It is currently Thu May 06, 2021 11:15 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

What do you think of the proposal?
I like the idea as presented. 29%  29%  [ 2 ]
I like the idea, but it needs tweaking. 43%  43%  [ 3 ]
I have a better idea. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
The league is better the way it is now. 29%  29%  [ 2 ]
The league was better before delta got bloated. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 7
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Proposal
Post #1 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:48 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2508
Liked others: 1304
Was liked: 1127
I like the new delta so much that I'd like to see the other groups also beefed up.

Here is my proposal:

Let the groups increase in size from alpha on downward. At the same time, modify the point system, so that winning becomes more important the higher up you get in the league. Here is how it might look:

    Alpha: 1 group, 20 players. Win = 2 points Loss = 0 points. 8 demote.
    Beta: 2 groups, 30 players each. Win = 2 points Loss = 0.5 points. 4 promote, 12 demote.
    Gamma: 3 groups, 40 players each. Win = 2 points Loss = 1 point. 8 promote, 16 demote.
    Delta: 1 group, all the rest. Win = 3 points Loss = 2 points. 48 promote.

The idea is that the competition gets tougher the higher one gets in the league, but higher activity, combined with larger groups and more promotion/demotion slots will still allow upward mobility.

What do you think?

BTW, I am not part of the ASR organization, I'm just a player throwing an idea out there.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.


This post by daal was liked by: ez4u
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #2 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:53 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2341
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Liked others: 2243
Was liked: 1317
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
I love it!

Not because I agree with it. I just got back from a company dinner and I had too much to drink, so I can't even understand it yet. But right off the bat (as we Americans say :blackeye: ), it is imaginative and a positive proposal. Even if I end up disagreeing tomorrow when I sober up...

Well done daal!!!

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #3 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:08 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2341
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Liked others: 2243
Was liked: 1317
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
OK, a few reasonably serious (sober?) questions:

1. The proposal is to split beta (2 groups) and gamma (3 groups). What is the advantage/purpose of splitting? One issue I have with splitting the classes is the very different activity seen today in the classes within a level. For example, see the difference between beta I and beta II, or between gamma II and any of the other gamma groups this month.

2. Regarding the points applied to each level, let me rephrase:
Alpha: 100% winning, nothing for activity. 2 points or 1 point (or .0001 point do not matter).
Beta: Win = 3 times the value of activity. In other words win = 1.5 points for win plus 0.5 for game while loss = 0.5 points for game plus 0 points for loss. Any reason for 3 to 1 leverage?
Gamma: Win and activity equal weighted. In other words win = 1 point for win plus 1 point for game while loss = 1 point for game plus 0 points for loss. Again any specific reason?
Delta: Win = half the value of activity. In other words win = 1 point for win plus 2 points for game while loss = 2 points for game plus 0 points for loss.

The result of this will be to push people out of Delta rapidly based on activity but slowly based on winning. As we move up from Delta the impact of winning steadily increases while activity decreases. To me this is a little counter intuitive based on feedback we have so far. A number of people seem to be satisfied in Delta as long as they have the opportunity to play lots of games. In this case, should we want to let them stay in Delta and enjoy it there rather than pushing the active players out and up? Should we want to shift the winners out of Delta and leave those who just like to play a lot in place?

In the higher classes, once you make it out of Delta the more each win is worth and you sort of accelerate up the class structure (assuming you win). This would presumably concentrate the winners (should = the stronger players) in the upper classes. Is this what we want from the ASR? In terms of recognition, maybe so. However, a stratified playing area already exists on KGS, aka the English Game Room. We should be careful not to plan a system that will segregate too strongly based on strength. The desire for interaction between stronger and weaker players will be thwarted.

3. Sizes Alpha = 20, Beta = 60, Gamma = 120 already totals 200. At current membership this would leave Delta = ~100. This is probably unsustainable with the current level of inactives, non-qualifiers. I think that the next step would be experimenting with larger classes in other levels and seeing what happens before expanding the levels themselves. Right now about half the membership is in Delta. My feeling is the Delta experiment is still too new to lead to radical changes throughout the league. However, my own total experience in ASR is limited to only 5 games in Delta, so there are others with vastly more experience to draw on.

