APCR (ASL Player Comparative Ratings)

[jrv]

Like ecz said .. this is negligible. Although I can't pull out a magic number like "less than 0.3%" .. he took the time to do the numbers and and sieve thru all the scenarios that might be questionable! I simply can't beat that kind of dedication.

It is not negligible. Any system will have to decide what to do about this scenario and others like it. You can throw out results of Directive Number Three. You can choose some way to describe sides other than "attacker" and "defender." You can define "attacker" and "defender" in a way that isn't based on who moves first.. It don't matter to me, but you can neglect it only right up to the point where someone submits a playing of "Directive Number Three" and says the attacker won. ROAR chose nationalities in part because there was often no way to apply the terms "attacker" and "defender" so that everyone would agree on which side was which.

For a player rating system, it's not clear to me that you even need to submit a side (or even a scenario). You really should be able to limit the information needed to: Player X, Player Y, date, winner: {Player X or Player Y}. If you really, really want to go minimal, have the convention that the winner is listed first: Player who won, Player who lost, date.

JR

 

[hongkongwargamer]

It is not negligible. Any system will have to decide what to do about this scenario and others like it. You can throw out results of Directive Number Three. You can choose some way to describe sides other than "attacker" and "defender." You can define "attacker" and "defender" in a way that isn't based on who moves first.. It don't matter to me, but you can neglect it only right up to the point where someone submits a playing of "Directive Number Three" and says the attacker won. ROAR chose nationalities in part because there was often no way to apply the terms "attacker" and "defender" so that everyone would agree on which side was which.

JR

Excellent!! Nor do I think the "indiscernible" good guy vs bad guy cases are "negligible" as ecz said. MANY THANKS!

 

[ecz]

You’re incorrect, there always is a player one and a player two. Player one is always the first firer/mover so player one is always the attacker.

Been that way since ‘85

incidentally happens that in the scenario I named as example, BFP 73 Preliminary Move, player one Russian is the defender that places first, while Player 2, German, is the "attacker" that is the first mover that "attacks" trying to escape existing from the north edge . May be the number of "exceptions" at this 1985 rule is not so negligible

 

[hongkongwargamer]

incidentally happens that in the scenario I named as example, BFP 73 Preliminary Move, player one Russian, is the defender that places first, while Player 2, German, is the "attacker" that is the first mover that "attacks" trying to escape existing from the north edge . May be the number of "exceptions" at this 1985 rule is not so negligible

Are we at 0.3% yet?

 

[ecz]

Are we at 0.3% yet?

LOL
it seems that Chas Smith and Randy Yeates do not know this fundamental rule
also in the following scenarios BFP 74 and 75 the Russian defender is mistakenly set as side 1 while the Attacking German is the side 2

 

[hongkongwargamer]

LOL
it seems that Chas Smith and Randy Yeates do not know this fundamental rule
also in the following scenarios BFP 74 and 75 the Russian defender is mistakenly set as side 1 while the Attacking German is the side 2

Well.. I wouldn't call them out that like that. They are good people.

Plus I don't think they are TD's and are therefore humans, not gods.

 

[ecz]

Well.. I wouldn't call them out that like that. They are good people.

Plus I don't think they are TD's and are therefore humans, not gods.

I would say that it's exactly the opposite, the first player is the "defender" and the second player is "first mover/firer", barring exceptions.
But as says jrv it is not always simple/possible to decide who is the attacker even after playing the scenario.

Once again I have said what I think, then who runs the project decide

 

[jrv]

Are we at 0.3% yet?

What are you planning to do with these < 0.3%? Discard them? If that's the policy, then ok. Some victories are more equal than others. Just say so. No need to be coy.

JR

 

[hongkongwargamer]

What are you planning to do with these < 0.3%? Discard them? If that's the policy, then ok. Some victories are more equal than others. Just say so. No need to be coy.

JR

I hope not! (Read the thread)

 

[Michael R]

For a player rating system, it's not clear to me that you even need to submit a side (or even a scenario). You really should be able to limit the information needed to: Player X, Player Y, date, winner: {Player X or Player Y}. If you really, really want to go minimal, have the convention that the winner is listed first: Player who won, Player who lost, date.

This is my thought as well.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Lateral thought - having players input side / scenario data means APCR can potentially provide "ROAR functionality" and save folks from doing double entries.

or .. that means APCR can be a "add on" to ROAR

Perhaps.

 

[jrv]

Lateral thought - having players input side / scenario data means APCR can potentially provide "ROAR functionality" and save folks from doing double entries.

or .. that means APCR can be a "add on" to ROAR

Perhaps.

So far it doesn't have enough information for ROAR, given that it neither collects balance information nor recommend rating. If my recommendation is followed and all that is collected is winning player, losing player, date (date is necessary I think because the order matters), then you are missing lots of information that goes into ROAR.

JR

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

For the .3% order on the card works and if required an entry can be made in the comment field that the attacker was actually the other side on this occasion. The comment field can capture many other things as a player or td sees fit. The roar scenario rating field is oft just the entering players opinion. JR what % of roar games have a scenario rating? If it is > 25% I will implement!

