An ABLE System: toward league fairness....

[Alamar]

Your system at first blush looks pretty good. I wouldn't want to keep up with the accounting in a large league but if you're willing ...

I think one thing the system needs to do would be to reward teams proportionately for how hard or easy the match should have been on paper.

Perhaps looking at some basics would help you determine how good your system is:
-- When facing an equal opponnent you're at 50% chance to win
-- When facing an equal opponnent but you're an underdog you are a 33% chance to win
-- So when you're an underdog your win % goes from 50 to 33 which [oddly] is a 33% loss

So a TV underdog maybe in general you only have 2/3 of their normal TIER chance to win ....

As an example a Tier 3 underdog challenges a Tier 1 overdog:
-- Tier 3 base win percentage is 32.5% vs. Tier 1 [seems high but so be it]
-- Maybe Tier 3 win percentage when underdog to Tier 1 is 32.5 * 2/3 ~=> 20%
-- Given the above a Tier 1 team should win 4 times for each loss so should get 1/4 of the positive points for a win as they would the negative points for a loss.
-- Given the above a Tier 3 team should lose 4 times for each win so should lose 1/4 of the points for a loss as they would gain for a win.
-- I believe a system that doesn't follow the above point outlay would be suspect barring other considerations

If you crunched numbers in your system with various Tiers challenging each other with various over & under dogs you can get a feeling for how your system does.

I look forward to see how things turn out ...

[Smurf]

The LBWS league is in its third season.

Some coaches have a few teams, varying in degree, many have taken 'serious' and 'fun' teams.

We are using a ladder system.

1. Your ladder ranking is determined by your TV divided by wins.
2. You may issue challenges to other teams who have equal or greater wins than you.
3. You must win to get ahead, be aware of playing too many games quickly, the older teams may pounce!
4. Top 8 go through to the trophy end.

This prevents the 'older team' from running away.

The Vampires have come out fighting and have the highest match total of 16 but only won 7... WE have a 13/14 win and close behind is Orcs and Skaven with a 11/14 win.

Hopefully the coaches can be very machavellian about their progression and pick fights as they see fit.

[ShriekBob]

Can I recommend something along the lines of the ELO system described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Its a little complex on the math, but if you have commish with a basic understanding of excel you can just plug wins and losses in, and output the updated ELO Rankings of everyone.

Rather than setting limitations of challenge on TV, set them based on ELO? Other than that, use inducements as normal?

Its ho most CCGs are done to my understanding (atleast its how Raw Deal was done, and it worked pretty damn well there).

Depending on the size of your leagues it might be a bit....extreme.....but it will give you fairly accurate ratings.

[ShriekBob]

The formula, and a less painful explanation can be found here : -
http://www.chess-mind.com/en/elo-system#formule

[Digger Goreman]

One of my coaches put an interesting bug in my ear and I'm keen for people to poke holes in the theory... though he says twas tested in another league and worked best toward initial equality of teams with no one running readily away from others....

In essence, it's simple: Any team, at all times, must maintain a ratio of 1/2 linemen (rounded down... so that a team of 13 must have 6 linemen).... Now, I appreciate that one may not like this scheme... and, while appreciating that, it would be counter-productive to express.... What I need, is strongly reasoned "facts" as to why this would not produce reasonably competitive teams... with examples, of course....

In other words, how can one break (or show broken) this way of running teams...?

Many thanks,

DG

[dines]

With that idea, orcs would surely suffer a lot! It's hard to find (serious) orc teams without full blitzer and bob roster. Your favourite hate object: the elves on the other hand wouldn't suffer that much. But I guess you have banded them in your league anyways...

[Alamar]

One of my coaches put an interesting bug in my ear and I'm keen for people to poke holes in the theory... though he says twas tested in another league and worked best toward initial equality of teams with no one running readily away from others....

In essence, it's simple: Any team, at all times, must maintain a ratio of 1/2 linemen (rounded down... so that a team of 13 must have 6 linemen).... Now, I appreciate that one may not like this scheme... and, while appreciating that, it would be counter-productive to express.... What I need, is strongly reasoned "facts" as to why this would not produce reasonably competitive teams... with examples, of course....

In other words, how can one break (or show broken) this way of running teams...?

Many thanks,

DG

I don't know if it would be "broken" but I could tell you that Dwarves would love this league ... they only have 6 [common] positionals so this rule wouldn't really effect them. Even if some linemen got killed they could put a "journeyman lineman" on their roster for free so they technically have enough linemen on their roster. Chaos would certinaly feel better also with a max team of 5 positionals.

I'm pretty sure that Woodies and many other starting teams that are initially light on positionals would initially LOVE it as they'd be even stronger compared to teams that need every positional they can get.

The inexpensive teams with lots of positionals would really be suffering by comparison such as Humans, Amazons, Orcs, etc. Teams are are a little further down the rankings like Necros / Khemri / etc. would be even less competitive initially because they'd have to cut back on their "basic starting lineups".

Teams down on their luck early would be at a huge disadvantage to teams that basically didn't suffer many deaths early because it would take a long time [without full roster power] to build up enough to finally buy the next positional in line.

[Alamar]

edit: Sloppy double post ...

[Khail]

This change would just screw with the last few years of balancing the game/rosters have gone through unnecessarily. It affects a number of already strong teams very little and weakens a number of solid to mediocre teams. The "Top Tier" teams (aside from Orcs) would hardly notice though.

Dark Elves, for instance would end up fielding 1 more line elf (instead of a runner most likely) in their standard 13 man build out. Oh noes...

