CM Ranking

[Eridani]

Yobobo-

I can't see any way you could partition it into 3 catagories... that's the problem...

you just simply couldn't and still keep it at all truly representative of the General's skill.

doesn't matter how you partition it.

-EridanMan

[Compassion]

Yobobo

(shrug) then your ladder system is irrelevent to Combat Mission. This isn['t chess with an exact even match. How do you rank my bare 1 point tactical loss if I am at a 5:1 disadvantage? Well, with a simple win/lose ladder system you simply can't. To say that

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"But as in all games a win is a win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is simply specious and wrong and shows that you do not understand the game. It would be great if your system were flexible enough to support a scenario designer that could set up an unbalanced game and then set victory conditions for the weaker player at losing at less then expected levels against a higher rated player, but it seems that it doesn't. Can you tell me it does? And I'm not talking about the simplified levels of CC. And I'm not talking at the simplified levels of a regular ladder. We are looking for something more. It's no shame if your system can't do what this board is asking. It's not a normal ladder system. But all blame's on you if you refuse to understand this fact, but want to make Fionn the bad guy for wanting sometihing a little different. And also if you don't understand that this game is a little different but still come here to launch a little ego soothing attack of your own.

Clay-

[This message has been edited by Compassion (edited 02-18-2000).]

[Compassion]

Am I being a dick for talking like this? Or am i looking for another post to ge back to memeber status?

[yobobo]

Well i guess we had enough of this topic.

Im trying very hard not to sound sarcastic, but.... when Fionn tells us he has, and i quote:... I've developed a mathematical formula which not only takes into account the size of the win but also takes into account the disparity in strengths between the forces involved.

Well i guess we should all listent? Well i tell you this, if he was not so ignorant in the first place we would have this thing all tied up by now. Fionn knows his CM yes i give him that, is there anything he thinks he does not know? he is even a mathematician and has developed a mathematical formula for you all.

Anyway thats all i will say about that. And i am sorry to say that the fun in it has left the building. Its a damn shame too its a great game.

Post your follow ups as you will Fionn as i will not be back to make a reply.

Happy Hunting all

[Knaust]

Geezzzzzzzz….I think that both yobobo and Fionn are equally right….so why those harsh remarks?

I think that yobobo ladder can be easily applied to Combat Mission too.

Lets look at the rating formula for established players (see The Rating System in http://tournamenthouse.com/):

Equation II: Rn = Ro + K(W-We)

Rn is the new rating.

Ro is the old (pre-event) rating.

K is a constant (32 for 0-2099, 24 for 2100-2399, 16 for 2400 and above).

W is the score in the event.

We is the expected score (Win Expectancy), either from the chart or the following formula:

We = 1/ (10 (dr/400) + 1)

"dr" equals the difference in ratings.

Now I am sure we all can agree that these following points can be applied to CM too:

1. the new rating depends from the old rating

2. the constant K is a measure of the increase/decrease of rating and thus can be accepted as it is

3. the win expectancy We depends from the difference in ratings and is a probabilistic measure

so the only point of debate is about that in CM there are different levels of victory and not simply win draw and loss like in chess (btw draw is a different level of victory!).

Now, as We is a probabilistic quantity its range is 0-1, and consequently the W range (score in the event) must be 0-1 too.

Therefore we can estimate the different levels of victory,assigned by the CM After Action Report, as follows:

W=1 for a Total Victory

W=0.75 for a Minor Victory

W=0.5 for a Draw

W=0.25 for a Minor Loss

W=0 for a Total Loss

As for provisional players the formula is.

Equation I: Rp = Rc + (400 (W-L) / N)

Rp is the performance rating (i.e., the new rating).

Rc is the average rating of the player's opponents.

W is the number of wins.

L is the number of losses (a draw counts as half a win and half a loss).

N is the number of games

From this formula you can see that, if a player in the first 20 games got an equal number of wins and losses or all draws , his established rating will be the average rating of the opponents.

Therefore we can see that the pivotal point is the draw and it counts nothing.

Now in order to take into accounts the above said different levels of victory also in Equation I,

I suggest a new slightly different formula:

Equation I: Rc+(400*R/N)

Where R is the result of the game as follows (draw is the pivotal null point):

R=1 Total Victory

R=0.5 Minor Victory

R=0 Draw

R=-0.5 Minor Loss

R=-1 Total Loss

Wooooooooppppppssssssss….....just my two(??????) cents!

ooppssss...hope that all harsh comments will be over forever....hope that yobobo, a friend of mine will be here again!

Why to make war here and not on a CM battlefield?

