Medium Rare, losers could just stall indefinitely until being eliminated. Sorry but this is dumb.

Waitlist now comprises rouxburg, Ragnar, and Medium Rare.

Medium Rare, losers could just stall indefinitely until being eliminated.

Not sure Pushover understood the post, because that is the point. Surrenders accepted, I realize, would not need to be set any particular way, as the incentive is in place to stall if a total turn ratio was the rule.

Perhaps I was unclear. Simply, two players in a 6-team league, both 6W/4L:

Player A took 80 turns in 4 losses, 180 turns in 6 wins. 80/180 = .44 20/30 avg
Player B took 120 turns in 4 losses, 120 turns in 6 wins. 120/120 = 1 30/20 avg

Player B wins quickly and decisively, and it's a brutal slog to eliminate him, opposite for A. B wins tiebreak.

The real problem, like I said, is that most players would dislike. Most, I think, just want to get out and move on once loss is certain.

Not to push the round-robin league football analogy, but goal differential is why teams play hard for 90 minutes, even when the game is lost. If staving off elimination as long as possible in WL to improve your tiebreak ratio is part of the game, then it's not dumb, it's part of your strategy, especially since it is not possible to stave off elimination "indefinitely."

In Warlight people don't play to elimination. Therefore this solution doesn't make sense. We don't want to encourage people to play until elimination, since it will drag games out and make it less fun.

In Warlight people don't play to elimination.

Not the point. You could. If you're entitled to speak for the entire Warlight community, I stand corrected.

Therefore this solution doesn't make sense.

It does make sense. You just don't like it, as predicted.

We don't want to encourage people to play until elimination, since it will drag games out and make it less fun.

If number of turns were a metric in the determination of rank, it would not drag anything out; it would be one determinant for 'winning' at season's end. Also, I would like it. Also, see above.

A large number of people in the community, even those that play poorly like me prefer when people surrender just to reduce the number of games you have, and reduce the risk of loss by boot when you were clearly winning the game.

Basically, it's good sportsmanship to surrender rather than carry on a game you have clearly lost.

A large number of people in the community, even those that play poorly like me prefer when people surrender just to reduce the number of games you have, and reduce the risk of loss by boot when you were clearly winning the game.

Basically, it's good sportsmanship to surrender rather than carry on a game you have clearly lost.

Irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, a large number of people would quit the P/R league if such a rule was established.

Ranking between tiebreaker can be helped if you take in considerations booted players (if there are any):

Player who wins over booted player has -1 point in the case of tiebreakers, but player who is booted gets -3 points in case of tiebreakers.

Solutions to problem using in-game data should be irrelevant as they can be artificially modified in game. Probably the best solution is the RR tournament between tiebreakers, with short time for turns, and on smaller map. RT game is best suited for that and all games should start in the same time (even in 4-players tie-break) but should have banked time and time per turn adjusted.

How long one can run doesn't measure the closeness of a match well either. All metrics are flawed, but my proposals should be among the least flawed. The last proposal is actually a rule that is used for the official seasonal ladders, so it at least has some overall credibility although it has its own drawbacks.

The analogy with goal differential in soccer is actually the ratio of armies in warlight except there is no optimal good point to measure this. If games were of a fixed number of turns, say 20, the army differential at that point would be like the point differential in soccer. What you propose (playing until elimination) would translate to soccer as: you have to keep playing until the goal differential is at least 3 goals. Doesn't matter you're up 2-0 for an hour already, you'll play for 5 hours if needed until you score that 3rd goal. People wouldn't like that either.

Drawing out games is frustrating and time-wasting and should only be done when you really want to annoy someone. Thus, such a rule would go against the common sense of a large majority of WL players. You claim that this is all irrelevant, but when thinking of a rule, three things should be taken into account (1) fairness (2) straightforward (3) efficient.
You assume your proposal fullfills those three criteria while in fact it is not straightforward as drawing out games efficiently is not all the reflective of game position, nor fair for most players who are used to surrendering early (and respected for that), nor efficient as it would draw out the conclusion of the season which is exactly what the organisers want to avoid.

Either way, just my 5 cents. It's nice you want to weigh in on the discussion, but it should be clear by now that most people have a drastically different view on it (which isn't necessarily a problem, to each their own opinion). In the end, I guess Pushover and/or the organisers will decide on whatever they think is best.

