Most played scenarios in 2005 - ROAR report.

Nikon53

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
13
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
da priest said:
Chuckle...if you make up the tourney rules, have a hand in selection of scenarios(picking only ones you've played many times), get to "seed" the players with your own system..and then participate in the "tourney"...the idea of a new and different scenario, that is balanced, can be REAL scary.....hell you might not even place higher than 4th in the tourney!!! :devil:
Surely there aren't any ASL tourneys in which the TD competes!?

Am I missing something?
 

ON TOP ASL

Play J94, J98, J110, J111
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
791
Reaction score
17
Location
Rättvik, Sweden
Country
llSweden
A TD that put up the effort and "work" to gather ASL'ers for a weekend to hold a tournament is free to do whatever in my opinion.
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Nikon53 said:
Surely there aren't any ASL tourneys in which the TD competes!?
I've both visited and held such tournaments, and I have never noticed that being a problem. Maybe in theory, but not in practice.
 

Nikon53

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
13
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Ronnblom said:
I've both visited and held such tournaments, and I have never noticed that being a problem. Maybe in theory, but not in practice.
Okay, maybe it's just me. Both Ola and Mattias see no problem.

I have hosted well over 2,000 players at tourneys over the years, and it never occured to me that it would be "right" to compete against any of them while I was the TD. Play them for fun, yes, but not compete.

The only time I recall ever playing (one game) was at a MichiCon in the 80's when Michael Klautky showed up hours late and had no one to play. I played him, beat him (ha-ha Michael!) and then dropped out. Since I didn't "need" to play I wanted to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

It appears others may not see any potential conflict of interest, but I do.
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Nikon53 said:
Okay, maybe it's just me. Both Ola and Mattias see no problem.
Count me in with Ola and Mattias, I see no problem whatsoever either.

Nikon53 said:
I have hosted well over 2,000 players at tourneys over the years, and it never occured to me that it would be "right" to compete against any of them while I was the TD. Play them for fun, yes, but not compete.
Mark, why wouldn't it be "right"?

There are no huge cash prizes or small countries up as reward for placing high. I know practically all the guys who participate in these events and as TD, I believe that I have the ability to be dispassionate and without bias whenever I have had to make decisions as the TD.

The way most of out tournaments function, the tournament rules take away about 99% of any "conflict of interest" situations. I seem many of these guys only once a year at tournaments and when I do, I can't wait to test my dice and game against theirs.

Nikon53 said:
The only time I recall ever playing (one game) was at a MichiCon in the 80's when Michael Klautky showed up hours late and had no one to play. I played him, beat him (ha-ha Michael!) and then dropped out. Since I didn't "need" to play I wanted to avoid any potential conflict of interest.
How would conflict of interest enter the picture?

Perhaps I am being naive when I believe that a TD can be both impartial in his duties as TD and compete at the same time, i dunno'. However, I do know that such a thing has never been a problem in the past.

Nikon53 said:
It appears others may not see any potential conflict of interest, but I do.
For the sake of discussion Mark, could you please elaborate?





=Jim=
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Pitman said:
I am rather mind-boggled at this response. It is a common practice for tournament organizers to provide balancing provisions to make certain scenarios suitable for tournament play. There is absolutely no reason for them not to do so.
If they publish that fact beforehand, sure, fine.

But to have the TD walk by two guys setting up to play and then snap up an MMG from one side bcause the scenario is perceived to be a dog, well that is not fine.

I am not saying that that is what happened in the aforementioned case BTW.

Pitman said:
Incidentally, the question is not whether the scenario is a "dog." There are countless scenarios that are not "dogs," but which may not be balanced enough to be suitable for tournament play.
Uh, that would in fact make the scenario a dog Mark ... hello!

Pitman said:
Making sure they are balanced means that the tournament organizers are not limited to those scenarios which are perfectly balanced.
Mark, your inexperience as a TD screams through here.

It is unlikely that a TD can create a scenario list with perfectly balanced scenarios without having the same scenarios appear time after time. IMHO, scenarios that dip to the 65-35 range are suitable for a tournament and without having to tinker with mandatory balance.

