Treeburst155

Peter, The best way to make the formula understandable for all is to simply distribute the scoring program Nabla is going to write to all the players. This way the players can set up hypothetical situations as we have been doing above to gain an understanding of the relationship between raw CM scores and the computed tourney scores for a given side/scenario given different outcomes of the games. The formula could be understood by repeated trial of hypothetical situations. Nabla, I need to study your latest post for awhile longer. You are pushing me to the limits of my education and intellect. I like that! I agree the final curve should encourage consistent, strong play. I'm absorbing you latest now. Treeburst155 out.

WineCape, Have no fear! You and I will know everything about the game results. I will give you names, the side/scenario they played, and the final score. You will probably get most, if not all, this information in the AARs that come in. So far we have two games complete and three AARs. The latest is in your mailbox now. In cases where no AAR is available when game results are originally reported I will send the info to you. I will keep you up to date. Treeburst155 out.

Tabpub, Feel free to spice up AARs with screenshots or the final map. It's all up to you guys. Bertram, All the concerns you have expressed are being considered at this time. Nabla has come up with a very elaborate equation in another thread that is complex, but beautiful. Check out this discussion: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=021512 I'm probably going to change the scoring system yet again. Keep in mind that it is just a variation of what has been discussed in this thread, and addresses the concerns you have expressed. The equation's effect is most similar to the Treeburst Variation discussed on the previous page, but it takes into account inconsistent play such as Bertram described. The equation can be tweaked to provide just the amount of extra reward we want for an overwhelming victory. Right now I'm leaning in favor of a small but noticeable reward for a huge victory. Doing this decreases the effect of inconsistent play substantially. Believe me when I say this is going to be the fairest scoring system possible for unbalanced CM games. Since there is really no such thing as true balance in CM, spending some time working out a scoring system with a statistical wizard like Nabla is well worth the time. I think I will go ahead and keep everyone in the dark concerning the outcome of players' games. This relieves me of quite a load of work and adds to the suspense for you guys. If there is mass revolt caused by my withholding of game outcomes I will of course give in; but until then you guys don't get to know anything except the scoring system when that is finally decided on. Have Fun!! Treeburst155 out. [ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I've had a chance to digest this a little further now. First of all, what's the median of a set of numbers that contains an even amount of numbers in the set? For example: {2,3,4,5,6,7,} Is 4 the median, or would 5 be the median? I'm just curious as to how that is handled. It appears from your explanation that there is a balancing act that must take place between rewarding overwhelming victories and protecting against inconsistent play. We can't do both. I would lean in favor of protecting against inconsistent play, which I think could be quite prevalent in cases where a player feels his performance has been poor enough that he can't possibly win the tournament. An all-out effort to win would often be replaced with an attitude tending toward experimentation and big gambles just for the fun of it. Also, if the reward curve is too steep a person could develop quite a lead over the rest just by one overwhelming victory. This detracts from the fun for the others IMO. A tight race is much more interesting. Having said that I do think there should be at least a little reward for a complete rout of the enemy. I vote for a curve that is 1/3 of the way up from flat to the Tabpub variation. Does that make any sense? Below are two situations, Allies on the left, that I would like to know the scores for if you feel so inclined. Fool with the equation so that the curve is on the flat side. I'd like to see the final score difference between H and B in the first situation come out to 1.5 times the final score difference between D and B. This gives a small but noticeable reward for the high score. The second situation is just a tight grouping around the median. I'd love to see what the scores there turn out to be once you've tweaked the curve to achieve my desired results in the first situation. I would do all this myself, but I don't understand the equation. I think part of the problem is the way you have to write it on the forum. What's the asterisk? A:40 B:60 C:50 D:50 E:60 F:40 G:5 H:95 And: A:45 B:55 C:47 D:53 E:49 F:51 G:51 H:49 I:53 J:47 Thanks, Nabla!! Treeburst155 out.

