bassoon player added to group K4. all other new players will be waitlisted.

@timon92: I agree that tiebreaker tournaments are the best tiebreaker, but I will not grossly postpone the entire league for a single tiebreaker tournament. Therefore, to decide promotions and relegations under extreme circumstances, something ought to be used as a last resort. Under Chokecherry, average turn speed was used. I think we can so something a little better than that. Keep in mind that tiebreaker tournaments are the first recourse of a deadlocked tie!

The example games you provide show close, come from behind victories. The idea of the tiebreaker is that close victories count less than blowouts. I will calculate the numbers later to get an idea of what we are dealing with. But perhaps using army ratios of the final turn only would be good enough? Again, I'm trying to come up with a tiebreaker that will be marginally good enough to break ties for promotion and relegation purposes, as a backup to proper tie breaking, to avoid the situations that occurred under Frank's administration.

@Mike, all the K groups last season and this season are filled with newbies and therefore have no rank vs each other. Therefore I have to treat them as equally as possible, and I have to heuristically decide who promotes where. Super-promotions were heavy due to dropouts. If you are a good player, you will eventually filter up the groups. The alternative to having newbie groups of equal rank is to either arbitrarily rank players who have not played this league before (which is unfair to players who are not known to me) or tell 3/4 of the new players that they can't play this season.

As to super promotions, there are currently eleven tiers to the league. Eleven!! So the super promotions are designed to allow good players at the bottom to more quickly filter up the ranks to fill spots left open by vacating players if they do well enough. A player dropped from the league in group B opened up an extra slot in group C. The top two players from D are promoted. The third slot should either go to 3rd place D or 1st place E. Frank prefers the following sort of order: 1st D, 2nd D, 1st E, 3rd D, 2nd E. In cases where there are LOTS of dropouts, I try to make sure that either the bottom player in a group relegates or at least doesn't promote. Then I try to prioritize promotions for winning records. But in the end the slots need to get filled. This is why everyone in the lower groups got promoted so much.

The idea of the tiebreaker is that close victories count less than blowouts.

I agree. However, the problem with proposed tiebreaker is that quite often a loss is worth more than a win.

But perhaps using army ratios of the final turn only would be good enough?

It certainly would be much better, maybe somehow combined with income ratio?

You could simply take the ratio of Fizzer's formula to determine seasonal winners.
That is: armies on board + 2*income (see https://www.warlight.net/wiki/Seasonal_ladder ).

This would also promote not dragging out games too much which is always a good thing, I'd say.

Another benefit to Math Wolf's formula is that it is easier to calculate. You don't have to mess around with the stats window. Reducing the overhead for the organiser is definitely a good thing.

Im not too crazy about the super promotion. In your example, the guye from E should go in D and an extra guy from E should go to D to fill the room left by an extra guy from C replacing the dropout from B. Because there s no guarantee top player of E is better than everyone in D and his super rpomotion to C could therefore be unfair. Now you are in charge so you can change rules that make more sense :-)). But nvm.

Edited 4/27/2016 16:31:00

Well, i can't see myself in the tournament even though you told me i was in pushover?

@Rouxburg, how did you contact Pushover?

I checked the players for this season. You didn`t participate last season, nor wrote in the season 18 thread that you wanted to join. (https://www.warlight.net/Forum/130085-promotionrelegation-league-season-18?Offset=180)

If you contacted Pushover by any other means (PM, Skype, game chat) then I couldn`t have known. If that is the case, then my apologies. We (and when I say we, I mean Pushover) will see what we can do.

EDIT: I think I know what when wrong. You have signed up to WSOW (https://www.warlight.net/Forum/147689-wsow-season-3-rules-call-participants?Offset=60). Pushover has confirmed your participation there, and you`ll be in once it starts.

This thread on the other hand is for the Promotion/Relegation League. It would seem you have to two confused (they are both run by Pushover)

Edited 4/27/2016 19:38:03

Maybe he is getting mixed up with the other thing pushover is now running, wsow?

Buns posted as I was editing. Seems most likely indeed ^^

@Min34, ah thanks for going over all of that. i thought they were the same thing because of pushover.

@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.