|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 10, 2007 15:51:31 GMT -5
Hey folks. This is a draft of the rules for the league I'm starting, but I thought I'd gather input and ideas from y'all before I posted them. Some background may be found in this thread. The idea is to start thing simple. Once the basic structure gets off the ground, think about adding in more complex RP elements and such. 1. Post in the "New Members" thread to join the league. 2. A league period is every (two / three / four) weeks. 3. Every new league period, the league coordinator (currently me) will randomly pair all league members three times. Each member can fight a league battle with anyone they are paired with. 4. The settings for a league battle may be anything the players can agree on (but must be 2 player). In case of disagreement on any individual setting, the settings default as follows: Very Friendly, Fast, Maladroit, ParaFC, and NOT ParaFDF. 5. A league battle is just like a regular battle with one exception: each league period will have one unique league rule that must be followed throughout the league battle. (For example: "You may not cast Finger of Death.") 6. If you accidentally break the league rule, the match counts as a loss in the league, and you must immediately surrender. 7. Battle results should be reported in the appropriate thread for the league period. 8. At the end of the league period, unfinished battles are ignored and the results of all finished battles are tallied. 9. The player or players with the best record that period can each nominate a league rule for the next period. The coordinator will choose one of these rules for the next period. If he judges them to be problematic, he will discuss changes with the rule's author. If this process fails for some reason, he may choose a rule that was not nominated. 10. The players who won that league period will also receive an ASCII art medal or trophy they can put on their profile, if they want to. Other points: Any member can suggest league rules in the "League Rule Suggestions" thread. The rules are designed to be casual, fun, and without pressure. One thing I definitely want input on is the length of the "league period". Two weeks might be too short for some players. Months are easy to schedule but might be too long for some players. Etc., etc. Edit: I'm also wondering if it would make sense to rephrase the rules in paragraph form, rather than numbered form, since I'm trying to be casual and fun. There are few enough that the numbers aren't really necessary, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 10, 2007 19:33:39 GMT -5
I would think two weeks would be too short. If you have two short a time period, you might end up with a burst of intense activity for the league which then peters out.
Personally, I think a month would be good. It's long enough to give the league period some meaning, but short enough that things don't drag out. Plus, it makes things much clearer to have "October League", "November League" etc. And there's no ambiguity about when they start or end. If there are players not competing in one round, they know when they can join in again, and everyone knows when the month is drawing to a close and they have to get their battles done by.
Do you play (up to) one game with each Warlock, or can you play the people you're paired with more than once?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 10, 2007 19:35:04 GMT -5
Also, are "best record" and "winner" different?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Nov 10, 2007 22:18:57 GMT -5
I like the idea of a month... And I reckon things aren't set in stone just yet... so we can change it if it's too much, or too little... Also, it makes for the potential "battle of the league winners" at the end of the year One thing to watch out for would be sussie meta-gamers who win all there winnable games, then slow down to a crawl those games that are in doubt... That sucks for the other guy and I reckon some decorum of honour, and a potential way to lay claims against people doing such a thing would be quite enough to ensure that it didn't happen... (Though everyone I know around here is cool and would pull that kind of crap anyways. )
|
|
|
Post by awall on Nov 10, 2007 22:20:02 GMT -5
I like one-month league periods, although I'd say that we might want to up the number of games to 4 or 5 per period, especially if we're going to allow them to be played simultaneously. If a game doesn't finish, it's just not counted, so having more games shouldn't necessarily be stressful, yes?
Also: Can we try to keep random chatter out of the results thread this time to make it easier to see what's going on?
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 11, 2007 0:51:59 GMT -5
As for me, I'm young mage and hungry to play. Three games in a month are not much. IMHO 3 games per 2 weeks or 5 games per a months are ok.
"8. At the end of the league period, unfinished battles are ignored and the results of all finished battles are tallied." Agreed to Xade. That "would allow an unscrupulous player (or rather, a maximal metagamer)" to stall the games he's likely to lose. Moreover, in tight situations players might spend more time considering his options... which is completely legal but could look like stalling for his opponents, which leads to blames and accusations that has nothing to do with league purposes.
But since we haven't ever got turn timestamps available, I afraid there is no way to solve this problem but to have a judge(s) reviewing games as Slartucker did in tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 11, 2007 1:32:15 GMT -5
I like the way you think, BioLogin. However, that's exactly the kind of nitpicking and stress I want to avoid in the league. Since the stakes are rather lower than in a championship, there is hopefully less temptation to be unscrupulous. Short time limits cause stress for slow players and their opponents; resolving them with judgments is a lot of work for the judges and (as I found out) can generate dissatisfaction in third parties.
