Page 11 of 54

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:20 am
by devoncop
I managed to achieve "splendid mediocrity" in Classical and Late Antiquity and scraped survival in the difficult (for me!) Cyrus to Tigranes.

As someone who certainly had some reverses the Tournament has been an absolute blast. I avoided the Division with bonus points, partly for that reason, and agree the Leagues simply don't need them.

I think the communication and organisation has been phenomenal and like Cunningcairn am looking forward to both the knock out tournament and the next season.

Re: From Cyrus to Tigranes discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:23 am
by stockwellpete
Cunningcairn wrote:What about Jewish 167-111 BC vs Arab 312 BC - 476 AD ? I'm not sure if they ever fought historically but surely they must have had a skirmish or two.
Well, I think this one is such a controversial subject to this day that I am definitely going to steer clear of it. :wink: I am also not sure that these two groups fought each other as "Jews" and "Arabs" outside of the 20th and 21st centuries either. Here is a link for Ancient Israel that starts around 1,200 BC and it may be that these armies are included in a Biblical DLC at some point in the future . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _and_Judah

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:53 pm
by FroBodine
I had an absolute blast playing in this tournament. Thank you very much, Pete, for an excellently managed tournament. You continue to do an excellent job running the show.

I like the bonus point, even though I never got any. I think I did get one losing bonus point. I've always been a fan of more scoring options, so I think it's a good thing.

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:12 pm
by mhladnik
I'm joining the ranks of those singing praise to the organisation :) great communication throughout. I enjoyed my first ever season.

While not necessary to separate players, as you say, I do like the bonus point system. At least the losing bonus point is a good consolation, making close defeats less frustrating. It also does, justly and fairly, distunguish well-fought games from straightforward and complete routs.

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:34 pm
by Lognormus
A big thanks for this tournament, I enjoyed everything: organization, communication, weekly round-up… it was perfect. If time allows, I should join the next one.
I didn’t take part to the bonus point experimentation, I don’t have preference on that.

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:53 pm
by MikeC_81
Hey Pete!

Many thanks once again for putting in what must have been an enormous amount of work. 10 weeks seemed a bit long. Even with my move, I finished well short of time control. Any chance we could do a 9-week tournament?

Re: From Cyrus to Tigranes discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:31 pm
by Cunningcairn
stockwellpete wrote:
Cunningcairn wrote:What about Jewish 167-111 BC vs Arab 312 BC - 476 AD ? I'm not sure if they ever fought historically but surely they must have had a skirmish or two.
Well, I think this one is such a controversial subject to this day that I am definitely going to steer clear of it. :wink: I am also not sure that these two groups fought each other as "Jews" and "Arabs" outside of the 20th and 21st centuries either. Here is a link for Ancient Israel that starts around 1,200 BC and it may be that these armies are included in a Biblical DLC at some point in the future . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _and_Judah

Probably be better to wait for the Biblical lists to be published. It just seems a pity as the armies are hardly used. Same as Libyan and Numidian although they are not as even.

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:09 am
by stockwellpete
MikeC_81 wrote:Hey Pete!

Many thanks once again for putting in what must have been an enormous amount of work. 10 weeks seemed a bit long. Even with my move, I finished well short of time control. Any chance we could do a 9-week tournament?
The length of the tournament has already been reduced from 13 weeks to 10 weeks during the time of FOG1DL. If we cut it any further then I think the number of unfinished matches will increase and we will not be able to fit the Themed Event in in its current format. Note that there are still 2 players finishing off their matches who entered only one division. So I think 10 weeks is the minimum timespan we can use for the FOG2DL.

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:53 am
by shadowblack
Thoroughly enjoyed the league and can't begin to imagine how much time and effort you must have put in. Immense thanks for a well run tournament. Already looking at army choices for the next one.
I was in Classical Indian and quite liked the bonus point but the purpose of it was to split ties which if you say is easy to do without it then probably no reason to keep it. How many people had so many bonus points they actually gained a position through them? In the same league, I don't know how you picked who had what armies but I felt some people had a far better selection of armies than others who seemed to have been given the short straw.

