Maastrictian
-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maastrictian
-
-
People who don't know what a P value is should read this page, specifically chapter 8. The P value derived from a chi square test specifically refutes arguements that this could have occured from chance. The idea behind chi square is to figure out how unlikely a certain event is. People who are arguing with this methodology should also sugest their own methodology to test the same thing. Its easy to say you don't like a study, much harder to come up with a concrete idea of how to improve that study.
Warren Peace --
As has been sugested, can you do a similar analysis for a human vs. human hotseat game? I'd be very interested to see it as that would provide a control.
Can you also do a similar analysis where both sides are left completely alone, no targeting orders given? This would be just straight tac AI vs. tac AI and would also prove interesting.
Can you provide a more detailed description of how you get your Chi Square value? I get a different one, still significant, but less so.
Here is how I'm doing my calculations, based on the data you've given us.
Chi Square = Sum of all ((Observed - Expected)^2 / Expected)
Russian Expected = (30 + 17) / 2 = 23.5
German Expected = (8 + 20) / 2 = 14
So we get the Chi Square for the AI's losses by:
Chi Square = ((8 - 14) ^2 / 14) + )(17 - 23.5) ^2 / 23.5) = 4.369
Now to get the Chi Square for the Human's losses:
Chi Square = ((20 - 14) ^2 / 14) + (30 - 23.5) ^2 / 23.5) = 4.369
Now we can look up those Chi Square values to get the P. You can use this calculator , but I just used the ChiDist function in Excell. The Degrees of Freedom are the number of terms in the sum you used to get the chi square, minus one. So there is only one degree of freedom.
That gives a P value of .0365, different from the number Warren Peace got, but still signifigant. Scientists generally use .05 as a cut off point between meaningful and non-meaningful data.
If we want to get the P value down more, or up more for that matter if this really is an aberation then we can run more tests in the same style. Its easy to do these tests, and the math is pretty easy as well, so why don't the doubters run their own experiments. When I get a chance I know I will.
--Chris
-
--Chris
p.s. This is my first, and god-willing, last post to this damnitable thread. Thought this would amuse you all.
-
Please give people the option to go back to the CMBO style mouse commands. In otherwords, I would like placing the mouse in the lower left corner to rotate the camera left while moving the camera back.
I understand some people prefer camera movement the way it is, but it would be nice to allow toggling.
--Chris
-
I strongly agree with billcarey. The new interface is simply less elegant than the old.
As others point out, it is very possible I will become used to it, but that does not change the fact that it is worse than the old interface (in the same way that you could get used to driving with out side mirrors, but it is definately worse than driving with them). I hope BTS will offer users the option to switch between the old style and the new style in the final version of the game, or in a patch.
--Chris
-
First post in about a year... And the demo is almost downloaded
--Chris
-
I can offer nothing as I have no beta test copy of CMBB, I have no means of transportation other than the subway, and my apartment is less roomie than certain Soviet issue armored vehicles.
Having said all that, I'll be anywhere there are copies of CMBB in New York City on less than two hours notice
--Chris
-
Rune -- you could at least set up a web cam so non-midwesterners can watch other CMers play CMBB. And if that's not cruel and unusual I don't know what is
--Chris
-
Don't forget that lo, on towards the end of the first day, when they were done making the beta demo and before they delivered the gold demo they saw fit to grace us with a bonus scenario for use with the beta demo, Chance Encounter. And it was good. But there was much gnashing of teeth and lo, they decided not to give us any more scenarios that worked with the beta demo, because making them was hard.Originally posted by 109 Gustav:A history of Demos:
In the beginning, there was darkness. Then Steve and Charles said "let there be a beta demo." And it was good, although there wasn't any ambush command and panzershrecks couldn't run. The beta came with two scenarios, Reisburg and Last Defense. Both were a ton of fun, and much better than anything we'd ever played before.
And on the second day, Steve and Charles said "The graphics are too dark. Let there be a gold demo" And it was even better than before. This one came with two new scenarios, Chance Encounter and Valley of Trouble. Once again the legions of CM fans rejoyced, and predicted the coming of the full game.