Pitman said:
As I recall, losing the MMG is the German balance in the scenario. Having played the scenario, I don't think it helps the German player enough. But at least it is a step in the right direction.
Maybe you should play a better game as the German player ... :rolleyes:

If losing the MMG is the published balance, fine, let the players decide. If invoking the balance is mandatory (losing the MMG in this case) make that information known before players decide if they want to play that scenario.

Pitman said:
That is a silly "observation" that perhaps does not deserve a response,

... wait for it ... but you will?

Pitman said:
but I will ...
On time and as expected ... :)

Pitman said:
... respond anyway. No scenario becomes a dog by virtue of the fact that a skilled player is playing it.
That is a fairly obvious observation.

Pitman said:
A scenario is a playing field, not a team. The goal is to create a level playing field so that one player's skill may be applied against another.
"The goal is to create a level playing field ... etc."?

So how is this level playing field to be created when Steve Pleva is paired against a much less skilled player (taking into account that some very good players are much less skilled that Mr. Pleva)?

It would be wrong to handicap Steve outside of any OB given play balance provisions. Do you force the players to play a dog scenario and then make Steve play the dogger side in order to create this level playing field?

I don't think so.

Having said that, if both players are in agreement, they can make whatever changes they would want to make to the OoB. Bottom line is, they have to both be in agreement.

Pitman said:
You are simply introducing a straw man by bring up the issue of trying to balance between potentially different skill levels.
Mark, put your straw man card away already! You wave that thing around with such vigour and regularity the poor bugger is wearing thin.

Pitman said:
That is all just ridiculous. Not being perfectly balanced is not equivalent to having "serious structural faults...which should have been caught during the playtest process."
You seem hung up on the "perfectly balanced scenario" rock. I don't believe I said that that was the goal.

A scenario with "serious structural faults" is very often a dog.

Pitman said:
And there is no reason--no reason whatsoever--that a scenario must be played as published.
That I agree with. What I don't agree with is having a third party, the TD in this case, come up to the match and intercede. If the TD's info is posted information fine, if not, he is KIBITZING!

Pitman said:
Many tournaments are predicated on this not being the case, including every tournament that has used the Australian balance system,
Information that is posted beforehand BTW.

Pitman said:
and every tournament that has a process to choose sides which involves giving one player or another the balance.
And why should published play balance not enter the equation? If there is a balance provision on the scenario card, it is there for a reason.

Pitman said:
That's in addition to all the tournaments, such as the World Boardgaming Championships, which include balancing provisions for certain scenarios that have come to be known over time to favor one side over another.
Louie Tokarz used to have scenarios in the ASLOiC that had play balance automatically in effect in some scenarios. I have no problem with that as long as that information is known beforehand.





=Jim=
 

Ronnblom

Swedish Terminator
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
142
Location
Linköping, Sweden
Country
llSweden
Mark, everybody see the potential conflict of interest. I think it's more about if they think the TD is able to handle it or not.
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Ronnblom said:
I've both visited and held such tournaments, and I have never noticed that being a problem. Maybe in theory, but not in practice.
I agree with you 100% Mattias.

It seems that some people see possible corruption since perhaps they envision what they themselves would do if so tempted.

Allowing oneself to purposely benefit from one's actions as TD in that tournament is unconscionable.

What would you do if you found a wallet with $400 in it and that same wallet has the person's ID inside as well?






=Jim=
 

Richard Weiley

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
626
Reaction score
400
Location
Sydney, Australia
Country
llAustralia
On To Florence the designer responds...

Hi

I was quite pleased (and surprised) to see that OTF made the most played list. As to balance I would of course like to see a more balanced record on ROAR.

Although I originally designed the scenario about five years ago I clearly recall that I wanted to design a scenario that would appeal to players (or at least the type of scenario that I would consider playing when I flick through my scenario folders) ie.

* playable in an evening
*minimum of really intricate SSRs
*a couple of interesting/rare units
*a few interesting elements (in this case mines/fortified building/hidden AFV).

So in that sense the numbers suggest the design has been a success however the scenario definitely could have benefited from some additional playtesting (for instance it was never used in a local tournament) prior to submission to MMP, who appear to published it virtually unchanged from the draft I submitted.

