Suggestions for the League

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Fri May 13, 2011 2:30 pm

One thing that I would like to be discussed is how it might be possible to introduce a "surrender convention" into the league. In chess, if your position is hopeless you resign - and that is recognised as an acceptable way to the end the game. Could we come up with something similar for FOG, do you think? I know some people like to fight out every game to the death but others do not. In the last 6 weeks or so I have had three games where I really knew that I was beaten from the start (one was a league game), because of the terrain/superior deployment of my opponent - and to be honest, I would rather surrender or "withdraw my army" in those circumstances.

What do people think?

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Fri May 13, 2011 2:36 pm

Isnt there already that option, ie reasign? I think if you do your opponent is allocated a full victory and max BPS destroyed. If both players decide they dont want to committ to an attack both player agree to a draw and game ends each w 1 vp....
I honestly dont like the idea of players getting a vp just because neither player wants to attack. Ya gotta earn your draws

If not I would think they should just agree to start another battle and noone else would ever know

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Fri May 13, 2011 3:14 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:Isnt there already that option, ie reasign? I think if you do your opponent is allocated a full victory and max BPS destroyed. If both players decide they dont want to committ to an attack both player agree to a draw and game ends each w 1 vp....
I honestly dont like the idea of players getting a vp just because neither player wants to attack. Ya gotta earn your draws If not I would think they should just agree to start another battle and noone else would ever know

But isn't it a bit frowned upon to resign in the league, TGM? Obviously just hitting the "resign" button without any explanation is poor form, so can we come up with an accepted way to surrender or withdraw. A simple "Please accept my surrender" in the message box along with the resignation would be fine, provided it was recognised as acceptable by the league (i.e. in future, pantherboy would include it in his "notes to players" guidelines).

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Fri May 13, 2011 3:49 pm

Hmm PB's Season 5 thread seems to cover this.

"all players who resign will automatically be placed at the break level of their army. If the resign is because both players have agreed to a draw then both armies will be placed at their break levels which will then result in a draw. "

Your right though, there are no 'rules" covering etiquette. However are they needed? My guess is long term players will give a reason. New players who resign after a few turns likly arent going to complete all their battle anyways and are likly to go AWOl. What matters if they give a reason or not? Some likly wont give a reason anyhow regardless of any printed rules....

That being said a brief blurb about expectations/good gaming etc wouldnt be a bad thing .

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:26 pm

pantherboy wrote:What about each player in a Division selects an army for the pool to be randomly drawn from with the provision that they can't recieve the army they nominate? In this way maybe we'll see all the trashy armies for a change

Secret Santa FOG! Why not? Sounds fun!

ianiow · Post by **ianiow** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Morbio wrote:
pantherboy wrote:What about each player in a Division selects an army for the pool to be randomly drawn from with the provision that they can't recieve the army they nominate? In this way maybe we'll see all the trashy armies for a change
Secret Santa FOG! Why not? Sounds fun!

Love it! When do we start??

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sun May 29, 2011 10:34 am

Just a thought that came to me while I was doing the league tables - how about requiring all players to register at least one result during the first month of the tournament in each league that they have entered? And linked to this having a "reserve list" whereby new players (who missed the initial deadline) can join the leagues as replacements at the beginning of the second month? That way the situation where players are issuing challenges (and then waiing for a reply) to "non-playing" opponents might be avoided. Any good?

CharlesRobinson · Post by **CharlesRobinson** » Tue May 31, 2011 7:46 am

Just a thought that came to me while I was doing the league tables - how about requiring all players to register at least one result during the first month of the tournament in each league that they have entered? And linked to this having a "reserve list" whereby new players (who missed the initial deadline) can join the leagues as replacements at the beginning of the second month? That way the situation where players are issuing challenges (and then waiing for a reply) to "non-playing" opponents might be avoided. Any good?

So far I have not had that problem. I have had one player that has had to take longer to play games, but he has a awesome rep and he did let me know that he would be slow responding to game challenges. I have no issues giving players the time that they need to play games. It is just good manners.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Tue May 31, 2011 8:40 am

CharlesRobinson wrote:So far I have not had that problem. I have had one player that has had to take longer to play games, but he has a awesome rep and he did let me know that he would be slow responding to game challenges. I have no issues giving players the time that they need to play games. It is just good manners.

There is one particular player who has entered 4 leagues in season 5 and he has not played a game at all yet - and I think we can safely assume that he will not be participating. In addition, two or three other players didn't register their first result, in any league, for 5 or 6 weeks either. If we had a small reserve list of new players waiting to join LOEG then certainly those 4 slots could have been filled after the first month - and maybe one or two other slots could have been as well - and players in those divisions would have then got their full compliment of games. They would not have wasted time issuing challenges to non-responsive players either.

I am not talking about "harassing" people for slow play at all - the purpose would be to deal with situations where players have signed up for the league but then cannot play (for whatever reason). If a player has entered 4 leagues and is playing matches in 2 of the leagues at first and then intends to play the other 2 leagues in the second half of the season then, actually, I think that is fine (this is slightly different from what I said in the earlier post) - it is the "no shows" that I am really concerned about.

Archie · Post by **Archie** » Tue May 31, 2011 8:47 am

Perhaps it would help to stagger the differant leagues, a week apart.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Tue May 31, 2011 11:04 am

Archie wrote:Perhaps it would help to stagger the differant leagues, a week apart.