Re: The Rally Point

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:18 am
by stockwellpete
shadowblack wrote:Thoroughly enjoyed the league and can't begin to imagine how much time and effort you must have put in. Immense thanks for a well run tournament. Already looking at army choices for the next one.
I was in Classical Indian and quite liked the bonus point but the purpose of it was to split ties which if you say is easy to do without it then probably no reason to keep it. How many people had so many bonus points they actually gained a position through them? In the same league, I don't know how you picked who had what armies but I felt some people had a far better selection of armies than others who seemed to have been given the short straw.
In Classical Indian the armies were allocated by chance using a bingo kit. I am looking at ways of improving that for next time, possibly by grading the armies as A, B and C and then making sure each player gets one of each.

Re: From Cyrus to Tigranes discussion

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:11 am
by stockwellpete
Right, we can wrap this thread up now. The 9 match-ups for Season 2 in this section will be . . .

Chinese, Zhou (1046-701BC) v Qiang (1046-701BC)
Achaemenid Persians (545-481BC) v Greeks (550-461BC)
Carthaginians (410-341BC) v Syracusans (412-281BC)
Pyrrhus (280-272BC) v Macedonians (320-261BC)
Kushans (130BC-476AD) v Indo-Skythians (95BC-50AD)
Romano-British (407-599AD) v Scots-Irish (50BC-476AD)
Roman (425-492AD) v Hunnic (Western) (376-454AD)
Kingdom of Soissons (461-486AD) v Germanic Foot Tribes (260-492AD)
Chinese, Chen (557-589AD) v Northern Dynasties, Northern Zhu (557-581AD)

So I have dropped the Graeco-Bactrian v Seleucid match-up as the Graeco-Bactrians generally had poor results in Season 1.

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 10:09 pm
by MikeC_81
Big thanks again to Pete for running the show and keeping the trains on time! Good luck to everyone!

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 12:18 am
by Zardoz02
LOL this is the second time I ended up with my third choice. Lucky this time I put some actual effort into choosing it! :twisted: I wonder perhaps if army choice is being done using player lists arranged alphabetically? I need to create a new account as Aardvark01 and not Zardoz02. :D

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 1:33 am
by MikeC_81
If it makes you feel any better your army matches up very well with your division with the exception of the Carthaginians and the Indo-Skythians

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 6:54 am
by Zardoz02
Oh well alphabetic order is better than um... more traditional ancient ways of trying to influence fate... :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUdxy836WY4

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:11 am
by stockwellpete
Zardoz02 wrote:LOL this is the second time I ended up with my third choice. Lucky this time I put some actual effort into choosing it! :twisted: I wonder perhaps if army choice is being done using player lists arranged alphabetically? I need to create a new account as Aardvark01 and not Zardoz02. :D
Sorry about that, Zardoz02. I do actually work from alphabetical lists but I don't think that has too much effect on the process. Your first two choices were Carthaginian and Macedonian, which were also first choices of other players in your division, so I did look at it for quite a while and ended up allocating you the Romans so that I wouldn't have to ask anyone to make a fourth choice. Remind me at the start of Season 3 that you are overdue a first choice army selection. :wink:

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:36 am
by ianiow
stockwellpete wrote:
Zardoz02 wrote:LOL this is the second time I ended up with my third choice. Lucky this time I put some actual effort into choosing it! :twisted: I wonder perhaps if army choice is being done using player lists arranged alphabetically? I need to create a new account as Aardvark01 and not Zardoz02. :D
Sorry about that, Zardoz02. I do actually work from alphabetical lists but I don't think that has too much effect on the process. Your first two choices were Carthaginian and Macedonian, which were also first choices of other players in your division, so I did look at it for quite a while and ended up allocating you the Romans so that I wouldn't have to ask anyone to make a fourth choice. Remind me at the start of Season 3 that you are overdue a first choice army selection. :wink:
The old league use to use 'player rating' as the deciding mechanism so the better the player the least chance of getting 1st choice. Then there is the first come first served approach. Those players brave enough to state the army choices quickly should have precedence over players that wait and see what their rivals have picked.

