Most played scenarios in 2005 - ROAR report.

[Pitman]

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?

How would you create a level playing field? Jim, you would LITERALLY CREATE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. That's it.

Again, you don't seem to understand that in competitions, the best person is supposed to win. That elite team should friggin' womp on the B division team. What sort of limp-wristed "everybody's a winner" New Ager are you, anyway?

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.

Handicaps are used when people of different skill levels want to have fun playing each other. They are not used in serious tournaments, where the whole point of it is that the crappy player should lose to the better player.

 

[ross]

OTF playtested?

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.

Appearances can be deceiving. MMP made this scenario available to the playtest group before it was published. Lack of time and real life prevented me from personally playtesting this scenario, but I do seem to recall that the playtest coordinator gave us status updates for each playtest scenario. If I remember when I get home, I'll see if I still have the playtest version of OTF and then I'll compare it with the published version to see if any changes were made.

This scenario is on my playlist however. The Staghounds alone make it interesting.

 

[Whizbang1963]

On to Florence was a fun scenario...came right down to the wire...a nail biter the whole time...

 

[MajorDomo]

Played this scenario twice, both times the British had their way easily, so I would at least use the balance. Maybe even add in a German friendly TD.
Rich

 

[Jim McLeod]

How would you create a level playing field? Jim, you would LITERALLY CREATE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. That's it.

Short of having a Bobcat level the grade, one works within existing boundaries. If you have a scenario playlist, pick half decent scenarios. They do not all have to be 50-50 but they should not be 30-70 and worse either, but that fact should be obvious.

After choosing a decent field of scenarios, it is up to the players to decide if the printed play balance should enter the equation. The players, not the TD (unless there is notice made that PB is automatically given one side, or both in certain rare cases, before play begins).

Again, you don't seem to understand that in competitions, the best person is supposed to win.

"the best person is supposed to win."?

Do you mean, the better player before the game, at the moment or what? Good players lose to lesser players all the time. You may want to mention "luckiest" as well. That often plays a hand in getting the lesser guy past the better guy.

That elite team should friggin' womp on the B division team.

Generally speaking, that is the expected result but upsets happen on a consisten basis.

What sort of limp-wristed "everybody's a winner" New Ager are you, anyway?

Uh, Mark, this is me, Jim McLeod, you are talking to here. Since when have I ever espoused the "everbody's a winner" philosophy?

I say, hail the victor and better luck next time First Loser and all your loser companions in the remainder of the field.

Handicaps are used when people of different skill levels want to have fun playing each other.

It was my belief that ASL tournaments are supposed to be fun.

They are not used in serious tournaments, ...

"serious tournaments"? Care to expand on that?

... where the whole point of it is that the crappy player should lose to the better player.

Well, it the good player should spank the lesser player, why even go through the exercise of playing the scenario? Just hand the lesser player an automatic loss, since he is expected to lose anyway, and then move onto the next round. You'll sure save time.

However, it doesn't sound like much fun for one of those players does it?

BTW Mark, you have not answered my question of how did the TD come to decide who was the better player when the TD decided that one guy should lose the MMG in OTF?

What measure did the TD use to come to his conclusion?





=Jim=

 

[wrongway149]

On to Florence was a fun scenario...came right down to the wire...a nail biter the whole time...

I lost to a rank stankin' newbie! Yes, I was the Germans. Used my 9-1 Lt. Shelling leader counter- --He took a head shot on his first MC. In spite of that (or maybe because of it...) the 548 he was stacked with did a HoB and became fanatic on the LLMC and kicked some butt, as I recall.

My ego hurt worse because of that than due to the loss of the game.

Pete Shelling

 

[Gunner Scott]

Pete, you might be a good scenario designer but honestly, you really do suck at playing ASL.

See ya at the Open buddy!

Scott

I lost to a rank stankin' newbie! Yes, I was the Germans. Used my 9-1 Lt. Shelling leader counter- --He took a head shot on his first MC. In spite of that (or maybe because of it...) the 548 he was stacked with did a HoB and became fanatic on the LLMC and kicked some butt, as I recall.

My ego hurt worse because of that than due to the loss of the game.

Pete Shelling

 

[rcornwell]

Presumaby the TD used his experience and judgement that removing an MMG would move the balance closer to 50/50 and allow an interesting, but in his view unbalanced scenario to be used in this tournament. Haven't played the scenario so have no idea whether this is required or will fix it, but if the TD is a decent player I'd be inclined to trust his judgement.

This after all, is what has been done with the republished British scenarios.

I personally have no problem with this. There are lots of interesting scenarios that are a bit off in balance that can be fixed fairly easily with some small tweaks without compromising the design. Otherwise tournaments will be stuck with a pretty small set of overused scenarios.

BTW Mark, you have not answered my question of how did the TD come to decide who was the better player when the TD decided that one guy should lose the MMG in OTF?

What measure did the TD use to come to his conclusion?



