Nabla
-
Posts
367 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Nabla
-
-
Hello everyone!
First, congratulations to the winners. The finals will probably start next week. I planned to get all the scenarios for the finals ready this week, but I'm just having too much fun playtesting them. For example, yesterday, while playing x against the AI, I couldn't believe it when a y, right out of the blue, z both my u and v, even after w!
At this point I'd like to thank WBW for his first round scenarios, and all first round participants. I hope you had fun.
As you've probably noticed, a new thread has been started in the scenario forum about the first round scenarios. I've just posted a message in that thread, containing a link via which you can download my first round scenarios (The Aftermath, Gotta Get Up, Economy of Forces).
-
Hello everyone!
Since both tournaments are now over, first round scenarios can be published. So here they are:
NWT and NCT first round scenarios
Have fun!
-
I hate to admit it, but every once in a while (like once in a year) I get these laughter attacks. Just can't stop laughing, even if I wanted to. This one hit the spot.Originally posted by The_Capt:3. "askjlfhlakj_002azx.txt". Oh ya, my favorite!! I call it "filexyia" or the inability to name/number PBEM files according to any basic logical alphanumerical system. You may send "CaptvsIdiotboy_001.txt" and you get "IdiotboyvsCapt_A.txt" and trust me it goes down hill from there.
Capt, keep them coming. Reading you loud and clear.
-
Medians.Originally posted by tero:Just to clear this: Are you using medians or averages ?
That's just a typo made when the output of the scoring program was copied (to produce a shorter message). The scoring program output is actuallyOriginally posted by tero:tero 66 (-5.936), Torbhen 26 (-5.936)
Hmmmmmm..... I and Thorben BOTH lost this one ? 2-1, the game ended in a tie with both sides losing.
[ Economy_Of_Force ] player [ tero ], difference from median [ -7.5 ] score [ -5.936 ]
[ Economy_Of_Force ] player [ Torbhen ] difference from median [ 7.5 ] score [ 5.936 ]
The score is adjusted immediately to add up to 100 before any other computations:Originally posted by tero:Also, it seems in this one the score in our game did not even out at 100 as the rest seem to. We seem to be missing 8 pts from the full score. How does that affect the final score?
[ Economy_Of_Force ], read result [ tero 66 Torbhen 26 ].
[ Economy_Of_Force ], neutral points, adjusted result [ tero 70 Torbhen 30 ].
[Edited typo. Really, first wrote typo as type above.
][ April 17, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
Congratulations for the finalists! You can start your mental preparations for the finals. Two of the scenarios for the finals will come from me, and one from TB155. One of my scenarios is complete and has been reviewed by TB155, for the second one I need to write the briefings, do some playtesting and have it reviewed by TB155. If I remember correctly, TB155's scenario is ready, and I will review it shortly before the finals (TB: could you send the scenario to me). I assume that all this will take a couple of days, so the finals will start next week.Originally posted by Treeburst155:...and the winners are:
SECTION ONE
Ari... 7.59
SECTION TWO
Tuomas... 4.54
SECTION THREE
Cogust... 8.57
SECTION FOUR
Mattias... 5.78
We'll discuss the details of the scenarios later on once the first round of the Nordic Wannabe Tournament is over.
At this point I'd like to thank WBW for providing two nasty scenarios for the first round, and all the players who boldly went where no man has gone before, and participated in the first round of this worlds first unbalanced CM tournament. I hope you had a lot of fun.
[ April 14, 2002, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
Well, that means that I've got to start polishing my second scenario for the finals.Originally posted by Treeburst155:The absolute final deadline for all AARs is Saturday, April 13, 1200 hrs (GMT -5)
I will begin posting statistics as soon as I get the last game result. This could be anytime now. It will be Saturday noon before I need the AARs. I have lots of work to do without them until then. By Saturday night (Sunday morning for you guys) the four finalists will be announced.
Glad to see that the first round is over. Interesting medians. We can't start discussing the scenarios, though, until the Nordic Wannabe tourney has finished the first round. What's their status, TB155?
-
Hello everyone!
First the bad news: the finals will definitely not start before 8.4. I've been way too busy to be able to complete and test my second scenario for the finals. I'm going on holiday next Saturday and will return 6.4., and will finish off the second scenario after my return.
Then the good news. The thing I've been busy with concerns CM (and is especially close to the hearts of Nordic people), and is something that you will hopefully have a chance to enjoy during the next couple of years. So my time has been well spent.
[ March 26, 2002, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
Hello everyone!
First the bad news: the finals will definitely not start before 8.4. I've been way too busy to be able to complete and test my second scenario for the finals. I'm going on holiday next Saturday and will return 6.4., and will finish off the second scenario after my return.
Then the good news. The thing I've been busy with concerns CM (and is especially close to the hearts of Nordic people), and is something that you will hopefully have a chance to enjoy during the next couple of years. So my time has been well spent.
[ March 26, 2002, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
I'd be interested to see the balanced scores of the players from each game. Did the winners score better than others consistently? Well, it's obvious that at least one did.
But overall, the end result of the first round seems to be a well separated set of four finalists.
-
Could that be a power supply problem?Originally posted by John Kettler:The technical problems continue, but I now have a better sense of what's happening. It's as though the computer barely has enough oomph to run as it does, with the CD adding so much load to the system that it simply won't boot with the CD engaged, nor will it read the CD if inserted after booting.
I suggest that you post a message to the Tech Support forum if you haven't done that already. From what I've understood they've got some real gurus lurking around there.
-
Good morning.Originally posted by Treeburst155:Good Morning, Nabla!
I haven't actually forgotten it, but it is a good thing that you reminded me. We have to decide it upfront, before the tourney(s) end.BTW, don't forget we need to discuss the scoring program parameters at some point. I believe I sent you my proposal.
I will study your proposal today and send you my response via email.
-
Don't forget the other tourney - they have to be done with a scenario as well before we can start the discussion here.Originally posted by Treeburst155:Unfortunately they are spread out among all the scenarios so you still can't discuss the scenarios.
Glad to hear that things are proceeding nicely. What's the estimated end of the first round now?
-
-
Just out of curiosity - in how many of these 4 games did you think that the tactical problems were interesting? To put it another way, how many tactically boring games did you play?Originally posted by CombinedArms:I think the key with an unbalanced scenario is for the player with the weaker side to have an interesting tactical problem.
I may have had a double issue in Nordic Wannabee, inheriting some bad positions and also getting what (I think?) were the weaker forces in 4 out of 5 games, so I was behind the eight-ball from the start most of the time. Still, it was a lot of fun. I'm not complaining!
-
What are the options?Originally posted by Juha Keratar:Treeburst and others, try to decide what to do with the unfinished games, I'll follow this board from somewhere. I'll know soon when I'm up again.
1. Wait.
2. Rent a laptop for a weekend and TCP/IP all the games to the end.
3. You send your password(s) to us, we arrange a ceasefire with your opponents. Is this feasible?
4. You surrender (a bad idea).
5. Play at work.
Other options?
-
I don't think there are many greatly unbalanced scenarios in NWT. Perhaps you inherited some bad positions when you came in as a recruitment in the middle of the tournament?Originally posted by CombinedArms:The Nabla scoring system is great, but if I could throw in my 2 cents as a survivor of both ROW and the (unbalanced) Nordic Wannabe tourney, IMHO scenarios that are at least somewhat balanced are a whole lot more fun for the players.
But I do understand what you're saying: if you get your a** kicked left and right it's not so much fun. I don't know how difficult it is to get the feeling that what counts is how well you do, given the situation and the forces you have. If you've got the bad hand you're not expected to win.
In the future, if I will still be designing scenarios for unbalanced tournaments, some of my scenarios will always be unbalanced. I will keep the players on their toes, and the best way to do this is to keep the threat real. This can be painful for the players, but I think that real commanders were pretty jumpy too, and frustrated when their troops were killed in large numbers.
[ March 05, 2002, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
Originally posted by Treeburst155:
In fact, being unfettered by the balance issue opens up a whole new world to designers. Historical battles can be truly historical without adjustments for balance. 90% of play-testing can be eliminated from any scenario too.
I think the finalists will enjoy what I come up with should we need to use my creations.