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:20 am
by stockwellpete
ianiow wrote:The old league use to use 'player rating' as the deciding mechanism so the better the player the least chance of getting 1st choice. Then there is the first come first served approach. Those players brave enough to state the army choices quickly should have precedence over players that wait and see what their rivals have picked.
There is still a bit of the "player rating" method going on today, Ian. I have the previous league tables and current player ratings open when I make these decisions. The league has an automatic promotion or relegation system for the top and bottom players in each division, but I also use an additional discretionary approach (provided for in the rules) whereby players who have won 7 or more matches, but who did not finish top, can also be considered for promotion. Likewise, players who won 2 matches or less, who did not finish bottom, can also be considered for relegation. In this discretionary way you can get more players playing at a level where they are more comfortable and that has to be beneficial for the tournament as a whole.

However, it can be quite difficult because I am also often having to adjust the divisions because sometimes only 4 or 5 players from the previous season have returned to that division again. For this season Late Antiquity has actually lost an entire division compared to Season 1! So, in some circumstances, I have had to keep players who only won 2 matches last time at the same level, with a lot of the same opponents. These players are more likely get their first choice army.

The other thing I have done this time is to stop players using armies from the same nation in two separate sections. So, if you have been given a Roman army in Classical Antiquity, you will not be getting a Roman army in Late Antiquity, for example.

I am not sure about the "first come, first served" approach. It is an interesting idea. Maybe we could poll it at the end of Season 2 and if there is enough support we could trial it in one section in Season 3? The only problem with it is that players will often not know who the other players in their division are likely to be. They might think that 4 or 5 players are fairly certain to be there, but the extent to which I may have to use "discretionary" promotion or relegation will not be known until we see how many players from the previous season have returned to that section again. But maybe that is not enough of an issue to reject the idea completely. Players who post their choices early will still know that they are generally more likely to get their number one choices. I think it is likely to mean that some players will have to make a fourth selection (some players will not check what their most likely opponents have chosen), something we are avoiding at the moment.

This discussion can stay in this thread for now and eventually I will move it to "The Rally Point". :wink:

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 10:09 am
by SpeedyCM
Zardoz02 wrote:LOL this is the second time I ended up with my third choice. Lucky this time I put some actual effort into choosing it! :twisted: I wonder perhaps if army choice is being done using player lists arranged alphabetically? I need to create a new account as Aardvark01 and not Zardoz02. :D
I've got my 1st choice every time, the trick is not to pick the popular armies.

Go Samnites!

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 12:10 pm
by rbodleyscott
ianiow wrote:
stockwellpete wrote:
Zardoz02 wrote:LOL this is the second time I ended up with my third choice. Lucky this time I put some actual effort into choosing it! :twisted: I wonder perhaps if army choice is being done using player lists arranged alphabetically? I need to create a new account as Aardvark01 and not Zardoz02. :D
Sorry about that, Zardoz02. I do actually work from alphabetical lists but I don't think that has too much effect on the process. Your first two choices were Carthaginian and Macedonian, which were also first choices of other players in your division, so I did look at it for quite a while and ended up allocating you the Romans so that I wouldn't have to ask anyone to make a fourth choice. Remind me at the start of Season 3 that you are overdue a first choice army selection. :wink:
The old league use to use 'player rating' as the deciding mechanism so the better the player the least chance of getting 1st choice. Then there is the first come first served approach. Those players brave enough to state the army choices quickly should have precedence over players that wait and see what their rivals have picked.
The first come, first served approach could in fact work to the disadvantage of the "early-birds" as it would make it even easier for the "fence-sitters" to know exactly what armies the "early-birds" will actually be using.