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.

So some players play at 2 days/turn. Assuming it takes ~30 turns (this is low...) to eliminate a player, and there's 2 games at a time, we're talking ~180 days until end, or 6 months, or 1/2 a year.

It's not that turn ratios are a bad form of tiebreaking - it's just that they'd make games take longer, which is the exact opposite of what Pushover wants.

Turn ratios also kind of get spotty when boots come into play. If I boot against player A in distribution, but force player B to deal with 60 turns... yeah.

In addition, due to the wastelands and random warlords, unlike in sports, the field isn't the same every single time. There are some games that can end fast, and others that end slow. Sure, a lot of metrics are affected by this, but turns until elimination might be the most affected.

Player who wins over booted player has -1 point in the case of tiebreakers, but player who is booted gets -3 points in case of tiebreakers.

... which makes tiebreakers are at the mercy of the scheduler. If a player goes 0-6, but only boots against A, why should that affect A in terms of winning if A, B, and C are all 5-1?

I do agree though that booted players themselves should be placed lower in terms of tiebreakers, though, since by joining a game/tournament you're agreeing to place your turns before being booted.

---

Also if groups are starting E is filled up and ready to go when you start it ^^
EDIT: Pushover just started it nvm.

Edited 5/1/2016 23:02:12

@Math Wolf and Wenyun

Excellent points. I acknowledge all of them, and was aware of some of them before I wrote the first post. I missed badly on the lengths of time involved, both in-game and the 2 days/turn, looking at it again. Inexperience.

In the follow-ups, I was defending the idea as viable; when I wrote "Irrelevant" I was not trying to suggest that the desires or wishes of the WL community were irrelevant, because, of course, they're not. Sorry for that.

(Like a mule, I'll suggest it could still work, with a Force Surrender, at some level of 'likelihood-to-win.')

I actually really like Medium Rare's idea but I wouldn't want to play in a tournament with the ruleset. It's fair and I think it would do a better job of determining the 'better' player than any other proposed format.

That said, it would be truly awful to play those games. Warlight should be about fun and stalling is pretty much the opposite of fun. Tiebreak games are the best imo.

It's fair and I think it would do a better job of determining the 'better' player than any other proposed format.

Math Wolf's and my post above both highlight some of the problems with this as a tiebreaker. But lets try some other problems.

1. Look at it this way: The main goal of Warlight is to win. This tiebreaker discourages making risky moves to win if they would be eliminated faster if the risk fails. Tiebreakers should not be in conflict with the normal goal. Ex: Goal differential in sports is related to the winning conditions - scoring goals is always good, preventing enemy goals is always good. Lasting as long as possible? That might not be conductive to winning.

2. Map differences due to random warlords and wastelands means that every game is NOT the same. Sure, with a whole ton of games, such as in baseball, the different arenas balances out. But this isn't so with the limited amount of games we have here. To put into perspective, if one player has to clear a 50 ft. wall to home run every game, while another just has to clear a 5 ft. wall, there is clearly an imbalance. With only 6 games, it's not impossible for one person to get quick maps while another gets long maps.

3. The longer a game takes, the more results come in - so you can get a better feel for how many turns you'd need to delay to win the tiebreaker. If a 10 turn delay is easier than winning, then why not just delay 10 turns? Again, we come into a conflict between the main goal and the tiebreaker. In addition, there's "if I win, then A relegates, but if I lose and tiebreak, then B relegates. B is a stronger player, so I'll tiebreak." This is why the third games of the World Cup are played at the same time - so it prevents countries from eliminating a stronger team through tiebreak.

@Wenyun

These are all excellent points, and I'm honored you'd invest the time to write them. I wish you'd turn that brain toward figuring a variant that would make sense...

Your second point is indisputable. The time-to-play is a real killer of my idea, too. However, points one and three can be questioned, if only on the basis of the issues I raised earlier. This rule would fundamentally change how a league would be played, but rules are rules; one plays to win according to them. Football teams do adapt near the end of a league season, and essentially 'stall.' If a team is guaranteed to get 5th place and a spot in the Europa with draws in their last two games, goals are no longer "always good." Again, this speaks to my point. If the only tiebreaker were turns, it would alter how all games were played. Further, to be explicit, the rule would change the goal of the game from "win as quickly as possible," to "win as quickly as possible, and last as long as possible." Most would hate this; I wouldn't, because there is something wired strangely (I love American football games that end 7-3, and multiple replays that end in goalless draws in the FA Cup).

