Points for losses / activity rewards

[Gabalon]

Stalkor is working on a project called ASR School and it will work together with the league.

It's true the league is "just" a league and not "advanced study", but that doesn't mean it has to be changed, still thinks about studies would be nice in addition...let's wait and see how the school will work.

[koha]

I like the current system

In your example the 9d only gave their attention to 3 players, while the 30k player worked with 11. To me that means the 30k player is doing more to encourage activity in the classes than the 9d.

In particular one thing I like about the current system is it strongly discourages declining games because you think you're going to lose. I think anything which encourages people to say 'just one more game' is a good thing.

Similarly, I don't have a problem with having 3 games count instead of 2 because the 3rd game counts for so little that it hardly affects the results - it's just an excuse to play one more game

The only problem I had/have is that the hours I most want to play (8AM - 10AM GMT) did not suit anybody else in my class so I had to either get up early or stay up late in order to play. I wonder if timezone can be taken into account when choosing between the classes?

[stalkor]

the problem with timezoning is that you will eventually fall into the timezone trap at some point if you get higher. Thats why i've chosen to make ppl encounter this problem as early as possible to avoid having this problem higher up.
league is still a competition and you should (if you have limited time) make appointments with the opponents in your class. its also handy to use your profile on kgs to make clear when youre online usually, or tell them you are irregularly online.

[seriousmode] The faith of your activity lies in your own hands... [/seriousmode]

[Koroviev]

I was also thinking, wouldn't it be nice if the loser could "thumbs up" a post game review from the stronger player to give the stronger player an extra full point? That would encourage reviewing the games as well.. maybe score a review out of 10, with 0.1 division points per point out of 10

If this is possible to implement well (sounds tricky) I think it would be excellent.

[gaius]

Well, I am seriously considering joining, but I think I will refrain from doing so until the system gets changed...

The thing is, I have a job! And: I have a life outside go! And: I play go at a club already! So if I can play maybe two times per week, I'd be pretty pleased already. And I would probably just get annoyed at remaining in Delta forever just because I have a life outside go.

It just feels wrong that I would then not get at least a somewhat fair chance against someone who manages to be online all the time. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that it is good to stimulate activity, but the current balance looks pretty skewed. Even if you give 0 points for a loss, you are still stimulating activity: the more games you play, the more chances you have to gain points! If this system would be used, or at least a cap on the number of points for losses as topazg suggested, I would join immediately. For now, I'll just wait until the system is changed.

By the way: should we set up a poll about this?

[topazg]

Well, I am seriously considering joining, but I think I will refrain from doing so until the system gets changed...

The thing is, I have a job! And: I have a life outside go! And: I play go at a club already! So if I can play maybe two times per week, I'd be pretty pleased already. And I would probably just get annoyed at remaining in Delta forever just because I have a life outside go.

It just feels wrong that I would then not get at least a somewhat fair chance against someone who manages to be online all the time. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that it is good to stimulate activity, but the current balance looks pretty skewed. Even if you give 0 points for a loss, you are still stimulating activity: the more games you play, the more chances you have to gain points! If this system would be used, or at least a cap on the number of points for losses as topazg suggested, I would join immediately. For now, I'll just wait until the system is changed.

By the way: should we set up a poll about this?

I'll make a poll with a few options in it

[oren]

The thing is, I have a job! And: I have a life outside go! And: I play go at a club already! So if I can play maybe two times per week, I'd be pretty pleased already. And I would probably just get annoyed at remaining in Delta forever just because I have a life outside go.

I'm not in ASR now due to lack of time. Even when I expect to find time, I would expect to be stuck in Delta forever. Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The ASR would just be a good place for me to get some games to take seriously.

[daal]

Another criticism of the current system is that it is way too generous to people with bad records. Currently, 4th place in the top division has achieved it just by playing lots and losing every game. To make a contrived example...

Now, a few days later, the highest placed player in Alpha with a negative record is you in 5th place. In the entire league there are only two players with a negative record that currently occupy a promotion slot. do you have any statistics on how that has played out in the past? I think that that would be more relevant that a "contrived" example.

Another question is who would benefit by a rules change and what would that benefit mean to the structure of the league? Is it that stronger players who would otherwise be beaten out by "hyperactive" weaker players would be able to promote easier? Wouldn't that make the classes more homogenous in the long term? Seems undesirable.

I know that I presented an opposite view before entering the league, but now that I'm in it, I see it's main function as being to provide a good learning environment for the most players possible, and the current system seems to be doing that quite well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[topazg]

Another criticism of the current system is that it is way too generous to people with bad records. Currently, 4th place in the top division has achieved it just by playing lots and losing every game. To make a contrived example...

Now, a few days later, the highest placed player in Alpha with a negative record is you in 5th place. In the entire league there are only two players with a negative record that currently occupy a promotion slot. do you have any statistics on how that has played out in the past? I think that that would be more relevant that a "contrived" example.

Another question is who would benefit by a rules change and what would that benefit mean to the structure of the league? Is it that stronger players who would otherwise be beaten out by "hyperactive" weaker players would be able to promote easier? Wouldn't that make the classes more homogenous in the long term? Seems undesirable.

I know that I presented an opposite view before entering the league, but now that I'm in it, I see it's main function as being to provide a good learning environment for the most players possible, and the current system seems to be doing that quite well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Yes, I agree, and I feel very guilty about being 5th, as I think I should be demoted this month, my record has sucked! I don't think this is likely to be an issue for people promoting unreasonably, as there are always strong + active players in a class, but there are a number of people displaying aggravation that people aren't being demoted with incredibly weak records. I didn't feel particularly strongly either way before, however, my personal experiences have changed things:

Now, I am slightly in favour of a change purely because I feel guilty about my record putting me in the top half of the class, as I think it shouldn't. I've found myself playing games "just because", which is against the spirit of the league. My first 3 games were played with a high fever because I didn't want to fall behind in the first week of the class, but they were all epic disasters. The majority of the games I've played have been either tired, between midnight and 2am, or in a tabbed window at work, because I haven't had a great deal of time to play this month, I've just been too busy in the "normal" part of the evening. Some games I've taken on knowing I'll lose but thinking "Ah well, it's all points!" - I should be taking on expected losses as serious games with the intent of learning and having, in effect, a teaching game, but actually the point reward has been enough just to play regardless of how tired I am or how I'm feeling.

More activity is a core tenet of the ASR, but "junk games" aren't supposed to be. Ok, I'm guilty here of being a hypocrite by advocating the league and then playing games without the seriousness they deserve, but the reward system sure made it tempting to do so. If the limit system proposed were adopted, I'd currently be on 13 points, and to get more, I'd need to win games. That will encourage me to take the games more seriously, and encourage me to seek out weaker players for wins (an advantage for them RE: teaching as well, because I always offer to review properly), so that I can enjoy my games against stronger players for learning. I will then make the most of those games against stronger people, because I won't be getting an endless supply of points for those losses, so finishing quickly to play the next one has no reward.

This is only my perspective, and it's one I've only really formed over the last few weeks, but I am steadily becoming of the opinion that the current system encourages junk losses for the sake of simply fitting games in, even if only a minority use it for this.