2 games or 3 per matchup per month

[topazg]

Dear all,

Following discussions with fellow admins, the proposal of reducing the games per match to 2 per month has been proposed, with a few individuals wishing for each.
As a result, I have decided to make a poll to better capture people's views and comments on the issue. Please vote and, where appropriate, explain your vote in a post response

Pros of staying at 3

# vs matches can have a clear winner.
# It makes sure people can get a good number of games, even with only a few available people.
# The league wishes to reward activity, and this helps with this goal.
# Just because some people can't manage the games, doesn't mean that people that can should be prevented from doing so.

Pros of lowering to 2

# It's easier for people to play all their games in a month, as 26 is considerably easier than 39.
# People can't promote so easily just by losing lots of games, and people with a 0% record are more likely to relegate.
# Some people really want to be active, but 3 games per player is too many for most people.
# With more people able to play all of their games, the league has more opportunity to reward results as opposed to amount of free time.

Some general facts

# People don't seem active enough to make use of the 3 games - in October, only Alpha reached 50% of games played, and no other class exceeded 30%
# In November so far, This month, only 4 divisions have exceeded 20% so far, and only one of those exceeded 30%
# Out of 1967 possible 1 vs 1 matchups, only 80 (4%) have reached 3 games

[woidler]

I'd prefer only one game, but two is better than three or "other".

[usagi]

I'd prefer only one game, but two is better than three or "other".

I think that even better than "one" is a way to make everyone play the same number of games.

But barring that I say leave it at 3. Let the natural activity reward work itself out, take some baby steps by removing the promotion/demotion bottlenecks, and see how the league works out in 2 or 3 months. Don't make too many changes at once

-

[Marcus]

I tend to prefer 2 games over 3 games, and generally don't get enough time to play 3 games with more than on or two people a month.

That being said, last month I managed to get promoted, and I only played the full 3 games with two players ... so I don't see this as an urgent change at the moment.

[patmetheny]

and what about 2 games and if tie, third allowed ?

[stalkor]

would be weird because the third game is worth points and you can't deny one a third game while another gets one

[daal]

I prefer the 3 game rule, because it gives me more chances to get games in with stronger players. I'm especially thankful to the folks who despite having destroyed me twice are still willing to let me have another go at it.

[nihils]

i like the 3 games rule, cause ceteris paribus more is better:)
For one thing is sure: reducing the number of possible games will result in lesser games given the current circumstances.
Of course on the other hand there maybe people who don't participate in the league cause their time constraints will limit their maximum number of games to 10 and they realize that 10 games even if all are won won't suffice to get promoted.
So it would be interesting to know how many people thinking about joining the league meet these criteria.

[Fairgo]

The 3 game rule seems just right, anything more than that is a bit much...

[MrZNF]

i like the 3 games rule, cause ceteris paribus more is better:)
For one thing is sure: reducing the number of possible games will result in lesser games given the current circumstances.
Of course on the other hand there maybe people who don't participate in the league cause their time constraints will limit their maximum number of games to 10 and they realize that 10 games even if all are won won't suffice to get promoted.
So it would be interesting to know how many people thinking about joining the league meet these criteria.

This is why I talked to stalkor about making it just one game per matchup instead of three, but it's a difficult choice to make. I'm a bit of a hypocrite, since I always had a lot of time to play and so I liked 3 games (I could get more points and play more games), but now I have not as much time, so I'd like it to become less than 3 games per match up a month. This is I think only a matter of time, so a poll from everyone in the league and anyone interested in the league should be a nice way to decide a thing like this.

[koha]

Given that the value of an additional game keeps halving, why not eliminate the limit entirely.

Even if two people play 50 games together they'd still be fundamentally limited to a total score between them of less than 6 points. That's the same number of points that the system creates if just two games are played between different people.

Seems simple to me anyhow - effectively the halving of points acts as enough disincentive that an explicit limit is not required

[gloche]

i like 3 games.

[Koroviev]

3 is best I think, anything that maximises your chance of getting a game at any one time.

I find it hard to find the time to get online, and when I do there's rarely anyone else in my group available.

[Hollumber]

I vote 2 games per matchup.

I think a maximum of 3 games per match should be instituted. This way, the active players can play more games. Also, the diminishing value of playing a person more than once is a good way to prevent a person who loses many games to get promoted. However, the number of possible games should be judged by each player playing all of the other players ONCE. This way, players can get all of their games in by playing everybody else, which is quite easily possible, and those who wish to play more to get more points (or fun) can do so without being obliged to do so.

Either 2 or 3 games per matchup, there will still be those who use the system to gain more points and there will be those who can't seem to find time to get in many games.

[ChemBoy613]

I actually really liked the old system, 1 game per matchup.

The obvious reason for less games is sheer time. I don't have that much time to just sit around and play, so I find myself blitzing league games (and losing games I should win) "just to get my games in." I dislike playing go this way.

In the old system, where we only got one game amonth, each game had much more meaning, so I wouldn't mind spending two hours on a game and playing my very best. I remember playing CGB for two hours and logging my first win against him because I took my time and read _everything_

That said, less games the better for me, maybe I won't try to finish all my league games in 20 minutes if that was the case. This league certainly rewards activity, so I find myself playing way faster than I'd like.

However, I also think less games favors stronger players, since wins become more important... this also makes it more tense, more interesting, and games more valuable. Of course, I'd want Alpha to have everyone around 3-4d where you get to have a two hour slugfest once a month because I'd love more serious games, less games, and against stronger people, as that's how to improve.