Suggestions for the League

[zumHeuriger]

One of the things that I really like right now is the vertical mobility...if you finish in the top x of your division you get promoted to a higher one. Regardless of the ranking system, I think at least the division winners should get a a guaranteed minimum one-level promotion in the leaugue they win.

Cheers

Tom

[Lysimachos]

I bet it didn't occur to Lysimachos there could be anyone that don't have them all

In fact I didn't expect a crack player like Morbio had only the RoR expansion.
This is unconceivable for me, given the fact that I not only purchased all the add-ons but also invested my whole money in the famous "Slitherine Bonds" (much better than the Argentinian one)!

[Lysimachos]

I have been working on a ratings system with pantherboy for the leagues that should address these issues. Hopefully, Steve will give the go-ahead for it after season 5 has been completed.

These really sounds like great news!

[stockwellpete]

One of the things that I really like right now is the vertical mobility...if you finish in the top x of your division you get promoted to a higher one. Regardless of the ranking system, I think at least the division winners should get a a guaranteed minimum one-level promotion in the leaugue they win.

Cheers

Tom

I definitely agree with you and I am fairly certain that pantherboy does too (sorry if I have got this wrong, Steve). Similarly, I think that the player who finishes bottom of a division should be relegated, regardless of their rating (unless they are in the bottom division already, of course).

[stockwellpete]

Another thing - there are quite a few good, reliable players that you meet through challenges who are unaware that LOEG (or the forum) exists - so I always mention it to them during the course of our game.

[Morbio]

The thing I'd like to change is to have a defined, but relatively short, end date. Having finished all my matches many weeks ago I'm getting frustrated and withdrawl symptoms of having no matches to play.

The counter argument will be that I only have one leagues worth of matches to play, whereas others may have several times the number.

However, I'd prefer it if people were restricted to, for example, no more than 3 leagues at any time unless they prove that they can churn through games at a higher rate and meet the deadlines.

[claymore58]

The counter argument will be that I only have one leagues worth of matches to play, whereas others may have several times the number.

If you have a paypal account I'm sure the League will stump-up some $ for you to buy another expansion. I mean we need to beat you with other troop types other than just Pike's.

[rexhurley]

How about a League Cup, a knock-out tournament to run in parallel. Each league entrant gains automatic entry. Two ways to structure it - multiple entries for a player one from each division they are in (when fighting self the player chooses the army to progress); or a player chooses one of their armies to use (probably the better way to go). Seeding for the draw can be based on the ranking system that has been proposed. The army composition to be fixed and perhaps a different points value. Just need a volunteer to administer this.

Oh I like that gives us newbies to the League (but experienced gamers persee) a chance for a wild upset....

[rexhurley]

armies are chosen randomly for each player

Sounds like a challenge. I like it!

Here in New Zealand there is a comp called "Morganfest" after a popular competitive gamer passed away some time ago but the format he dreamt up carries on at some events for both 15 and 25mm Ancients.

This format is based on the basis of tired of being in comps with the same old rules lawyers with uber tweeked lists always winning the events. With Morganfest armies were provided into a pool, each rd the player and a army was pulled out of the hat, end result the winner of the event is the best all round general who plays with what he gets provided not the cheesiness of tweeking lists to the nth degree, works in FOW comp's I have been in too.

As for normal gaming I'm for fixed lists and you take your chance its only x rds anyway so if get the wrong opponent for your list so be it, there are ways and means of winning at all times.

Peasant shall now go quiet for five minutes....

[rexhurley]

I think it was season 2 when i started , i always liked the idea of playing
the reverse games as well , it is always good to see how other players
play with your selected army and you get to play armies that you might
not normally give them a try....

Ian

nothing quite like a paired game I never accept one side only in historical matches as that just sucks both wil also allow us lesser plebs to learn more

[stockwellpete]

The thing I'd like to change is to have a defined, but relatively short, end date. Having finished all my matches many weeks ago I'm getting frustrated and withdrawl symptoms of having no matches to play.

The counter argument will be that I only have one leagues worth of matches to play, whereas others may have several times the number.

However, I'd prefer it if people were restricted to, for example, no more than 3 leagues at any time unless they prove that they can churn through games at a higher rate and meet the deadlines.

Yes, I agree with this. I would like to see something like a "2 months on, 1 month off" pattern to the league during which time players are encouraged to make playing their LOEG matches a definite priority. In this way we would create a clear "close season" and give time for admin and new recruitment. It would also improve the league if players played their matches evenly across the divisions they have entered instead of concentrating on just one or two divisions in the first half of the season before moving on to the other divisions in the second half. If you look at the league tables I produce each Sunday for pantherboy you will see that some players have still only played 2 or 3 games in some divisions even though the league has been running for 10 weeks or so now. That is not good for the other players in the division who want to get on with their matches. So I think a 3 or 4 league limit per player might be a good idea too really. I only enter 3 divisions and I try to have one game from each division running at any given time. In this way it takes me about 6-7 weeks to complete all of my matches which i think is quite reasonable.