Wow!! This truly is developing into the "Nabla CM Scoring System". I don't fully understand why the math works, but I understand what you are trying to accomplish with it. The effects of inconsistent play should be neutralized if at all possible. I hadn't even considered this aspect. If I understand correctly, this is a refinement of the Tabpub system which means the "tight grouping around the median" situation will result in no undue punishment of the low score. This is good. Does the steepness of the reward curve affect the "tight grouping" situation? I'm just curious. As long as the system allows for negative points I would think the low score in a tight grouping around the median would not be punished. Correct? What is the relationship between the steepness of the reward curve and the neutralizing of the effects of inconsistent play? I would assume the flatter the curve the more effectively we have dealt with inconsistent play, but I'm not sure. Is inconsistent play dealt with soley by using the median instead of the mean? The only problem I have is that I would not be able to do the calculations at the end of the tourney. :eek: You would probably have to figure the final results of any tourney that used this system. :eek: Your very clear presentation of what the new equation will accomplish is hard to argue with. It's just better than what we've been considering so far. All the issues we had before have been solved, along with the "inconsistent play" issue I hadn't even thought of. I'm all for using this equation. Now, how would you work AAR's into this equation? I like to give points for AARs, but I don't want them to interfere with the raw CM scores used for the calculation since AAR points have nothing to do with CM skill. I'll just tack AAR points onto the final calculated tourney score for a side/scenario as some percentage of the high score for that scenario/side. All that remains is deciding how flat/steep to make the reward curve. I would say take some middle ground between the Tabpub variation and the original Nabla system. Perhaps even a little flatter than the middle. Good Work, Nabla! Treeburst155 out. [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Just a little reminder here. I need purchases from Fuerte for his game with Texas Toast, and purchases from Ari Maenpaa for his game with CDIC. Treeburst155 out.

I use the 7.58 WHQL drivers with my 32MB Geforce2 GTX. This driver gives me noticeably better performance than 6.5 and CM works COMPLETELY. I have no problems even with FSAA enabled. The brand new drivers, 21.??, slowed my system down by more than 600 points on 3DMark2000. I didn't even test them on CM after seeing this performance hit. DirectX 7 in conjunction with the 7.58 drivers is the best combination I've found. DirectX 8 works fine with the 7.58 drivers in CM but it's slightly slower (200 points 3DMark2000). Treeburst155 out.

As much as I detest gamey tactics I never have been bothered by any of the building related tactics mentioned by Graves Registration. I expect players to pummel buildings to the brink of collapse hoping I will occupy them. I say go ahead and waste your ammo because I won't go in there until I blast it to rubble myself. I expect players to destroy buildings they think I may be in. I'm rarely there of course. I'm not above a little recon by HE when it comes to buildings myself. Why risk a team checking out a building when you can just lob a few HE rounds into it and see what you scare up. Heck, just blow the thing into oblivion if you're worried about the enemy being in there. Gamey tactics revolving around buildings just don't bother me much because I don't think they're that effective. Or is it because I'm also gamey when it comes to buildings? :eek: I think the whole building modelling thing is abstract enough that just about any tactic concerning buildings should be OK. I do avoid pounding buildings with AA types. That IS too effective and therefore gamey, but I don't really care if my opponent does it. Chances are he's doing it with a gamey Sdkfz anyway. I say go ahead and make us some rubble on the battlefield. I like rubble. I played a guy once who started hammering a church in my territory from turn one. He did this because it was my best position for LOS over bocage. I'd take the church out too if I were him. I didn't put anybody in the church for that very reason. Is this tactic gamey? Naahh.....I say blow up buildings all you want. You'll rarely catch me in them. I'll be back for the rubble party. Treeburst155 out. [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

If a webpage listed all the scenarios twice in columns, and all player results were posted to the proper column (Allied-Kommerscheidt for example), and ranked by score; players could get a fairly good feel for how they are doing compared to others as the tourney progresses. I'm for keeping you guys totally in the dark now that I've been thinking about it. Nobody knows anything except their own game results until the very end when all will be revealed. I like it!! Treeburst155 out.

