Will the Rumblings of War tournament (Row) be Returning

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting. I assume that someone has to rate the scenario at the start ... but on reflection it does not need that. Can you attribute 40 to 60 as the [approximate] difficulty for the two sides and then plot a probability against that?

The only fly in the ointment would seem to be what an opponent allows you to do ..? Is that not it.

[Sivodsi]

Interesting. I assume that someone has to rate the scenario at the start ... but on reflection it does not need that. Can you attribute 40 to 60 as the [approximate] difficulty for the two sides and then plot a probability against that?

The only fly in the ointment would seem to be what an opponent allows you to do ..? Is that not it.

Indeed, a rating for a scenario is not necessary, since the difficulty of the scenario is set by the scores that people get in it. However, I believe that you could set the difficulty level if you want to - the software has many functions that I have never had a need to use. As a user I have experience with processing speaking tests and multiple choice tests, and of course, for practice I used it on the RoW scores. I can set things up, run them and interpret the results, even explain how it works in a general way, but I'm certainly not a mathematician.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'fly in the ointment'. What you allow your opponent to do is the thing you are trying measure, right?

When I first ran RoW figures through 'facets' the software was not calibrated to run on figures like 76 - 24 (how CMX1 delivered the results), but the writer of the software fixed the problem and promptly issued a new version with the fix. Nice guy. Anyway, CMX2 delivers its results differently, but it would not be hard to reduce them to a % so that Facets can compute them, and if there is a problem the support of the program is brilliant.

As for its application to a CM tournament, I definitely recommend a smaller scale tournament to see how it goes.

[Yak Meister]

Could you please include me in the standby list. The scoring system is very appealing and the past tourney feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

[Lt. Smash]

all here that reply will get noted for RoW VI. Not the same as a guarantee, but I guarantee that the list published earlier will not all be interested/available to play ROW VI.

WineCape, please keep me inconsideration for RoW VI and beyon.

Bob

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Like Lt. Smash said... please do the same for me!

Regards

KR

[dieseltaylor]

Sivodsi - Seems to me we run under the Nabla and then see how it compares with "facets" and then consider the results.

Life out east must be interesting. My bathroom fitter has a Japanese wife so I am getting almost daily news from a Japanese viewpoint. : 0

[Sivodsi]

Sivodsi - Seems to me we run under the Nabla and then see how it compares with "facets" and then consider the results.

Sure, but we can already do this by comparing the last RoW figures with the Rasch measures. PM me and I'll e-mail them to you.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, having independent groups as RoW has been run in the past does not give the ideal connectivity for Rasch, so the estimates of ability are not as good as they could be. You can still run the analysis, but the measures will have a larger error associated with them.

This is the table from my previous post for the best format for Rasch. Please scroll back for an explanation of it.

Could you make Nabla work with a format like this?

Strikes me that you're asking for trouble if you use two different scoring systems! :eek:

[sfhand]

I'm definitely interested in participating in the tournament, if possible.

[Highlander40]

Please include me! I have always wanted to play this tourney!

[[hirr]Leto]

Let's make it official: sign me up too.

[stikkypixie]

Just making sure, I would be interested.

[Calibration]

I would certainly like to play in ROW VI. I was in ROW V (my ID was SteveS then).

[dieseltaylor]

Ah yes ssssssSteveS.

Certainly was... and after that he had to go into hiding. I am not saying I take losing seriously but .....

: )

[Highlander40]

Please include me! I have always wanted to play this tourney!

And you might actually know me as Nemesis Lead.

I haven't logged into battlefront in so long that I couldn't remember my password.

[Calibration]

Ah yes ssssssSteveS.

Certainly was... and after that he had to go into hiding. I am not saying I take losing seriously but .....

: )

I have very fond memories of ROW V. Helped by the fact that a) I never played Walpurgis Nacht, I pretty much seemed to be playing Allied when he was Axis and vice versa (helped a little due to the Nabla scoring) and c) I got a bit lucky in some very high variance games I ended up third or so and received a fantastically generous prize of a liquid nature by our sponsor. Went a long way to persuading my other half that playing computer war games was not a completely sad activity for someone of my age

[Calibration]

And you might actually know me as Nemesis Lead.

I haven't logged into battlefront in so long that I couldn't remember my password.

You going to rejoin the BoB when we start playing CM:BN ?

[Swamp_]

Hey Winecape,

Can I get in the tourney? I was top dog at Tournament House in 2000-2001. I won a tourney there in 2001. I have never dropped from a tournament and right decent AARs. Also played CMBB and CMAK. Thanks for your consideration.

Swamp

[Swamp_]

Damn, that would be 2000-2002.

[WineCape]

Hey Winecape,

Can I get in the tourney? I was top dog at Tournament House in 2000-2001. I won a tourney there in 2001. I have never dropped from a tournament and right decent AARs. Also played CMBB and CMAK. Thanks for your consideration.

