I like this idea, I think parallel groups is the way to go.

* A two group tier promotes the top player from each group into a 1 group tier
* A four group tier promotes the top player from each group into a 2 group tier

Not sure what you mean by this though, if there are no super promotions? I think nobody should promote more than one tier in the absence of dropouts. Do you mean that 1 person promotes whenever moving to a tier with a smaller number of groups, and 2 otherwise? Because that would be my suggestion.

Edge, when the season 20 thread comes up, please mention then that you want to join. I'm not gonna be maintaining multiple lists.

awesomeusername, typically when we have dropouts the gaps are filled using super promotions, for instance 3 spots in C are filled by 2 in D and 1 in E. Under the new system, 3 spots in C will be filled by 3 spots in D.

Since each tier may have multiple groups, you have to take half the promotions per group in order to promote to a tier with fewer groups.

Edited 7/26/2016 04:28:45

so, in this case, would top 2 promote from E1/E2 into D1/D2?

I think it is a better system then the current one and I do like the more groups used in Krzychu's idea.
However this is only 1/2 of what needs to be done and that is why it won't be effective enough.
This won't solve the problem the league has.

The main problem is the time it takes to finish and get ready for the next one.(3-4 months)

More groups solves only the issue of having more players at the bottom of hell in the last groups that will never see group A.(assuming the league is fast enough which it is not)

It does not change the fact that for a player starting from the last group it will take him years to get to group A (assuming he wins every promotion) simply because it takes 3-4 months for the season to finish.
I myself wanted to play the top group when I joined pr league, and after some 2 years the top group have all but retired before I even got the chance to fight them.
This was when pr league was still at most up to Group E.
This means that unless you make a big change you will not change anything.

That is your main issue here.

The problem is starting from the fact that in an RR if you have vacations and too many players it takes too long to progress.

1)Vacations will stall to a deadly stop the progress of the league.
There are only few solutions to this.
- Either remove vacations
- or make fewer players in every group to speed this up.

2)Too many players/groups will result in having the usual problems multiplied by a factor depending on how many players/groups you have.
This RR has too many players, adding more groups solves a bit this issue but it adds more administrative work.
More players = more games in an RR system.

You must find a way to increase the number of games being played at once which Krzychu's solution does cater for with more groups.
However it just leaves the system as it is, which is a bad state, it does not improve much the problem.

There are some solutions to this, some mentioned before:

-Like reducing group size and thus increasing the number of groups to fit all the players.
-Change the RR system for the bottom of the groups(as mentioned before).
-Divide the league in 2 leagues so you can have twice as many games playing at the same time.(bringing 3- 4 months to just 1.5-2 months)

If it was me I would do all of those(including Krzychu's solution) to ensure the league is as efficient as possible.

After all the faster it is the more fun we get from it.

Edited 7/26/2016 05:10:47

Yeah i will sign up then.

The RR system is not changing. Group size will not be reduced. I am not breaking up the league into multiple leagues. These are non-negotiable.

Vacations will not be disabled. They are a crucial part of the league and ensure that everyone can participate and still step away from warlight every now and then. Worst case scenario is that we give a delaying player lots of losses. This hasn't been an issue in the past.

I will not change boot time. Curious how that was never mentioned as a time saving device...

3 games at a time is in play, if the community seems to want it. But we are all in lots of games and I'd prefer to not increase participation requirements. So it'd have to be a lot of support for me to change my mind about this.

Increased number of promotions is also in play, but if we go this route I'd prefer to also increase group size so we aren't constantly shuffling players to different levels. I like the ratios the way they are now (2/7 promoting, 2/7 relegating, 3/7 staying put). I would be okay with 3/8 promoting, 3/8 relegating, and 2/8 staying put. Don't lecture me about how increasing group size makes things worse. I disagree and you won't be successful in convincing me.

I think reducing tiers by increasing number of groups is the change that will have most impact on the problem of it being too difficult for a new player to have a shot at the top group.

Hey,I didn't mean this. I never requested,but for some reason, some of the „top“ players ignore my posts on any threads... from much time before. So I just thought you could be as them,but looks like you're nice. Thanks.