Anyway, a few thoughts in response. Feedback?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #4 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:01 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2508
Liked others: 1304
Was liked: 1127
ez4u wrote:
(sober?)
That was hardly two hours. How did you do that?

Quote:
1. The proposal is to split beta (2 groups) and gamma (3 groups). What is the advantage/purpose of splitting?

The idea of splitting the groups, or rather of keeping them split, is to make the groups larger, but not too large. The reason being, to keep the balance in favor of winning in the higher classes, and because the structure looks better.

Quote:
2. Regarding the points applied to each level, let me rephrase:
Alpha: 100% winning, nothing for activity. 2 points or 1 point (or .0001 point do not matter).
Beta: Win = 3 times the value of activity. In other words win = 1.5 points for win plus 0.5 for game while loss = 0.5 points for game plus 0 points for loss. Any reason for 3 to 1 leverage?
Gamma: Win and activity equal weighted. In other words win = 1 point for win plus 1 point for game while loss = 1 point for game plus 0 points for loss. Again any specific reason?


I don't have a specific reason for the weighting, but the general idea is that the higher you get in the league, the more you have to win. In other words, it makes it harder to get into Alpha, making Alpha more of a competition between the strongest players.


Quote:
Delta: Win = half the value of activity. In other words win = 1 point for win plus 2 points for game while loss = 2 points for game plus 0 points for loss.

The result of this will be to push people out of Delta rapidly based on activity but slowly based on winning. As we move up from Delta the impact of winning steadily increases while activity decreases. To me this is a little counter intuitive based on feedback we have so far. A number of people seem to be satisfied in Delta as long as they have the opportunity to play lots of games. In this case, should we want to let them stay in Delta and enjoy it there rather than pushing the active players out and up? Should we want to shift the winners out of Delta and leave those who just like to play a lot in place?


I think that what people like about Delta is less that they can play lots of games, and more that they are finding it easier to get games. Also, they want the chance for even games against stronger opponents, so we should avoid shifting all the strong players out of Delta. By allowing the more active players to shift up to Gamma, it also becomes harder for stronger players to move up just by winning. This should keep some strong players in Delta, and encourage others to play more games.


Quote:
In the higher classes, once you make it out of Delta the more each win is worth and you sort of accelerate up the class structure (assuming you win). This would presumably concentrate the winners (should = the stronger players) in the upper classes. Is this what we want from the ASR? In terms of recognition, maybe so. However, a stratified playing area already exists on KGS, aka the English Game Room. We should be careful not to plan a system that will segregate too strongly based on strength. The desire for interaction between stronger and weaker players will be thwarted.


Certainly, keeping a mix of strengths in most groups is imperative. Nonetheless, I'm guessing that making Alpha more competitive and thus more prestigious would make the league more attractive to stronger players, who nonetheless must move up through the classes on their way there. By increasing the promotion/demotion zone, Delta through Beta should still be pretty permeable for most players.

Quote:
3. Sizes Alpha = 20, Beta = 60, Gamma = 120 already totals 200. At current membership this would leave Delta = ~100. This is probably unsustainable with the current level of inactives, non-qualifiers.


I'm not sure what would make this unsustainable. Halfway through the month, close to half of the deltas, around 70 players have already played their minimum amount of games, and there are some folks who apparently just want to be in the league whether they play much or not.

Quote:
I think that the next step would be experimenting with larger classes in other levels and seeing what happens before expanding the levels themselves. Right now about half the membership is in Delta. My feeling is the Delta experiment is still too new to lead to radical changes throughout the league. However, my own total experience in ASR is limited to only 5 games in Delta, so there are others with vastly more experience to draw on.

Anyway, a few thoughts in response. Feedback?


You might very well be right, and it might indeed be better to experiment with just increasing the size of the other classes.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #5 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:05 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2341
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Liked others: 2243
Was liked: 1317
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
daal wrote:
ez4u wrote:
(sober?)
That was hardly two hours. How did you do that?...

Poorly! :)

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #6 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:42 pm 
Dies in gote

Posts: 23
Location: Sydney
Liked others: 9
Was liked: 11
Rank: OGS 13 kyu
KGS: Slayne
IGS: Tzorec
Wbaduk: Tzorec
DGS: Tzorec
OGS: Tzorec
daal wrote:
I like the new delta so much that I'd like to see the other groups also beefed up.