=Jim=[/QUOTE]

 

[Glennbo]

It's really too bad that On Top ASL's scenarios couldn't be discussed here, but they would have if the thread had been titled, "On to Florence is great fun!". Speaking of which, in the context of the ASLOK mini-tournament where I won as the British, it's probable that removal of the MMG from the British OB is not enough of a penalty to restore perfect balance. Because I'm not a consistantly good player. And the player I beat had won the previous day's mini, as well as the following days mini. In other words I (a mediocre player) beat a very good player, even with the balance in my opponent's favor. There were no outrageous dice rolls as I recall, and my opponent played a smart game as near as I could tell. He certainly didn't do anything dumb. And I played a pretty unimaginative, plodding offense. Therefore, at the expense of my own glory, it must be concluded, especially considering some earlier posts, that the scenario is indeed very pro-British. This means that one of the most popular scenarios of the year was a dog. So we're all idiots! :nuts:

 

[ON TOP ASL]

It's really too bad that On Top ASL's scenarios couldn't be discussed here

No problem, they been discussed fairly much already. Better discussion on something than a silent forum IMO. well well.... :cheeky:

 

[Whizbang1963]

I concur with Jim..and while I would enjoy being trounced by Jim as I have been by many of you, and would learn from the experience, it would suck to start out behind the eightball by having part of my OB stripped away because someone believed it needed arbitrary balancing... If there is a balance issue, one can always invole the balance provisions printed on the scenario card...

 

[Jim McLeod]

Presumaby the TD used his experience and judgement that removing an MMG would move the balance closer to 50/50 and allow an interesting, but in his view unbalanced scenario to be used in this tournament. Haven't played the scenario so have no idea whether this is required or will fix it, but if the TD is a decent player I'd be inclined to trust his judgement.

Well, WADR, I can't agree with that method of determining if balance should come into play: that is, the TD arbitrarily deciding who is the better player and then giving balance to the other guy.

What if the TD has no idea who the players are and how well they play the game?

What does he then base his decision on?

If the scenario in question is known to be unbalanced, and yet the players still want to play it, then let the players decide whether no they feel balance should be used.

Who knows, maybe they have grokked the perceived dog side and have an air-tight plan.

If they both believe that the Germans need help, then they should come to the conclusion that play balance should come into effect. Bottom line is, let the players decide, not the TD.

JMO.




=Jim=

 

[Pitman]

I concur with Jim..and while I would enjoy being trounced by Jim as I have been by many of you, and would learn from the experience, it would suck to start out behind the eightball by having part of my OB stripped away because someone believed it needed arbitrary balancing... If there is a balance issue, one can always invole the balance provisions printed on the scenario card...

Is nobody paying attention? That was what happened--the balance provision was invoked.

 

[Larry]

I don't generally trust reports of scenario balance, unless I know who played and why they lost. A lot of scenarios played and reported may or may not have been played by gamers that have a full grasp of the rules and/or the scenario. It really is up to the scenario designer to pick playtesters well and to balance the scenario before it is published. Picking a balance provision on the fly ... not a good idea.

From my perspective, the balance provisions are there to balance out player abilities when the players agree in a non-tournament setting. To have a TD invoke scenario balance over the objection of one of the players is wrong, unless it is a tournament selected scenario and the entire tournament is predicated on play of that scenario in that round with that balance provision. However, if two players agree on a scenario for a tournament and pick sides, the TD should not come in and change the scenario selection by forcing the balance provision printed on the card. It would be a completely different situation if both players wanted the Brits and the other player took the Germans on the condition that the Brits took the negative balance provision on the chin.

Just my $1.50.

 

[Glennbo]

Is nobody paying attention? That was what happened--the balance provision was invoked.

I bet you don't believe in unicorns either! The mythical Tournament Director who arbitrarily yanks counters off of games in progress (while sneering of course) was soon followed by the one who squirts motor oil all over the boards. Call me naive, but I thought this was standard procedure at all tournaments. Ditto for "donating" major portions of my gaming system at the door.

 

[Jim McLeod]

Is nobody paying attention? That was what happened--the balance provision was invoked.

Mark, here is the spark that ignited the powder keg,

"Mark, how did you know I was the Brits!!?? Well, I'll have you know that I played it at ASLOK in a Mini, and the tournament director took away one British MMG for balance."

What the above says is that two players chose to play "On To Florence".

They had no inkling that a "mandatory balance" provision was in effect for the Germans. If they had, they would have already had the Play Balance in effect.

The TD came by their game and removed a Brit MMG (the balance provision), and in doing so, arbitrarily invoked play balance for a match in which he was not asked to mediate or comment on. The players were not consulted on the matter at all (at least that is what is implied from the post quoted above).

Such action on the part of the TD is wrong.

That play balance was implimented is not the issue here, how it was implimented is.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Topol and the rest of the cast of "Fiddler On The Roof" are awaiting my return as is my whisky.

"If I was a rich man, la da DA da DA da DA daaa, la da DAA daa DAA da daaaa..."





=Jim=

 

[Glennbo]

For cryin' out loud! :blab: The balance was known BEFORE we started playing. I said it before. I've said it every way I know how! :dead: Why can't this simple fact be absorbed???

 

[Jim McLeod]

For cryin' out loud! :blab: The balance was known BEFORE we started playing. I said it before. I've said it every way I know how! :dead: Why can't this simple fact be absorbed???

Because it is so much bloody fun to "post whip" each other around here.

This thread, as seems to be the case for many threads here, evolves during its course, often into something that little resembles the original topic.




=Jim=

 

[Whizbang1963]

Sorry Brother...I'm getting old and since I was educated in the American Public School system don't read so good...

 

[da priest]

For cryin' out loud! :blab: The balance was known BEFORE we started playing. I said it before. I've said it every way I know how! :dead: Why can't this simple fact be absorbed???

Err..Glennbo, we're talkin' about Jim here..he has comprehension problems...:devil: