In-able/En-able: Lessons on the Ladder League

[Digger Goreman]

The League Ladder System is still up on my website: http://graveyard-gothika.webs.com/aabbladderleague.htm and worked reasonably well.... Concerns, within and without, the Commissioner's Office revolved around under-performing monsters ripping apart higher ladder teams and the prevalence of meta-gaming (gaming the system to one's advantage).... Not being one to shut my ears (even when I might should) I wrapped the ladder league up and had a few bull-sessions with the majority (the one's that always show up) coaches about past-present-future.... Additional concerns involved coaches bringing in theme/"joke" teams (all linemen and stunties) and extending the refusal cap to overdogs of 200,000 or more.... For the time being, all coaches are running open "stables" of teams and I've come up with a "Strength of Schedule" (SoS) formula to somewhat rank how a team is really performing (and as a mild incentive to not seek weak matches).... Already, while wanting to test the current setup further, interest has been expressed with going back to the Ladder (actually I think that's kinda cool...! )

If you're still with me, what I'd like from coaches outside of our league, is open comments on the above paragraph and topics to follow.... What I'm really looking for is an evaluation system where true strength is based on not only who you've stomped, but primarily on how strong your competition is.... Yes, I see a pitch where Necros, Humans, inclusive races, and even Dwarves and Elves can all coexist in deadly near-equality....

So I'm scrounging in the Rulebook (LRB6.0, of course) and come upon Page 34: Optional League Rules.... So, here's what I'm interested in incorporating....

1) Bank Rules (already used in our league): Left out in favor of the torturous Treasury rules we now have, by jervis johnson... it essentially only protects 100,000 gp from counting toward your Team Value....

2) Spiralling Expense Modifications: I see these as the possible true equalizers.... Before a near riot by provacatuers unknown (within/without the BBRC?) the original rating was supposed to be set @ 1,500,000.... I'd like to try this, with breakpoints of 50,000... so that a team of 1.5 mil loses 10k, 1.55 loses 20k, 1.6 loses 30k, 1.65 loses 40k, 1.7 loses 50k, 1.75 loses 60k, 1.8 loses 70k, 1.85 loses 80k, 1.9 loses 90k (the highest I think you can possibly win), 2 mil loses 100k, etc.... In all fairness, I've a coach who says he'll blow right through that and not care.... So, my question here is, "What effect on teams (or your favorite team) will SE at this level cause...?

3) Keep the challenge from below system (best part, imho) and start new teams at the bottom of the ladder (1 league point below the lowest rated team).... Need lotsa feedback on this one as, in the past, underperforming "tough" teams have cherry-picked at new teams when entered at the chess-like/ELO "100" level.... Would this just flip that in reverse, with new teams cherry-picking wounded ducks?

4) The number of actual league points gained/lost would be the ELO differential times the SoS mentioned above.... The SoS is a ratio of your opponent's TV plus a third of his inducements, over your TV plus a third of your inducements; multiplied by your opponent's tier average expected winning percentage, over yours.... In short, you get more points for taking on tougher, higher tier opponents IF you tie or win....

5) When going back to the Ladder, should ties help both teams (ELO chess gives you half the points you would've made for a win), or just the underdog (of 50k, or more)...?

Folks, I eagerly await your opinions and especially your well-reasoned reasoning.... I don't/won't mind this thread going on till I reach Commissioner's Nirvana of a balanced league system....

[Carnis]

1) I dont see the point, removing treasury from teamvalue was a good move, especially if you tighten the SE rules.

2) This would hurt high value high end teams most, such as chaos, wood elves etc. The most hurt would be the elven teams though, an 11man elf team can easily make value 1500k when they reach FF 7-9. Then they'll be effectively broke at 1,650,000 or so (because players do die, even elves). Dwarves would be less affected (AV9, high # of starting skills). Your higher ranked teams would likely field regular journeymen under this system.

3) I like open leagues & closed leagues, I dont understand your need to complicate the system with only allowing lower "ranked" teams to challenge upwards. This has naturally led to cherrypicking, as is to be expected. The rank system would have to be perfect and the reward for getting a perfect team would still be to not get to play anybody ever cause no cherry is going to choose a tough team primarily.

