John Hough Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 This idea was suggested to me a while ago, but I'm posting it now because of the recent threads about ladder play. I've been fairly dismissive about the possibilities for ladder play in cm, because of the inherent problems with keeping both fairness and fog of war. Until Goran Malm (there's two dots over the o, but I don't know how to put them in ) emailed me and suggested a rather elegant solution: use teams. The basic idea is modelled around Fionn's method of ensuring fairness, by having the players play each scenario from both sides, and combining their scores. But rather than individual players, we use teams of an axis and an allied commander, thus while the team plays the map twice, to ensure fairness, each player only plays once, ensuring fow. What do people think of this? I rather like the idea, but recognize that it has a few limitations. As always, you get the problem of having to trust the players on a team to not share info. There's also the problem of having to get teams together, which may well be as much of a draw as a problem, as there are likely a number of people out there who prefer playing in teams to playing alone. -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 I like it. Trust is always the issue, but it is the best solution I have heard to date. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 John, Ah, but what happens when you win your game brilliantly but your team (which you are saddled with by random selection to prevent one team consisting of all the best players etc) loses would YOU feel it fair that you lose points even though you anihilated your opponent and feel sure you would have won playing him with sides reversed. It's a very difficult issue to resolve but the discussion is leading us closer to a reasonable solution IMO. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted December 22, 1999 Author Share Posted December 22, 1999 No, no, you team up with your friends. There's nothing wrong with one team consisting of the best players. Sure, it ends up at the top of the ladder, but that's the whole point of the ladder anyway, right? -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 to be honest I dont feel we are going to be able to ensure accurate and honest ladder play until tcp/ip is released. Only then will there be parameters to implement FOW SSPL ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 There is a problem here. If you play this scenario for the first time then you will get into situation where while playing it for the second time you will know much better where to be and what to do. Depending on forces the results of second game might be pure effect of learning from game 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 That is why I feel tcp/ip will be the answer to these problems using a point vs point competitions where you control unit buys, this will keep the game fresh everytime. ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted December 22, 1999 Author Share Posted December 22, 1999 Um, killmore, you misunderstand the basic system. The game is played twice, but simultaneously, and only once by each player. -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torque Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 I’ve never played a game against an opponent (BUT I WANT TO, ereid@home.com, icq 585039) other that A.I.but what I understand is that you send your movement files back and forth thru email. Well I would rather use Roger Wilco and talk to my opponent as we play, instead of waiting for “u’ve got mail” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 what about a DYO scenario immediately designed before playing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 YAh knaust that is what i had in mind except they take too long to make on the fly - 45 min + so, i had asked on other threads if portions of this could be saved in order to cut down on the time, just generating a random map for each time the scenario is played form saved overall parameters. That would be very kool then all you would have to do is decide which point settings /style of map you wish to play then load the saved parameters and let the comp draw a random map - viola diff game everytime major FOW [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 I'm gonna start discussions of what CMHQ will offer in another thread very soon. I'll deal with this in a thread I start after that. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Brittz Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Well - I don't want to sound greedy, but give me both! I like SS's (felt like adding a couple more ss'ss) idea for FOW - nothing like going in totally blind, but I do forsee some very unballanced games which are a pain in the arse if it's 40 turns long - ok you can surrender I imagine On the other hand I also love mirror games - you lose FOW up to a point - you know what he's got, but not where they are. But the great thing about mirror is the comparison/learning from watching your opponents manouvres. Secondly it will always be the only true ballanced game - even if the Axis are stronger/weaker - they will be stronger/weaker for both players and Finally it will always be the only true test of who is the better player (Oh except for bad/luck of course / So make my night and organise two ladders/tournaments! [This message has been edited by Johan Brittz (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 If, when the game comes out, I can get some scenario designers on board CMHQ I fully intend to release scenarios for "blind play" in tournaments and for ladder purposes every so often. These would be scenarios which are released only on a specific date and are designed thus to be played sight unseen by both players since the only people who will have played them are the scenario designer and 1 or 2 playtesters who helped him ensure quality. These are all things I'd love to do myself but the time committments mean that the most I can do is simply create a few sparks, offer a home for such scenarios and try to help organise things for people interested in making such scenarios. e.g. If I organise a ladder system, recruit playtesters, put them in touch with the scenario designer that's about as much as can be humanly done. One thing, the more visits CMHQ has the more freedom I have to take the resources I want and run . If I step on toes and have 500 hits a day then I mightn't get what I need. If I step on toes in getting resources and CMHQ is getting 2000 or more hits a day then the people those toes belong to are told to get out of my way and let me at the resources . Might makes right John, the way TGN has handled this in the past is that a scenario would be brought out one week in which each player plays an opponent. They play two games, one in which player A is the allies and the other in which player A is the Germans. This type of game doesn't have to be thoroughly balanced since the sum of the results is used to determine the winner. Then, a week or two later they'll offer a double-blind but thoroughly balanced game in which each player plays only one side but you get a FOW paranoia going . If enough scenario designers come forward willing to design scenarios and submit them to CMHQ for these purposes then there I intend to follow both systems for our ladder system. Choice is, generally, good. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted December 23, 1999 Author Share Posted December 23, 1999 Yeh.. I know. I'm just a greedy bastard. I want both fow and balanced unbalanced scenarios... -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 I've been thinking about this, and I'm starting to come to the opinion that games in a tournament ladder should _not_ be double-blind. In a tournament setting, I would rather face an opponent in a scenario we are both familiar with than one which neither of us have seen before. My reasoning: It removes the temptation to cheat by looking at the scenario in the editor, or playing it against the AI or another person to get exact information on the enemy force. It also removes the doubt in a player's mind about whether the opponent is really that good at playing blind, or whether they peeked. This sort of suspicion is subtle and insidious (and difficult or impossible to prove/disprove), and it can really take a lot of the fun out of a game and lead to bad feelings. It levels the playing field. Both players are familiar with the scenario, and so aren't going to be surprised or caught off-guard by the force structure, setup areas or other scenario-specific characteristics -- the only thing to catch you off guard is your opponent. In a blind scenario, you can get screwed by not noticing a key position or misjudging the enemy force or objective. A blind scenario is really only blind once. If it's not truly balanced, you've got problems. In a known scenario, you can redress minor balance problems by such techniques as bidding for sides with a victory point handicap. Or, you can play it from each side and not have to worry about the lessened fog of war on the second playing. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy truly blind games a lot. But in a competitive setting, I think known scenarios are the better choice. Of course, we don't have to limit ourselves to one or the other -- there could easily be two ladders, one for known scenarios and one for blind competition. In fact, scenarios from the blind ladder could migrate over to the known ladder after being released to the community. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Leland, A VERY good point which is very simply countered by the fact that, in any ladder system which I am a part of setting up at CMHQ it will NOT be compulsory to play double-blind games or mirrored games. These types of games would be released as a service to the community for those gamers who like to play those games BUT there would be no intrinsic benefit to playing those games or choosing to simply play known scenarios. IOW if others choose to play a double-blind game that week and you choose to play Chance Encounter again and you both score 65 victory points then you both come out with the same score. None of these offerings would be compulsory.. They'd simply be there because some people like them... Personally I would make an agreement with your opponent to take the double-blind scenario and simply look at it in the editor and then play if you don't like double-blind. I just wanted to make clear there would be no element of "forcing" you to play a certain type of scenario. The ladder would ONLY take into account the number of games played, the scores and the skill levels of those you played against in determining your scores. It won't care at all if you are playing double-blind games or games you created yourself and know inside out and backwards IMO anything otherwise would simply be unfair. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 NO Offence intended Tankersly but NO BIDDING this was a BIG BIG PROBLEM with certain CC2players it ultimately led to their removal from the top of the ladder for unfair play.; I agree dbl blind is gonna be tough the best way to play ladders was proven in CC and don by the use of allotted points for each side with both palyers allowed to view the map this allowed for no two games being the same an FOW by not knowing what your opponent has purchased- MAYbe Steve can give us some ideas for fair point spread in the different types of engaements ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Well, SS, bidding worked just fine in W@W Tournaments, so maybe it has something to do with the people you hang out with ... or it could have been the game? JonS ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 NO Jon it had nothing to do with who i hung out with - I couldnt stand the guy - it had to do with the some of the undesirables that competition tends to attract, ones that will do anything to win - play any angle, any grey area and break any rule they think they wont get caught at. Unfotunately this particular person decided everyone had to play his way or no way- and since we were not playing poker the majority of the CC ladder players felt this was absolute BS since he sat on top of the ladder. NO one could advance unless they were prepared to play his way And listen to a three hour lecture he'd prepared on the wonderful merits of his "bidding system" trying to out bid your opponent is grossly unfair when u get player that knows the game and/or scenario bidding against someone that doesnt no matter what convincing arguments u may have on bidding i gaurantee I heard them all from his as did many CC players who were forced to listen to his tirades. Not only was the bidding system unfair the amount of time involved in getting going was rediculous - This game already will have downtime we dont need to increase it IMHO Sorry but ya hit a nerve on this one guess ya had to be a CC player on cases ladder ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Whoa big fella ... whoa. As I said, in the W@W tourneys bidding works very well, so lets not write it off out of hand huh? Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Sorry like i said there was a huge stink involving bidding it will be HIGHLY UNLIKELY that I would even consider playing such a match No offense intended but if you had an inkling of the BS that surrounded BIDDING you would know where i was coming from ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 I just had a quick peek at the Cases Ladder. Hmmm, I see now where you got your fine grasp of punctuation Seriously though, what a sh!thole of a place! My ladder background was with Leadeaters (Bought by iEN, then bought by TGN). The discussion there was usually helpful and restrained (kind of like this place), without all the backbiting. And also seriously, if bidding is well organised it works well, and can be used to balance known, unbalanced games. I suspect we have VERY different ideas on what 'bidding' means. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Well Ill try and keep an open mind- not everyone at cases is likethat in the cc2 arena but unfortunately those that are have ruined it SS_PanzerLeader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Wow, touched a nerve there, huh SS_PL? Just a brief note: I'm an Admin on bungie.net, Bungie's multiplayer service for their game Myth. Believe me, I understand how ranking systems get exploited. Because of this experience, I don't view rank as an absolute, but as a rough estimate. Being at the top of the ladder doesn't (necessarily) mean you're the best player, it means you're better at gaining points than everyone else on the ladder. The hope of a ranking system is that these two characteristics (being a good player and earning lots of points) are correlated in some way. What I'd like to get out of a CM ladder/ranking system (and what I wish the Myth ranking system was better at providing) is a rough estimate of the quality of opposition any given player might provide. Ideally, I could look at my score and the score of a prospective opponent and make a reasonable guess as to how challenging a game between us would be. I wouldn't expect much more than that, and I'd advise people not to get wrapped around the axle obsessing about earning points. Don't play the game to earn points; play to enjoy the game and help your opponent enjoy it as well. [by the way, the Avalon Hill AREA rating system, although not strictly speaking a ladder, used a variant of the chess point system. It also provided a couple pieces of information in addition to the raw point total: number of games played and number of different opponents played. Both of these items are useful in deciding how much weight to give a player's point score. Just a suggestion.] Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts