Seasonal League

[mistake]

Seasonal League
about: Team score modification (Activity factor)

About teamrating and activity:
Slowly i come to the conclusion that I would really prefer a rating that reflects the performance of a team in a certain time frame over that the rating is affected by the teams current activity rating.

This means, that i favor something like resetting teams rating after a season (1/2 years - 2 years) than multiplying it with an activity factor or having rating decrease during time, because:

• Rating decreases during time
  This means that a team that hasn't matched since long will have a low rating, though they still might be hard to beat.
• Multiplying with an activity factor
  The rating will be an arbitrary value of which we won't be sure what it means.

I think a new fresh start every now and than will bring a rating that accurately reflects how strong a team is currently and how well it did.

For this reason I would like to bring back into the discussion the 1vs1 league and like to encourage a debate about whether or not it could be applicable for the ducati league.

League and Ladders
(taken almost 1 to 1 from the 1vs1 league)

The league consists out of the following three ratings:

1. Seasonal ladder
   whether the ladder is montly or if another time frame would be more apropiate i leave open for discussion.
   On Season start, each team starts with 0 points.
2. Hall of fame
   Hall of fame should also display the sum of the total seasons won for each team.
   The Hall of fame is never reset, which means that teams long gone will still be in the Hall of fame and never be forgotten.
   Hall of fame includes teh winner of a season as well as the runner up.
3. Overall ELO rating
   It remains that an ELO rating reflects best how strong a team is (meaning how hard it is to beat it).

I don't know how the points a player gets are calculated in the 1vs1 league. Maybe a simple

• +1 when match was lost
• +2 for a draw
• +3 for a win (maybe +4, +5)

is sufficient for the ducati league. Ideas:
* Maybe the points you get should consider the ELO rating of the two teams matching, maybe not.
* Maybe the points you get should consider the match length if different match length (15min and 30min) are introduced in the league. So maybe +1,+2 and +3 for 15 minute matches, and +2 +4 and +6 for 30 minute matches

Points it adresses

activity
What I like about the Monthly ladder in the 1vs1 league is that also if you have lost a match, you win points. So to become king of the hill, you have to play as many matches as possible and win as many as possible. Also, as you don't loose points, you won't have teams camping (not matching) their position at the end of a season when they are on top.

fun matches
For those that don't match frequently, or for those that don't care for points, they still contribute to their teams ladder position and don't have to worry about decreasing the ELO rating of a team when they match.

newbie teams
As the ladder reflects the performance of teams it also encourages to play as much as possible and gives some reward for teams that stand no chance but match anyways (Currently with the ELO ranking they would loose points).
So if you keep loosing 0-28, your team can still think "oh well, we just gained some point" and will have more points than a skilled but inactive team. As playing a lot but still loosing helps to climb the ladder, the frustration is less and will bring them to match more by which at the same time they improve their skill faster.

no penalty for inactivity
Though inactivity needs to be fought, the idea of a penalty factor will likely discourage some players to participate. We shouldn't put penalties on people that match infrequent, rather reward those that play a lot.
Teams that are inactive for a whole season, can just pick up the thread in the next season. All they miss is the chance to be in the hall of fame for that season where they are inactive.

changing teams
Since the league is seperated in seasons, the end of a season marks a good point for some to change teams for a season or more when they have the desire to match with different people that they cannot unite in a single team.

[mistake]

My Preferences and additional Ideas

Season length:
- 1 or 2 years
I only play this game since about 1.5 years, and a lot can happen in this time, leagues die, new leagues come to live before a season is over

- 4 - 6 month
This gives all teams a fair amount of time to play matches and to participate in each season.

- 2 month
For occasional players, they don't have to be very active over a long period of time to have a good position in a ladder.
This put emphasis on the Hall of fame (6 entries a year).

my fav: 2 month, but not an obsession

Section 2: Spreading talent among the teams.
Very good players that do not match a lot would have more chance for a good ladder position when they join any active team as opposed to join a a team with other very skilled players that do not match a lot either.
Since not so skilled player do not harm the teams rating at all except in respect to the direct opponent for that match, even very competative tuned teams can take up new players more easely

Section 3: New Matching possibilities:
We could change the maps or match rules for one season as tryouts or for creating diversion to make it attractive. For example to have one season played on Mickey's mini ducati map, have one season with only 15 minute matches, another with only 5 min matches , one season where match winner is the first having 3 caps etc etc.

Section 4: Team rewards and penalties:
Implement tokimis idea about MVP for each season and having that player on the Hall of Fame list.

edit: I have structured the post a bit and added some stuff

[SportChick]

Seeing as how no one has yet commented on your ideas, mistake, I'll take a shot. Up to this point, I had been leaning toward [dmp]'s idea of an activity factor (rather than deleting points outright from a team). However, you've made an excellent case for a seasonal/cumulative ladder approach.

activity
What I like about the Monthly ladder in the 1vs1 league is that also if you have lost a match, you win points. So to become king of the hill, you have to play as many matches as possible and win as many as possible. Also, as you don't loose points, you won't have teams camping (not matching) their position at the end of a season when they are on top.

no penalty for inactivity
Though inactivity needs to be fought, the idea of a penalty factor will likely discourage some players to participate. We shouldn't put penalties on people that match infrequent, rather reward those that play a lot.
Teams that are inactive for a whole season, can just pick up the thread in the next season. All they miss is the chance to be in the hall of fame for that season where they are inactive.

