Site Ideas
06 Jun 12
1) No more promotion/relegation. Rank teams based on average rating at the start of the season. For example, if your new team has the highest average rating, you go straight to the top of Division 1. This avoids problems such as strong teams in too low a division and weak teams in too high a division (perhaps because many of the stronger players are replaced by weaker players).
2) Have a max average rating to avoid all-Super-GM teams.
3) Allow flexibility in the size of a division. It would help avoid 2-team 'leftover' divisions at the bottom rung. The idea is to have all divisions about the same size, while maintaining a sensible number of clans per division (perhaps 6-9, or put it to a vote. Obviously, the range can't be too wide, or the number of games per season varies radically).
4) No provisionals. There are already enough surprises with underrated players.
5) Once all division winners are mathematically decided, start the process of creating a new season. No more waiting for 1 or 2 really long endgames to finish when they don't matter for the division title.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI think this post sort of makes a point of just how many people are truly interested in the future of the leagues but didn't get the opportunity of expressing such in the 'big league debate' here and in 'clans' public recently..
1) No more promotion/relegation. Rank teams based on average rating at the start of the season. For example, if your new team has the highest average rating, you go straight to the top of Division 1. This avoids problems such as strong teams in too low a division and weak teams in too high a division (perhaps because many of the stronger players are repl ...[text shortened]... ing for 1 or 2 really long endgames to finish when they don't matter for the division title.
or perhaps I miss something else here, the true 'hidden concerns' you express...something for which I may spot at a more godly hour 😉
I'd like to get the ball rolling by asking what constitutes;
2) Have a max average rating to avoid all-Super-GM teams.
I do understand the 'tone' of your post but please, just spell it out..whilst Russ is truly listening, spell it out...define what you feel is needed and what plainly isn;t.
07 Jun 12
Originally posted by RevRSleeker2) is meant to be straightforward. Your team's average rating must be below a predetermined level, say, 2200, or you can't enter the leagues.
I think this post sort of makes a point of just how many people are truly interested in the future of the leagues but didn't get the opportunity of expressing such in the 'big league debate' here and in 'clans' public recently..
or perhaps I miss something else here, the true 'hidden concerns' you express...something for which I may spot at a more godly ...[text shortened]... truly listening, spell it out...define what you feel is needed and what plainly isn;t.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhile some of these ideas have been stated before it is good to have them all lumped together for discussion. Here are some quick thoughts perhaps to which others could add/detract. Hopefully, a consensus can be reached and are capable of being programmed. I've added my thumb's opinion.
1) No more promotion/relegation. Rank teams based on average rating at the start of the season. For example, if your new team has the highest average rating, you go straight to the top of Division 1. This avoids problems such as strong teams in too low a division and weak teams in too high a division (perhaps because many of the stronger players are repl ...[text shortened]... ing for 1 or 2 really long endgames to finish when they don't matter for the division title.
1. Rank teams on basis of average rating. Pros - better chance of more even matches (caveat i'll mention in point 2), teams don't have to start at bottom again if they can't field a season. Cons - lose the challenge and fun of moving up division by division until the grand prize. thumb up.
2. Cap to avoid GM teams. Pros - keep the divisions competitive. Caveat - a team can still load up with high rates and add one low rate on last board to bring average down. Cons - any restriction may make it harder to field a team. thumb up.
3. Flexibility in the size of divisions. Definitely. I've made that suggestion too. Guessing it's not easy to program or something would be in place. Perhaps the mind-set was 10 team divisions so throwing the remaining teams into the last division would have created too many games for them. Maybe now with smaller division sizes this would work better. thumb up.
4. No provisionals. Pros - more evenly matched league. Cons - more restrictive and harder to fill team. thumb down.
5. Start new season after all division winners decided. Pros - less time to wait for next season - sometimes it gets ridiculous. Cons - possible game overload if some players have not completed games due to vacations and now a bunch more fall into their laps. thumb up but some mitigation (perhaps percentage complete) needed if players have too many outstanding games.
10 Jun 12
I have read most of the posts regarding the leagues and as far as I can see there are two main deterrents to teams entering
1.The number of games all at once- that is being addressed by the size limitations
2.The strength of teams:-
Lower rated players are "put off" by the likelihood of being thrashed in some of their games.
Would it be possible to create a more level playing field by using a gambit system?
E.g If my opponents rating is 300(or whatever is decided) above my own he starts the game without his queens knight.
You might still get the sandbaggers of course- but that's another issue.
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by SacTheKingWell, 3.5 outta 5 ain't bad. 🙂
While some of these ideas have been stated before it is good to have them all lumped together for discussion. Here are some quick thoughts perhaps to which others could add/detract. Hopefully, a consensus can be reached and are capable of being programmed. I've added my thumb's opinion.
1. Rank teams on basis of average rating. Pros - better chance of ...[text shortened]... tigation (perhaps percentage complete) needed if players have too many outstanding games.
In 2), 2200 is too high for the max average rating. The current top 5 could grab an 1100 player and meet the requirement. It must be lower. The idea is to find a limit that results in high encouragement to enter teams without fear of facing an invincible team that outweighs the constraint on making teams. The rating pool distribution may be helpful. In other words, if the vast majority of possible teams have an average rating of below 2000 (or even 1800) anyway, then the discouragement of team formation from a max avg rating cap is negligible.