[Alamar]

This change would just screw with the last few years of balancing the game/rosters have gone through unnecessarily. It affects a number of already strong teams very little and weakens a number of solid to mediocre teams. The "Top Tier" teams (aside from Orcs) would hardly notice though.

Dark Elves, for instance would end up fielding 1 more line elf (instead of a runner most likely) in their standard 13 man build out. Oh noes...

I believe that Digger's point is that he doesn't much care for the balance / Tier system in BB the way it is and is wondering if shaking things up is worth trying.

Edit: OK maybe technically off topic for this forum but I try not to get too picky about that stuff.

[Khail]

Yeah, I just think it would shake it the direction away from what he wants. It's not like this system would weaken Dwarves or the various Elves relative to the rest of the teams.

[Alamar]

Yeah, I just think it would shake it the direction away from what he wants. It's not like this system would weaken Dwarves or the various Elves relative to the rest of the teams.

I tend to agree with you. I haven't seen the system in action but it may cause more headaches than it's worth once you throw in complications due to injury and other factors in.

[mattgslater]

My Orcs run 13 positionals and 1 lineman at peak development, so I don't have to tell you any more for you to see what I think of that idea. What's more, Orc Linemen aren't bad players, so if I were forced to run more of them I'd just have fewer gimmicks at my disposal (unless you count the lower TV and attendant inducements). Different team lists build different ways. "Linemen" on one team may be casual fill-ins, while on another they may be the bread and butter.

The following teams just wouldn't care: Amazon, Chaos, Chaos Pact, Dark Elf, Dwarf, Elf, Goblin, Halfling, High Elf, Lizardman, Norse, Ogre, Slann, Vampire, Wood Elf.

The following teams would have a little tinkering to do: Human, Khemri, Necromantic, Underworld Pact.

The following teams would be completely rewritten: Chaos Dwarf, Orc, Skaven.

The following team would be rendered unplayable: Nurgle.

Yes, three of the four teams that would take the biggest hit are power teams. But there are also three power teams and a bunch of good ones that would benefit from this environment. Don't do it, man.

[Digger Goreman]

Got the league format whipped out... minus the lineman scheme....

1) We'll be using the Ladder format from my website, as before, with the following addendum....

2) The intended for LRB6 "Bank" rules are in effect. (prevents hordeing)

3) Spiralling Expenses (SE) are set at 1,500,000 with 50k increments. (keeps the spread of teams more narrow and eases entry of new teams into the league at any point)

4) Teams, at inception of the league, start at 100 points. Later entry teams start at 1 point less than the lowest ranked team. (helps protect cherry-picking of new teams by high value/spp, underperforming teams)

5) League points gained/lost will be modified by the SoG (Strength of Game). The SoG is a ratio of each team's TV+(1/3)Inducements x a ratio of each team's tier expected win percentage. (Hard, come easy, you get more points for beating a harder opponent and less points for beating an easier opponent; consequently, you lose more points to an easier opponent and less points to a harder opponent). (no picking on weak teams w/o consequences... makes lower teir team wins, against higher tiers, very meaningful)

6) Ties gain half points for an Underdog of 50k, or more, and lose half points for an Overdog of 50k, or more. (helps reduce sloughing for the tie)

Tiers:
1 All teams not mentioned below. Average expected win percentage: 50
1.5 Chaos Pact, Slann, Underworld. AEWP: 45
2 Vampires. AEWP: 40
3 Halflings, Goblins, Ogres. AEWP: 32.5

Example of possible first games (using my teams as readily available info)

Wild Women (Zons) Tier 1, 100 TV, 100 pts. vs Grave Desecration (Necro) Tier 1, 97 TV, 100 pts.
It's a 16 point game, so: 16*(97/100)*(50/50)= 15.52 points gained by WW and lost by GD....

Dead Rock Stars (Undead) Tier 1, 100 TV, 100 pts. vs Sleestacks (Lizardman) Tier 1, 98 TV, 100 pts.
Another 16 point game, so: 16*(100/98)*(50/50)= 16.3265306 points gained by Sleestacks and lost by DRS....

Fangoria Fangsters (Vampire) Tier 2, 98 TV, 100 pts. vs Aahz's Underworld, Tier 1.5, 100 TV, 100 pts.
16 point game, again, so: 16*(100/98)*(45/40)= 18.3673469 gained by the Vamps and lost by the Underworld team....

The Ladder would be:
1 Fangoria Fangsters 118.37 pts.
2 Sleestacks 116.33 pts.
3 Wild Women 115.52 pts.
4 Grave Desecration 84.48 pts.
5 Dead Rock Stars 83.67 pts.
6 Aahz's Underworld 81.33 pts.

[Smeborg]

Hi Digger -

The best of luck with your system. Looks complex to me, but if you are able to run it without strain, then good.

What data are you using for the division of teams into tiers? 17 teams rated the same (tier 1) seems a rather large division. Aren't some of these teams "more equal than others"? And if 7 out of 24 teams perform with a win ratio below 50%, doesn't that mean the other 17 teams (tier 1) have an expected win ratio well above 50% (approximately 54.56% according to my quick calculation, assuming an equal number of each race)?

Here in NZ we observe Underworld and Slann performing at "tier 1" level (I accept this is a small sample). Chaos Pact not far behind.

This is just a roundabout way of saying that I would be inclined to prefer a finer grain of tiering (say 5 tiers).

I would also be wary of applying restrictions on who can play against whom, on the basis that we run an open league which seems to be successful on the basis of its openness (anybody can play anybody anytime). But if your coaches are happy with it, then good. But take care that the system does not intimidate newcomers.

All the best.