Red Alert Global League: Season 13 - Feedback

Announcements and discussion about community-run events.
Post Reply
TTTPPP
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:25 pm

Red Alert Global League: Season 13 - Feedback

Post by TTTPPP »

Now that the group stage is over we're looking for ideas on how to improve the competition for future seasons. If you have ideas then please feel free to share them below!

TTTPPP
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:25 pm

Re: Red Alert Global League: Season 13 - Feedback

Post by TTTPPP »

Summary of a discussion about delays from the Competitive #feedback channel:
Kaution wrote: To reduce the leniency of delays I thought it would be a good idea to limit how long a match can actually be delayed. For instance, if player A delays his match, he is forced to finish it the week after otherwise it results in a strike unless player B delays it that week after. Resulting in only a maximum of 2 weeks of delay for matches. This season was a good example of how delays need some adjusting. Some matches of week 1 weren't played till week 7 or something, and tbf I don't see a reason to having to delay a match for weeks.
dang_shot wrote: what if player b does not delay it the second week but they are unable to find time for the game, or is he forced to? also i agree that games should not need to be delayed for too long but i think there are some scenarios where it makes sense like the australians might be difficult to schedule games with as you are limited to the weekends but lets say anjew has plans one of the days and the other one has the other day or just that someone is out for a weekend, you quickly get pressured quite a bit to find time for that game then i think, maybe it's good i'm not sure, i do think not letting delays last forever is a good idea though
.won wrote: it might be better to get rid of strikes and just start giving loses
Kaution wrote: If player B cant find time to play then a delay on his behalf is in order, I know we all have lives and stuff to do but if you sign up for ragl it shouldn't be too hard to find times to play for a few hours. I find it really hard to believe in an entire week both players cant find 2 hours to play with each other, granted it's a little harder to achieve with people from different regions like anjew or hans, but imo a little flexibility wouldn't look bad
dang_shot wrote: yes i agree that flexibility is good and maybe going forward you just should not sign up if you can't be a little flexible, some people have a pretty strict schedule like despro this season and i know he still tried to be flexible but when he has to play someone else with a strict schedule i think it can become a mess, so maybe players do need to take a little more responsibility themselves
i like men wrote: Lack of flexibility used to be a big issue. There were (are?) some players who were very stubborn about it having to fit into their schedule and not only that as I mentioned earlier, they could even be online and actively playing but if they did not feel in the mood or feel that they were in good enough form they would refuse to play you at that point as well. I am unsure as to whether this is still the case or not, but that was really frustrating
mo wrote: It just needs coordination at a good level across the board. Deciding to play games early knowing your schedule will be busy work wise in the later weeks etc. Minions without fail at least for the past 4 seasons have been super with just arranging everything. Why's that not seeing similar uptake in masters?
Are people trying to play the psychology game around who plays first and who sees who's tactics?
Duke Bones wrote: For me at least it was time zones. I’m free in the afternoon which is night over in Europe and a few times I got up at 4 to play games or played at midnight
Unano wrote: Yea although as it is we all delay for each other as there isn't much penalty, and I don't want to cripple my co-players. As soon as you start being strict on delays, you'll increase the admin work as organisers for settling disputes, and could increase tension between players. Also what happens if a player is available 3 days and the other 3 days with no crossover?
The only rigidly fair way would pos be to have a set date and time each week which players should be available to play ragl games on. But then thats maybe even worse
.won wrote: The issue is, and has been for years is this is a very small@hobby league and it’s global. There’s no way around it. So you are either strict and a bunch of people drop or you try and be a bit more open and get games delayed etc

TTTPPP
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:25 pm

Re: Red Alert Global League: Season 13 - Feedback

Post by TTTPPP »

A related topic is the season finisher's prize. Currently getting a single strike eliminates someone from this prize pool, which amplifies the tension over a getting a single strike. Instead then I suggest next season each player gets three entries into the season finishers prize draw, and this is reduced for each strike they receive. Consequently a player who receives two strikes still has a chance of receiving a season finisher prize, although it would be greatly reduced. (Of course it's quite possible that there won't be a large enough prize pool for a season finisher's prize, but at least this will reduce the friction over awarding strikes).

TTTPPP
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:25 pm

Re: Red Alert Global League: Season 13 - Feedback

Post by TTTPPP »

For next season I also plan to change the RAGL ladder to run from Friday to Thursday so that the ratings coincide with registrations closing. This season Mint moved up 32 places between the final ratings and registrations closing, which would have put him into Masters. Registrations close on a Thursday and we don't need the ladder ratings until we draw up the divisions, which happens on the Friday.

Blackened
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Red Alert Global League: Season 13 - Feedback

Post by Blackened »

I think delays are gonna be the theme of post season discussion but before I get into that I wanted to talk about maybe creating a permanent recruits division. Maybe opt in or maybe have league officials place as necessary. I think it's a disservice to force newer players/lesser skilled players to play games against people way out of the league. All it does it hurt player retention as why should you play when you're going to get beat constantly.

In part of having recruits stick around I also suggested breaking away from the ragl tradition of 2 games per opponent. If only 5-6 players fit the recruit bill, then they'd still play a total of 22-24 games, just against the same opponent multiple times. This way they still get the same number of games but hopefully more closer games.

Now onto delays. .won
.won wrote: The issue is, and has been for years is this is a very small@hobby league and it’s global. There’s no way around it. So you are either strict and a bunch of people drop or you try and be a bit more open and get games delayed etc

is correct. Either officials are strict or they are lax. The more strict you are the more likely you're going to either disqual players or deter away players from signing up. IIRC Dang hadn't played in ragl in part due to not likely the long season format. It could be possible that being more strict also attracts players because they know the games will get done in a timely manner, but I see that as unlikely.

The more lax you are the bigger the crowd we can get but the extreme is pretty much what happened this season. My first season game was like 10/18. My last regular season games was like 11/15. In about a month I played what was supposed to be like an 2 month season. I then had to wait another month(through unfortunate delays that I too was a part of) to play in the finals which is entirely not ideal.

If we wanted to look into the delay system there are options:
we could limit delays to 1-2 weeks before they expire rather than the delayed forever. This would force players to play or get striked.
Originally, delays had to be reapplied every week. This at the minimum forced players to keep in contact which could be marginally helpful.
We could also rework the delay system so that you only get 1 or 2 delays to start with and you don't get them back once used. Then for every 2 matchups played you get an additional delay. This would also force players to play. It rewards active players who actually needs a delay. If you coupled it with time limits of delays it would really force people to play.

I don't think any of the delays were malicious this season, but they really sucked the life out of one of the better seasons we could have had.

Post Reply