I think 3) would be simple enough to program. Once the community decided on a max and min number of teams per division, the program just runs a brute-force analysis of all possible division sizes within those constraints and chooses whichever one is the closest to having the same number of teams in each division.
I think 4) is important even if it makes team creation harder. The whole reason we have a provisional phase is that we don't even know approximately how strong a provisional is. The revolution is based on pairing by rating - this is too big a loophole to leave in the system.
I have no problem with some limitation on 5). Perhaps do not allow the new season to begin if any player has a certain number of league game ongoing, say, 3 or more.
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by vendaI am against a gambit system because odds-games are a chess variant and not chess proper. I am not for any proposal that alters the rules of the game.
I have read most of the posts regarding the leagues and as far as I can see there are two main deterrents to teams entering
1.The number of games all at once- that is being addressed by the size limitations
2.The strength of teams:-
Lower rated players are "put off" by the likelihood of being thrashed in some of their games.
Would it be possible to create ...[text shortened]... his queens knight.
You might still get the sandbaggers of course- but that's another issue.
20 Jul 12
Originally posted by vendaI said about ( 2 ) before, in that the leagues should be banded
I have read most of the posts regarding the leagues and as far as I can see there are two main deterrents to teams entering
1.The number of games all at once- that is being addressed by the size limitations
2.The strength of teams:-
Lower rated players are "put off" by the likelihood of being thrashed in some of their games.
Would it be possible to create ...[text shortened]... his queens knight.
You might still get the sandbaggers of course- but that's another issue.
It makes no difference in the size of the challenge 6 or 10 if you know that you are on a hiding to nothing before you start
There should be an average rating that you cannot go above
20 Jul 12
Originally posted by padgerWhat about a sliding scale points system?
I said about ( 2 ) before, in that the leagues should be banded
It makes no difference in the size of the challenge 6 or 10 if you know that you are on a hiding to nothing before you start
There should be an average rating that you cannot go above
We're never going solve the relative team strength issue in my opinion but we could load the points in some way.
At the moment, it's 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw.
Why not take a players average rating as 90day+ 1 year + 5 year and divide it by 3 -(this gets rid of the rating manipulators) and use this figure for a points system?
Therefore if my "figure" is 1400 and I beat a player whose "figure" is 1600 I don't get 3 clan league points -but 4.
Similarly if a beat a 1200 graded player I only get 2 clan league points.
Complicated but provided the parameters were universal for all to see could it not work?
20 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by padgerI think we need to wait until we get more interest in the leagues before making them banded. Right now there are not enough teams entering and banding may lead to some divisions with very few teams. I am a fan of keeping enough flexibility to keep the division sizes as constant as possible. That way everyone knows about how many games they will play going in.
I said about ( 2 ) before, in that the leagues should be banded
It makes no difference in the size of the challenge 6 or 10 if you know that you are on a hiding to nothing before you start
There should be an average rating that you cannot go above
21 Jul 12
Originally posted by padgerThread 145693 I attempted to answer your previous note on the last page of that thread, and I'm still of the same view.. a view Swiss Gambit also appears to have responded to you here. Primary goal; increase the clans league interest \ participation..leagues were dropping off the radar of too many clans, too many clans only observe clan challenges now.
I said about ( 2 ) before, in that the leagues should be banded
It makes no difference in the size of the challenge 6 or 10 if you know that you are on a hiding to nothing before you start
There should be an average rating that you cannot go above
I must admit to not being overly keen on banded leagues as it all appears a touch too clan challenge with each player playing someone of 'equal'ISH' rate ( well, there's a joke but I'll save that for the next 'crooked challenges' thread over in public clans forum lol ) BUT, if it's workable then it should be tried. Maybe someone can answer one of my own queries if my banded league and clan challenge similarity theory doesn't hold water ? Given the examples evident from the new 4man league, you'll still get players playing one another who are 2-300pts apart though, how can that not be the case given there are only four players in a team and the bands must therefore be quite 'generous' per table ??
I'm clearly missing something there !!!?
21 Jul 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe trouble is there will be no interest whilst the present system continues
I think we need to wait until we get more interest in the leagues before making them banded. Right now there are not enough teams entering and banding may lead to some divisions with very few teams. I am a fan of keeping enough flexibility to keep the division sizes as constant as possible. That way everyone knows about how many games they will play going in.
We all strive to get better but not at the cost of getting thrashed
In the new league I am currently playing 3 opponents who are 250 - 350 above me and will struggle
21 Jul 12
Originally posted by padgerI fully agree. That's why I have proposed abolishing the promotion/relegation idea in favor of ranking teams by average rating. They should be re-ranked at the start of each new season. This would reduce the number and severity of mismatches, yet retain the flexibility needed to keep the divisions at a reasonable number of teams in each.
The trouble is there will be no interest whilst the present system continues
We all strive to get better but not at the cost of getting thrashed
In the new league I am currently playing 3 opponents who are 250 - 350 above me and will struggle
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you abolish promotion/relegation I think you take away what, for many, is the main attraction of the leagues.
I fully agree. That's why I have proposed abolishing the promotion/relegation idea in favor of ranking teams by average rating. They should be re-ranked at the start of each new season. This would reduce the number and severity of mismatches, yet retain the flexibility needed to keep the divisions at a reasonable number of teams in each.
Also, while we are on the subject ,what happens at the moment with promotion/relegation if two teams finish in equal 2nd or 5th place in the league?