Jon, If I did what you suggest there would be no reason to even bother with a statistics page. I could just report the scores of completed games on this thread without revealing sides or scenarios, just names. Players would almost be completely in the dark as to how they stand. This is fine with me, and saves me lots of work (the web page); but people may not want to be that much in the dark for the duration of the tournament. I kinda like the idea though. Wild Bill and the testers, WineCape, and I will know what is going on and get to enjoy the race. I guess we need to take another survey. How much do you guys want to know about games that are completed? Do you want to know which scenario two guys played? Do you want to know who played which side? Do you even want to know the final score of others'games at all? Keep in mind that without specific information about a completed game (players, sides,and score) you will have no way to compare your performance with others during the tournament. There can be no page showing the ranking of players since that can't be determined until all games are completed. I could post win/loss statistics but they would be of dubious value with this scoring system. So speak up, guys. How much info do you want to know when it comes to completed games? Treeburst155 out.

We've got 47 games passed out with 37 to go. Two of the 47 have already been completed. This is really great progress! Thanks guys! Now back to the scoring situation. Although we've only heard opinions from a few on this thread, they have all been in favor of the "Nabla" scoring system. I'm so convinced it is a much better way to score this tourney that I'm going to implement it even though I haven't heard from most of the participants regarding it. They will find out soon enough. I'm going to use my compromise solution between Tabpub's suggestion and the original Nabla system. For details on how this works read the last couple pages of this thread carefully. If you still have questions just email me and I'll try to clear things up for you. There will be a web page available to view the results of individual games. This will require some time to get going. I may be collaborating with Peter Svensson on this. My original standings page for this tourney is now useless. All game results will be posted to this thread so check here from time to time to see who beat who and by how much. If anyone has any serious objections to the new scoring system I need to hear from you ASAP so I can explain to you how and why you are wrong. Now, get back to your foxholes! Treeburst155 out.

Numerous large Victory flags on the bunkers would alleviate the problem. If the Germans are that badly depleted the Allies could easily gain control of these large VLs, thereby offsetting Allied losses. Treeburst155 out.

Yes, in very small battles I can see how the problem would be significant. So you've determined that the spotting bug only occurs when troops are in clear terrain? Interesting.... Treeburst155 out.

Seeing things you shouldn't see does happen from time to time. I take advantage of it without guilt since my opponent is equally likely to see something he shouldn't. It seems to me when a turn ends very shortly after a unit leaves LOS you sometimes still see the unit for the next phase. I'm not sure about this however. The spotting system doesn't work perfectly, but it's not bad enough to affect gameplay to any significant degree. BTW, I also have sent a file to Madmatt showing an obvious spotting error. This was probably a year ago. There was no reply so I assume to fix this issue would require far more time than it is worth. It really isn't that big of a problem IMO. Treeburst155 out.