One of the biggest issues that has been discussed over and over, is the need/desire to increase the league's activity. Having a mechanism that rewards activity (without necessarily penalizing inactivity) is a great idea.

newbie teams
As the ladder reflects the performance of teams it also encourages to play as much as possible and gives some reward for teams that stand no chance but match anyways (Currently with the ELO ranking they would loose points). So if you keep loosing 0-28, your team can still think "oh well, we just gained some point" and will have more points than a skilled but inactive team. As playing a lot but still loosing helps to climb the ladder, the frustration is less and will bring them to match more by which at the same time they improve their skill faster.

Another point that has been repeatedly mentioned is the need to get new teams in the league, and keep them in the league. Sadly, for a wide variety of reasons, this has been a challenge. However, if a team continues to play (even if they lose), thereby gaining points on the ladder, I would think it would help to encourage some of the newer teams to stay.

changing teams
Since the league is seperated in seasons, the end of a season marks a good point for some to change teams for a season or more when they have the desire to match with different people that they cannot unite in a single team.

I don't think we can limit or prevent people from changing teams, whether we are at the end of a season or not. Perhaps if folks know a season end is imminent, they will wait, but I think it should be left to the players to decide. (Mistake may not have meant for this to be mandated, but I just want to make the point).

As far as the seasons go, I think a ladder reset is fine periodically, so long as an overall (cumulative) ladder is kept.

League and Ladders
(taken almost 1 to 1 from the 1vs1 league)

The league consists out of the following three ratings:

1. Seasonal ladder
whether the ladder is montly or if another time frame would be more apropiate i leave open for discussion.
On Season start, each team starts with 0 points.
2. Hall of fame
Hall of fame should also display the sum of the total seasons won for each team.
The Hall of fame is never reset, which means that teams long gone will still be in the Hall of fame and never be forgotten.
Hall of fame includes teh winner of a season as well as the runner up.
3. Overall ELO rating
It remains that an ELO rating reflects best how strong a team is (meaning how hard it is to beat it).

I am not clear how the ELO then relates to the teams' performance. Perhaps if Zongo or DV could comment on this?

At this point, this is my favorite of all the proposals put forward. But, of course, we want to hear from all the players. What do you all think?

[mistake]

I don't think we can limit or prevent people from changing teams, whether we are at the end of a season or not. Perhaps if folks know a season end is imminent, they will wait, but I think it should be left to the players to decide. (Mistake may not have meant for this to be mandated, but I just want to make the point).

Yes, correct. People may change teams whenever they want, or may never change teams. What I ment was that a Seasonal aproach could lead to players changing a team more often and returning for the following season which may, but no necessarely, lead to more diversity and thus increase attractivity.

As far as the seasons go, I think a ladder reset is fine periodically, so long as an overall (cumulative) ladder is kept

The idea was that the Hall of fame ladder serves as cumulative ladder. It would look something like this using two different Views:

Code: Select all

Hall Of Fame Ladder:

Pos.|Team      | Points          | Winner   | RunnerUp
------------------------------------------------------------
1. | BaR       |  7 = (2*3) + 1  | 3        | 1
2. | SNT       |  6 = (2*2) + 2  | 2        | 2
3. | BzI       |  5 = (2*1) + 4  | 1        | 4

Hall Of Fame History:

Season   |  Winner      | RunnerUp    | MVP
--------------------------------------------------------
2006 #1  | BaR          | SNT         | tokimi
2006 #2  | BaR          | BZI         | [dmp]
2006 #3  | SNT          | BZI         | tokimi
2006 #4  | SNT          | BZI         | menotume
2006 #5  | BZI          | Jr.Dub      | catay
2006 #6  | DUB          | SNT         | Mur
2007 #1  | SNT          | BAR         | Mur
2007 #2  | BAR          | BZI         | Mur

So I wouldn't call the reset a reset. It would be more like every 2 (or what ever) month the competition starts new. So your focus is on the current season, seeing your team climb the competition ladder, trying to win as many seasons as possible thus climbing in the Hall Of Fame ladder

Maybe the name Hall Of Fame is not chosen correctly, it was a copy/paste of the idea in the 1vs1 league.

I am not clear how the ELO then relates to the teams' performance. Perhaps if Zongo or DV could comment on this?

The ELO rating doesn't relate much to a teams performance, it rates a teams skill level:

Longhair: One thing to keep in mind about comparing bzflag to chess is that in chess, when you play a rated game, you're matched up with players of similar ratings. In other words, there's no way that a 1300 rated player is matched up against a 2200 rated player unless it's a really small tournament. Usually, a few dozen people show up, and you're matched up in groups of either 4 or 6. Obviously, there is no matching up of team skill levels in bzflag. It's just an ad hoc play a match as you can sort of system.