Here is my proposal:
...
    Alpha: 1 group, 20 players. Win = 2 points Loss = 0 points. 8 demote.
    Beta: 2 groups, 30 players each. Win = 2 points Loss = 0.5 points. 4 promote, 12 demote.
    Gamma: 3 groups, 40 players each. Win = 2 points Loss = 1 point. 8 promote, 16 demote.
    Delta: 1 group, all the rest. Win = 3 points Loss = 2 points. 48 promote.

...


I like the idea ... but think that Gamma should be 4 groups. :tmbup:

... and what would the score be for 2 wins/losses against the same opponent in this new scheme?

_________________
Andrew :-)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #7 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:50 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 789
Liked others: 91
Was liked: 103
GD Posts: 600
If the Delta class is so successful, why not apply this system to the other classes as well?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #8 Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:42 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2341
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Liked others: 2243
Was liked: 1317
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
karaklis wrote:
If the Delta class is so successful, why not apply this system to the other classes as well?

How should we define "success" and are we really ready to apply the term to the new Delta after two weeks of its first month? :blackeye:

It certainly appears to have affected the ability to find games. However, personally I think that we should let it run its course for this month and then find out how the members overall feel about it. There are hundreds more active players in the league than there are posters in the ASR forum here on L19.
:)

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #9 Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:09 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2636
Liked others: 302
Was liked: 631
Rank: kgs 6k
Okay, so two points.

1. I was in favor of unifying Delta because Delta (and before that, Epsilon) had a problem: it was really hard to get games. I won't go into more detail, I think most people in the ASR experienced this at one point or another. That isn't to say that the smaller Delta divisions didn't have benefits - esprit, friendships formed, easy to make a buddy list, easy to read the results table, an upper limit to the number of games you might need to play. But Delta's problems outweighed all of these considerations.

Alpha-Beta-Gamma never had scads of people complaining that they couldn't get games. So making them larger is just a solution in search of a problem.

(This isn't to say that we can never revisit this question. If in February we have tons of Beta/Gamma veterans reminiscing about how great it was to be in Delta, then maybe we should expand the classes. But let the experiment take its course, first.)

2. When people have, in the past, discussed the ratio of points for winning vs. losing, the crux has always been that it's hard to attract dan-level players to the league, and keep them interested; the games aren't as challenging, they don't get as many reviews, and so on. So the proposal, as I understood it, was that you would incentivize participation by strong players by making it easier for them to (a) quickly promote through the league and (b) win their class.

However, if this is the logic of it, making Alpha the most victory-centered class and Delta the least victory-centered gets it exactly backwards. Alpha is already quite strong. Beta is nearly as strong. The top player in Alpha right now is undefeated. #2 and #3 have racked up a lot of losses, but the rest of the class seems to be very strong, and very competitive. I don't think that Alpha is having any problem at all with strong players being reluctant to snap up wins from SDK players.

So there's no logic at all to emphasizing victories for Alpha and participation for Delta, unless you just aren't very happy with the ethos of the ASR and want to turn it into more of a traditional league/ladder format.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Proposal
Post #10 Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:59 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2508
Liked others: 1304
Was liked: 1127
jts wrote:

(This isn't to say that we can never revisit this question. If in February we have tons of Beta/Gamma veterans reminiscing about how great it was to be in Delta, then maybe we should expand the classes. But let the experiment take its course, first.)
Makes sense to me.

Quote:
2. When people have, in the past, discussed the ratio of points for winning vs. losing, the crux has always been that it's hard to attract dan-level players to the league, and keep them interested; the games aren't as challenging, they don't get as many reviews, and so on. So the proposal, as I understood it, was that you would incentivize participation by strong players by making it easier for them to (a) quickly promote through the league and (b) win their class.

Not exactly. Stronger players should have a harder time getting through Delta and Gamma, thus staying there longer, but because 24 out of 60 players will get knocked down from Beta, strong players will still have to stay quite active to remain there as well. Nonetheless, they have more incentive to fight their way up, if Alpha offers them more challenge and prestige and less teaching (If they enjoy the teaching/social aspect more, nothing is forcing them up). The reason I suggest changing the point system along with the size of the groups is that if the groups are larger, and it's simply my assumption that this is desirable, then winning should get more leverage because larger groups make it easier to amass points by playing a lot.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group