Wordfeud League of Honour

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time.

Div 2 has approx 21 players in it. If you you took Group 1 and made it(Div Two) and Group Two (Div 3) Promotion relegation from these divisions would help in stablizing the Division 1 in terms of keeping it at 14 players. More players would have th opportunity to get promted to Divison 1 on a regular basis. Having one promoted from from each group is hard. You have to finish first to have any chance to get into division 1 thats why division two is so hard to get out of. To stay in division one all you have to try and do is avpoid relegation and that may be easier than trying to finsih first in a group like division two. Frostman has some goood points. This is another scenario that might help in a better number of players revolving through into division 1.

With regards to the idea of a Top 10 and relegating the bottom 3 seeing given that 13 looks like the new natural number of players in div 1 (although 4 was suggested when the largest group size had been 14). I´m open to the idea to try and create a little more turnover in division 1 to get some new players involved at the highest level.

The only thing is that I can only see it working through manual intervention each season. This will involve both relegating an extra player each season from div 1 as well as finding the best second place getter from the division 2 groups. Not onerous in itself. However, given one of the groups in division 2 currently has 11 players and the other has 10, its not exactly a level playing field to identify the rightful 3rd player to get promoted. Is the player who finished second with an 8-2 record necessarily better than the player in the other group who finished second 7-2 simply because they had the opportunity to play one extra game? I will have to let that one stew in the pot for a bit before potentially implementing that. I would never approach Eskil for such a change as in Lobots programming as seemingly minor changes like that are akin to a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causing a tsunami on the other side of the world.

All this is a longwinded way of saying that I will leave division 1 as is for now. That seems to be the consensus (the more the merrier was expressed on several occasions as well as the current number is a good size). I will continue to monitor the group size so that it never exceeds 14 as an absolute maximum. Thank you all for your inputs and ideas. Please feel free to post here, or in div 1 commentary next season if you wish to express other ideas or opinions about the group size or number of promotions/relegations, or indeed on any WLoH matter.

Personally I prefer about 12 players, keeps things interesting and alive at both ends of the tavle and the completion rate high.

Personally, I think it is all about the individual´s commitment to complete games; if you sign up, then the responsibility rests squarely on your shoulders to play your games and complete them within 14 days.

When people come up with the line, "people have lives and are busy", I do not buy that argument and it makes those other people who play in a timely manner seem like layabouts, who have nothing to do. If you have signed up to play, then it is a premeditated decision and that means you have made WLOH part of your "life" and if you know you do not have time for that, then kindly do not sign up. It is imperative to note that there are indeed times when health, travel or family emergencies may occur that you did not legislate for; in such instances, kindly inform your group and the officials (who, by the way are doing a great job) will make decisions that will be fair to all.

There are players I would call "chronic delayers"...in the times I have played them in the past several years, they just never play in a timely fashion.

Two weeks is more than adequate for any dedicated participant to complete 14, or even 20 games, even when you factor in differences in time zones (I can attest to this because I have always completed my games, even in the first 7 days from different time zones). The number of players is definitely not the problem.

The changes in the number of players to be relegated/promoted may indeed improve competition; an example is sometimes when I see that I can not mathematically win a group or be relegated, I play my remaining games on "autopilot" without racking my brain - Frostman42´s proposal regarding promotion/relegation sounds good.

That is my humble contribution to the discourse.

Thank you.

However, it is only a game and most members are great, so I try to remain calm and if the tiles are poor, so what, I will hope to have better luck next time.

Personally, I think it is all about the individual´s commitment to complete games; if you sign up, then the responsibility rests squarely on your shoulders to play your games and complete them within 14 days.

When people come up with the line, "people have lives and are busy", I do not buy that argument and it makes those other people who play in a timely manner seem like layabouts, who have nothing to do. If you have signed up to play, then it is a premeditated decision and that means you have made WLOH part of your "life" and if you know you do not have time for that, then kindly do not sign up. It is imperative to note that there are indeed times when health, travel or family emergencies may occur that you did not legislate for; in such instances, kindly inform your group and the officials (who, by the way are doing a great job) will make decisions that will be fair to all.

There are players I would call "chronic delayers"...in the times I have played them in the past several years, they just never play in a timely fashion.

Two weeks is more than adequate for any dedicated participant to complete 14, or even 20 games, even when you factor in differences in time zones (I can attest to this because I have always completed my games, even in the first 7 days from different time zones). The number of players is definitely not the problem.

The changes in the number of players to be relegated/promoted may indeed improve competition; an example is sometimes when I see that I can not mathematically win a group or be relegated, I play my remaining games on "autopilot" without racking my brain - Frostman42´s proposal regarding promotion/relegation sounds good.

