BB Top 16 Round 5

NiG

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
In a lovely 3 bedroom terrace just a stone's throw
Country
ll
Screen shot

An aerial screen shot would be my choice... if you turn bases off (can you do that in set up?) then the oppo won't see any forces... if you can't turn them off then they'll just see little squares and nothing more... :cheeky:
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
NiG said:
An aerial screen shot would be my choice... if you turn bases off (can you do that in set up?) then the oppo won't see any forces... if you can't turn them off then they'll just see little squares and nothing more... :cheeky:
I'm not sure what the point would be since both players will see the entire map as they are doing their "attacker" side setup.
 

GAZ NZ

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
137
Reaction score
1
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Palantir said:
Unfortunately that makes the scenario even more "exposed."

The only advantage the defender has is that the attacker sets up first not knowing the defenders strength is or positions are, and that he knows the strength of the attacker. The Attackers advantage is deciding where to place his main units & make his main thrust. he can then (after seeing the defenders side) alter his attack path if he so desires.

Not perfect by a long means but still "equal" and it gives some initial "mystery" to the game.
IN a 3 way game there is always one player and possibly two of the three thats sees things last depending on when turns are sent / recieved and this gives them the disadvantage of not seeing the full deployment.

Ie a 3 way battle for example - mirriored - hypothetical
TRIPPS vs ER
ER Vs KG CLOG
KG CLOG vs Tripps

Tripps sends a PBM after unit placment to ER.

ER see the defending and attacking setups as he havent sent his setup file off yet to KG Clog.
KG Clog sends his turn off to TRIPPS after this or before - which may or may not give TRIPPS an advantge of seeing both sides setups before he sends his turn to ER.

ER gets to setup both sides and see all forces deployed and gets an overall advantage.

Now thats what im talking about.

By doing it this way its more fair to all parties.

Due to this problem with tournaments 3- way - and the whole setup options ive experienced its becoming disconcerting playing CM tournaments.
Some players are geting advantages - ie the slow PBM senders :)

GAZ
 
Last edited:

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
The basic problem stems from playing both sides of the same battle.

The Purist and I had a long discussion on this topic last summer. Regardless of how good the design is, almost all FOW is lost. At least somebody is going to know where the other guy's SU zones are. Eventually everybody is going to know everything about the composition of the other side's forces--down to unit experience & fitness, ammo load outs, number of tungsten rounds, special weapons, etc. Unless they are made variable (which in some case can create balance problems), you will know the when and what of reinforcements that your opponent receives. Of course your opponent will know yours as well. I find this to be a very high price to pay.
 

GAZ NZ

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
137
Reaction score
1
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
KG_Jag said:
The basic problem stems from playing both sides of the same battle.

The Purist and I had a long discussion on this topic last summer. Regardless of how good the design is, almost all FOW is lost. At least somebody is going to know where the other guy's SU zones are. Eventually everybody is going to know everything about the composition of the other side's forces--down to unit experience & fitness, ammo load outs, number of tungsten rounds, special weapons, etc. Unless they are made variable (which in some case can create balance problems), you will know the when and what of reinforcements that your opponent receives. Of course your opponent will know yours as well. I find this to be a very high price to pay.
I know what you are saying KG Jag.
But it is also debated that setup / placement ie one of the most important stages of the game that can effect the battle.
Giving a person an advantage in this manner while 2 other players do not get it is unfair. Too stop this Its in my opinion the games not be mirrored. You play what random side you are allocated.
Just like in the Gunny Bunnys 5000 tourament.
I really liked that and it was quicker and less tedious to get through.
Tripps won that tournament by the way.
 

Marine Raider

Recruit
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Detroit
Country
llUnited States
I have never played in a ROW tourney, although I understand their scoring system. It seems like a great idea.
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
You can post that ROW system so we all can read about it.

One reason we went to the mirrored format is- so no one could "comment" that they played a side that could not or had little chance to win. Which is a big consideration in ladder play.
I have no problem running other systems- what ever works best & is wanted.
 