I still think we should call it the "Nabla" system. Any scenario that can be decided one way or another by an early tank duel is not a good scenario IMO. Players might as well just flip a coin to determine the winner. Nabla's point about players scores ending up being compared with the same player many times is something to keep in mind. In small tournaments this could definitely be an issue and scheduling of matches should probably give this priority over even distribution of attack/defend duties and/or sides. Someone commented about using tactics based on the known average for that side/scenario. I don't think this is a big enough problem to worry about. If a player is one of the last to complete a scenario he will indeed have a good idea of what he needs to score. I would argue that his game would be well underway by the time all the other games are completed. His knowledge of what score he needs at that point won't be real helpful. Also, all players near the end will probably have a fairly good idea of the score they need for their last few games. If this is a concern of players it is easily remedied by not informing players of game results. They could be kept completely or partially in the dark for the duration of the tourney. Reporting only names and scores only would be one way to severely limit players knowledge of what is going on with others. I still think my compromise between the original "Nabla" system and Tabpub's revision is the best. It would be a shame to have an average score of 55 with a low score of 50 getting zero points and a high score of 60 getting the maximum points. Any extremes in results will mess with the system, whether the scores are tightly packed around the average or spread wildly from top to bottom. My answer to this is best IMO. EDIT: Let's look at the pros and cons of the three variations. Original Nabla: Here there is no reward for an overwhelming victory, and no punishment for a crushing defeat. This would tend to create a tight race. This could be a good thing. The drawback is when the low score is very near the average and gets zero points due to all the scores being near the average. This is bad, IMO. Tabpub's version: Here we have rewards for overwhelming victories and punishment for crushing defeats. This will tend to spread people out to a certain extent. This may actually be more fair, but perhaps less exciting as far as the race for the crown is concerned. There is also the possibility that a high score is due more to a poor opponent than superior abilities of the winner. Of course, all players would get to play this poor player, giving them the opportunity to score well above average in one of their games. Hmmm....this realization has me leaning toward the Tabpub version. Treeburst variation: This is simply a compromise between the two systems above. Like the Tabpub system, extremes are rewarded/punished and tight groupings around the average are handled well. In addition, extremes will be somewhat tempered, thereby tending to keep the race tighter than the Tabpub variation. Wrecks concept of bi-modal grouping of the scores with significant distance between the groups is interesting and would tend to mess with the system a bit just like any other extreme variation from a nice bell curve. All scenarios, if played enough times by enough different people will tend to fall into a bell curve peaking at some point on the line between 0 and 100 points. The peak's proximity to a score of 50 would indicate balance. The exception to this would be a scenario that is highly dependent on luck. The fingerprint of such a scenario would be Wreck's bi-modal grouping. I can see no other way a scenario could display these bi-modal characteristics if played enough times. A scenario will always display a consistent, singular relationship to a balanced state unless it is highly dependent on luck. Scenarios are either in balance or they are out of balance in one direction or the other. They can't be out of balance both ways unless their is a high degree of luck involved. Any scenario that swings wildly from Tactical Victory to Tactical Defeat for a given side, with few results in between is highly dependent on luck and should be avoided in competitions. Treeburst155 out. [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

You mock my nickname?! How dare you! The name is Treeburst155, not just Treeburst. As far as sexual dysfunction is concerned, that's what your men will experience if they get caught under one of my 155mm treebursts. THAT'S what inspired my name; the mass castration of enemy forces caused by heavy artillery exploding in the trees. Don't cross the mighty Treeburst155, Acey-Deucey. Treeburst155 out.

I don't really want to get into the business of grading AARS for several reasons. I think 2 extra tourney points for a good AAR and 1 point for a mediocre AAR is plenty of incentive to write. I figure the winner will probably score a total of 28-30 regular points + 14 bonus points for 7 AARs. If the winner scores 44 points total and AARs are worth 14 points (for 7 AARs)I think that's plenty of incentive to write. Treeburst155 out.

OK, how about this scoring system. First the average score is determined for each side/scenario. Points would be assigned to players based on this average in the following manner: +/- 4 of average=0 points +5 to 9 of average=1 point +10 to 14= 2 points +15 to 19= 3 points etc.... If you are more than 4 points below the average for that side/scenario your points go into negative numbers in the same fasion. This system rewards overwhelming victories and punishes crushing defeats to a certain extent while avoiding punishing the lower scores in a situation where the scores are all very near the average. What think ye, gentlemen? Treeburst155 out. [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Tabpub, Right off the top of my head I would have to say, "You have a very good idea there!"; but I have to think about it a bit first. How many points to give for AARs is one thing to think about since points awarded for scenarios will have a variable maximum. I don't want AARs to sway the standings too much. I just want them to make a difference between players who are running fairly close to each other. More important is the fact that the guy who scores 92 points from a side of a scenario, and scores 25 points more than #2 for that side/scenario, may have played a very weak opponent. He would be rewarded for his fortunate matchup with the weak player. Who is to say whether it was his skill or his opponent's lack of skill that brought about the high score? Staying with the original "Nabla" system would tend to make the tourney a tighter race, I think, as extreme scores one way or the other would be tempered. It will be more difficult for someone to run away with the tourney, and more difficult to fall hopelessly behind. This might make the race more exciting. EDIT: Buckeye, you can view the standings by clicking on the "Standings" link in my sig. There's nothing there yet for the Wild Bill tourney other than an empty chart however. Treeburst155 out. [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I'll volunteer to wait until the first or second patch is released. That way I can enjoy reading all the bitching about the bugs and not be distracted by the desire to play the game myself. Considering the rush they will have in the beginning I wouldn't be surprised if someone who ordered 30 days after the release gets his game just a few days after the last of the original orders anyway. Treeburst155 out.