A head-to-head, with a deadline, is clearly the best option, though.

Thanks to all who responded to this chiefly academic question, as I believe, fundamentally, that it is mostly an unworkable concept, presently. I officially withdraw the suggestion, as I need to go win some games.

Edited 5/3/2016 00:54:28

I wish you'd turn that brain toward figuring a variant that would make sense...
I'm not nearly good enough at Warlight to figure out what wins a game on it. I mean, I've only promoted 3 times in 19 seasons, and most of that was due to dropouts from groups above.

Football teams do adapt near the end of a league season, and essentially 'stall.' If a team is guaranteed to get 5th place and a spot in the Europa with draws in their last two games, goals are no longer "always good."
Yes, a goal for in this situation isn't as good as it would be in a must-win situation. However; getting a goal isn't bad - it's just that the benefit for getting a goal doesn't match the potential risk of getting a goal against. But, regardless, if the enemy defense has a lapse in judgement, and the team's #1 striker gets a breakaway, he's going for that goal - and if he gets it in, that goal benefits the team by giving them a 1-goal cushion against an extremely undesirable "L" for the game.

Or, to put it simply, think about it this way: If getting a goal was bad for the team, then the team would just make an own goal to cancel it out. Would the 5th place team do that?

"Leave Wenyun alone" :'(

I have no idea what's going on here, I just wanted to be a part of it though :)

Would the 5th place team do that?

The analogy has been waterboarded and had its' fingernails pulled out, but let me torture it a bit more. You're right; goals are always good. What I should have written is that the strategic value of goals goes down, while the value of defending goals goes up (risk/reward). The transfer of that idea to Warlight is something like the following: Player A's final game of the season is against B. If B wins, they will be tied. If the game reaches 30 turns, A will win the tiebreak, and thus can be promoted two ways - a win or a 30+ turn loss. This would change both players' strategies.

This discussion has reminded me of something someone may find interesting: persuasion theory. Identity always beats analogy; analogy always beats reason; reason beats nothing. Scott Adams, the creator of the comic-strip Dilbert, has blogged about this many times, but here's one:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136950092871/why-would-a-man-vote-for-hillary-clinton

There are two free spots left in the newbie groups, so rouxburg & Ragnar will take them. If they don't join before saturday, the last waitlister Medium Rare will be added, but it's likely that I'll have to add you next season, sorry.

Nearly all groups have started. I am extending deadline for one player upon request, and am waiting on another non-inactive player just in case. All groups will be in full swing by late late Sunday night at the latest (after I come home from seeing Napalm Death, The Melvins, and Melt Banana fuck yeah!)

So I think now is a good time to give an update. Either reporting groups that are underway, or previewing groups that didn't get going yet.

GROUP A
Timinator (2-0)
timon92 (2-1)
grona • apex (1-0)
rocky1 (2-3)
FlyingBender (1-2)
Krzychu (1-2)
Mirror (0-1)

At the start of the season, if I were to pick two players to relegate, it would be Mirror and rocky1. Mirror started off with a loss, sure, but rocky1 is proving that his improbable ascent to group A is not a fluke, as he gets big wins over perennial runner up FlyingBender and the defending champion timon92! If rocky1 wins his final game against Mirror, that should very likely be enough to keep him in group A next season.

Both Krzychu and Flying Bender get 2 losses to start their season, hurting their chances at winning the group (both losses to timon92). Meanwhile the frontrunners appear to be grona, timon92, and Timinator, all former winners of this league. Speak of Timinator, welcome back to group A after a long absence! He had to work his way all the way up from the bottom following inactivity, and even had to deal with a relegation from C to D along the way.

Timi informs me he never played this league until this run. I probably confused him with his apex pals. Eh whatever. We all know he belongs here in group A.

