ROAR - scenario balance - etc.

Reepicheep

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
34
Location
Toowoomba, QLD
Country
llAustralia
I think it's quite possible to separate the two.

One is the result of a deficiency in scenario design. The other is a result of deficiency in the players.

The first requires a change to some aspect of the scenario to "balance" it. The second requires a better understanding of the rules/tactics/opportunities avaialable in order that the scenario may be seen to be already balanced.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,235
Reaction score
948
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Well, now we start to get into a semantics discussion. Truth be told, balance is only meaningful in the context of the skill/ability of the players. If you have mismatched opponents, you need to unbalance the scenario to balance the outcome. Just look at chess or baseball. Each side is equal in material and position but the outcome is hardly balanced.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,557
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
zgrose said:
Just look at chess or baseball. Each side is equal in material and position but the outcome is hardly balanced.
At least, chess (not baseball) is balanced if both players have the same level of skill... I believe that "balance" for an ASL scenario is a sufficiently good design that gives the same chances to both players - the fine tuning of which is in the VCs...
ROAR seems to give some indication, but as with everything in ASL (as in life), it musn't become an absolute reference...
Neither despise nor worship...
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
"I think an 8-1 record on ROAR is significant and I will pay attention to it. It does not mean that it will be my sole governing factor in deciding whether or not to play it--but it will be a factor, definitely."

Perhaps at a tournament this is more of an issue, but informally, I don't think it should be much of a factor at all. Certainly there are those who will feel (at a tourney) that "they can change history", or in this case, the trend. I know I have, posting one of the first US wins in PotL and Italian wins in Centauro on a Flank (from the Dispatches from the Bunker). But then again, I'm known as an arrogant SOB :nuts:

[/QUOTE} Moreover, I think ROAR tends to reflect reality more often than not, despite issues such as whether or not first-time players or experienced players, etc., are involved. I think ROAR accurately reflected "Priests on the Line" and "Ultimate Treachery," for example. Until people learned how to play the U.S. and the Japanese in those scenarios, they *were* unbalanced, and ROAR reflected that. However, the scenarios had a deeper potential than the initial playings reflected, and this potential began to be revealed with more playings--and ROAR reflected that as well. ROAR is certainly not static.[/QUOTE]

This is kind of a 'have your cake and eat it too' statement, neatly contradicting:
{/QUOTE}I definitely do not subscribe to the "less than 50 playings is useless" notion. {/QUOTE}

Of course, ROAR can -and does- reflect the status of playings, I just feel the early returns do not reflect often enough the true nature of a scenario. A small sample base just cannot ameliorate disparate player skill/levels enough to give other than a quick reading of the pulse and not a full examination. While I could not proscribe what number of playings would make a valid sample base, it would seem-in the case of PotL and UT, that the early returns were skewed based on a limited number of reports. I remember, quite clearly, vehement lambastings of both of these scenarios on the local board from guys who had only given cursory examination to the scenario, yet felt compelled to argue most vociferously against including it in the local tourney. (which, in fact, they suceeded in doing). I was labeled argumentative and dismissed out of hand for saying, of UT in particular, that a differing take was needed by the IJA than the one customarily taken by players of the Japanese. Early and/or limited ROAR reports cannot show whether a scenario has a learning curve involved with it, though a lopsided record -may- indicate that to be the case.
My habit is to check ROAR records after a scenario is played, rarely ever beforehand. For me, whether or not a scenario looks like it's a kicker is the determinating factor for me. Obviously for others that isn't the case. I just don't think 'ROAR-bartering' is a great way to choose a scenario. :bored:
That being said, it can be useful at higher levels of a tourney, but even then, it should be merely a tool rather than the reason.
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
Nothing I said was contradictory; my statements go right in hand with each other.

However, I would say that your statement that "early and/or limited roar reports cannot show whether a scenario has a learning curve involved with it, though a lopsided record -may- indicate that to be the case."

In other words, roar reports *can* show that, although they do not *necessarily* show that.

I'll say this--there have been many times where someone has convinced me to play a scenario, and it has turned out to be a dog, and a subsequent check of ROAR reveals a record that would have stopped me from playing the scenario.

Having been burned several times, I am quite fond of ROAR as an oven mitt, thank you very much.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
My quiff was with trying to reconcile your statement regarding early UT & PotL 'balance' with limited playings to subsequent events. I don't know if I find it credible that they were "unbalanced" until people learned how to lay the side(s) in question, thereby showing a new state of 'balance'. That seems to be more a function of player deficiency than of scenario deficiency; how was the true issue of balance ultimately reflected in those cases? By further play and discussion of the scenarios. If allowing ROAR record play a greater role in scenario selection, these gems in the rough may have fallen by the wayside.
While these two scenarios have bucked the early trend, certainly there are those with lopsided records that have NOT shaken the initial records over time. <shrug> My point remaining that ROAR should be used as a tool, not the foundation of the choice.

"I'll say this--there have been many times where someone has convinced me to play a scenario, and it has turned out to be a dog, and a subsequent check of ROAR reveals a record that would have stopped me from playing the scenario."

Fair enough, I'm sure all of us have been bitten by the same bug. Were these casual games or tourneys? In a casual romp, I'd be less inclined to be perturbed (unless the dude had a history of then crowing how he beat you- :devious: ) Tourney play seems to bring this behaviour out more, in my experience. Myself, I'm affable enough to play almost anything someone wants unless I've played it to death already. There's so much out there I want to play and haven't had the chance, I figure why be picky?
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,104
Reaction score
2,371
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
I think it is obvious that a scenario can have several states of balance. There are at least three different ways that scenarios can have a balance result (through games by people of equal skill): playings by beginners/novices; first playings by experienced players; subsequent playings by experienced players. A scenario may be balanced one way for one group and balanced another way for another group.

With ROAR, the first group isn't that important, but lots of scenarios go through a two-stage process involving the latter two groups.
 

Reepicheep

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
34
Location
Toowoomba, QLD
Country
llAustralia
I see your point, Mark. The only potential problem is that ROAR only tracks wins and losses, not the three different categories you mention. And how to tell one from the other with the raw ROAR stats is difficult to establish.
 

alanp

Philosopher of ASL
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
2,998
Reaction score
93
Location
Alki Point
Country
llUnited States
Mark,

I like your comment about ROAR ratings being "an oven mitt"

that about sums it up for me.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
pitman said:
...lots of scenarios go through a two-stage process involving the latter two groups.
I think this is a fair assessment. I think the initial buzz goes a long way towards tweaking some scenarios' perceived issues. I know there is a select group of players whom I hold in regard, and whose opinions I take into account regarding scenarios. My biggest problem, though, is that I simply like to play those labeled scenarios (taking the alleged dog-side) just to see if there is, in fact, a way to prevail in them. Oft-times, I may lose, but can see if there is a realistic chance of the aggrieved side winning or no. Some scenarios seem to nearly always be won or lost on the last hurl of the dice (The Good Shepherd from OVHS immediately springs to mind), yet may have a seemingly lopsided W/L record. Such scenarios would then carry the burden, unfairly, of being declared unbalanced.

Perhaps as I've said before, I may be scarred from dealing with guys who labour under ROAR fastidiousness or perhaps I'm just stubborn :surprise:
 
Top