in each, I would start the army allocation process by giving the lowest rated player in the division (according to the FOG2DL ratings) the first choice of army. And to do that I would use MikeC-81's classification as a guide. And then I would do the second lowest rated player and so on. That's it really.

It may be necessary to increase the number of initial army choices per player from 3 to 4, without an order of preference being indicated. I still need to test this increase in choices because it may not be necessary (I will get it tested by Sunday).

Players will still get one of their three (or four) choices, but if you have won the A division the season before with 8 or 9 wins then your chance of getting the Romans or Carthaginians (both tier A armies mostly) in the next season is not high. The purpose of this idea is to remove situations where a player further down the table feels outclassed by both his opponent and by his opponent's army from the outset and therefore resorts to negative play.

I have raised this idea in the context of trying to minimise the factors that are contributing to the increased numbers of draws we are seeing in Season 2. Over 50% of draws are really excellent matches but about a third of them are sterile stalemates. It is this group that of matches that I am seeking to minimise.

I would poll this idea before introducing it because it does involve a very mild form of handicapping which may not be to everyone's taste. The other poll ends on August 19th so I could start a second poll then and run it to the end of the month, That would fit in quite nicely as recruitment for Season 3 will open on September 17.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”