Some one asked about the historical basis of the scenario. The main sources were the relevant histories for the Infantry Battalion involved and the NZ Divisional cavalry. The title "On To Florence" comes from the chapter title in the battalion history in which the action is described. The German force is more of an approximation.

Richard
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,165
Reaction score
2,628
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
If they publish that fact beforehand, sure, fine.

But to have the TD walk by two guys setting up to play and then snap up an MMG from one side bcause the scenario is perceived to be a dog, well that is not fine.

I am not saying that that is what happened in the aforementioned case BTW.
I don't think it has to be "published" beforehand, but it should be established beforehand, and not during a tournament (unless it is a playtest mini or equivalent). So it would seem, despite your earlier loud protestations, we are actually in agreement.

Uh, that would in fact make the scenario a dog Mark ... hello!
There are more choices than "perfectly balanced" and "dog."


I wrote:
"The goal is to create a level playing field ... etc."?

So how is this level playing field to be created when Steve Pleva is paired against a much less skilled player (taking into account that some very good players are much less skilled that Mr. Pleva)?
Are you honestly saying that you cannot distinguish between the playing field and the players?
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Richard Weiley said:
So in that sense the numbers suggest the design has been a success however the scenario definitely could have benefited from some additional playtesting (for instance it was never used in a local tournament) prior to submission to MMP, who appear to published it virtually unchanged from the draft I submitted.
:scream: :scream: :scream:

Shades of CH!!!

Richard Weiley said:
The German force is more of an approximation.

Richard
Approximation?!

Richard, my friend ... the more, how shall I say, historically liberal among us appreciate "approximation".

However, certain parties do not.

For the record, I shall defend your right to "approximate"!

Afterall, it is the least I can do for a fellow member of the Commonwealth.

:)




=Jim=
 
Last edited:

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Pitman said:
Are you honestly saying that you cannot distinguish between the playing field and the players?
Uh, the players are the guys running about the field chasing the ball?

What does soccer (football for our European comrades) have to do with ASL?

Mark, here is what you wrote,

Pitman said:
A scenario is a playing field, not a team. The goal is to create a level playing field so that one player's skill may be applied against another. You are simply introducing a straw man by bring up the issue of trying to balance between potentially different skill levels.
If the playing field is the scenario, and the players are, well, the players, in order to have a level (fair?) field on which to have the match, concessions must be made to create this fair and level field. Since we can't make the good player purposely play worse and the lesser player purposely play better, one must look elsewhere for a fix if one is so desired.

Therefore, concessions must be made by way of altering the scenario being played. The greater the disparity in player skill, the greater the concession that must be made to create the level and fair field of play. Unless such action is taken, there will be no fair match and the superior player will crush the lesser player even if only the scenaro mandated play balance is used for the lesser player.

Personally, I don't see the point of creating a level field beyond the allowances given on the scenario card. If greater changes are required, then that scenario is some broke. If player "A" is so much better than player "B", then player "A" should not feel hard done by if he is playing the wrong side of a 70-30 scenario. His skill should be the balance to the imbalance of the scenario being played.

JMO.




=Jim=
 

Richard Weiley

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
626
Reaction score
400
Location
Sydney, Australia
Country
llAustralia
Jim

I was surprised to see it in the Journal as I had forgotten i had even sent the scenario to MMP.

As to "approximation" well how many scenario designers can vouch 100% for the accuracy of their OoBs.

Secondary sources can be wrong and primary sources can be inaccurate for any number of reasons and unfortunately there are not that many direct participants around anymore to interview.

And even in the event that you can find a reasonably detailed description of an action (for ASL purposes) the chances that it gives equal weight to both sides (or that there is a similar description of the opponents perspective) is limited. You can analyse unit diaries, strength returns and tables of organisation and equipment all you want but in most cases no one can say with absolute certainty what showed up in a particular corner of the battlefield at a particular time. So a bit of abstraction is warranted.

Just my humble opinion of course.

Richard
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,165
Reaction score
2,628
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
Uh, the players are the guys running about the field chasing the ball?

What does soccer (football for our European comrades) have to do with ASL?

