Combat Mission Grand Tournament

[Andrew Kulin]

Don't surrender.  You just give your opponent maximum (100%) points.  Do ceasefires.  At least you have a chance for some points (maybe not the case as Russians the way the first two scenarios were designed but in other yes) and your opponent will get points they earned.

 

[ALBY]

.

Edited October 23, 2023 by ALBY

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Andrew Kulin said:

If this all sounds confusing to someone w/o a Matrix or Slitherine account set up, yes it is

Agreed. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[eniced73]

1 hour ago, ratdeath said:

No, both of us did quite well as the Americans and failed miserably as the soviets. Pugstorm did throw in the towel earlier than me as the Soviet side, I tried to get a tank (suicide mission) into the town but they got massacred on their way there and eventually had no forces left to do anything with and surrendered.

So, both of you played the entire game and then instead of hitting CF you both hit Surrender?  If so, you are not the only ones.  Quite a few games have people scoring 2000+ points with their opponents in the low hundreds or zero.  No knock on you or anyone else but they should of come up with a better scoring system / ruleset for this.  

 

 

Looks like this dude did not have an opponent and got a BYE.  1000 points each game which I guess is better than him taking 2000 points a game for a surrender.

 

GameGame 

Total

cristianwj

1000

1000

2000

BYE

-

-

-

 

Game 1

 

Game 2

 

 

[BFCElvis]

3 hours ago, eniced73 said:

I know this is not their first rodeo on CM tournaments but how is this scoring system legit? 

If a battle if completed then the in game Combat Mission score is what is awarded. Nothing about that scoring has been changed by the tournament feature. It is the exact same scoring system that has been around since CMSF1. So, it is as legit as solo play scoring and regular H2H scoring. 

[eniced73]

1 hour ago, BFCElvis said:

If a battle if completed then the in game Combat Mission score is what is awarded. Nothing about that scoring has been changed by the tournament feature. It is the exact same scoring system that has been around since CMSF1. So, it is as legit as solo play scoring and regular H2H scoring. 

You missed my point. 

I understand the scoring system as I have been playing since CM1.  I am stating the scoring system dealing with missing players / games and surrenders / quitters is flawed.  Surrenders should not be processed.  Only Ceasefires.  If your opponent is a no-show, not your fault nor anyone else's.  You get half total points or a certain fraction that does not hurt you but does not put you 2000 points above the middle of the pack either.

[BFCElvis]

7 minutes ago, eniced73 said:

You missed my point. 

I understand the scoring system as I have been playing since CM1.  I am stating the scoring system dealing with missing players / games and surrenders / quitters is flawed.  Surrenders should not be processed.  Only Ceasefires.  If your opponent is a no-show, not your fault nor anyone else's.  You get half total points or a certain fraction that does not hurt you but does not put you 2000 points above the middle of the pack either.

Surrenders will always count. They are battles that have been played out and the system has no way of knowing if the end of game score pushed out by CM is a surrender, ceasefire or regularly ended game. It doesn’t know how the game was completed...only that it was.

The other stuff is being looked at. Field of Glory II has some provisions for those kinds of things. We're looking at how they can be applied to CM. If somefink can be done it won't have anything to do with a CM score. It would only be affected by participation. 

[eniced73]

5 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

Surrenders will always count. They are battles that have been played out and the system has no way of knowing if the end of game score pushed out by CM is a surrender, ceasefire or regularly ended game. It doesn’t know how the game was completed...only that it was.

The other stuff is being looked at. Field of Glory II has some provisions for those kinds of things. We're looking at how they can be applied to CM. If somefink can be done it won't have anything to do with a CM score. It would only be affected by participation. 

Not what I was getting at.  I know how the game works.  What I was trying to point out is that the people running the show should know enough to adjust scores if surrenders or no shows happen.  Do not give full points for these.  You cannot reward someone who gets a no show opponent or someone who decides they are beat 10 turns in and decides to surrender.  Adjust their score to put it more in line with the average.  Not that hard to look at the score board to see that.

[Holien]

4 hours ago, eniced73 said:

You cannot reward someone who gets a no show opponent or someone who decides they are beat 10 turns in and decides to surrender. 

Hmmm how would you code that?

Would you ask Charles to code that in the game ahead of any other work?

Are you asking for some one to manually review each tourney game at the end?

BTW - I do get your point but the CM games and the scoring system just might not suit tourney play.

FOG2 is I think the top tier of tourney play and they have the best of breed approach to many of these issues. I am glad Elvis is looking at that to see what can be done if anything.

FOG2 has player to player comms nailed. At the start of every turn you get a text message area to read what the other player has said to you and then at the end of the turn you get the chance to reply and send text back. This was clearly designed and implemented into the code.

FOG2 has a clean method to deal with players that don't send turns and allocates points to those players that did send turns in a timely manner. (Not sure if this is code for the PBEM module - which is what Elvis is checking (I guess)).

So yes it is unfair on those players that did not get any turns sent to them, in effect they are likely out of contention.

Yes it is unfair for those players that don't enable a CeaseFire before the tourney round ends, in effect they are likely out of contention.

The round ends on Wednesday morning I had hoped a simple e-mail would help lift some players out of one of the issues, but we are dealing with different support teams, different time zones, different views on how to achieve things, different works schedules and workloads...

Such is life...

We can offer solutions but they have to be able to be implemented.

