@Mike: Your system is biased towards incumbents. I would rather reward a new player who tears up the lower groups than a player who hangs around but never wins much. The goal here is to have a competitive league.

Oh and you know, you actually benefit from the way I do promotions (and the way Frank has done them). Because you're new.

@rouxburg, would you like to play this league? If someone fails to join a newbie group I can add you.

On tiebreaker: I think fizzer's formula sounds perfect. In the case of the winner getting a smaller ratio than 0.5, I can just cap it at 0.5.

When you consider that 4/14 ~ 29% of the players in the system are new, it seems pretty obvious that the system isn't at equilibrium yet. Super-promotions are a good idea.

^ I agree. The league just would be too stalled, while the best players would be better off promoting quicker.

I'm happy that it finally started. :)

A note, I was asked in one of the tournaments when precisely do tiebreaker tournaments get made and when they do not. Well it's admin's discretion pretty much. I will always try to make them, but if waiting on a tiebreaker tourney holds up the rest of the league then I will just go straight to the tiebreaker.

Chances are they will *always* be made but this gives me some wiggle room.

@pushover, yes i would like to be on the waitlist; thanks.

Edited 4/29/2016 04:00:45

Okay thanks roux. What I will probably do is wait until the weekend to send out messages to players who have not joined yet. then wait until the following wednesday to invite you to a tournament that hasn't filled.

This goes for anyone else who wants to sign up for the league.

Edited 4/29/2016 08:05:54

Please wait list me Pushover

okay Ragnar!

lots of players are going to get angry emails from me this weekend! Especially the ones I know are active!

Edited 4/30/2016 09:32:40

please leave me alone!

I'd like to be on the waitlist. Thanks.

Regarding tie-breakers, I must defer to Math Wolf, but will say that I can imagine too many instances where any of these metrics would not reflect the 'closeness' of the match. The best idea I have is one which might be hated, since it would lengthen games, sometimes considerably.

Mindful of round-robin football's first tie-breaker, which is goal differential, I would suggest changing "Surrenders must be accepted" to Yes. The tie-breaker becomes the ratio of total turns in wins and losses. This would force the winner to close out the game as quickly as possible, while the eventual loser would make this as difficult and lengthy as possible. Additionally, it would make for some epic last day battles, as a player losing, knowing the loss meant a tiebreak, would do anything to stretch a game out. It also reflects a 'blowout' very well versus a close game.

Medium Rare, losers could just stall indefinitely until being eliminated. Sorry but this is dumb.

Waitlist now comprises rouxburg, Ragnar, and Medium Rare.

Medium Rare, losers could just stall indefinitely until being eliminated.

Not sure Pushover understood the post, because that is the point. Surrenders accepted, I realize, would not need to be set any particular way, as the incentive is in place to stall if a total turn ratio was the rule.

Perhaps I was unclear. Simply, two players in a 6-team league, both 6W/4L:

Player A took 80 turns in 4 losses, 180 turns in 6 wins. 80/180 = .44 20/30 avg
Player B took 120 turns in 4 losses, 120 turns in 6 wins. 120/120 = 1 30/20 avg

Player B wins quickly and decisively, and it's a brutal slog to eliminate him, opposite for A. B wins tiebreak.

The real problem, like I said, is that most players would dislike. Most, I think, just want to get out and move on once loss is certain.

Not to push the round-robin league football analogy, but goal differential is why teams play hard for 90 minutes, even when the game is lost. If staving off elimination as long as possible in WL to improve your tiebreak ratio is part of the game, then it's not dumb, it's part of your strategy, especially since it is not possible to stave off elimination "indefinitely."

In Warlight people don't play to elimination. Therefore this solution doesn't make sense. We don't want to encourage people to play until elimination, since it will drag games out and make it less fun.

In Warlight people don't play to elimination.

Not the point. You could. If you're entitled to speak for the entire Warlight community, I stand corrected.

Therefore this solution doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. You just don't like it, as predicted.

We don't want to encourage people to play until elimination, since it will drag games out and make it less fun.

If number of turns were a metric in the determination of rank, it would not drag anything out; it would be one determinant for 'winning' at season's end. Also, I would like it. Also, see above.