That is my humble contribution to the discourse.

Thank you.

Personally, I think it is all about the individual´s commitment to complete games; if you sign up, then the responsibility rests squarely on your shoulders to play your games and complete them within 14 days.

When people come up with the line, "people have lives and are busy", I do not buy that argument and it makes those other people who play in a timely manner seem like layabouts, who have nothing to do. If you have signed up to play, then it is a premeditated decision and that means you have made WLOH part of your "life" and if you know you do not have time for that, then kindly do not sign up. It is imperative to note that there are indeed times when health, travel or family emergencies may occur that you did not legislate for; in such instances, kindly inform your group and the officials (who, by the way are doing a great job) will make decisions that will be fair to all.

There are players I would call "chronic delayers"...in the times I have played them in the past several years, they just never play in a timely fashion.

Two weeks is more than adequate for any dedicated participant to complete 14, or even 20 games, even when you factor in differences in time zones (I can attest to this because I have always completed my games, even in the first 7 days from different time zones). The number of players is definitely not the problem.

The changes in the number of players to be relegated/promoted may indeed improve competition; an example is sometimes when I see that I can not mathematically win a group or be relegated, I play my remaining games on "autopilot" without racking my brain - Frostman42´s proposal regarding promotion/relegation sounds good.

That is my humble contribution to the discourse.

Thank you.

However, it is only a game and most members are great, so I try to remain calm and if the tiles are poor, so what, I will hope to have better luck next time.

If you think that you are being disadvantaged by tactical slow play I would advise that you take a screenshot showing the delays between moves as well as a screenshot of the board and send it to the Judge

This is why I think it´s important that we all play with a reasonable commitment level since we´re all in it together.

This is not a rant, just an observation!

However, 1Hockey made an interesting point about division 2 being the hardest and leads me onto the one change I would love to see, which would be to relegate the bottom 4 from division 1 and promote the top 2 from each division 2 groups every season. Controversial, I know, but here´s my reasoning:

1. Whilst making it (slightly) easier for division 2 players to get promoted, it would keep division 1 players on their toes trying to avoid relegation. There´s nothing like the threat of relegation to hone the grey matter.

2. With a total of 14 players in division 1, you would maintain that "top 10 player" prestige for players who retain their division 1 status.

3. There is negligible difference in player ability between the two divisions, with every player in both divisions, more than capable of winning a division 1 season.

4. Whilst I have no qualms with playing (losing to) the likes of Gman806, 1Hockey, karlcranky, binotemi, YNWAII0, etc each season, the additional fluidity between the top two divisions would increase the opportunity to play new opponents. Wordfeud (variety) is the spice of life.

Well, there you go, I´ve said my bit. Keep up the great work and hope to see you in division 1 again soon...

Lobot is meant to do some routine at times to relegate long time sit outs but I´m not sure that functionality has ever been implemented. Given the fun and games as a result of the last upgrades and changes made, I´m not sure it would be as flawless a process as one would hope if it was run.

One of the biggest problems is some players take way too long to play and this drawn out the games itself. Yes, we all have different lifestyles and circumstances but if you can´t commit just sit out the tournament until you can play. That being said, I´d your decides to do so, the judges should arrange that you go one division down to increase competitiveness. The more games played the greater possibility to be promoted or become victorious.

More games the better!

Regarding your concerns of division 1 growing out of control, you better check your maths. 2 players get promoted from division 2, and 2 from division 1 get relegated so the pool of division 1 players should remain constant. The only thing causing the size fluctuations, as you point out, is people skipping seasons and then rejoining.

As for new players joining the league reaching division 1, the task is both daunting and yet straight forward. Win your current group and move up a division. That´s been the same since I joined 4 years ago. The only difference was there was 6 divisions back then, now it´s 8. If Nigel Richards started playing WLoH, he´d reach division 1 in 8 seasons. Hardly unimaginable, but certainly difficult.

If the consensus comes back for a smaller division 1 field, then any "cull" would be gradual by relegating a third player each season until the desired number was reached.

Those are my initial thoughts on this, please let me know your thoughts.

BRANOR, FJRJS and DUKEDUBARRY is among these few heartwarm samaritans who sacrifice some of their own money, earned through suffering and pain, to pay for the fun for all of us.

The two last players will be relegated. With this many brilliant players it is hard to tell you who wins, but I guess monday1 wins this group.

BRANOR, FJRJS and DUKEDUBARRY are not only great players, but beautiful individuals who supports WLoH and helps a silly old bot like me stay alive.

The two last players will be relegated. With this many fabulous players it is hard to tell you who wins, but I guess monday1 wins this group.