GROUP B (preview)
Beren • apex
Jefferspin
Master Bjarke
Master of the Dead
Master Turtle
Pushover

Master of the Dead has not joined yet. Last I heard he was on a 15 hour flight getting back to the Seattle area from India. He requested in advance to be allowed to join Sunday, and I granted him this extension. Falker is technically active, but has not joined nor responded to private message, so I am planning on him dropping out.

A group with 5 masters in it! I think MotD is the clear favorite of the group, haven risen very quickly through the ranks over the last several seasons. I would put Jefferspin as the 2nd favorite. Despite having relegated from A last season, he's shown great skill on this template both in this league and World Series of Warlight season 2. I wouldn't ignore Beren either, he's improved a lot recently and did promote along with MotD after a spell in the lower groups. Bjarke really should have promoted last season, but booted in two key games. He'll need to stay active to do well here. And then there is Turtle and I, players who just kind of hung around last season; we need to up our game if we want to avoid relegation and get a shot at group A

Since I expect only 6 players in this group, there will be only 1 relegation (unless Falker joins)

GROUP C
Verzehrer (1-0)
Ollie (1-0)
Metatron (1-0)
master of desaster (1-0)
JV (1-0)
Maréchal Lannes, duc de Montebello (0-2)
his balls. (0-3) - Removed for inactivity

Verzehrer missed out on promoting last season by finishing 3rd, and he will be hungry. But he needs to fight off some strong competition, including a super-promoted master of desaster who is having a run that rivals MotD's. Ollie is also rising up the ranks, looking for his ceiling. JV is showing a return in form from relegations in prior seasons. And Metatron, who has previously made it as high as group B, should never be counted out. He plays well in the role of the spoiler.

Unfortunately Maréchal Lannes, duc de Montebello, is showing early signs of being the weakest in the group with early losses to JV and Verzehrer. He will need to win some games if he wants to stay in group C.

his balls's perpetual inactivity has finally cost him participation in this league. My new rule is triggered here: *any* three boots knocks you out, and his balls has booted from all his games. This means only one player will relegate from C, and super-promotions will absolutely be in play for the lower groups.

GROUP D
ChrisCMU (1-0)
Bigchps147 (1-1)
smileyleg {TJC} (0-0)
Master Atom ◆Elite◆ (0-0)
Frankdeslimste • apex (0-0)
almosttricky (0-0)
Andersault (0-1)

Frankdeslimste is continuing an extended hangover from inactivity, having dropped all the way from group A. We know Frank can pwn when he's active, but just how active will he be this season? Chris and Atom are newer players who found group D their ceiling last season, while Bigchps147 and Andersault are veterans who were previously capable of solid group B/C play. smileyleg just missed out on a super-promotion thanks to MoD, and so he could be a big player here. almosttricky is a newer league addition who is trying to ascend quickly, having come into this group from a super promotion.

GROUP E
Oh Noes (1-0)
ferede (1-0)
Wenyun (0-0)
Polakillo (0-0)
MightySpeck (a Koala) (0-0)
Don [ Ω ] (0-0)
Great Expanse (0-2)

This group is a mix of league veterans in Oh Noes, ferede, and Wenyun; newer players (though veterans outside of this league) Don [ Ω ] and Polakillo who seem to have reached a ceiling last season; and two newer players MightySpeck and Great Expanse (former Illuminati members, current Hydra members) trying to make a name for themselves. Well, Great Expanse isn't helping his cause, as he boots in both his games so far. A third boot kicks him out of the league.

This is the first group where a super promotion is in play. Will MightySpeck take it and contiunue his promotion streak? Or will one of the others redeem themselves?

GROUP F
Buns157 (3-1)
Arkanton (3-1)
USA Biches (2-1)
+SAM+ (1-1)
butterfly94 (1-2)
Hostile (1-3)
Mac 'n' Cheese (0-2)

This group was supposed to have 8, but an inactive Stormers failed to join. This is a very competetive and talented group, entirely made of up players promoting from lower groups, in which no one will go undefeated! Buns157 is a clear frontrunner here, having won over both Arkanton and USA Biches. I think it's really really likely he will take a super promotion, with Arkanton and USA Biches finishing just behind.

