http://tournaments.webdiplomacy.net/The-php-League/thephpleaguerules

FYI, currently, the rules encourage limited meta-gaming:

"Meta-Gaming and Cross Gaming:

Players may not enter into agreements or alliances spanning more than one game, although they may consider different players’ league positions in their decision making within a game."

@riphen: were i you i would definitely join a league this year, even if you only play one season, it is a very different experience than any number of one-off games. Lots of fun in the D,C,B divisions... though there are reasons to change the format, i don't think anyone wants to change it soo much that this will not still be true...

'And just since Babak pointed it out... "when you get your ratings up to where MM, myself, or Wizard are, then you can come talk to me about how much you love non-anon".... I pefer non-anon a great deal.'

I understand the desire for 'normal' games to be played anon, by people like MM, infact the only anon games i am willing to pay are against MadMarx because i've had a lot of fun in almost every game we've both played in. But I think the leagues are a different beast. And i think a different justification needs to be considered when looking at league play specifically. As i've said, i don't think of a league as just a series of games where you measure your performance against other player's we have GR to do that...


"*I have no problem with others liking metagaming and enjoying the leagues, that's great, have fun, there are lots of other variants on this site, leagues is another option for like minded people..."

indeed.

"if Dip is played as a purely skill game, then anon is superior to non-anon"

i do NOT think it is purely skill. I think it is a social game, and this aspect of the leagues has always appealed to me. I think keeping the group size small enough that you still get to know most of them. That is why i shyed away from numbers like 28/35.

With 21 players AND some meta-gaming, no League play, you have reasons to make cross game deals... and thus talk to people outside of you current game sets but within your league division. (so if you can guarentee, say, that knox will knock out crazy in game 3c and you will knock out crazy in 4a, then both of you can pass her out in league standings... lets say... ) that said, i am of two minds about this kind of meta-gaming. On the one hand i'd love to play semi-anon, where your games don't count for GR / 0 and everyone has an alias, (so a new server would be great!) you can call yourself whatever you like, but at the end of the season you get a new alias and get to know people again.... though this compromise doesn't entirely sit well with me either.

my 2 cent...

I think it's kind of interesting that the league structure mirrors the structure used in multi-tiered European football (soccer) leagues. This type of league structure seems more suitable for team sports, where there is perhaps greater stability and consistency of the competitors (the teams as a whole) involved.

However, here on WebDip, this structure is being used for individual competition. Some people have disliked (and others have appreciated) the somewhat slow pace of ladder climbing and the limited amount of players you get to play with. Another issue, is that each league and tournament seem to be standalone competitions. If another Anon league is formed, it will divide players into two, mostly non-interacting (in terms of competitive league play) groups. With separate leagues, the meaning of being the top of one league is somewhat diluted if other top players are only playing in the other league. The only ranking that ties everything together is GR, but that ranking system covers everything on WebDip and not just top-level league/tournament play.

So here's my wild idea. What if the league/tournaments system evolved into something more like the competition structure for individual professional sports (i.e. tennis or golf)? For example, the ATP (assoc of tennis pros) sanctions many independently-run annual tournaments that take place over the course of the year. Players are ranked based on their performance over these tournaments. However, players don't have to play in every single tournament, and some major tournaments (i.e. the four "grand slams") are worth more than others. Also, in each tournament, higher ranked players may be seeded into later rounds, and lower ranked players may have to play preliminary qualifying rounds. Pro-golf also operates in an analogous fashion.

The change could happen quite gradually. In fact, all that needs to be done first is to calculate a separate ranking (e.g. GR, but I would like to suggest using Elo instead) based only on the performance of play in the past, present, and future leagues and tournaments (i.e. retroactively to all the past, present, and future events on tournaments.webdiplomacy.net website). Then as new tournaments/leagues are formed, they can incorporate the concepts of seeding/qualification based on this tournament ranking to organize players by skill. I believe that the gradual migration toward a new system of this fashion would encourage more competitive interaction, better skill matching (seeding/qualifying), while also giving players the options to play in the competitive formats that they prefer (since different tournaments/leagues can offer different formats/styles/themes).

TL;DR don't change anything about the current leagues. introduce ranking system for only leagues/tournaments (also retroactively applied). utilize this ranking system for better seeding/qualifying systems in some future leagues/tournaments.

100% agree with yebellz and would have more to say on the matter if I didn't have a Combinatorics exam in 4 hours.

"if we make groups of 14 players who play 4 games, you have to play someone more then once and will roughly play everyone twice on average."

14/21, - 21 with 6 games might be workable, but i think i'd prefer to keep as closely to a 6 month time bracket, with two seasons per year. (and some downtime to recharge between one season and the next)

so 14 with 4 games could still be great!

here is my idea

1ST ROUND
top 98 players form 14 groups based on their GR
2 games per group are played.
duration 2 months
1st month 14 games (simultaneously)
2nd month 14 games (simultaneously)
league winners (14) advance to the semifinals

semifinals:
14 participants in 2 groups
2 games per group are played.
duration 2 months
1st month 2 games (simultaneously)
2nd month 2 games (simultaneously)
top 7 advance to the final (3 first from each group plus the best 4th)

final:
participants 7
games: 1+1
if someones solos in the 1st game he/she wins
if no solo happens then a 2nd game is played.
if someone solos in the 2nd game he/she wins.
if no solo happens in the 2nd game as well then points are calculated based on both games' results (draws + sc count).
duration of final: maximum 2 games, maximum 2 months.

total duration 6 months.
so it can actually be played twice a year and the winner could be considered the official webdip champion.

You can try to schedule the timeframe for a tournament, but unless you enforce: "You must end the game by this day," it will always come back to bite you in the ass.

But that isn't a league, hellalt. That is a tournament and a tournament (despite Babak's uninformed claims to the contrary) is not a league. I bowl in a regular league twice a year. The league is about forming friendships and having fun and trying to improve your team's position season after season. A tournament ranks you based on your seeding (ala March Madness) as you propose here. Tiered leagues are promotion and demotion based and don't change just because you are rated more highly than you were previously.

@Geofram: "So the only difference between a tourney and a league is the attitude players take towards it? You can't control whether someone is joining a league to crush everyone else or if someone is joining a tournament just to have a good time. That was not valid at all."

You are right. It isn't valid in the boolean logical sense, but it is how it is viewed. Sure, you'll have guys that played in high school and want to kick everyone's ass, but most people are playing just to play. It is more about the relationships and fun than the winning.
Like I said. Take GR and points out of it... so it is completely safe to play and completely safe to ignore.... and you'll have a league. Otherwise, with how strongly people want to win here (which is quite ironic, since most will roll over at the first opportunity for a 3-way draw), I don't think we can really have a true 'league'.

@yebellz: You're thoughts on independent tourney's forming a ladder... isn't that already what we do? All these tourney's are run by volunteers with the site... they aren't associated with the site (except some mods run the tourney's, or mods get in close relationships with the volunteers, just because of how we need to 'preset' games and such all the time). So the foundation is there.

@draug, i think i'm with you there...

@Knox, speak for yourself, i've been refusing 3/4/5 ways draws whenever i had the chance... :p

@comparison with two-player games (like tennis/chess); this is an unfair comparison, diplomacy by it's nature can't run a knockout tournament where the top two meet in a final...

i don't think we should simply copy any other system, but i am glad there are so many people here trying to come up with the 'ideal' system for a dip league...

Diplomacy is competitive between single players. The League has one winner every year. Call it whatever makes you feel good, but its a bloody tournament.

But this whole idea that ANON suddenly makes a game too unfriendly to be called a "league" and that non-ANON keeps people from entering it as a "tournament" is bullshit anyway. Diplomacy isn't a team sport and online Diplomacy cannot be compared to RL leagues because of the time length difference.

There is no reason not to make the league Anon unless you want to encourage metagaming. And if you do, that's fine, make your adulterated league, but there are people here that know its wrong and will just choose not to participate.

The benefit of webDip over FtF IS anonymous. Metagaming is a problem in long FtF tournaments too, but fewer people have the gall to ruin a tournament when there in flesh.

GEO, compared to 'real' leagues, team sports often meta-game to get the best result, especially once they know they've avoided relegation, or some other goal which they have in mind...

this kind of 'League-gaming' or 'meta-gaming' is specifically allowed for within the current league rules.

The personal knowledge of your opponent is an important factor in ever diplomacy game, and i think for that reason NOT making the leagues anon is vital.

There are other tournaments here which are anon already. Play them if oyu don't like 'League Play' (which i refuse to consider 'meta' because it is not outside of the league environment, it is to be taken into account in the design of your league system)

@Geo - if it were a torunament, then any player involved would have a chnace to win. As it is, it is *not* a tournament because someone below Premier tier cannot win the whole thing. Only 7 players out of 77 players are eligible to win the big prize.

@orathaic +1

Anyone who doesn't want to play non-anon, there are tons of tournaments for you. The Leagues are the *only* non-anon competition on the site and many of us want to see them stay that way.

Yes, with computer's we can try to find 'pure' methods... but think about the argument of anon vs non-anon. Think about any other sport... any other competition.....
The people playing in the big games... whether it is soccer/football/baseball/chess/track & field..... they know the top players. They've studied their games.
What MM and other 'top people' complain about? It's universal to competition. Yes, you have to player harder if you want to stay on top. Honestly... if you didn't? It wouldn't be fun to be on top. It's the challenge that drives us, right?

BTW - I can see why draug and I are of the same frame of mind. The league I relate to is also a bowling league I was in when I was in high school. Was a great experience. Met a lot of friends... met a lot of great bowlers. I wasn't the greatest, but I just went ot have fun and play a game I enjoyed.

Look, I'm sorry, I simply don't understand how these changes make it not a League.

Premier: 14-21 players
A: # in Premier + 7*n Players
B: # in Premier + 7*(n+a) Players

You're position still stands Season to Season (unlike a tournament). And you are *still* grouped with people of similar skill (just a few more than before).