Marine Raider

Recruit
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Detroit
Country
llUnited States
Here is what I know about ROW--mind you--I have never actually played in ROW. Let's say we have a 12 person tourney:

1) People play a scenario from only 1 side. For example, I might be the Axis in an ME-type scenario. 6 games would be played by the 12 people in the tourney.

2) While you are physically playing against your opponent (the Allied player opposing you) in the game, your REAL opponent is the 5 other Axis players.

3) At the end of the game, I might score 81% and my Allied Opponent might score 19%. However, I am competing against all of the other AXIS players and I am rated against them. They might have scores of 98%, 88%, 83%, 79% and 50%.

4) The best 3 scores might advance to the next round. The same would hold true for the Allies. In this case, even though I crushed my opponent with a score of 81%, I would not advance to the next round because other Axis players won by larger margins. And NONE of the Allied players who advance actually won their games.

5) The next round would have another scenario, the sides would be mixed up and things would continue. The tourney winner is the one was beats that average score of his group by the most.

The advantages:

1) --unbalanced scenarios are a moot point. The scenario could be totally unfair (as above) and that is ok. The best score for the Axis in a scenario might only be 22%, but that could be enoough to win.

2) No one will be able to see a map or know anything about set up.

3) You don't have to play elimination rounds (what I showed above). Everyone can play 4 different games--at the end your variance from group average determines the winner.

The disadvantages:

1) People are out for blood. No ceasefires and no mercy.

2) If you happen to play weak opponents, you have the advantage. There are many things you can do to prevent this however.

3) You have to remind peple not to surrender because this give big advantages. People also have to finish games and you have to have alternate players too.
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
Ok, I like the basic idea. (But then I like the basic idea of POD's too):whist:

Going JUST with what MRaider said above about ROW: what does that stand for?
(there are probably ways around these so players please comment)

Marine Raider said:
--unbalanced scenarios are a moot point. The scenario could be totally unfair (as above) and that is ok.
You still have the problem of players getting an "unwinnable" side and thus taking an "automatic" loss in a game on the ladder: even if they advance to the next round. What if they get another unwinnable side in rd 2? Then they have 2 "auto" ladder losses. Most players want the ladder games, I suppose in such a tourney that such games might not count vs the ladder & are played as "non-rated" instead.

The first & easiest solution that comes to my mind is: An award of "ladder bonus points" could be awarded to the best Axis & best Allied player.

Marine Raider said:
If you happen to play weak opponents, you have the advantage. There are many things you can do to prevent this however.
And these ways are?

Marine Raider said:
You have to remind peple not to surrender because this give big advantages. People also have to finish games and you have to have alternate players too.
No problem with this.
 

Nemesis Lead

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
815
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
I will let MRaider respond for himself, but two things:

1) ROW stands for Rumblings of War. It is the name of a tourney. They are on ROW 5 or something. I have never played in them either, but I know guys who do and they absolutely love the system. The winner gets a crate of South African wine. Also--it is a requirement to write AARs and bonus points are awarded for good AARs. Here is a link to some of the AARs.

http://www.gregories.net/row/index.php

2) Palantir is correct. The loser in an unbalanced game would be punished on the ladder since he lost the game.

Just thinking out loud (and making stuff up)....if say the average tourney score for a scenario was a 67%-33% win for the Axis, you could say that in order to win as the Axis you have to score 68% or more or in order to win for the Allies you have to score 34% or more (67-33 is a draw). Game scores would be reported to the organizer and you would not know if you really won until all the scores were tabulated.

To balance the system, you would have to make sure that a similar level of skill was on either side of a scenario. So say we were playing with the top 10 guys on this ladder. If you wanted to reward players for having high rank, the pairups might be as follows:

Axis--players number 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10

Allies--players number 2,3,5,7, and 9

Individual matchups would be 1 vs 9, 2 vs 10, 4 vs 7, 3 vs 8.

If you wanted to get as even games as possible you might do individual match ups of 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, and 9 vs 10.