4) ELO seems simpler, if you run a strict closed league or an entirely open league long enough league it will eventually balance out. In a system designed for cherrying it might balance out, but I don't know would have to see how it ends up going.

5) In ELO ties help the team, whose chance to win was lower. That's how any ranking system is IMHO supposed to work. If your chance to win was 42% and you get a tie you did 8% better than you were supposed to.. The opponent did 8% worse than he was supposed to so the change in ratings is +-0.08 * x (x being how much you set your ELO to update/game).

[Duke Jan]

2) This would hurt high value high end teams most, such as chaos, wood elves etc. The most hurt would be the elven teams though, an 11man elf team can easily make value 1500k when they reach FF 7-9. Then they'll be effectively broke at 1,650,000 or so (because players do die, even elves). Dwarves would be less affected (AV9, high # of starting skills). Your higher ranked teams would likely field regular journeymen under this system.

Partly agree with this. The difference between chaos and elves being that a chaos team will want tot start with plenty of re-rolls meaning they have a larger part of TV not related to skill increases, while this is what they rely on to do anything in the first place. Actually, I'm wondering whether the break points should be related to the re-roll cost. Thinking of what I have now, 1650 losing 40k would have been extremely painful.

[Digger Goreman]

1) I dont see the point, removing treasury from teamvalue was a good move, especially if you tighten the SE rules.

Thanks, so much, for taking the time and thought... it's appreciated!

Galak's answer in Matt's thread sheds some light:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=30439&hilit=bank

I'm also looking to narrow the range for the sake of competitive equality....

2) This would hurt high value high end teams most, such as chaos, wood elves etc. The most hurt would be the elven teams though, an 11man elf team can easily make value 1500k when they reach FF 7-9. Then they'll be effectively broke at 1,650,000 or so (because players do die, even elves). Dwarves would be less affected (AV9, high # of starting skills). Your higher ranked teams would likely field regular journeymen under this system.

Definitely since 3rd edition (maybe longer? ), high TV teams have had a "problem" with finding opponents.... Last league we hadn't hit SE @ 1.75 and people didn't want to play the higher teams.... Journeymen have actually exacerbated the problem and made it much easier for elves.... Dwarves... cheeserice... at least we have a non-challenged, time-out of two months to retirement of the team.... You can see the problem in trying to overcome the poorest of designs in this game....

3) I like open leagues & closed leagues, I dont understand your need to complicate the system with only allowing lower "ranked" teams to challenge upwards. This has naturally led to cherrypicking, as is to be expected. The rank system would have to be perfect and the reward for getting a perfect team would still be to not get to play anybody ever cause no cherry is going to choose a tough team primarily.

Of course not... and the flip-side of the coin is, if forced to play a team that's gonna shred you in every category, weaker (for whatever reason) teams/coaches are gonna just quit.... It happened in a league which reconstituted and, unfortunately, merged with ours.... Rinse and repeat of their mistakes.... Post-apocalypse and I'm trying to avoid their prior, repeated mistakes.... We're slowly getting there....

4) ELO seems simpler, if you run a strict closed league or an entirely open league long enough league it will eventually balance out. In a system designed for cherrying it might balance out, but I don't know would have to see how it ends up going.

That's the hope... but we still (in the last league) wound up with a small grouping of power teams, a deep trench, and then the rest of the league.... I'd like to find a way to close that trench and the hopelessness that goes with it.... Keeping the league perpetual, while allowing for new teams to be quickly competitive, is hopefully not too far-fetched... it's what I'm aiming for....

5) In ELO ties help the team, whose chance to win was lower. That's how any ranking system is IMHO supposed to work. If your chance to win was 42% and you get a tie you did 8% better than you were supposed to.. The opponent did 8% worse than he was supposed to so the change in ratings is +-0.08 * x (x being how much you set your ELO to update/game).

In the chess ELO system, a tie gave the overdog half of his (slightly) lowered league points while giving the underdog half of his (slightly) elevated points.... Agreeing, at least on principal, with your evaluation, my coaches asked that the underdog be rewarded (by half), while the overdog be penalized (by half).... Fair enough, says I.... It's also the reason, almost accidentally, that I came up with the formulation... based on the expressed design assumptions of the game.... To further discourage cherry-picking from above.... I have little concern about picking from below....