You just gotta love the Nabla scoring system. Tournaments are fair, and scenario possibilities for them are much greater. Thanks, Nabla!
Thank you.I'll send you some email about dangerous design pitfalls in designing (possibly) unbalanced scenarios.
-
Ok, we'll use this procedure.Originally posted by Treeburst155:OK, I understand the 3-way tie explanation. It took me awhile on that one. Anyway, that sounds real fair to me.
In due time, my friend, in due time...I assume, Nabla, you are working on the three playoff scenarios? :eek:
Seriously, I've had three article deadlines at work, and after today I've met them all. So serious - and devious
- planning starts this evening. -
A short intermediate thanks to all those who have written and sent AARs so far. Reading them is both very entertaining and educational.
After the tourney is over I will put some of the best AARs available for downloads on the net. If you want to spice up your text a few nice screenshots make a big difference.
If it is possible for you, please use PDF since it is can be read on a computer running any operating system. (If some of the best AARs are not PDF then I will do the conversion myself before I make them available for download.)
-
A short intermediate thanks to all those who have written and sent AARs so far. Reading them is both very entertaining and educational.
After the tourney is over I will put some of the best AARs available for downloads on the net. If you want to spice up your text a few nice screenshots make a big difference.
If it is possible for you, please use PDF since it is can be read on a computer running any operating system. (If some of the best AARs are not PDF then I will do the conversion myself before I make them available for download.)
[ February 16, 2002, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: 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.Originally posted by Treeburst155:I remember now. I like it! Perhaps I will offer the Wild Bill people a chance to do the playoffs like this. One thing though, there's a very good chance we will get a tie, don't you think, with four people whose scores will all fall in the 0-3 range.
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.
[ February 15, 2002, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
Winners of each section will continue to the second round. They will play three scenarios, one against each opponent. For the scoring used in the final round see my reply to Treeburst155 above. We haven't yet decided how possible ties (when victories are summed up) are handled.Originally posted by Tuomas:Anyway who will advance from these first rounds and how will they play in the next round?
-
The newest version of the program splits contested points automatically - there's no need to do the division by hand (you have the latest version, don't you). This solves the problem.Originally posted by Treeburst155:I ran into a small glitch while getting the input file ready for the scoring program (a dry run since all input is case sensitive, spelling, spaces, etc.). It seems the program only accepts whole numbers for scores. This means when I split the points for contested VLs I have to drop the .5 fractions so that some scores will only total to 99 points.
However, if you for some reason want to split the scores by hand that shouldn't be a problem either. At least in my Linux version floating point numbers are accepted as input. I have to test it under Windows one day. Anyhow, there should be no need for such thing since the program takes care of splitting points automatically.
EDIT: If you are wondering what the program is doing then remember to use the -d flag for diagnostic output.
[ February 13, 2002, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
-
I think we're going to use the nasty competitive version: one point for the player who gets a better CM score than the other guy who's playing the same side. That is, if we have players A-D, and they play a scenario with end resultsOriginally posted by Treeburst155:IIRC we are going with the 4 player/three scenario schedule for the playoffs? If so, we have to deal with the fact that each scenario will only be played two times. This won't give us a very reliable median, eh? I know we talked about this earlier, but how did we decide to handle it? I can't remember. :confused:
A 81 - B 19
C 80 - D 20
Then A and D get one point and B and C get zero points. Of course the example illustrates the extreme case when the difference between the scores on the same side is minimal.
This is a very competitive scheme in the sense that it does not suffice to do pretty well. You really have to push it in order to get a better CM score, otherwise you'll end up with zero. I think it's ok in the final round.
[ February 12, 2002, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]
The Nordic Championships (Part II)
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Hello everyone!
A short update. The finals will probably start next week. I planned to get all the scenarios for the finals ready this week, but I'm just having too much fun playtesting them. For example, yesterday, while playing x against the AI, I couldn't believe it when a y, right out of the blue, z both my u and v, even after w!
As you've probably noticed, a new thread has been started in the scenario forum about the first round scenarios. I've just posted a message in that thread, containing a link via which you can download my first round scenarios (The Aftermath, Gotta Get Up, Economy of Forces).