[Fionn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've developed a mathematical formula which not only takes into account the size of the win but also takes into account the disparity in strengths between the forces involved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then Yobobo goes on to say

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well i tell you this, if he was not so ignorant in the first place we would have this thing all tied up by now. Fionn knows his CM yes i give him that, is there anything he thinks he does not know? he is even a mathematician and has developed a mathematical formula for you all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok,

1. Calling someon ignorant IS an insult and I don't see anything I've done or said to you during this conversation which warrants such a response.

2. I challenge you to come back here and post SPECIFIC examples of HOW I have been ignorant and held back the creation of the perfect ranking system.

3. Yes, there are LOTS of things I don't know. However, I DO know more than enough maths to work with the simple equations necessary to create a ranking system.

I'd really LOVE you to tell me what your problem with me is?

You came on here and posted something which made it seem like I was stifling your programme or something when I was doing nothing of the sort (as you later admitted publicly).

THEN I explained that I simply didn't support your ranking system because I felt it was not sufficiently advanced to tackle CM. I explained my reasons publicly and many others here (in fact, I think EVERYONE HERE) agreed with my points.

In short I took a position which, when made public, was supported by ALL the impartial bystanders and YET you felt the right to come on here and INSULT ME?

Get off your high horse and get some more maturity before you come back to the forum yobobo.

It is PERFECTLY acceptable for people to disagree with you. This does NOT give you the right to insult them.

And lastly, I pity the mediocre world you live in where people cannot know both CM and maths to a high standard. It just so happens I could probably BURY you in any maths test IF you want to press the matter.

Now, I hope you'll reconsider your leaving and realise that you just got carried away and annoyed that your idea wasn't being accepted too well. Being annoyed when one's idea is being blasted apart is quite normal and sometimes one does lash out at those times. That, also, is understandable.

A simple return to the forum and a simple apology for getting unduly worked up is all that's need to let bygones be bygones. I hope you have the sense to take the hand being offered.

[Dschugaschwili]

Now that everything on this topic has been said (more than once), I suggest closing this thread before it gets totally out of control.

Dschugaschwili

[Fionn]

Knaust good post but you forget one simply issue.

What will you do about UNBALANCED games (since players are NOT going to play a game from both sides always due to FOW considerations)?

Chess is inherently balanced but wargame scenarios aren't. How will you account for someone who was outnumbered 4 to 1 but almost managed to win?

In reality this would make him a MUCH more skillful player than his opponent but without tracking for ratios of strength and their accounting within the equation ( expectancy to win variable) any rating system will be poorly applicable.

D,

I think good things can still come of this discussion. Knaust's points were interesting and some of yobobo's were also, it's just a pity he let his anger spoil them but hopefully he'll apologise and come back.

[Fionn]

I just went back and re-read some of yobobo's posts since I hadn't bothered reading them before since I knew it'd just rile me up.

Anyways, I just found some interesting points I though should be brought to people's attention.

According to yobobo I want to have control over everything to do with Combat Mission and wanted his programme so I could modify it and host it on CMHQ. YET he himself says

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I asked if CM wanted to be ranked at the Tournament House, your email was a little rude. Stating that the chess system was flawed and that you Fionn would like to make it better and then you would let me have it to use <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the LAST section there... AFTER I modified the system to fit in better with CM's results possibilities I told him I would GIVE IT TO HIM TO HOST ON HIS SITE.

Kind of makes you realise what a crock of s**t the rest of his aspersions about me are when in one email he says I wanted to take his programme for myself and in the other he says I offered to modify it and GIVE THE MODIFIED VERSION BACK TO HIM FOR HIM TO HOST ON HIS SITE.

I even have the email I wrote him about this which I can quote him if he tries to change his story now.

Yobobo went on to say

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess T.H. will not host CM ranking because Fionn says so and it is too bad because it would be fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yobobo, I don't own CM and I can't tell you what to do or what not to do. Frankly I can't stop you hosting a CM ladder AND NEITHER WOULD I TRY TO STOP YOU.

I CAN however simply refuse to endorse your system since I think it is flawed and that is ALL I am doing.

You're free to host a CM ranking system and I have NEVER tried to stop you doing that. In fact, I offered to IMPROVE your ranking system and then give you the equations etc free of charge so you could improve your site.

Charles,

Trust me, I wouldn't have reacted as I did to yobobo's post except that I STRONGLY felt he was misrepresenting me.

He said I was rude to him and tried to stop him hosting a CM ranking system AND wanted him to give me his programme when the TRUTH is that I merely said that his ranking system wasn't optimal for CM and that I would IMPROVE it and then give him the improved system for FREE to host on his site.. I also said that I'd also host the improved system on CMHQ if he didn't want to use it.

I was willing to do WORK and then give him the fruits of my labour FOR FREE for HIS SITE. To have THAT generous offer twisted and turned around and posted here is a bit much for me to swallow.

In short Charles I DID offer to work with him to improve his system but he turned me down. When he turned me down I said ok and left with good grace only to find this message on here a few weeks later telling lies about me. How would you feel if someone you had offered to HELP FOR FREE twisted the facts and accused you of trying to take his work? Pretty annoyed eh? Welcome to how I feel right now.

As anyone who has been around here for a while knows I HATE (with a passion) to be misrepresented and react when it happens as I REFUSE to let ANYONE get away with misrepresenting me no matter what the circumstances.

Sorry for the long message but I REALLY hate being misrepresented, especially when I'm painted as a "bad guy" when I actually went out of my way to help someone and was rudely turned down by THEM. I didn't come on here bitching about how I felt yobobo seemed to insult my intelligence when I offered to help him. I kept quiet.

To have him come on here and start dumping on me and sniping at me publicly is just too much for me to sit quietly and take hence my setting of the record straight.

[Guest Zulu1]

Fionn, life can be a bitch when you're right and show someone that they are wrong. But IMHO Principals and Integrity are hills worth dying on!

Keep up the great work you are doing here.

[Knaust]

Fionn, IMHO no GOOD scenario may be UNBALANCED.

I dont know how victory levels are determined in a scenario building, but I think that they must rely on a combo of losses and control of objectives.

Now the balance of an initial unbalanced force strength can be attained by wise positioning of victory objectives.

Say Chance Encounter….I hope that the guy who created it (Steve,Fionn,??) considered all the above said in determining victory levels…although I think that CE is strongly unbalanced in favour of the amis (but you have to find out the right strategy anyway!)

After all what I want to mean is simply that victory levels are determined by the scenario creator, who must be so skilled to create BALANCED scenarios, i.e. the above said combo.

That’s why I hope that for competition only official scenarios will be used, i.e. scenarios created or approved by official competent people.

[Guest Charles]

Hoo boy, I'm treading in dangerous water here.

First, let me say I do not condone rude behavior and name-calling on this forum or anywhere else. Yobobo was certainly out of line when he called Fionn ignorant, and he owes him an apology.

It is unfortunate that the events leading up to this dispute appear to me to have stemmed from a misunderstanding between the parties. First, from Yobobo's posts, I am not sure if English is his native language. Now, I am not saying that this is an excuse for his rude behavior. However, perhaps because of his infamiliarity with the language, I don't think he was quite able to communicate to Fionn what he was offering to do. It is my belief that he was simply asking BTS's permission to operate a CM ranking system on his site, and this is key--using the system that he had already set up. Frankly, I don't think he was interested at all in changing his system, nor was he interested in sharing his system with other sites--even if the site was CMHQ.

Fionn, on the other hand (please correct me if I am wrong), was interested in developing a ranking system which could be used at CMHQ. However, he saw serious flaws in Yobobo's system and communicated this to him, while at the same time offering to tweak it in such a way so that it would be compatible with CM.

Yobobo, because he wasn't interested in sharing his program, thought (in his mind, at least) that Fionn was 1) insulting his ranking system, and 2) trying to get him to give him his system so Fionn could set up a competing ranking system at CMHQ.

So, Yobobo got mad because he thought Fionn was being critical of his program while at the same time trying to take his program and use it to set up a ranking ladder at CMHQ; and Fionn justifiably got upset with Yobobo because Yobobo refused to share his program with him, and then appeared on the forum to more or less accuse Fionn of lying and trying to steal it from him.

It's sad that these misunderstandings have to come about. I don't think either party was trying to take advantage of the other--they simply had different goals. And, when feelings get hurt, people tend to lash out at each other without thinking. While this does not excuse Yobobo's behavior, I hope that he will someday return to the board and continue to enjoy CM and support it on his site.

I apologize for the length of this post.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS

[Guest Captain Foobar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn, IMHO no GOOD scenario may be UNBALANCED<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Knaust,

I personally am looking forward to making some intentionally unbalanced situations, and I think it will be great!

If you define "good", as useful towards rankings, that is a different matter. I will leave that to the math / tourney experts. My point is more directed at actual gameplay.

The value I see in it, is that it takes the predictability out of a scenario, and replaces it with uncertainty in the minds of both players. Even when playing CM blind, say CE for the first time, I took comfort in the assumption that the forces at my disposal would be roughly equivalent to my opponent. I made decisions based on that assumption.

I am under the impression that the front-line matchups during ww2 were unbalanced as often as they were "fair fights".

The Victory Objectives should balance the scale, and measure the performance of both players. I am certain that I am not making any new points to anyone here, I just want to get my "vote" in for the ranking system to be inclusive of this type of scenario.

I can't wait to get the editor, and see what I can create, and what is not feasable.