So I'm looking for that elusive of elusives: a perpetual league with competitiveness within a reasonably varied range.... Good luck to me, eh...?

Thanks, again, for the critiques and insights... the synthesis will be much rewarding in the end....

[Smeborg]

Digger - my main interest is in observing the practical difference in league management using "hard" and "soft" systems. By "hard" I mean carefully worked out rules and restrictions of the type you have introduced in your league. By "soft" I mean just cultural and persuasive means. For example, in our league, for this season at least, we have managed to get all 24 races represented (out of some 52 teams), and also, the more experienced coaches have tended to put out few "power" teams (i.e. those races that are known to perform rather well, say top third of tier 1). This has been achieved through just talking to each other, without needing any "hard" rules.

I have seen another league (in Auckland, NZ) influence choice of teams by simple handicap. There were lots of Dwarf and Dark Elf teams in their league last season, and they dominated the league. So this season, you can still take these teams, but your opponent gets a free randomly chosen 50,000 card (quite a neat nudge, I thought, without being unduly harsh, and also very simple).

Your evaluation system seems to have only a slight influence on practical play (for example, I would guess that it might slightly influence the underdog towards sticking with a draw rather than risking a win, but that's about it). You could (given sufficient accurate data) superimpose your evaluation system on any league; in this sense it is not a big deal. Whereas a ladder system, and restrictions on the eligibility of teams that can play each other (e.g. maximum TV difference) have direct practical consequences (by restricting who can play whom and when). The proposed aggressive Spiralling Expenses house rules also look like they may have unforeseen practical consequences (by influencing which teams coaches play, as well as how they develop). There has also to be a risk that coaches will start with enthusiasm, but find later in the league that their favourite team has been stymied by the Spiralling Expenses rules (not a good outcome, I suggest).

My league experience (in 3 countries and 4 different towns) may well be different to yours. What I have observed over the years is that the more house rules that you apply in a league, the more intense and enjoyable it can become for the core of coaches, but that it can deter some other coaches as well as repelling newbies. The downside risk is that in the longer term (1 or 2 years in) you get a shrinking league.

I'm very interested in how you get on. The Holy Grail for me is a league that can accommodate experienced and newbie coaches in the same format, and keep all of them happy.

All the best.

[JaM]

The Holy Grail for me is a league that can accommodate experienced and newbie coaches in the same format, and keep all of them happy.

`

I'm not sure if you can find rules for this. I personally think this has a lot to do with character.
Otherwise good thread. I'll follow this for sure.

[spubbbba]

Have you thought about splitting the league into 2 or more divisions?

Teams could go into the top division based on TV or results with new/ joke/ badly performing ones in the lower or bottom division. There would be a few promotions and relegations each season and maybe even a TV cap for the lower divsions.

Teams could either be banned from playing against the different division or the points altered so a high division team cherrying a bottom division team would gain little for winning but lose a lot for losing or drawing.

You could have a seperate title for the lower division(s) as well so it might give people more to play for, so a bad season in the top division might mean a team would go down and have a season or 2 of rebuilding and a chance to win something.

[Alamar]

Personally I doubt that too many folks are overly enthused about the new rules.

I'm especially disappointed after getting several teams in striking distance of number 1 in the last league ; having multiple teams doing GREAT after the first reset ; then having a unilateral decision to have a 3rd reset of both teams & points isn't helping my enthusiasm.

I've spoke to a couple of others and I think they're not overly enthused but there is little danger of anyone to dropping or stopping play. Hopefully things work out well and we'll go from there.

[Digger Goreman]

I hear the Gainesville/Buford area is looking for a coach....

[Alamar]

I hear the Gainesville/Buford area is looking for a coach....

You point is extra pointy As odd as it seems I would like to find out if things work out well for the league.


Edit: An update without a bump. The league goes on and I see no lack of enthusiasm for playing new or old rules. It seems that only one player [me] didn't care for the rules and the league reset.