[TheGrayMouser]

The thing I'd like to change is to have a defined, but relatively short, end date. Having finished all my matches many weeks ago I'm getting frustrated and withdrawl symptoms of having no matches to play.

The counter argument will be that I only have one leagues worth of matches to play, whereas others may have several times the number.

However, I'd prefer it if people were restricted to, for example, no more than 3 leagues at any time unless they prove that they can churn through games at a higher rate and meet the deadlines.

Yes, I agree with this. I would like to see something like a "2 months on, 1 month off" pattern to the league during which time players are encouraged to make playing their LOEG matches a definite priority. In this way we would create a clear "close season" and give time for admin and new recruitment. It would also improve the league if players played their matches evenly across the divisions they have entered instead of concentrating on just one or two divisions in the first half of the season before moving on to the other divisions in the second half. If you look at the league tables I produce each Sunday for pantherboy you will see that some players have still only played 2 or 3 games in some divisions even though the league has been running for 10 weeks or so now. That is not good for the other players in the division who want to get on with their matches. So I think a 3 or 4 league limit per player might be a good idea too really. I only enter 3 divisions and I try to have one game from each division running at any given time. In this way it takes me about 6-7 weeks to complete all of my matches which i think is quite reasonable.

I think we need a rule that you must be thinking about the league at least 22 out of the 24 hours in the day.

Hmm,. as someone who has only completed the 3-4 games in one of the divisions ( but have completed the other 4)
all I can say is "so what?" The players in that Div havnt exactly been knocking down the door to get at it either, I certainly havnt ignored challenges or told people I am not accepting any.. Just works out that way sometimes... Some people play "feast or famine " style. Some dont like going cold turkey, finishing off all games and then waiting for the next season.
Any ways, It sounds like you want a much quicker turnaround for league seasons, with all these rules for less div per player etc.

[stockwellpete]

I think we need a rule that you must be thinking about the league at least 22 out of the 24 hours in the day.

What point are you making, exactly? And how does it relate to what myself or Morbio has said?

Hmm,. as someone who has only completed the 3-4 games in one of the divisions ( but have completed the other 4)
all I can say is "so what?" The players in that Div havnt exactly been knocking down the door to get at it either, I certainly havnt ignored challenges or told people I am not accepting any.. Just works out that way sometimes... Some people play "feast or famine " style. Some dont like going cold turkey, finishing off all games and then waiting for the next season.

Well, I was obviously talking about those players who complete their divisions one or two at a time and not someone like yourself. I can't see why you might think that I was talking about you:? All I am suggesting is that is generally better for the competition if players can balance their games across the divisions they have entered each season. If players generally agree with this idea then fine, they can arrange their matches in that sort of pattern in future and it will gradually become a "convention" in the league. Nobody is saying they have to - and, of course, life rudely intervenes at times to disrupt our game-playing and there is nothing to be done about it.

Any ways, It sounds like you want a much quicker turnaround for league seasons, with all these rules for less div per player etc.

In my opinion, the current one season every 3 months is about right -"2 months on, 1 month off" would be OK, so would "10 weeks on, 2 weeks off", for that matter - as long as there is a clear break in-between competitions and the seasons don't seem to merge into one another. I don't know what you mean "by all these rules"; pantherboy already has certain conventions about new players and about the completion of matches. I just think it is the case that some of us would like to see these a bit more tightly drawn, that's all. In fact, I know some of the players feel this way - whether we are a majority or not is a different matter entirely.

Anyway, this is what this thread is for, after all, TGM - to suggest alternative approaches for consideration for subsequent league seasons.

[TheGrayMouser]

Perhaps I shouldnt post ist thing in the morning until I have had time to replenish the caffeine and nicotine in my bloodstream, things , to some degree, come out foggy and unclear.

Pete
A that was pure (and apparently inneffective) sarcastic humour
B well of course i thought you were refering to me, i am the center of the Earth
you wrote:
"players have still only played 2 or 3 games in some divisions even though the league has been running for 10 weeks or so now. That is not good for the other players in the division who want to get on with their matches."

that sums up my SAS division in terms of games played , yet i dont think I am harming the other players as one could argue they are holding me up by not sending me challneges , he he....


I guess what I am driving at is I am an anti rules kinda guy, as long as everyone completes their games at a deadline, no harm no foul. Rules to attempt to effect behaviour are generally unenforcable , or applied unevenly and imho pointless.

