Treeburst155

Comparing your results for Moltke with my results obtained using the DOS program (on page 4 of this thread), I'd say something still isn't right.

If a raw score is above the median, and the resulting Nabla score is negative, you know you used the wrong "sign".

The one thing your scores will not reflect is the "punishment" for extremely poor performance. This is the "minslope" value that is entered on the command line of the DOS program. This is really not terribly critical IMO.

This sounds right to me. Just be sure you put the "sign" in there. If a score is less than the median use "-". If not, nothing is necessary for "sign".

"minslope" does not appear to be in the formula, although a minslope value entered in the command line will modify the curve on the losing side. Be aware you are working with the "normalized deviation from the median". This may be an absolute value by nature. "Sign" means to manually enter whether it is a positive or negative deviation from the median, I think. EDIT: "Normalized deviation (or difference) from the median" is a score's difference from the median divided by the standard deviation. Standard deviation is ALWAYS positive...I think. That's why you must manually enter "sign" into the formula....I think. Treeburst155 out. [ June 15, 2005, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I think you want to make sure the deviation always becomes positive. By multiplying a -1 times a negative deviation, you do this. Something to do with absolute value later in the formula? I would use .8 for and "exp" curve and 2.3 for an "asinh" curve, with .42 for "minslope".

I will put together the large input file if tourney organizers wish. I can send the Nabla scores to Cpl Carrot or Kingfish by sometime tomorrow afternoon. Just say the word. Treeburst155 out.

"Sign" means "insert negative or positive sign here". Off hand, I can't remember how one determines which sign to use. I used the formula manually with a calculator before the DOS program was finished. With practice it became very easy. EDIT: It's positive or negative deviation from the median! [ June 15, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

It would be a tedious task Cpl Carrot. 72 names reproduced 5 times each, spelled EXACTLY the same. It would look like this for five scenarios: # Scenario_A PlayerA 50 PlayerB 50 PlayerC 80 PlayerD 20 ...and so forth # Scenario_B # Scenario_C # Scenario_D # Scenario_E It is a rather large text file with NO mistakes allowed. If replacement names are listed for any scenario, they must be listed in all five scenarios. EDIT: You could run each scenario individually through the program like I have done for Moltke. However, this would mean manually computing the average (final) Nabla score for each of the 72 players. [ June 15, 2005, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

No-no, not full circle. I like the way you have recruited volunteers to help run the various aspects of the ROW tourneys. I would be willing to volunteer as the schedule maker and scorer. The two tasks are closely related as the schedules produced by the Nabla Scheduling program are essentially the same as the scoring program input file. The hassles just discussed with Cpl Carrot can thus be easily avoided. You run the sign-up phase. I generate the sections and schedules. You secure and disperse the scenarios and briefings. I collect the scores, nag players about the deadline, click through unfinished games, and finally produce the Nabla scores (and raw scores)for posting by Cpl Carrot. Your other volunteers continue with their present duties. Any format changes, such as those discussed in this thread would be up to you. I'm not sure the Nabla Scheduling program is adaptable to format changes; however, this would be a minor issue I could deal with.

All I need is a text file; BUT, all the player names must be EXACTLY the same for each scenario with no spaces (case sensitive too). The general format is this: # Scenario_A playerA 10 playerB 90 playerC 20 playerD 80 This text file would have to be manually typed from the raw results, doublechecking for the exact same spelling of names in all five instances. Also, I think I noticed some descrepancy in the names from scenario to scenario. Replacements perhaps?

I believe I stated earlier that I thought nothing radical would happen to the final rankings if scored with the original Nabla system. Your Nabla score would just have been much closer to the rest of us. IOW, my one truly crappy performance would not have dragged my score down so much that it looked like ALL my games were crappy. EDIT: Only a small percentage will win. However, the rest like to see how they stack up. Some failed to see a correlation between their performance and their final score. [ June 15, 2005, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

As far as inspiration for this thread, I believe there were several, including myself, who thought their final Nabla score did not correctly reflect their overall performance. Not that we were cheated out of a section victory; but our score seemed much lower than we expected based on on our overall performance. For example, I beat the average clearly in three games. I lost one clearly, and got stomped by you. My final score looks like I played crappy in all my games. This is the sort of thing that prompted this thread.