--Chris
-
I have to agree with karch, Jons and others who've posted that two stations is insufficient even under ideal conditions. Unfortunatly, I too am too dumb to do the math
So let me present a challenge to MajorBooBoo. Given the following data, tell us where the firing gun is located.
-Listening stations Alpha and Bravo are 1.4KMs apart. (Alpha is at (0,0). Bravo is at (1400,0))
-Alpha and Bravo are on the front lines, such that all points with a positive Y value are in enemy territory.
-The firing gun must be in enemy territory
-They both hear what they know to be the same gun fire with a time difference of 1 second.
-Alpha hears the sound before Bravo does
-Assume the speed of sound is 350m/s to make thing easier.
Just a possible way of simplifing this dispute.
--Chris
-
Sources should definatley be sited. But having said that it was definatley very interesting. Here is the part that struck me the most:
This leads me to belive the Soviet commander was very confident of his tanks ability to remain unseen, hidden in haystacks as they were. Currently CMBO has no way of hiding a tank other than simply keeping it out of line of sight. It would be nice if tanks were easier to hide in CMBB, especially for the defender.[said by Soviet commander]
Be patient! Open fire from 400 metres only!
I know this has been discussed before, but this phrase just made me think of it again.
--Chris
-
As a random sugestion, why not release the game with as many 3D models as you can and allow the mod community to fill in any missing textures?
--Chris
-
More specifically, if the road width in meters is r then a horizontal bocage set up has a distance of (20 - r/2) meters between the road edge and the bocage. A diagonal set up has a distance of about (14 - r/2) meters between the road edge and the bocage. So not a giant difference, but something.
--Chris
-
Something I haven't heard mentioned (which surprises the heck out of me with all these people who are smarter than me posting
) is making bocage diagonal rather than horizontal/vertical. I'm talking something like this:\....
\\...field
\\\..
.\\\.
..\\\bocage (elivated)
...\\road (in trees/woods)
....\bocage (elivated)
The advantage of this is that, because of the way the tiles are drawn, the bocage ends up closer, perhaps 50% closer, I'm not sure, to the road than otherwise possible. Combined with road in woods this creates a rather dense effect. Not as dense are real bocage, but not bad either.
I'd post a screen shot, but you'd all laugh at my mod-less terrain
--Chris
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:
About 100 were built.
However, the Luchs is a design of that time, it was built for its role in that timeframe.<hr></blockquote>
I know there were very few Pumas built (~50 IIRC). For scale, how many of the more common German ACs were built?
--Chris
-
Fundamentally I'll take any bone BTS chooses to throw me, and if they don't throw me a bone I won't complain. But I do want to chime it that it would be worth $20 to me to have my order be one of the first out the door. I'm also very happy to give BTS my money now and let them earn some well deserved money off the interest.
--Chris
-
Thanks to Philippe and everyone else involved in this project for making the (*very large!*) effor to get permissions.
--Chris
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:
Even this might be a little complicated, given that several of the current mods are based on mods based on mods based on ..., mixed with details from mods based on mods based on...
<hr></blockquote>
For pre-existing mods you are very correct. Authors could just write "... and other authors before 1/1/02" or something. Once this process catches on though it will be easy to keep track of things, because each mod author will just add one name to an ever growing list of authors.
--Chris
-
The following explains publishing things and when the go into the public domain:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Under copyright laws, copyright protection is automatic as soon as the work is "fixed" or "published" in some format outside the creators mind, whether or not the work is actually registered with the copyright office. However, to truly protect the work, a copyright notice should be affixed somewhere visible on or within the work.
When a work is put forth (considered to be "published)" publicly without such a notice, or after the legal time period specified for end of copyright by the laws, a piece is considered to have entered the public domain, and is freely usable by anybody at any time, in any way. This is why people add copyright notices to works of art and articles that are published in magazines and books, and to song lyrics included with music on disk, so their copyright is protected and they can retain control of how the material is used.
<hr></blockquote>
That is from this page:
http://www.mindymac.com/copyright.html
The period of time it takes a copyrighted work to enter the public domain is detailed here:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
So any work in a "fixed form" is *not* in the public domain unless the author omits a notice of copyright. It doesn't matter how much the work costs, even if it costs nothing. I don't know if mod authors currently put copyright notices on their work, but if they do not, and they care, they should start.