Mark, here is what you wrote,



If the playing field is the scenario, and the players are, well, the players, in order to have a level (fair?) field on which to have the match, concessions must be made to create this fair and level field. Since we can't make the good player purposely play worse and the lesser player purposely play better, one must look elsewhere for a fix if one is so desired.

Therefore, concessions must be made by way of altering the scenario being played. The greater the disparity in player skill, the greater the concession that must be made to create the level and fair field of play. Unless such action is taken, there will be no fair match and the superior player will crush the lesser player even if only the scenaro mandated play balance is used for the lesser player.


=Jim=
I don't know if you even realize how goofy this sounds. Superior players are supposed to crush lesser players. That is the whole concept of a competition. You are suggesting that good soccer teams be forced to play with armadillos strapped to their backs when they play poorer soccer teams. You think that creates a "fair and level field."

Well, you have it wrong. One creates a fair playing field by creating a game (or scenario) in which both sides, if equally skilled, would have an equal chance to win. Then, the person who plays better actually will win. That is the notion of competition.
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Pitman said:
I don't know if you even realize how goofy this sounds. Superior players are supposed to crush lesser players. That is the whole concept of a competition. You are suggesting that good soccer teams be forced to play with armadillos strapped to their backs when they play poorer soccer teams. You think that creates a "fair and level field."
Depends on the armadillo. If they are ornery cusses, use fewer armadillos. If the good team is really good, get an armadillo that likes to bite.

Pitman said:
Well, you have it wrong. One creates a fair playing field by creating a game (or scenario) in which both sides, if equally skilled, would have an equal chance to win.
So, using your soccer example Mark, just how would you create a level playing field between an elite team and a B division team?

Who is and how do you decide the skill levels of the players? What measure do you use Mark? If there is great disparity in skill level, do we not worry about balance since the lesser guy is going to be crushed anyway?

Pitman said:
Then, the person who plays better actually will win.
Tell that to the dice.

Pitman said:
That is the notion of competition.
Competition is far more encompassing Mark. It includes matches where players may not be of equal skill will be playing each other.

Do you golf at all Mark?

I don't but they sometimes use a handicap system whereby a crappy player can have a fair chance against a better player, or something like that. It is a shame that ASL is not similar in that a handicap system can be implimented in a tournament. It would be interesting.

Remember, I'm all for the better player being allowed to crush the lesser player but in the OTF example, it the lesser player had the NZ side, would the MMG still go? How do we know who was and who was not the superior player in the scenario?

Jim's bottom line, it is up to the players to pick what scenario they play, if it is unbalanced, so be it. If they feel play balance is warranted or not, let them decide. If PB is declared mandatory by the TD, then post it before the event begins and make sure everyone knows this as being the situation for that scenario.




=Jim=
 

Glennbo

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
671
Location
Detroit, MI
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
If the playing field is the scenario, and the players are, well, the players, in order to have a level (fair?) field on which to have the match, concessions must be made to create this fair and level field. Since we can't make the good player purposely play worse and the lesser player purposely play better, one must look elsewhere for a fix if one is so desired.

Therefore, concessions must be made by way of altering the scenario being played. The greater the disparity in player skill, the greater the concession that must be made to create the level and fair field of play. Unless such action is taken, there will be no fair match and the superior player will crush the lesser player even if only the scenaro mandated play balance is used for the lesser player.
The "fair and level field" you describe would be achieved if the Tourement Director came over and took away pieces from the better player. :crosseye:
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Glennbo said:
The "fair and level field" you describe would be achieved if the Tourement Director came over and took away pieces from the better player. :crosseye:
His action, which I still disagree with BTW, is the result of a decision he made regarding who is the better player. My question remains, how did he arrive at that decision?

Jojo's Psychic Hotline?

I thought she kept to the area of advising "Gee Dubya'".

:whist:




=Jim=
 

MrP

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
4,866
Reaction score
418
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Country
llNew Zealand
Soccer. Armadillos. Where has this discussion gone? I'm lost, yet strangely entertained.......

I haven't played On To Florence but it's on the To Play list.

Cheers

Ian
 
Top