I understand that some people like metagaming, but I'm sorry, I just don't feel that's a legit position to take. These leagues were *not* formed with the intention of severe metagaming (the rules even say so). Metagaming was an unintended consequence of the fact that it's hard to make a league for diplomacy. A league in which you are encouraged to suicide yourself to give someone a solo *IS A BAD LEAGUE*.

Now, I will fight tooth and nail to keep the games non-anon. Every game on here seems to be anon and I find that frustrating. I like getting to know people (frankly, I can get to know 14 people just as well as 7). And, you know what, in the 5 years I've been in the Leagues, I've only played against about 21 people. How's that for stagnant?



tl;dr The changes we're proposing aren't turning this from a league into a tournament. I don't care if you like metagaming because defiles the game and isn't what the Leagues were supposed to be anyway.

@fortknox: re: "You're thoughts on independent tourney's forming a ladder... isn't that already what we do? ... So the foundation is there."

Yes, my suggestions are for a gradual and somewhat subtle change. I definitely agree that the foundation (in terms of a vibrant community that organizes and plays tournaments) is there, but I think it is important to institute a ranking system, based only on tournament play, that nicely ties everything together. A ranking system would be a useful tool for organizers to seed future leagues/tournaments and also give players a feeling that they are part of an even larger competition that they are also playing for. This tournament-only ranking would also help players that care too much about GR to separate their top competitive play from other games that might want to get involved in.

re: "All these tourney's are run by volunteers"
Exactly! No one has the right to demand that the volunteers that run these tournaments change anything. They can make suggestions, and even threaten to boycott, but ultimately the competition format for these events are the discretion to the people running the events. If someone is unhappy with the ultimate competition format or a particular league or tournament, I think that they should either just tolerate it, or move onto and possibly start their own tournament. With this fragmenting of players into different competitions, I think it is important to have the tournament only ranking system put into place to tie everything together.

I would be happy to work on maintaining the tournament ranking system when I can find some free time. Right now, my life is quite hectic, but I would like to work on this someday.

@league people
The league is a series of 7 player tournaments that get treated as tournaments. You're not arguing anything with this league/tournament crap.

If I was participating, I would love to see them non-Anon. It's a HUGE advantage being able to sift through the database and find out habits. And being able to track when players are online? Invaluable. But its an unfair advantage against those that don't know how to manipulate data or code.

Encouraging metagaming undermines the credibility of whatever it is you want out of the league. As far as I'm concerned, the current league is just a bunch of people playing a bunch of games and pretending like it counts for some measure of skill or talent.

All the bowling stuff makes me think you want that, great, but understand that if/when a separate cross-tournament ladder comes about, the league won't be considered part of it.

I'm fine with your changes, abgemacht. It's Babk and MM insisting it go anon that bother me. I think a limit of 14 in Premier and A and two groups of 14 in B would be good, then use N groups of 14 in C and D if we need it. I like the grouping reducing some of the heavy metagaming with games being staggered in their start so you won't be ablke to do cross game alliances as you won't know who is in that future game.

In fact I feel confident in saying that the only way a cross-tournament ranking system gets supported is if all the tournaments involved are anonymous.

@abge, I think the point that they are trying to make is that their distinction between league and tournament doesn't have as much to do with competition format, but rather player attitude and familiarity.

@Geofram - Not really caring... Sorry my friend. We normally get along, but this time we have to disagree. There is enough crap anon things going on. eave us this one non-anon and go play whatever other tournaments you want.

@Geo, that may be a sad truth. It would be nice to have non-anon tournaments as well considered. By the way, I am in the camp that anon results in purer game. Non-anon is also interesting in that it allows players to study history and habits, however it does increase the possibility for meta.

I believe I mentioned this already, but I'm tailoring the GFDT to be as pure as possible:

Anon
Random assignment of players and countries
Improved scoring system to reward solos and few-country draws
Seeding based on GR

With this tournament (starting in the Fall), I hope to attract the purest of players.

With such a tournament, I hope to allow the Leagues to stay non-anon.

@Draug, I fully agree that there should exist some options for top-level league/tournament competition with non-anon play.

@Draugnar, but "this isn't a tournament, its a league!" and it comes with all the unprofessionalism that a league carries.

I'm not proposing changes for the League. I just think that you guys want the League to actually mean something when its all finished and in its current state, it doesn't and won't.

"Hey guys I won this year's League!"
"Yeah well, I won a live game yesterday, same difference."

If you want a non-anon tournament you play 49 player round robin all at the same time and refuse to let people that aren't in a game view it.

@Draugnar
yeah I know it's not a league. the current leagues are just fine for their purpose.
I'm just bored of different leagues and cups and tournaments.
Why not just 1 cup per 6 months to determinate the webdip champion?

@ Geo

1) We technically can't do that.
2) That's not what we want. I *like* the League structure, I just don't like the metagamin aspect, which I strongly believe can be mitigated.