As an analogy, CNN posts articles for people to freely read. They are avalible, easy to download and easy to republish. But if you try to do so, you should have no doubt that CNN will sue you and win.
--Chris
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Maastrictian ]</p>
-
It seems there are two positions to take, maybe there should be multiple "licenses".
License 1 would say that anyone can do whatever they want with the mod. Modify it, republish etc etc etc. Just include any previous author's name and contact info. This is the completely open license.
License 2 would say the same thing as License 1. Additionally though, it would say that no one can create a mod based on this License that is not also released as a type 2 License. This is the GPL-like license. (GPL = GNU Public License, open source software thing)
License 3 would say that no one can do anything without the previous author's permission. You can't modify it, you can't publish it, you can't change its license with out the author's say so. Distribution would still be unlimited though. Anyone can download it and use it, they just can't put it back up again. This license gives the author the most control.
A mod with no license should be assumed to be licensed as restrictively as possible, and preferably should not be published by a web master.
Such a system would allow everyone to publish their mods with the restrictions they want, while keeping things relatively simple.
It cannot and should not be the web site maitainers job to enforce these licenses. They should be (and are I'm sure) alert to the obvious things: being mailed a mod from someone who is not the author in the text file with the mod or taking the mod down if someone points out a violation. It is ultimately the job of the community to act as police men. It is up to the individual webmasters, but I think it would be reasonable to refuse to publish any mods by someone who is known to have violated multiple licenses in the past.
We don't need to be lawyerly about this. This is fundamentally common sense. If you want your mod protected you should have a right to. If not, not. I hope what I've written is understandible and that it will be looked at in the spirit I've written it in, don't try to poke legal holes in it.
--Chris
-
Disclaimer: I am not a mod author, I've never tried to make a mod, I couldn't even if I tried. Heck, I don't even use mods on my dinky 400Mhz computer.
Scipio has take a lot of flak for taking the position that he has. On a first look he is taking a "I'm going to take my toys and go home" position, a childish one. But I think his reaction is entirely reasonable. He has clearly been wronged in this matter. Copyright law and general decency agree on this. No one has the right to modify his files without his permission. And its really easy to send an e-mail asking for his permission.
Unfortuantley, people don't always ask permission, either from ignorance or from arrogance. Hopefully this discussion and a standardization of mod naming and distribution will reduce infringement from ignorance. But Scipio, and all other modders have no way to stop willful infriengement. The only remedy they have is to simply stop publishing their mods. Let me repeat that, its an important point: the *only* weapon a modder has to stop willful infringement is no longer posting his mods.
The community can look at this in two ways. In situations where its clear that wilful infringement has occured they can ignore the incedent. They can make fun of the injured modder for excercising his only option. Or they can rally around the injured modder and boycot the plagerized mod.
Need-less to say, I am not pleased with what the community seems to be doing.
Perhaps, as part of this general organization of modders, some sort of agreement can be arrived at to suport the work of those who do origional work and boycot the work of those who do not.
--Chris
-
I've been following this thread with some interest, but I have to say that I've had to skip every one of your posts Iron Chef because of the style they are written in. Please, as a courtesy to the other people in the forum, try to use some capitolization and paragraph breaks in your posts.
Giant blocks of text can be very hard on the eyes.
Thanks
--Chris
-
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:
well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd<hr></blockquote>
I think that the name of an actual book might be a bit easier for Slapdragon (or anyone else) too look up, rather than an entire television chanel. Even providing the name of the specific show, or perhaps the names of the historians in question would be helpful.
Of course a book reference, author, title and page number preferably, would also be a big help. Better than just telling us to "look arounbd"
--Chris
-
Damn you all, I have to go to bed. I want one copy of the game, two XL T-shirts, and you can feel free to e-mail me the demo, I've got broadband. Screenshots can wait until the morning.
--Chris
-
What are you doing here?? Go post what ever it is already!
--Chris
) is making bocage diagonal rather than horizontal/vertical. I'm talking something like this:
AI cheats! (with real data)
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Never mind, several people have already made this comment
--Chris
[ October 30, 2002, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Maastrictian ]