Edited 7/26/2016 06:55:19

i prefer 2 games at a time. no need to rush things :P

I think your current proposal is nice.

Something different that I forgot to mention but that may be important:
In RR, there's this weird assignment of the first games. It seems that in groups of 7 often A plays B, B plays C, C plays A, D plays E, E plays F, F plays D, G play nobody. This is a little annoying as G has to wait for a game to finish to get their first game. Not sure if the same happens in groups of 6 or 8.
Note that you could speed up the league by creating a lot more work for yourself/organisers. Basically: don't make an RR tourney, but make all games yourself at fixed times, like in the seasonal. You start with 2, a week later the third, etc until after 4 weeks you started all 6 games. (But I guess this really is too much work.)

I think that's because the algorithm goes player-by-player/team-by-team and tries to fill their maximum if possible, hurting the lower letters.

So it's:

A: paired with B, paired with C

B: already with A, paired with C

C: already with A, already with B

D: paired with E, paired with F

E: already with D, paired with F

F: already with D, already with E

G: no one left to pair with

So if my hypothesis is correct, you want group sizes to be multiples of (game limit + 1). Notice that A, B, and C are off by themselves, as are D, E, and F. If you added an H, both G and H would get one game- but add an I, and G, H, and I form a similar complete group. I'm ignoring games as the tournament proceeds, though, so someone who takes that into account might find a different set of optimal group sizes.

"The RR system is not changing."
most(if not all) did not ask to change the RR system but to change it for bottom groups as a way of qualification for the RR system of the League.

"Group size will not be reduced."

What are the reasons for not changing group size to say 6 instead of 7/8?
It would speed up the league,even for players on vacation.

"I am not breaking up the league into multiple leagues."
I can understand that it be nice to keep it united into 1 league, but if the current adaptation you will be making does not work(3 months+ for it to finish) then this could be a solution to half that time.


"Vacations will not be disabled."
i merely listed it as an option, I agree though that vacations seem necessary.

"This hasn't been an issue in the past."
In the past there weren't so many players.
More players = more chances of players going on vacation = more chances of having 2 players on vacation on the same group.
Less group size helps with this too.

"3 games at a time is in play"
I don't think this would be a wise option for busy players, so I'd be agreeing with Timinator here that 2 games at a time is best.

"also increase group size so we aren't constantly shuffling players to different levels."
Explain to me this problem well so maybe we can find a better solution then increasing group size.

"Don't lecture me about how increasing group size makes things worse."
I only replied to your question, sorry if it appeared as lecturing you.
If you disagree then show where I was wrong in the points I raised.

"I think reducing tiers by increasing number of groups is the change that will have most impact on the problem of it being too difficult for a new player to have a s<span class='burning'><span class='burning'>hot</span></span> at the top group."
We agree.
Increasing groups does help but wont make any relevant impact on the time it takes for the league to finish.
Which is the main problem that has become more and more apparent the more players there are.

Edited 7/26/2016 08:00:36

Trollinator, get your ass off vacation :P

On poor assignment of games: yeah Math Wolf I noticed this too. Undoubtedly, a group of 6 would have everyone assigned 2 games, and a group of 8 will have the two leftover players playing each other. My guess is that games are assigned in groups of N+1 where N is the number of games at a time. Knyte's analysis makes sense to me, this is the easiest way to assign matchups in a naive way and fits the same pattern. Changing number of games at once or changing group size would change this weird behavior.

Creating games myself would be possible in a clot, but i don't think the savings is worth the effort personally speaking.

The main reason I don't want to reduce group size is that when there is a dropout or two, we don't get a tiny 4 player group. That's lame. I want more competition, not less. The more I think about it the more attracted I am to idea of 8 players per group, 3 promotions by default, and 3 games at a time. I think the cost of increasing group size is offset by more games at a time. Then we get more competition and more movement between tiers. But... with the multiple groups per tier, that means more playoffs between seasons (how else do two groups promote 3 players?)