[stockwellpete]

you wrote:
"players have still only played 2 or 3 games in some divisions even though the league has been running for 10 weeks or so now. That is not good for the other players in the division who want to get on with their matches."

that sums up my SAS division in terms of games played , yet i dont think I am harming the other players as one could argue they are holding me up by not sending me challneges , he he....

Yes TGM, but you have separated that sentence of mine from the one that preceded it - I was talking about players who play one or two divisions to completion at a time, even though they may have entered four or five. I am just suggesting that it would be better if players organised their games evenly across the divisions. Maybe players who do this haven't given it any thought? No problem, but perhaps they might like to do so now. In any case, whatever they decide, I am not suggesting that any rules be introduced to moderate behaviour.

I guess what I am driving at is I am an anti rules kinda guy, as long as everyone completes their games at a deadline, no harm no foul. Rules to attempt to effect behaviour are generally unenforcable , or applied unevenly and imho pointless.

Well, I basically agree with you and that is why I am using the word "convention" (a voluntary and agreed mode of behaviour) rather than the word "rule".

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I guess one way to circumvent that is if you see a player cranking out games in other divs but none in one of yours is to simply send a challenge, get him moving! Although i do recognise some players like to complete one task before going to the next , which might mean completing all games in LT then moving on to SoA etc.

One concern if # of div per player is limited.... What happens if you play a season in a DIv and then leave that Div next round , then come back.. What happens to your standing ( if it matters) More importantly, could you "bump" someone down or prevent them moving up who played prior? I would tend to argue achievment should trump prior standings but others might disagree.. Also yu could have a veteren player who gets assigned to a lower division and really cleans up , which isnt really fair...

[stockwellpete]

Hmm, I guess one way to circumvent that is if you see a player cranking out games in other divs but none in one of yours is to simply send a challenge, get him moving! Although i do recognise some players like to complete one task before going to the next , which might mean completing all games in LT then moving on to SoA etc.

Yes, I think that is it TGM. I think some players find it hard to juggle 4 or 5 armies at the same time. My response would be, "well, perhaps only enter three divisions this time and then enter the other divisions in the following season." I can also see that there is a good argument for allowing players who have shown they can juggle 4 or 5 armies successfully in the past to be able to continue to do so in the future.

One concern if # of div per player is limited.... What happens if you play a season in a DIv and then leave that Div next round , then come back.. What happens to your standing ( if it matters) More importantly, could you "bump" someone down or prevent them moving up who played prior? I would tend to argue achievment should trump prior standings but others might disagree.. Also yu could have a veteren player who gets assigned to a lower division and really cleans up , which isnt really fair...

This is where the new rating system will come in, TGM. It has been designed to eventually measure a players' performance in LOEG over the last calendar year. I have started collating statistics from Season 3 so once Season 6 is completed I will have a full year's statistics (ie Seasons 3-4-5-6). Then when the Season 7 results are completed, they will replace the Season 3 figures which will then be over a year old; and then Season 8 results will replace Season 4 and so on.

The biggest factor now in determining which divisions players are in is pantherboy's discretion as the tournament organiser. And this will still be the case when the new ratings system is in operation. The ratings will just be a very useful guide for him, particularly when he has to allocate divisions for a new expansion pack or a new league format. Returning players will be placed in the division appropriate to their rating - they will not start at the bottom again unless their rating is very low. And this won't interfere with the automatic promotion and relegation element either as there are always many gaps to be filled in each division as players depart, take a rest, or whatever.

[pantherboy]

I was just wondering if anyone has an opinion about breaking the leagues into the following;

1300-1500
Storm of Arrows
Eternal Empire

1100-1300
Swords and Scimitars
Oath of Fealty

490-1100
Decline and Fall
Wolves from the Sea

Before 600BC
Swifter than Eagles

Integrated into the above rather than their own leagues
Empire of the Dragon
Lost Scrolls
Blood and Gold

My question is how to allocate Rise of Rome, Immortal Fire and Legions Triumphant.

Cheers,

Steve

[Xiggy]

They would be together. 500bc to 500ad?

You notice quite a few of the armies span the entire period. In some cases fought it other. Seleucid was replaced by Parthian which was replaced by Sassanids.

Everyone fought Rome or the Pike armies. The Sarmatians span the entire period, as do the Saka.

Just my thoughts.

[Lysimachos]

Why not creating only 3 divisions alternating the single book to play for every season (4 season in a year like the numbers of book present in every Division) and indicating wich armies of Lost Sscrolls are eligible too in that round?

Western Division

Blood & Gold
Wolves from the Sea
Oath of Fealty
Storm of Arrows


Central Division

Immortal Fire
Rise of Rome
Legions Triumphant
Decline & Fall


Eastern Division

Swifter than Eagles
Empires of the Dragon
Swords & Scimitars
Eternal Empire