Treeburst155

The finals will begin in about five hours. Well, two-thirds of the finals anyway. We're still working on one of the scenarios. It will be ready shortly. In the meantime, we'll get this ball rolling again. If you are the Allied player you will receive only your briefings and a password for each game. If you are Germans you will receive all this plus the .cmb saved game file. The German player will start the PBEM game with this file. As previously mentioned, you can expect files in about five hours. Good Luck, Gentlemen!! Treeburst155 out.

Page 6 bump. I don't want to lose the thread just yet. Treeburst155 out.

Just so we all understand since there is a possible 3-way tie. The difference in the scores of the applicable games will be figured AFTER the adjustment for contested VLs. Here are the scores for Ranger Challenge. The scores in parentheses are the adjusted scores. The Allies are ALWAYS listed on the left. Wreck 56(63) Holien 30(37) Greg 35(49) Warren 37(51) Treeburst155 out.

At this point we have a scenario problem if we're going to do another CMBO tourney. I'm working on it. If all goes well we will make Rumblings Of War II a CMBO tourney. The tourney would begin the first week of June. The scenario designers would need some time to do their thing, and I have lots to do too. Treeburst155 out.

Looking back in the thread, to see how Nabla figured out how to deal with three-way ties, I noticed an unanswered question about splitting points for contested VLs. Yes, these will be split, and for the same reasons. A 40-40 score is the same as a 50-50 score. This way players don't benefit from an agreement to divide the VLs among themselves in the final turns to boost their scores above what they would be if the VLs were contested. This was a rather important issue that Jukka-Pekka brought to our attention. EDIT: Ties and 3-way ties from Nabla: Here's a suggestion for handling ties. First use the result of the match between the players under consideration as a deciding factor. That is, if players A and B have a tie, then see how the battle in which A and B have played on the same side has ended. The player who has done better wins. This is still not a foolproof way because we might for example have a tie between three players A-C. The previous rule would not help if A has won B, B has won C and C has won A (in the sense that one has done better when playing on the same side of the same scenario). In such a case I suggest that we sum up the raw point differences of these games. That is, if for example the CM score differences are A-B +2, B-C +10, C-A +4, we get A -2, B +8, C -6, and B is the winner." Treeburst155 out. [ April 26, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The Waiting List (Overflow Tourney) 1) Ari Maenpaa 2) Tuomas 3) Tabpub 4) von Lucke 5) Pixelmaster Kanonier, The main goal of the scheduling program is to make sure that each player plays every other player one time, and also plays each scenario one time. The next priority for the scheduling program is to make it so each player finds his scores compared to the others in his section an equal number of times as far as this is possible (plays same side of a scenario). Only then does the scheduling program try to even out the sides a player commands. It does NOT go on from there to determine attack/defend duties or who gets the weak side in an imbalanced scenario. These two things just fall where they fall. You might get lucky. You might not. Treeburst155 out.

Tuomas and Cogust, Please send me an email from the address you want your playoff files to be sent to. Most of the addresses I have are old. Thanks! Treeburst155 out.

White4, Wreck, Ciks, and Redwolf. Do me a favor and send me an email from the address you want your playoff scenarios/briefings to be sent to. Most of my addresses are very old. I want to make sure I'm up to date. Thanks! Treeburst155 out.

I can start a thread in the scenarios forum, and post the AARs there for all to read. Any screen shots I couldn't do though. It would just be the text. I will do this when I get time. Right now, this third scenario for the finals is causing us some trouble. I need to spend some time on it. Treeburst155 out.

A couple things here. 1) I've decided to split the 48 player tourney into two 24 player tourneys. The prize will be split too. Six bottles of wine will go to each tourney winner. The reason for this is the hassles I foresee with the final showdown between the last two. For two players, this final game just isn't worth the effort involved. The problem is perceived scenario imbalance, and lack of an accurate median for that final clash to remove reasonable doubt as to where that balance lies. So, two tourneys of 24 it will be, with six bottles of wine to the winner of each. This brings us again to the question of who gets placed into which tourney. Here again, I would like to have an upper division tourney and a lower division tourney based on prior performance. Within the individual tourneys the Section assignments would be completely randomized by drawing names out of a hat. Players in the lower tourney could switch with players in the LOWER HALF of the higher tourney as long as they found someone who was willing to do the switch. This gives the lower guys a chance at the big guns if they want, and the higher guys could possibly move down if they didn't want to take on the big guns. The top twelve in the high tourney would be frozen to the high tourney. OK, you "random" fans, let me hear from you on this idea. 2) Who wants to chance a CMBO tourney while we wait for the new game? If enough are interested I will try to make it happen. Treeburst155 out.