Now, now Walpurgis. You aren't sure who has been wronged because nobody is claiming they were wronged. We're discussing how to improve scoring over the current ROW method. We're also discussing tourney formats in general. As for large victories from a very weak side, I believe the general consensus is that the opponent has at least as much to do with it as does the skill of the victor. No matter how ROW is scored, you easily won Group 4. You're the champ without question.

Hmmm...brainfart in my last post. Any even number of second place finishers could be admitted to the finals as long as they were equally split between the Axis and Allied sides. The number of sections does not matter except when it comes to the number of scenarios needed for the finals.

If you use an odd number of sections, you will get an odd number of Allied winners and an odd number of Axis winners. To even things up for the finals, the top second place score from each side could be admitted to the finals.

Nabla scores would be derived from ALL tourney participants on a given side. That result is then used to determine the subsection winners. If you're in an easy section or sub-section, you will do better, of course. However, Nabla with a flat curve will reduce the effect of outlier results. That is the key to dealing with the quality of the direct competition.

So we have six player sections requiring only three scenarios. We have exclusive Axis and Allied "teams", from which Nabla scores will be calculated, with no mixing of Axis and Allied scores. I like it.

Hmmm....excellent question. I think applying Nabla would be the way to go because Ralph's 90 may not be as great of an accomplishment as Harry's 90. Nabla is the answer. Great observation Ace Pilot!

Group (or section) One Fred, Ralph, Harry, Jim, Joe, Jerry Axis subsection: Fred, Ralph, Harry Allied subsection: Jim, Joe, Jerry Scenario 1 schedule: Fred v Jim Ralph v Joe Harry v Jerry Scenario 2 schedule: Fred v Jerry Ralph v Jim Harry v Joe Scenario 3 schedule: Fred v Joe Ralph v Jerry Harry v Jim Every player has played every player in the opposite subsection one time. Raw scores are used. There is a winner for each subsection who then moves on to some sort of semi-finals.

I see no reason why raw scores would not suffice. We are no longer trying to pick winners from among people who have had different playing situations (different sides of scenarios). There is a drawback to this Axis vs Allies thing however. He who is blessed with weak opponents may fair better than he should. The current ROW sections allow everybody to play everybody else who is their direct competition one time. This is a BIG drawback to "no sections" IMO. Sections need to be worked in somehow. Hmmm....I think we're back to the current ROW format.

You could handle any semi-finals or finals desired in a number of ways, or simply have a showdown between the top Allied and top Axis player. "Post season" play would not be a problem. There is just no real need for subdivisions of players other than an Axis "team", and an Allied "team". Treeburst155 out.

There are some other great advantages to an Axis vs Allies tourney I just realized. 1) Any number of scenarios could be used (3 game tourneys? A single battle?). 2) Any even number of players could participate. 3) No worries about groups, sections, etc.. 4) No bad effect due to the chance of a player getting Allies 4 times while the Allies enjoy greater scoring opportunities in 4 of 5 games due to balance that is difficult to predict.

For an Axis vs Allies tourney there would not need to be groups. The actual scheduling of matches might be trickier than we realize however. Requirements: 1) All Axis players must play each scenario once. 2) All Allied players must play each scenario once. 3) No player can play the same person twice. It might be easy to figure out. It might not be. Hehe....simply slide the list of one side's players down a notch for each scenario. Treeburst155 out.

Unfortunately this doesn't address the problems being discussed here at all. The issue being discussed is the extra scoring range available to the "disadvantaged" people in unbalanced scenarios. It is not the case that all scenarios will be unbalanced in favour of Axis or Allies. GaJ </font>