The tourney would also have to be large enough to account for outliers skewing the results (say some fool surrenders and wins 100 to 0).

In either case, this would correct for unbalanced scenarios. Of course the best way to correct for unbalanced scenarios is to play test them extensively so you know they are not unbalanced:). In reality, however, this is often hard to do.

BTW, this is not ROW, just me blathering. In ROW there is no ladder--just six to nine games with people playing on multiple sides. Wins and losses are irrelevent--variance to average scores is everything.

All of this might be too complicated, but it is good food for thought.
 

NiG

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Location
In a lovely 3 bedroom terrace just a stone's throw
Country
ll
Yep...

I kinda go with what you're saying there with the victory conditions (%) actually needed to win but it still wouldn't help he ladder for the losing side.

I suppose this could be balanced after the fact by awarding bonus points on the ladder equivalent to the percieved difficulty of achieveing those extra % points.

But all that being said, the ladder is just a means of rating the players and if you play enough tourney games then you will get your share of diffcult games and easy ones - wouldn't it balance out in the end?

The only gripe I currently have about the ladder points system is losing points when you draw (to a player lower on the ladder) but that's another thing altogether (isn't it?) :blab:
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
I guess the main point to think about is- do all tournaments need to be for ladder games?

Most CM games played here at SZO are mainly about going on the ladder.

Nemesis Lead said:
...if say the average tourney score for a scenario was a 67%-33% win for the Axis, you could say that in order to win as the Axis you have to score 68% or more or in order to win for the Allies you have to score 34% or more (67-33 is a draw). Game scores would be reported to the organizer and you would not know if you really won until all the scores were tabulated.
Assuming the games are going to be counted on the ladder:

That might work, giving both sides a chance for a victory.
Everyone would have to know up front of course that even though you might get a victory level in your match vs so & so you may actually lose the game vs him on the ladder. (if I'm following this right)

EX. Rd1 NiG plays Nemesis Lead & gets a 72% vs 28% "Maj victory" NiG sends the end match score in to the organizer (but does not report it on the ladder). After all Rd1 games are played it turns out that the average win was 75%-25%. So NL "wins" and the game will be reported as thus: NL 72% vs NiG 28% (still recorded as a Maj victory but for the other guy). The score has to be flipped so the ladder can record a victory for NL.
Nemesis Lead said:
To balance the system, you would have to make sure that a similar level of skill was on either side of a scenario.
That would work by matching all players against each other within a certain "range." 1-6 / 7-12 etc.
Nemesis Lead said:
The tourney would also have to be large enough to account for outliers skewing the results (say some fool surrenders and wins 100 to 0)..
The top & bottom scores could be thrown out to handle this.
 

Nemesis Lead

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
815
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
Following Palantir's line of thought.....I don't think all tourney's need to be ladder games. The whole reporting of games would confuse the heck out of people.

We could play for ladder points, for example. In a 3 game tourney, first place might get 100 points, second place 60 points, and third place 30 points (you have to be careful not to award too many points, or you will unbalance the ladder). The top 3 losers might also lose a corresponding number of points in order to keep the ladder "balanced."

Therein lies the downside of this approach. If you start awarding ladder points "willy-nilly" you will compromise the integrity of the entire ladder. If this were done, I would err on the side of caution and award fewer points instead of many.

The advantage still remains--using this approach means that people will not be able to complain about unbalanced scenarios.
 

ER_Chaser

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
1
Location
NYC
Country
llChina
An update for my situation with tourney games right now:
I have been able to set it up yet :p :( ... I have been miserably busy since 2006 ... But I will catch once I get a break from work. Sorry ...
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
Country
llAustralia
KG-Thorshammer and I have just finished our 2 round 5 games. Tough, tough fighting! Still in the balance till the last turns. Both of us had periods of things going right and things going terribly wrong! It seemed to me a lot longer than the 30 turns. In the end we had 1 draw and 1 minor victory for me. A hard game with some new lessons learned!
 
Top