I think the RP elements of the league will help with this a lot actually, as it creates an in-league way for other warlocks to collectively exert pressure to play with honor.
Since (it sounds like) there is a month to play, though, slowness shouldn't be a big issue. But what happens if one of your paired opponents goes on vacation for most of the month? I'm more worried about that, actually.
Here's my best attempt at a solution. - Over the course of a month, any attempt to stall should be fairly obvious. The stalling player should be encouraged to surrender with honor. If he refuses, the coordinator can be invoked to resolve the situation. If a player really does stall and then refuses to surrender, he may be suspended from the league (and once the RP starts, likely faces consequences within his clan). - If a player goes on vacation or is just really slow, presumably he has no chance of doing well that month anyway, so it won't hurt anyone to give him a game loss. This has the slightly unfortunate side effect of making it a good thing to be paired with someone who vanishes. However, I'm not sure anything can be done about that, and it beats autolosing credit for games with vanishers. We can probably still rely on people's honor to admit when they are slow, with the coordinator available as a backup.
Awall: Agreed completely about the results thread!
Rycchus: Same thing. Although I envision eventually having three lists with multiple relevant placers per list: a universal scoreboard, an intra-clan scoreboard for each clan, and a scoreboard just for clan leaders/representatives. Also, probably one game per match -- just to avoid the possibility of having 2 out of 3 matches that go to time and then request a judge to resolve them.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 11, 2007 1:48:18 GMT -5
Slartucker: agreed completely.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Nov 11, 2007 4:01:41 GMT -5
Sounds fun, I am glad to see much of my input recognized and reflected in the league rules. However, does this mean each player will play only 3 games in the league period? Wouldn't many people then be tied for the best record? Or if you can play someone multiple times, it seems it might invite the weaker player to avoid playing more than once..or worse..straight up collusion.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 11, 2007 9:25:57 GMT -5
Yes, you're right, three games won't be enough. I am thinking five games per one month makes the most sense.
Perhaps what would help with the record would be to use a simple differential based on opponents played, as is often done in Swiss tournaments. For example, suppose I go 4-1 for 8 points and play opponents with final scores of 8, 6, 4, 4, and 0. That would give me a differential of 8+6+4+4+0=22. My own score of 8 would be the primary criterion for ranking me, but to break a tie with another player with 8 points, we'd compare our differentials.
Another possibility would be to make kills (and deaths) count extra, which I think would actually be kind of cool.
Keep in mind this is for fun and not a tournament so extemes of randomness in matchups should not provoke whining, just amusement. Some habitual uncertainty in the rankings is to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 11, 2007 12:31:02 GMT -5
I like the Swiss tournament style tiebreaking.
Perhaps there should be a separate random chat thread for each round, so as not to clutter the results thread?? Or just an overall chat thread?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 11, 2007 12:49:04 GMT -5
I also think perhaps stalling shouldn't be judged for the first two weeks? As it's only approaching the end of the month that it will become an issue, and we don't want everyone crying "Stall!" every time their opponent has a day off Although, hang on, if everyone's playing the same number of games, then stalling doesn't benefit anyone. Three wins and a loss isn't any better than three wins if you're totalling points, and so there'd be no reason to stall - no manipulative reason, anyway, only legitimate reasons of slowing down to think, and I don't think we want to start attacking people for doing that.
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Nov 11, 2007 13:32:57 GMT -5
anyway, only legitimate reasons of slowing down to think, and I don't think we want to start attacking people for doing that. No let's penalize people for taking time to think. This benifits those of us who don't I think that forming "Clans" was mentioned.... Any thoughts on that? Especially when & how and any rules for numbers/restrictions and such?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 11, 2007 13:36:44 GMT -5
Rules for clans will be discussed next month; see the schedule. They will be run centrally through the league -- partially so they can be easily injected with momentum and can stay afloat instead of petering out as all the covens did; and partially so that there's no opportunity for BR/OOS type drama to take things over.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Nov 11, 2007 13:37:28 GMT -5
Actually, what if we drafted "teams" of 2 or 3 players each month, randomly of course...and then each member plays a few matches against random players during the season. The team members' records will be combined to determine the winner. Perhaps if there are enough teams, we could even have the top 2 fight it out in a team melee to determine the season winner while the next season is underway.
|
|