Swamp

Your claim noted. It is just now a matter of establishing the claim's veracity and you will be bumped above all else in the WAITING list ;-)

Seriously, I envision that established RoW vets, and quite a few, will not participate due to various reasons. I also envision, at this stage, that we will have to, at a minimum, run at least a 72-player RoW VI. I am accumulating data wrt to SCENARIO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS for RoW VI, given that I'm beta testing some CMBN scenarios, on what we want from scenario designers specifically, for example ...

(1) JonS has mentioned, many times, the small but important point: the need for basic landmarks in scenarios for ease of reference in AAR reporting.

(2) Scen design allowing for interesting/varied decision making choices where applicable;

(3) I will also be standardizing the base format of all required AAR's; Example: Apart from the main AAR reporting, I need the players to have required headings for every AAR regarding comments on the

-- (a) quality of map design,

-- ( unit composition,

-- © pace of scenario,

-- (d) quality & accuracy of briefing and hints, if any therein

-- (e) replayability of scenario,

-- (f) Enjoyment factor

etc.

[Sivodsi]

I also envision, at this stage, that we will have to, at a minimum, run at least a 72-player RoW VI.

Out of curiosity how many scenarios do you see being used in the first round?

[WineCape]

Out of curiosity how many scenarios do you see being used in the first round?

If memory serves correctly, five. 6-player groups in each section means you will play each member in your own group once, which means 5 matches, thus 5 new scenarios in 1st round.

[Sivodsi]

If memory serves correctly, five. 6-player groups in each section means you will play each member in your own group once, which means 5 matches, thus 5 new scenarios in 1st round.

Thanks for posting the figures, WineCape. If you use the same numbers, one good way of running such a tournament to get solid measures of ability for Rasch would be this:

Some points:

1) This is ideal, because everybody is linked (eg player 72 is linked to player 1, because he played 32, who played 68 who played 28 etc etc who played 1).

2) Rasch would still work under the previous RoW's small group setup because the players are linked through playing the same five scenarios, but this way gives more certain measures of players ability compared to each other.

3) Using Rasch you are not limited to a set number of players or scenarios. You could have 100 players playing 4 scenarios if the demand was there.

4) It is robust to having some players drop out. Rasch just uses the data that it has, so no need to worry about finding replacements.

5) From this tournament, you would get a measure of all player's abilities on the same scale. This measure is not a mere ranking as you would get by using means and medians etc: the difference in scores would represent the difference in ability. So if person A gets 87.6, person B gets 77.6 and C gets 76.7, this means that person B and C are very close in ability, but person A is quite a bit better (such statements cannot be made using raw scores, where the only thing you can say is that 'A is best, followed by B then C'). Rasch takes all the data and uses probability to create an interval scale.

6) This means that you wouldn't necessarily need a knockout round. However, you could still have one if you use Rasch to select say, the top 16 players for a mirrored knockout contest or something like that.

(edit to add)

7) Oh yes, and it bears repeating that Scenario balance does not matter in a Rasch tournament because you can set level of difficulty of the scenario at '0' and let the players scores float: so maybe the average score for the Germans in one scenario is 20, in such a scenario a score of 50 for Germans would be brilliant. Rasch will recognize the skill inherent in such a result and adjust that players measure upwards. I'm also pretty sure that if that score of 50 was against a spectacularly incompetent opponent, that Rasch would also take that into account - however, I need to get some real world data to play with before I can be certain of how well Rasch deals with this.

Hmmm, that's all I can think of for now.

I suppose a drawback might be that you would lose that comradeship of being in a little group of six, but there are ways around this. For example you could set up groups in which say a couple of your games are with players from other groups. Interconnectivity would not be so good as with the above setup but it would be fine for the purposes of the tournament.

I'm very confident that this system would produce accurate results, but as I say, I'd like to do a trial run with it first, say 16 people with 3 scenarios or something like that.

[dieseltaylor]

Sivodsi, I am not an statistics wallah though I do have a great interest in them. Would the WeBoB records be of any use to play with. There have been a number of tournaments and the database has also includes several scenarios which have been multiplayed. Not recorded in BoBster are some AI scenarios with multiple plays.

There is also a BoBster ranking which has been running some years and appears to give the right results as to who the good and mediocre are [me].

It is hosted by Green As Jade and he is a good egg : )

[Sivodsi]

I'm not a statistics wallah either! In fact, Rasch works in a fundamentally different way to classical statistical methodology, but I won't bore you with the details...

How useful the statistics at WeBoB are depend on how inter-related they are. If enough people have played enough different scenarios you could create a couple of different ladders, one showing how good the players are, the other showing how difficult the scenarios are.

For a trial run for RoW though, I'd rather do it as a trial tournament, because its much clearer what the figures mean, and its better as a learning experience.

- hey you were my sponsor at Bob, remember? You've sponsored so many that it might have slipped your mind, eh?

I'd love to rejoin when CMBN comes out.

[dieseltaylor]

I had not forgotten : ) My most easterly sponsored player.

I have even invested in a teach yourself statistcs book, and a CD, but researching WW2 info or nine other different things seem to intervene. Currently two bathrooms being fitted and a crusade against sloppy journalism at Which?. I think a thread required on that.