The ELO rating would be a third but less meaningful rating/ladder for the ducati League. The ELO rating is the easy part, it's what we already have implemented. I don't think that it is necessary to keep the ELO rating in the league and have a ladder for it, I would be fine with removing it. However it does have informational value and makes it interesting. Also this means that when we keep it and display it, and because it is updated just as it is now in the current league code, you still have the "old-style" league available. The effect is that most teams would play for the seasonal league, and some can continue to see the league as it is now based on elo ranking.
So with the Seasonal League it seems that we change the entire League System. From a technical perspective however its only adding many more dimensions to the existing league. For the teams dwelling in the past and only watching the ELO rating of the teams nothing changes.

@SportChick: Thank you very much for commenting on this.

[Admirarch]

I would support the immediate implementation of all the ideas mistake has suggested in this thread, the only minor disagreement I'd raise is with ideas of significant changes to the rules for different "seasons".

A couple of brief comments:

Season length:
- 1 or 2 years
I only play this game since about 1.5 years, and a lot can happen in this time, leagues die, new leagues come to live before a season is over

- 4 - 6 month
This gives all teams a fair amount of time to play matches and to participate in each season.

- 2 month
For occasional players, they don't have to be very active over a long period of time to have a good position in a ladder.
This put emphasis on the Hall of fame (6 entries a year).

my fav: 2 month, but not an obsession

I'd agree with 2 month seasons being around the right length of time. At the moment from what I've seen the league is averaging about 2-3 matches a day, hopefully we can get this up but it's what there is to work with at the moment. A two month reset means that as things stand each season will consist of about 120-180 matches which is adequate to give declaring a winner some sort of meaning.

I don't know how the points a player gets are calculated in the 1vs1 league. Maybe a simple


* +1 when match was lost
* +2 for a draw
* +3 for a win (maybe +4, +5)

is sufficient for the ducati league.

I'd favour more points for a win compared to losing and drawing.

Finally, it's really important that everybody reading this has their say even if it's just to say that they agree with the ideas. What we need is a full canvassing of opinions not just some, admittedly very good, ideas from a few people.

[zongo]

Thx for this posts mistake and SC,

I wanted to say that i agree with mistake (even on the duration of the league )

I've run the 1vs1 league for several years now and it's going pretty well even if there are only few real active players each month.

I think that if u apply these simple rules to the ctf league, which has at least 5 times more players than 1vs1 league, it can be a success.

The way to get rid of inactivity is to reward activity indeed

And talking about the ZELO rating that i also included in the 1vs1 league:
This is the thing that stops some players from playing more...some of them when they see they have a nice zelo score they decide not to play against worse players fearing a loss of score...

Thats also what is slowing down ctf (pillbox) league progression imo

Now the question is to what league will you apply this and when?
I'd do it asap
Cheers
Z

[zongo]

Yeah, forgot to say:

-I wouldnt change rules from season to season, it's too confusing

-mvp is a nice idea, one could ask the person who reports the game to enter the mvp of the game and at the end of the league the player with most mvps is the mvp of the season...just a suggestion

-as for scores: 1 for loss, 2 for draw and 4 for a win seems reasonable

[wizard]

I like elo ratings very much and I don't want to see it gone since it's probably the best available measurement of a team skill level.

But it's not necessary to make the most proiminent ladder an elo based ladder.

Having an activity based ladder in the most prominent spot will probably really help the team activity issue.
The outlook that an activity based rating would help teams where strong players play side by side with weaker players or new players is very appealing.

[SportChick]

I'm posting this on behalf of Zongo (for the original conversation, check the May 25 #dub logs):

About seasonal league: It's important to have a break between 2 tournaments. I experienced it with the 1vs1 league, each end of month it's a bit messy. What i suggest is to have at least 2 weeks break between two tournaments (1 month is even better), so u can decide and talk about issues of the previous tournament and introduce new rules if needed. And people might change team if they want.

[During the break], teams could still match but they wont get points for the tournament, only their ELO will change.

My suggestions are:
Either 2 tournaments per year of 5 months each with 1 month break between them or 3 tournaments of 3 months each with 1 month break.

Ah of course for the seasonal league there could be another (actually many other) possibility - one could do 2 tournaments of 4 months each and a big break in the middle and in the summer make a nice Championship (like the 1vs1 i organised). In this Championship teams could be created on the fly, not necessarly according to the ctf teams, but i dunno if this would be part of the league or not (could be attached to it). After thinking about it i thought that a 2 months tournament is really too short - having 5 winners per year is maybe too much as well.

It is also important not to change too many things at the begininng of the new league - people would get lost otherwise.

[CannonBallGuy]

3 tournaments of 3 months each with 1 month break.

This sounds good to me, especially if the breaks are timed nicely throughout the year.

[mistake]

For me, being the top of the points list doesn't mean much, but I do value the ELO rating as a general sense of my team's strength. You start changing the score, and it becomes useless as an indicator of strength.

taken from longhairs post

The idea was to keep the team page that is sorted (or can be sorted) by elo rating. The season league idea adds views to the league and not discard what we already have.