I don't think it is a big enough problem to warrant any alteration to the basic structure of the league, Archie. I think if players are entering most of the leagues and are intending to complete their games in, say, two or three divisions first before moving onto the other divisions, then they should say so in the appropriate divisional thread (the ones set upby pantherboy for communication and arranging games) - that way their opponents will know the position and will not need to post challenges that are just ignored.

So that just leaves the very small number of "no-shows" - really I feel if they haven't registered any results at all in the first month of the competition, and if there hasn't been any explanation given at all for the delay, then they can't really complain if they are replaced by somebody from a "reserve list".

iandavidsmith · Post by **iandavidsmith** » Tue May 31, 2011 2:32 pm

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

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue May 31, 2011 2:49 pm

iandavidsmith wrote: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

I enjoyed that season as well. I doudt will see a return of that format though due to the vastly larger # of players and the record keeping ... (plus the divisions would have to be much smaller)

Lysimachos · Post by **Lysimachos** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:52 pm

armies are chosen randomly for each player

That really seems a great idea!

Another suggestion, though I'm sure it won't be agreed upon.
Personally I liked very much the first seasons where only one league was established with all the players divided in different divisions and each one had to fight its way to the top division by division.
Instead of having so many leagues, each for one expansion, wouldn't it be better and simpler to have only one league, and to play each season of it with a different expansion?
In this way, with divisions of 10-12 players, we would always have a clear vision of the ranking of all players and the possibility of reintroducing mirror matches, wich, in my opinion, were the best way to assess the real strength of every gamer.

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:02 pm

Lysimachos wrote:Instead of having so many leagues, each for one expansion, wouldn't it be better and simpler to have only one league, and to play each season of it with a different expansion?
In this way, with divisions of 10-12 players, we would always have a clear vision of the ranking of all players and the possibility of reintroducing mirror matches, wich, in my opinion, were the best way to assess the real strength of every gamer.

The main problem I see is that not everyone has every expansion.

For example, I only have FoG and RoR. This would mean that I wouldn't be able to play most of the time. At least with a league per expansion I can compete fully.

hidde · Post by **hidde** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:30 pm

Morbio wrote:
Lysimachos wrote:Instead of having so many leagues, each for one expansion, wouldn't it be better and simpler to have only one league, and to play each season of it with a different expansion?
In this way, with divisions of 10-12 players, we would always have a clear vision of the ranking of all players and the possibility of reintroducing mirror matches, wich, in my opinion, were the best way to assess the real strength of every gamer.
The main problem I see is that not everyone has every expansion.

For example, I only have FoG and RoR. This would mean that I wouldn't be able to play most of the time. At least with a league per expansion I can compete fully.

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

Actually I think I like that idea. Perhaps two Leagues, one ancient and one medieval. Imagine the three expansions that's in the pipeline. Eight leagues!
I know that is too many for me.

zumHeuriger · Post by **zumHeuriger** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:52 pm

Maybe three to 5 leauges, each with a chosen +/- 25 year "date"

For example:

Ancient: before Augustus becomes emperor
Romanesque: From Augustus till the death of Justinian
Dark Ages: From Justinian until the Norman conquest in complete
Medieval: From teh Norman conquest until THe French invasion of Italy

This way historical opponents from different books can fight each other, and the armies that fight are at the same level of technology.

For example: Maybe the years would be 425-375 BC: 225-275; 640-690; 1325-1375
Although there are no Dark Ages books out yet: We would need decline and fall and Wolves from the Sea

Cheers

Tom

hidde · Post by **hidde** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:55 pm

zumHeuriger wrote:Maybe three to 5 leauges, each with a chosen +/- 25 year "date"

For example:

Ancient: before Augustus becomes emperor
Romanesque: From Augustus till the death of Justinian
Dark Ages: From Justinian until the Norman conquest in complete
Medieval: From teh Norman conquest until THe French invasion of Italy

This way historical opponents from different books can fight each other, and the armies that fight are at the same level of technology.

For example: Maybe the years would be 425-375 BC: 225-275; 640-690; 1325-1375
Although there are no Dark Ages books out yet: We would need decline and fall and Wolves from the Sea

Cheers

Tom

Hey, that might be an even better idea!
Then it could be 4-5 Leagues and Morbio and others that don't have all expansion could participate in one or however many they have

I think the time span have to be wider, though. Look at the charts in these links:
http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/FoG_army_lists.pdf
http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/fog_ar ... meline.pdf
They cover all the armies from the 14 TT books.

Lysimachos · Post by **Lysimachos** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:22 am

The last suggestions seems really good and personally I would prefer a maximum of 2 or 3 Leagues.

What then about enhancing the number of army pts. from 500 to 600.
IMHO this is really the best format to recreate the flavour of an ancient battle.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:19 am

I think these latest ideas are interesting too. There will not be a new expansion pack before season 6 starts so maybe we can continue in the same way for one more competition, but certainly as the number of packs increases then something along the lines that zumHeuriger is suggesting could be the way to go.

To answer Lysimacho's earlier point -

"with divisions of 10-12 players, we would always have a clear vision of the ranking of all players and the possibility of reintroducing mirror matches, wich, in my opinion, were the best way to assess the real strength of every gamer"

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. A lot of the collating work has been done already (seasons 3 and 4) and I will need just an evening to add the season 5 statistics and produce a comprehensive ratings list for all those players who have entered LOEG. The basic idea is that this rating list will be a useful guide for Steve when he works out the divisions at the start of each season and, in this way, the divisions will be more competitive and more exciting.