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Collecting balance info is way harder need
to know which kind of balance used and level and side (Coventional , ABS, CBS, PBS), I don't think it adds enough value to be useful, maybe we should track if iift or iift with ctc is used ;-)

 

[Mister T]

Let's not burden too much those who are doing the handover job.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Quick update, as of tomorrow every valid scenario code ever entered into, and some others that aren't valid but I could guess will be supported in APCR with code, name, reference info of sides (up to two for each of of attacker and defender) up to 2 designers, and a publication (associated with a publisher), the chronology of war and the asl scenario archive have been invaluable in this..
I have 2500 in and 325 to go.
Some publishers are better than others with scenario codes :-(

All on fully normalized design so apart from code and name, everything else is an integer key to another table (person, nationality, publication)

 

[Will Fleming]

When I tried to make a system, I choose the "Attacker" to be the side that had to do something to win. If neither side did anything and the VC were enforced, the side that won would thus be the "Defender".

For "Directive Number Three", that would make the Russians the attacker.

VICTORY CONDITIONS: The Russians win immediately upon amassing 65 Exit/Casualty Victory Points. The Russians may only exit units off the north edge of the map. Prisoners do no, count double for VP purposes.

 

[dlazov]

I would say that it's exactly the opposite, the first player is the "defender" and the second player is "first mover/firer", barring exceptions.
But as says jrv it is not always simple/possible to decide who is the attacker even after playing the scenario.

Once again I have said what I think, then who runs the project decide

I guess the confusion is how to proceed with something that is both logical and coincides with the ASL scenario card.

Officially (AH and then MMP) have used the following on the cards. Note that this data is for the first 230 scenarios (NOTE: Also only 29 out 230 different from the 'default set up first/move first format):

Scenarios: 1-5, 7-25, 27-31, 34, 36, 38-44, 46-55, 57-62, 64-82, 84-90, 92-103, 105-110, 112-115, 118-123, 125-178, 180-184, 186-188, 190, 192-199, 201-221, 223-227, 229 use:
Nationality One Sets Up First
Nationality Two Moves First
* In theses cases (the most common) Nationality Two is the First Player

Scenarios: 6 and 91 use:
Nationality One (the other Nationality is not listed) Move First
* In these case the Nationality One is the First Player

Scenarios: 26 and 32 use:
Nationality One Simultaneous Setup
Nationality Two Moves First
* In these cases the Nationality Two is the First Player

Scenarios: 33, 35, 37, 56, and 230 use:
Simultaneous Setup (no Nationality described)
Nationality Two Moves First
* In these cases the Nationality Two is the First Player

Scenarios 82, 83, and 191 use:
Simultaneous Setup (no Nationality described)
Nationality One Moves First
* In this cases the Nationality One is the First Player

Scenarios 45, 63, 104, 111, 116-117, 124, 179, 185, 189, 200, 222, and 228 use:
Nationality One Sets Up and Moves First
Nationality Two (says Nationality Two)
* In these cases the Nationality One is the First Player

Essentially the side that Moves First is generally considered the "attacker" or Player One; even though both sides generally attack and defend in a scenario (what makes ASL unique).

 

[Cult.44]

When I tried to make a system, I choose the "Attacker" to be the side that had to do something to win. If neither side did anything and the VC were enforced, the side that won would thus be the "Defender".

For "Directive Number Three", that would make the Russians the attacker.

VICTORY CONDITIONS: The Russians win immediately upon amassing 65 Exit/Casualty Victory Points. The Russians may only exit units off the north edge of the map. Prisoners do no, count double for VP purposes.

This is how I would determine it. If nothing happens and I win as a result, I'm the defender.

Question: In AREA or GLICKO, are newer games given greater weight over older ones?

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

I guess the confusion is how to proceed with something that is both logical and coincides with the ASL scenario card.

Officially (AH and then MMP) have used the following on the cards. Note that this data is for the first 230 scenarios (NOTE: Also only 29 out 230 different from the 'default set up first/move first format):

Scenarios: 1-5, 7-25, 27-31, 34, 36, 38-44, 46-55, 57-62, 64-82, 84-90, 92-103, 105-110, 112-115, 118-123, 125-178, 180-184, 186-188, 190, 192-199, 201-221, 223-227, 229 use:
Nationality One Sets Up First
Nationality Two Moves First
* In theses cases (the most common) Nationality Two is the First Player

Scenarios: 6 and 91 use:
Nationality One (the other Nationality is not listed) Move First
* In these case the Nationality One is the First Player

Scenarios: 26 and 32 use:
Nationality One Simultaneous Setup
Nationality Two Moves First
* In these cases the Nationality Two is the First Player

Scenarios: 33, 35, 37, 56, and 230 use:
Simultaneous Setup (no Nationality described)
Nationality Two Moves First
* In these cases the Nationality Two is the First Player

Scenarios 82, 83, and 191 use:
Simultaneous Setup (no Nationality described)
Nationality One Moves First
* In this cases the Nationality One is the First Player

Scenarios 45, 63, 104, 111, 116-117, 124, 179, 185, 189, 200, 222, and 228 use:
Nationality One Sets Up and Moves First
Nationality Two (says Nationality Two)
* In these cases the Nationality One is the First Player

Essentially the side that Moves First is generally considered the "attacker" or Player One; even though both sides generally attack and defend in a scenario (what makes ASL unique).

At the moment the chronology of war + asl scenario archive guide my choices