I've been thinking about the "waiting" part too. I've come to the conclusion, based mainly on the sheer volume of new vehicle modelling work and the fairly recent conclusion of the 3D modelling contest, that CMBB probably won't be out for 3-4 more months, maybe even more. The last thing I want to see happen is for CMBB to be released right in the middle of a tourney; but I'm starting to think I can get away with one more CMBO tourney. It's real tempting. A lot would depend on if I could get scenarios for a CMBO tourney that would be ready by, say D-Day. Interest in CMBO scenario design may be waning at this point, with CMBB being more or less around the corner. I can put together fun scenarios from a gaming perspective, but historical/semi-historical stuff I couldn't do. IOW, my scenarios would tend to lack that realistic "feel". I'm just not grog enough to know what realistic is. ______________________________________________ This thread is a good thing for improving the tourneys. Whatever tourney comes next will be better because of it. Let's keep chatting. I will probably have to start a new thread soon, so be ready. Treeburst155 out.

Agreed, the actual number of unbalanced scenarios will be unknown to players. They will exist (maybe ). They may be found in either the regular season, the playoffs, or both. Treeburst155 out.

Hehe....players ASKING for unbalanced scenarios in a competition setting. That just goes to show how really good the Nabla Scoring System is. Congratulations, Nabla! Players need to remember that Boots & Tracks works for the entire community, not just us. Deliberately unbalanced scenarios would probably not be as popular as balanced ones. People would be limited to playing the AI from one side. I'm for throwing in ONE wildcard scenario that is definitely skewed. This adds interest to ALL the scenarios. "Is this the one? Yeah, this is the unbalanced one, and I have the strong side. It's time to go all out." Two turns later: "Oh nooo, a platoon of Panthers!! I'm doomed!" LOL SuperTed, If you want your guys to devote time & energy to an unbalanced scenario, fine by me. If you would rather not, then Nabla and I can take care of that one. I'm aware that deliberately "bad" scenarios is not what Boots & Tracks is all about. Thanks, Nabla, for volunteering here if Boots & Tracks would rather not spend time on it. So, there will be one wildcard, deliberately unbalanced scenario. Players will run into this one during the "regular season". Someone mentioned keeping the scenario designers anonymous. This is a good idea IMO. Some are familiar enough with some designers to devise tactics based on that knowledge of design style. The scenario designers would have their names put in "lights" at the end, before the scores are revealed. Mattias, Yes, my idea (The_Capts actually) with the dual tourneys is just me trying to interest the "random" crowd in at least a little bit of division according to past performance. Having two prizes and two tourneys also eliminates the need for a final showdown. This is good from my perspective because of the "balance" issue for that final scenario. There's lots riding on that last one. The loser is apt to perceive imbalance whether there is or not. ANONYMOUS PBEM Like seeding, this may be a controversial issue. It also requires lots of thought to implement, if it can be done at all. I think we should have a vote on this one at some point. If people like it we can expend energy trying to see if it can be done. NEW TOURNEY FEATURES 1) One deliberately unbalanced scenario 2) Second and Third place players will have a playoff "for fun" with their counterparts in the other sections. They would use the same scenarios and scoring as the "real" playoffs. BIINNGOOO!!! A sudden realization just hit me! ALL players will get to play their counterparts in the other sections in a playoff. Why? I will once again have my accurate median scores!! The playoffs could be scored identically to the "regular season". For purposes of the wine of course, only the four "real" finalists final playoff score will be considered. So, everybody plays in the finals. 3) The split tourney/prize idea is still undecided. Please feel free to discuss the issue. It will probably be voted on. Keep in mind that sections within the two tourneys will be assigned randomly. Treeburst155 out.

Since it is likely we will be using random seeding, I would like to bring up an idea presented by "The _Capt" on page 7 of this thread. His suggestion was to divide the 48 players into two groups of 24, making two separate tourneys. Each tourney winner would receive 6 bottles of the fine South African wines, rather than twelve. IOW, the prize would be split. This would of course need to be approved by our generous sponsor, WineCape. He's the one shipping the goods. We would place players in the two tourneys based on past performance. There would be the "experienced" tourney and the "inexperienced" tourney. The range of experience in each tourney would be quite large since we are just making two groups, rather than four or eight. If you are placed in Tourney II, or the bottom half of Tourney I you will be allowed to switch tourneys if you want, as long as you can find somebody to switch with who is eligible to do so. The top half of tourney I would be frozen. Once this shuffling is complete the two tourneys would be divided into four section each in a completely random manner. Doing this would give the lessers that are gluttons for punishment a fair chance of moving to the tourney containing the big guns. On the flipside, people who would rather not face the big guns have a chance to move down. I think it's an interesting idea. Any comments? Treeburst155 out.

von Lucke, Since you voted, does that mean you want to get on the waiting list for this tourney? Yep, that's right. You're too late for the main event. You are number four on the waiting list. Have no fear however. There will be an overflow tourney consisting of all the guys who don't get into this one. It will be an exact duplicate except for the prize. I will provide the overflow tourney prize. ciks, If I understand correctly your idea would mean everybody gets to play the playoff scenarios. They just don't get a shot at the wine. I kinda like this idea, but it detracts from the reward for winning your section. How about the top half of every section gets to play in "make believe" finals? If you make third in your section you play the finals against the #3 guys in the other sections. If you make second you play the #2 guys in the other sections. I like it! We can do that. Most everybody will have some hope of achieving third place. It will make the final revelation of the scores more exciting for more players. _____________________________________________ OK, it's becoming clear that random seeding is preferred. That is what I wanted to know. The polls will remain open just to be sure the trend does not change. If I start seeing a lot of #2's and 3's I will re-tally the votes. Treeburst155 out.