If we stick to 2 games at a time, reducing group size to 6 does make sense sense. But this complicates how groups are determined for next season - recall that i skipped a group B tiebreaker because of the 7 player per group assumption. I also don't want to penalize players who have already reached the upper tiers by demoting them.

As to multiple groups per tier, unless if i hear any opposition i will be adopting it for next season, in the manner described above. A post with new group assignments will be pending.

One last item: what do you think about a global time limit? Finish your games within 8, 10, 12 weeks (or whatever limit seems fair) or the delaying player forfeits the games (the one with slowest turn speed)? Do you think it's worth it, and do you think it can be implemented fairly?

Seems doable, but I would suggest that we let the community decide the limit, and that there be significant disparity in terms of turn speed.

True, I could pose the question after tournaments are already made in tournament chat.

"The main reason I don't want to reduce group size is that when there is a dropout or two, we don't get a tiny 4 player group."

Isn't that a problem we already have? and usually solved by super promotions?

"I want more competition, not less. The more I think about it the more attracted I am to idea of 8 players per group, 3 promotions by default"

This will make the league slower, much slower, mainly because you are adding 7 games per group (assuming 16 groups) = 112 more games.
Also each player at a minimum has the length of 4 games to play with 2 games at a time.

This league will take 6 months now lol

More groups will speed it up but will not pay for the increased group size.

So it is already slow as it is, now more players joined to make it slower, more groups will get it back as it was, but then since you are increasing group size too, it will definitely take longer to finish.

"If we stick to 2 games at a time, reducing group size to 6 does make sense sense.
Yep, it does make sense.

"But this complicates how groups are determined for next season"
true


"- recall that i skipped a group B tiebreaker because of the 7 player per group assumption."
Missed that part, what happened?


"I also don't want to penalize players who have already reached the upper tiers by demoting them."

So let me make a list of requirements:

-Want a way to play more players, not less
-Want a way to solve drop outs which does not include super promotions,
-Want a way to determine the groups for next season without demoting someone.

Any more problems that need to be addressed before considering the 6 size group?

If I find you a solution to those would you consider it?

Edited 7/27/2016 09:35:01

Groups of 8 with 3 games seems OK to me. In Seasonal ladder you get 4 at the start of the season and an extra game every 3 days, that's a bigger burden than the 1 extra game for this league I would say.

Global time limit: I don't think this is OK really as it is currently proposed as a losing player could game this easily: play RT fast at the beginning and very slow (and not surrendering) only very much towards the end, thus forcing the loss on the other player even while being way behind on income and armies. Could even be optimized by taking turns when the other player is offline (time-zone management). Avoid easily gameable rules.

Example of how groups could look in your proposal:
Tier A - 1 group of 8, 3 relegate
Tier B - 1 group of 8, 3 promote, 3 relegate**
Tier C - 2 groups of 8, 1 promote**, 3 relegate*
Tier D - 2 groups of 8, 3 promote, 3 relegate*
Tier E - 3 groups of 8, 2 promote, 3 relegate*
Tier F - 3 groups of 8, 3 promote, 3 relegate*
Tier G - x groups of x, 9 promote in total, no relegation
* or 1 less in case of dropouts
** 3rd promotion winner of head to head between 2nd of the group or other tiebreaker. If a dropout in group A or B, both 2nd of group C promote. Alternative: 2 or 4 relegations in B.

Tier C or up: 32 players, Tier D or up: 48, Tier E or up: 72, Tier F or up: 96

For inactives/dropouts, I think it's best to (1) relegate less of the tier until 1 less relegation for each group (2) promote 1 more of the tier below until there is 1 more promotion for every group (3) relegate less until there are 2 less relegations per group (4) promote up to 2/group (5) when there is only 1 relegation per group, superpromote instead of relegate less.