GROUP G
Sułtan Kosmitów (3-0)
Ryzys (1-1)
Platinum (0-0)
Min34 (0-0)
bobbob000 (0-0)
awesomeusername (0-0)
Dom365 (0-1)
indibob (0-2)

A true 8 player group containing the winners of all the newbie groups last season (Platinum, Sułtan Kosmitów, Min34, and Dom365), players from lower groups who couldn't quite get super promotion spots (awesomeusername, indibob, and Ryzys), and the last place finisher of group G last season (bobbob000). And Sułtan Kosmitów takes a convincing early lead by winning 3 games, including against a very strong player in Dom365!

GROUP H (preview)
Benjamin628
Fleecemaster
ipg
Master Jz
Tony Sodano
Turkish

Des and dodo commander have both gone inactive, so the group has started without them. This group contains the runners up of the newbie groups last season, Master Jz, Tony Sodano, and Turkish. All solid, talented players who will likely take the top three spots. The others will definitely have their hands full. My guess is that the group win will be decided between Jz and Tony.

GROUP I (preview)
[WOLF] Colonel H Cardwell
Cata Cauda
mslasm
Onoma94
PhucilliJerry
Prabster Realm

Aura Guardian is inactive. Gaspian is active, but has not joined. I'm giving him one more day to join, to match what I'm giving MotD, but I expect him to drop out as well. With the exception of Colonel H Cardwell, who finished at the bottom of his group last season, everyone else was new last season, and failed to finish in the top two of their group. So, basically, anything goes here!

GROUP J (preview)
[wolf]japan77
Gustave II
kirdol
tomjh
Ω Cat Juggernaut

Two players who were invited are inactive, so this group ends up being the smallest at just 5 players. Basically, this is the worst group in the league, containing the last place finisher of last season's group J as well as the bottom finishers of the other newbie groups.

Honestly, knowing what I know about Gustave II as a player, I am completely shocked he is here after finishing second to last in his group! And to rub salt in the wounds, two players he finished behind dropped out this season. I expect Gustave II to go undefeated this season to win this group. A more interesting question is, who will finish last and take the title for worst player in the promotion/relegation league? Will Omega Cat Juggernaut defend his title?

Newbie groups I'll cover in a subsequent comment.

Edited 5/8/2016 16:31:50

And now for progress and previews of the equally ranked four newbie groups!

GROUP K1
Roooob (3-0)
graemes (1-1)
Math Wolf (0-0)
K-Train (0-0)
Countess (0-0)
Luna {TJC} (0-1) - Leaving the league
❤HankyPinky (0-2)

Roooob is tearing up this group so far with three quick wins! However, Roooob is supremely unlucky to be stuck in the same group as Math Wolf - former ladder #1 when it used this very template! I rank Math Wolf as the favorite of this group... and also one of the slowest players on warlight next to ACL Tears and Metatron. So yeah, it'll take a while before Math Wolf demonstrates his dominance! Still, Roooob is a solid player who I also expect will climb the ladder quickly, maybe just not as quickly as Math Wolf.

GROUP K2 (preview)
Arni
Coyote151
DR. Love
Hunta
PanagiotisTheGreekFreak
rouxburg
ℳℛᐤ✕

I know very little about these players, except for two games against Mr. X, a 1v1 and a 2v2, both of which I won. But this guy can't be a bad player to get into the ONE! clan, and so I rank him as favorite to win the group. As to second place, who knows!

GROUP K3
13CHRIS37 (2-0)
AWOL Gls AJ (0-0)
culpa (0-0)
Madmen (0-0)
THE1AJK (0-0)
<SNinja> Leinad (0-1)
Pink (0-1)

13CHRIS37 is a skilled veteran player who I choose to win this group, and his two early wins supports this prediction. AJ might be able to compete for the title if he has a great game against Chris, but otherwise I have him finishing second. The Pink participating here is not who I originally thought he was, a player who formerly went under the name Schitzo.

GROUP K4
Smutny Edgar (1-0)
Ragnar (0-0)
Mike (0-0)
Hasdrubal (0-0)
Aste (0-0)
[NL] bassoonplayer (0-0)
[GER] Florian (0-1)

The Mike participating here is not the same as the Mike that is in the GG clan. So I really don't know a damn thing about this group! Not one! Who are these newbies anyway? I guess I'll find out after this season.

Edited 5/11/2016 07:37:27