Nabla's two scenarios are looking good to me. I think they are ready. I've sent him two scenarios of mine that he will evaluate when he gets the chance. I think his are better, but mine are decent too IMO. Nabla will be making the final decision on what we use. Be patient. It won't be long. Remember, the German player will get the scenario file, his briefings(both general and Axis), and a password. At the same time, the Allied player will be sent his briefings and password. The German player will start the game. Treeburst155 out.

Nabla's two scenarios are looking good to me. I think they are ready. I've sent him two scenarios of mine that he will evaluate when he gets the chance. I think his are better, but mine are decent too IMO. Nabla will be making the final decision on what we use. Be patient. It won't be long. Remember, the German player will get the scenario file, his briefings(both general and Axis), and a password. At the same time, the Allied player will be sent his briefings and password. The German player will start the game. Treeburst155 out.

Cast Your Vote!!! 1) Random section assignment picked from a hat. 2) Section assignment based on prior performance. 3) All sections seeded (even distribution) #1) 11 votes #2) 4 votes #3) 0 (As of Enoch's vote) ______________________________________________ You're right Enoch, the honor system would be good enough I think. Being able to chat is a big plus too. Many people seem to enjoy that aspect of PBEM. Treeburst155 out.

Hey, you guys may be on to something here. Everybody gets a Hotmail account with an email address I assign them that won't reveal identity. Now, Hotmail used to have a 1MB attachement limit last I checked (probably almost two years ago). When a file won't go through because of size (20% of the time?) the sender would be notified by Hotmail. They would then send the mail to me, and I would forward it. This would work fairly well I think. No slowdowns at all except for the occasional turn that is too big for hotmail. The one problem, and it's a big one, is that players can simply tell each other who they are since the mail is completely private. EDIT: Players would all have to agree to keep their identities secret. I can think of no way around this. On the plus side, they could chat. As far as identity not being revealed by the email address is concerned, even AOL people can setup more than one account. I think my ISP allows me up to three. Enoch, I'll put you down for random seeding since playing the big guns appeals to you. Treeburst155 out. [ April 23, 2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Cast Your Vote!!! 1) Random section assignment picked from a hat. 2) Section assignment based on prior performance. 3) All sections seeded (even distribution) #1) 9 votes #2) 4 votes #3) 0 (results as of Wreck's vote) _________________________________________ MrSpkr, Your reasoning exactly why I originally split the players out according to past performance. I felt the overwhelming majority of players would prefer it that way. That may not be the case however. There are at least five in the lower sections who would like to play the big guns. In any case, see The_Capt's post on the lower third of page seven. I'm thinking of integrating this idea with the will of the people, which is now being determined by the vote. Treeburst155 out.

Cast Your Vote!!! 1) Random section assignment picked from a hat. 2) Section assignment based on prior performance. 3) All sections seeded (even distribution) #1) 8 votes #2) 4 votes #3) 0 (results as of Strider's vote) _________________________________________ The Capt, Your post on lower third of page seven is very interesting. We may just do that. Redwolf and Wreck, It sounds like you two guys are the brains behind how an automated system for anonymous play could be done. We'll have to discuss this further. Treeburst155 out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cast Your Vote!!! 1) Random section assignment picked from a hat. 2) Section assignment based on prior performance. 3) All sections seeded (even distribution) #1) 6 votes #2) 4 votes #3) 0 ______________________________________________ Tabpub is #3 on the waiting list. Welcome, Tabpub! If you don't get in on this one you will play in an exact duplicate tourney with a different prize sponsored by me. All orphaned WineCape tourney vets who wish to, will play. Newcomers will be allowed in the overflow tourney(we will need them), but they will be CAREFULLY screened first. M. Dorosh, This is not "just a game". It is a Combat Mission tourney. Big difference! Are you going to vote? [ April 23, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Jarmo, The third option means that all the various experience levels will be evenly distributed throughout the sections. Treeburst155 out.

Cast Your Vote!!! 1) Random section assignment picked from a hat. 2) Section assignment based on prior performance. 3) All sections seeded (even distribution) #1) 3 votes #2) 2 votes #3) 0 ______________________________________________ BTW, if you vote twice I will catch you.

The second Boots & Tracks team member signed up for the tourney has shown his dedication to the team by bowing out of the tourney in order to work on our scenarios. This just goes to show what a great design team we have working on our tourney. There is obviously a high degree of loyalty to the team, and high team morale. This makes for good scenarios IMO. Your decision is admirable, Kingfish. This means the luckless, downtrodden, ignored, left out, Sir Uber General, is now player #48 in the tourney. Congratulations Sir Uber General! You owe Kingfish a beer now. Ari Maenpaa is now number one on the waiting list with Tuomas in the second slot. ___________________________________________ Cast Your Vote!!! 1) Random section assignment picked from a hat. 2) Section assignment based on prior performance. 3) All sections seeded (even distribution) #1) 3 votes #2) 1 vote #3) 0