[Fionn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and Fionn justifiably got upset with Yobobo because Yobobo refused to share his program with him, and then appeared on the forum to more or less accuse Fionn of lying and trying to steal it from him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction. I had NO problems with him not giving me the programme (like I said it will only cause a minor delay in a programme for ranking appearing on CMHQ ).. I ONLY had a problem when I was misrepresented by him on the forum.

Knaust,

Unfortunately your system demands rating of scenarios and excellent scenario designers. Thus, it fails if either condition is not met. It also LIMITS the number of scenarios which can be played.

I prefer a more robust and all-inclusive system and thus am setting about creating it.

FWIW some of the BEST scenarios in CM aren't fully balanced. The challenge is to survive DESPITE the odds

[EScurlock]

Chess is a game of possition and sacrifice. A win with most of the pieces on the board is as good as a win with only four peices on the board. Wargames ad an additional element - survival and cost. In a wargame a crushing victory against an enemy while suffering little loss of combat capability to onself deserves higher praise than a victory at a high cost. The old saying goes, you won the battle, but you lost the war.

Chess isn't at all like that. Loose piece after piece, no big deal as long as it suckers your apponent into checkmate. You have to take into account degrees of victory in a wargame. All wins are not alike in wargames.

------------------

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Guest Charles]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Correction. I had NO problems with him not giving me the programme (like I said it will only cause a minor delay in a programme for ranking appearing on CMHQ ).. I ONLY had a problem when I was misrepresented by him on the forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[p]Fair enough.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS

[Knaust]

Captain Foobar quoted:

The Victory Objectives should balance the scale, and measure the performance of both players. I am certain that I am not making any new points to anyone here, I just want to get my "vote" in for the ranking system to be inclusive of this type of scenario

Captain Foobar and Fionn thats exactly what I wanted to mean.

Forces may be unbalanced....but the outcome of a battle and performance of players will always result in a victory level....and who other than the creator scenario can fix them?

Thus if we agree on ranking equation and all variables other than victory levels...whatever else have we to do?

Anyway I love this game whatever ranking system will be adopted.

[-Kevin-]

Chess is not balanced. White has the advantage of the first move. Among experienced players this is critical. Most grandmaster chess ends in a draw. However the stats lean to white. With black you struggle harder to obtain a draw than with white. In general, one side has to make a mistake for the other to win. White needs to make a larger mistake for black to win. Chess ranking does not account for color since tournaments have player alternate colors from round to round.

This is done in a way in wargame events. The practice is playing mirrored scenarios -opponents play boths sides and the results are combined. This helps to even out scenarios that are not balanced. An unbalanced scenario is one that favors a side in the outcome. This may be due to force balance or other reasons. Force imbalance provides some of the finest scenarios. However the lesser side has to have something (field fortifications, better equipment etc) to balance the battle between players or the larger force wins more often.

The relative outcome of a battle needs to be incorporated into a wargame rating. A win is not a win. In chess, there is no objective way to determine the quality of a win. I could play a great game until move forty have my opponent lost, then drop a piece and lose. My opponent gets a win even though most of the game they played poorly. In a wargame, the quality of win is objectivly (or at least equally) determined by the program. If the information is available it should be used. In a post above, there seems to be a variable that can be used to factor in the quality of outcome. The program needs to take in kill ratios and all factors to determine quality of victory. That info can then be fed into a rating equation.

There is a small downside to ratings. In pick-up matches, higher rated players will tend to avoid lower players as a loss will damage their ranking - they have more to lose. We see this in chess all the time. Some people play all comers, others guard they ratings like a hawk. Once ratings are established this makes it hard for lower players to advance. In tournaments, players are forced to play each other. I still support a correct rating system. This is something to look out for however.

[Knaust]

As a former pro chess player I fully agree with Kevin. Moreover I suggest another hit:a player proposes the scenario, the opponent picks the side.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knaust:

As a former pro chess player I fully agree with Kevin. Moreover I suggest another hit:a player proposes the scenario, the opponent picks the side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe this should be handled the way golf handicapping is in the UK. True handicapping is based on tournament play, i.e., only tournament rounds count toward the "official" tournament handicap, while scores from everyday play -- the equivalent of pick-up matches in CM -- are either given much less weight or calculated separately (as in Oz). This allows the conditions of play for handicap to be more closely controlled WRT conditions, adherence to rules, etc.

In CM, this would translate into tournaments where each player would get to play a tournament scenario twice, once from each side. All players in each round would play the same scenario, which would be specifically made for the tournament and only released to the public after the event. Opponents for each round would be chosen by lot or seed; advancements would be based on best cumulative score per each two-game round.

The advantage of this system is that it is difficult to "game": you can't pick your opponent and you can't pick your scenario and FOW is absolute. Also, I can imagine that the release of tournament scenarios would create a lot of buzz. Of course, this requires someone to design the scenarios, referee the tournaments and calculate the rankings.

Just a thought.

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 02-19-2000).]