Addendum:
In most PR sports leagues, there actually are playoffs. This is the main reason why there are fewer teams in the lower tiers: the RR competition ends earlier and the last few weeks of the season are the promotion/relegation play-offs. An example of how this could look here:

Tier A - 1 group of 8, 3 relegate
Tier B - 1 group of 8, 3 promote, 3 relegate
Tier C - 2 groups of 6, 1 + playoffs C promote, playoffs D to relegate
Tier D - 2 groups of 6, 1 + playoffs D promote, playoffs E to relegate
Tier E - 4 groups of 6, 1 + playoffs E promote, playoffs F to relegate
Tier F - 4 groups of 6, 1 + playoffs F promote, playoffs G to relegate
Tier G - x groups of x, 1 + playoffs G promote

Playoffs C: 2nd and 3rd of group C (4) fight for 1 spot -> single elimination tourney with winner promoting
Playoff D: 5th and 6th of Tier C (4) + 2nd and 3rd of Tier D (4) = (8) fight for 2 spots -> 2 single elimination tourneys with winner promoting
Playoff E: 4th and 5th of Tier D (4) + 2nd of Tier E (4) = (8) fight for 2 spots -> 2 single elimination tourneys with winner promoting
Playoff F: 5th and 6th of Tier E (8) + 2nd and 3rd of Tier F (8) = (16) fight for 4 spots -> 4 single elimination tourneys with winner promoting
Playoff G: 5th and 6th of Tier F (8) + ??? of Tier G (?) = (?) fight for 8-#G groups spots (+ dropouts).

In practice, playoffs can be adapted easily based on dropouts (advantage). However, since these games are dependent on other games before them, it could again slow down the league.

More addendum:
Some thoughts for speeding up without losing quality and quantity:
* vacation off, but every game has 10 days banked from the start. -> would this increase or decrease the speed of the league? Single dragging out games could not be extended by multiple vacations.
* Tiebreakers: get rid of all tiebreakers altogether (but especially tiebreaker tourneys): only look at group play. Rank everyone based on their finish of each (previous) season(s) (Tier A 1-7, Tier B 8-14, etc). Tiebreaker is simply previous season finish, no discussion possible. Once group play is finished, next season can start. In newbie groups, earlier tiebreaker ruels could be used, but something easy but stupid like max ladder rating or level. It mostly won't matter all that much anyway in those groups with the number of dropouts highly influencing promotion there anyway.
* Speed cut-off not on data, but based on number of games still going: if the total number of games in the league that are still going dips to 5 or below, players are asked to take their turns within 2 days instead of 3. Failing to do so twice means they have to surrender. When it's the last game, it becomes 30 hours instead of 3 days. Again failing twice (cumulative with the 2 days) leads to having to surrender.

Edited 7/27/2016 10:18:28

Recall that the only reason we are waiting on a tiebreaker game now is because i screwed up the tournament creation. Otherwise it would have completed already.

Metatron, I'm talking about players who don't announce ahead of time that they are dropping off. See history of prior seasons, particularly the lower groups.

On games: currently we have 2 at a time, 6 total played, ratio of 6/2 = 3. I propose 3 at a time, 7 total played, a ratio of 7/3 = 2.34. Tell me again how this takes way longer? Want to make a wager? Sorry but from now on I'm ignoring all arguments on this specific subject.

I don't want to add a complicated playoff system at the end of the season, I'd rather just get to the next season as soon as possible. At most, I could deal with 1 playoff game per tier between groups in the same tier.

Okay so... I think no matter what we do I would like to make groups 3 games at a time. If you don't want 3 games at a time you better speak up loud and clear

There is another choice at play here:
* 7 per group, 2 promotions standard
* 8 per group, 3 promotions standard

And another:
* 1/2/4 group tiers
* 1/2/3 group tiers

I think these are the only changes I will entertain for now. If you have something to add to the discussion, please do so soon, and I will probably make my decision final this weekend or so.

Thanks again everyone for your contributions.

I would personally much prefer 2 games at a time.

I like the idea for 1/2/4 group tiers.
AvB
AvC
AvD
BvC
BvD
CvD
EvF
EvG
EvH
FvG
FvH
GvH
8 persons, 3 games at a time seems pretty optimal in terms of starting speed, as everyone starts by playing 3 games.
If we stick with 2 games at a time, for optimal start, we should shrink group size to 6 or grow it to 9, so everyone starts off playing 2 games.

Edited 7/28/2016 03:29:14