Look at it this way, Jon. Suppose a scenario is way out of balance and you get wiped out 93-7. Chances are, those who also have to play this scenario from the same side as you will also do poorly. Your 7 points might actually get you a high "final" score for that scenario when it's compared to the other poor guys who had to play that scenario from that side. Now look at the reverse. Your opponent in your section gets 93 points to your 7 points. When you compare that 93 with all the other players who played that scenario from that side his 93 score may be very average. You could actually get more points for a scenario than your opponent even though you lost the game! This would be a somewhat extremem situation, but it is possible if a scenario is way out of balance. Treeburst155

Peter, Good idea for handling ties! Holien, Yes, AARs will be worth 1.1 point maximum keeping it at 10% of the top score possible for a scenario. The AAR points will be added to players' score at the END of the tourney. Jon, Trust us, this system is much better. Treeburst155 out. [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Peter, I edited my post above to explain how the standings page could be set up to give players at least an idea of how they are doing. It will require a complete rework of the page. I'll email you and we can discuss this aspect of the scoring in detail. I probably could use some help on this if you feel like it. I'll be in touch. Jon, Everyone plays each scenario but only 4 people play it from the same side in each section. Even though your score will be affected by other sections it will only be put up against people in your section at the end. Remember, everyone is subject to the same scoring system so it will still be fair. With twelve instances of every scenario/side your score will be a fairly good representation of your skill in the given situation. If you only score 28 points, but the best is 29 you will get 10 points for that scenario because only one person did better. Hmmm... what about ties? I'll have to think about that. It does happen. Treburst155 out.

I see your point John, but I still think the "Nabla" system is more accurate for determining skill. There is a slight problem I've discovered. Each scenario is played only four times in each section. That would mean the high score for a given side in that scenario would get 3 points. This isn't necessarily bad but I think it might be better to compare scores among all three groups. Each scenario will be played twelve times in all three sections combined. It would be a more accurate determination of performance if players scores were compared will all these games. This would mean 11 points to the highest score for a given side in a scenario and on down to zero. In essence you are competing against all the players who play a scenario from the same side you did. You will have all played different opponents, but you all played a given scenario from the same side. If you think about it for awhile it really is brilliant IMO. Each of your game scores will be compared against 11 other scores from players in your exact situation, except for who the opponent is. It's beautiful, really. Each scenario would be listed on the Standings page twice. Once for Allied scores and once for Axis. As players finish a scenario their name and score will go under the proper column based on which side they played. These columns will be ranked from the highest score to the lowest and updated as new results come in. At the end, everyone will be assigned a final score for a scenario based on their place in each of the columns they are listed under. There will be 14 columns and everyone will be listed in 7 of them at the end. The final scores will be compared with the people in your section. High score wins the section and moves on to the playoffs. Treeburst155 out. [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Jon, With this scoring system your scores for each game will be compared only to the other scores achieved by players playing the same scenario from the same side. The highest Allied score for a scenario would get 7 points, the second highest gets 6 points and so forth. It is true the raw game scores for a side in a scenario will have been achieved against different opponents, but that's really no different than it is now. Treeburst155 out.