A large number of people in the community, even those that play poorly like me prefer when people surrender just to reduce the number of games you have, and reduce the risk of loss by boot when you were clearly winning the game.

Basically, it's good sportsmanship to surrender rather than carry on a game you have clearly lost.

A large number of people in the community, even those that play poorly like me prefer when people surrender just to reduce the number of games you have, and reduce the risk of loss by boot when you were clearly winning the game.

Basically, it's good sportsmanship to surrender rather than carry on a game you have clearly lost.

Irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, a large number of people would quit the P/R league if such a rule was established.

Ranking between tiebreaker can be helped if you take in considerations booted players (if there are any):

Player who wins over booted player has -1 point in the case of tiebreakers, but player who is booted gets -3 points in case of tiebreakers.

Solutions to problem using in-game data should be irrelevant as they can be artificially modified in game. Probably the best solution is the RR tournament between tiebreakers, with short time for turns, and on smaller map. RT game is best suited for that and all games should start in the same time (even in 4-players tie-break) but should have banked time and time per turn adjusted.

How long one can run doesn't measure the closeness of a match well either. All metrics are flawed, but my proposals should be among the least flawed. The last proposal is actually a rule that is used for the official seasonal ladders, so it at least has some overall credibility although it has its own drawbacks.

The analogy with goal differential in soccer is actually the ratio of armies in warlight except there is no optimal good point to measure this. If games were of a fixed number of turns, say 20, the army differential at that point would be like the point differential in soccer. What you propose (playing until elimination) would translate to soccer as: you have to keep playing until the goal differential is at least 3 goals. Doesn't matter you're up 2-0 for an hour already, you'll play for 5 hours if needed until you score that 3rd goal. People wouldn't like that either.

Drawing out games is frustrating and time-wasting and should only be done when you really want to annoy someone. Thus, such a rule would go against the common sense of a large majority of WL players. You claim that this is all irrelevant, but when thinking of a rule, three things should be taken into account (1) fairness (2) straightforward (3) efficient.
You assume your proposal fullfills those three criteria while in fact it is not straightforward as drawing out games efficiently is not all the reflective of game position, nor fair for most players who are used to surrendering early (and respected for that), nor efficient as it would draw out the conclusion of the season which is exactly what the organisers want to avoid.

Either way, just my 5 cents. It's nice you want to weigh in on the discussion, but it should be clear by now that most people have a drastically different view on it (which isn't necessarily a problem, to each their own opinion). In the end, I guess Pushover and/or the organisers will decide on whatever they think is best.

Mindful of round-robin football's first tie-breaker, which is goal differential, I would suggest changing "Surrenders must be accepted" to Yes. The tie-breaker becomes the ratio of total turns in wins and losses. This would force the winner to close out the game as quickly as possible, while the eventual loser would make this as difficult and lengthy as possible. Additionally, it would make for some epic last day battles, as a player losing, knowing the loss meant a tiebreak, would do anything to stretch a game out. It also reflects a 'blowout' very well versus a close game.

So some players play at 2 days/turn. Assuming it takes ~30 turns (this is low...) to eliminate a player, and there's 2 games at a time, we're talking ~180 days until end, or 6 months, or 1/2 a year.

It's not that turn ratios are a bad form of tiebreaking - it's just that they'd make games take longer, which is the exact opposite of what Pushover wants.

Turn ratios also kind of get spotty when boots come into play. If I boot against player A in distribution, but force player B to deal with 60 turns... yeah.

In addition, due to the wastelands and random warlords, unlike in sports, the field isn't the same every single time. There are some games that can end fast, and others that end slow. Sure, a lot of metrics are affected by this, but turns until elimination might be the most affected.

Player who wins over booted player has -1 point in the case of tiebreakers, but player who is booted gets -3 points in case of tiebreakers.

... which makes tiebreakers are at the mercy of the scheduler. If a player goes 0-6, but only boots against A, why should that affect A in terms of winning if A, B, and C are all 5-1?

I do agree though that booted players themselves should be placed lower in terms of tiebreakers, though, since by joining a game/tournament you're agreeing to place your turns before being booted.

---

Also if groups are starting E is filled up and ready to go when you start it ^^
EDIT: Pushover just started it nvm.

Edited 5/1/2016 23:02:12