I hope in round 2 I get a completed game but who knows I could be paired with someone who gets frustrated that they are out of contention and just don't bother playing...

Such is life... (1st world problem compared to some other serious **** happening at the moment around the world...)

[ALBY]

Let’s all remember why we do these tournaments. We enjoy playing combat mission. So don’t let the scores get you down.    

 

I just want to play some CM!!

[Holien]

Eniced73 has valid concerns and if they can be addressed then you are more likely to get your wish to play more CM games Vs humans.

If you are running a tournament scores do matter to the players.

Let's hope with some tweaks it can be enhanced.

[eniced73]

5 hours ago, ALBY said:

Let’s all remember why we do these tournaments. We enjoy playing combat mission. So don’t let the scores get you down.    

 

I just want to play some CM!!

I am not and have never been the type of guy to just "play games for fun".  Sorry, but the fun for me comes when I am winning or tipping my hat to getting my *** kicked.  I can play scenarios and campaigns solo for fun if needed.  This is for blood.  

 

5 hours ago, Holien said:

Hmmm how would you code that?

Would you ask Charles to code that in the game ahead of any other work?

Are you asking for some one to manually review each tourney game at the end?

BTW - I do get your point but the CM games and the scoring system just might not suit tourney play.

 

No need to code anything.  I am not asking that.  The scoring system in CM scenarios depend on how much thought the designer puts into it.  Most do pretty well in that regard.  I am just saying in order to make this more fun and more competitive just do a simple review of the games that were surrendered or never played and manually give them an adjusted score that makes sense.  Not that difficult.  

 

 

[BFCElvis]

10 hours ago, eniced73 said:

Not what I was getting at.  I know how the game works.  What I was trying to point out is that the people running the show should know enough to adjust scores if surrenders or no shows happen.  Do not give full points for these.  You cannot reward someone who gets a no show opponent or someone who decides they are beat 10 turns in and decides to surrender.  Adjust their score to put it more in line with the average.  Not that hard to look at the score board to see that.

Again, 100% all in game surrender points will be awarded to the winning player. For 2 reasons. First, any in game, Combat Mission points, pushed to the Slitherine server when a game is completed will override any score generated by the hosting server. It doesn't matter if they are generated by the battle ending naturally or a ceasefire or a surrender. It is coded into the game and system and not one moment of coding time will be spent changing how surrender scores are pushed out. Second, I believe that if one player has beaten another badly enough where the other feels compelled to surrender then the winning player deserves the points. So, even if it were easy to change I would not change it.

No shows are different. No shows now award 1,000 points. If I process the initial file and my opponent doesn't then I get 1,000 points. Half the maximum. We can debate if that is too many points or not enough. That number can be easily changed. I've felt from the beginning that 1,000 "feels right". But I'm open to suggestions for different values and "why".

 

@Holien It looks like somefink similar to what you pointed out regarding Field of Glory II will be implemented. And it may not be too late to be implemented for Round 1. I'll post somefink once I get confirmation. But there have been lots of discussions between me and Slitherine. Whatever we settle with is somefink that can be controlled easily by us and doesn't involve new coding. It's all about how the back end system is generated for a tournament. Which means if you guys don't like what I decide the parameters are then we are open to hearing your opinions and can change it..........If we're sold on the need to change it.  I think that what I have in mind will seem fair.

[Holien]

9 minutes ago, eniced73 said:

Not that difficult.

If I had a £1 for every time I heard that, from those I have managed IT projects for, I would be very rich.

I will leave it to Elvis to decide if he wants to adopt your suggestion.

Maybe it's really easy....

[Holien]

AHH I see Elvis was typing as I was.

I await the outcome with interest.

My opponent has not sent any turns since Friday and before that I was lucky to get 1 a day.

So my hope to hit the cease fire button is likely to come to naught...

[BFCElvis]

18 minutes ago, eniced73 said:

I am not and have never been the type of guy to just "play games for fun".  Sorry, but the fun for me comes when I am winning or tipping my hat to getting my *** kicked.  I can play scenarios and campaigns solo for fun if needed.  This is for blood.  

 

 

I play trivia at a local brew pub each week. One of the woman on my team always says "I don't care if we win or lose. As long as we have fun." And I always say "we need to stick a shiv in their kidneys!!!! Kill, kill kill!!!!" Once my oldest went with me and this conversation was going on. The woman said her thing about fun and my kid replied "then why do they keep score?" That apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

Quote

No need to code anything.  I am not asking that.  The scoring system in CM scenarios depend on how much thought the designer puts into it.  Most do pretty well in that regard.  I am just saying in order to make this more fun and more competitive just do a simple review of the games that were surrendered or never played and manually give them an adjusted score that makes sense.  Not that difficult.  

That would involve coding. The Slitherine system has no way of knowing if the end of game scores sent are from a surrender or natural ending. So, even if we were inclined and had the manpower to manually change scores on the Slitherine server, there is no way of knowing, looking down the list of completed games, how those games ended. And as I said above, I wouldn't want them to change anyway. So, I wouldn't advocate for 1 second of coding time to change it. And believe me....as @Holien just said..........there hasn't been anything easy about the coding that has gone into the tournament feature and I wouldn't expect that to be either. This is one you might want to let go of because, like I said, even if it could be changed easily we won't change it. That part is functioning exactly the way we want it to. 

[Jackal2100]

What if one player abandons part of the way through without hitting a cease fire? Is the plan to give their opponent then the 1000 points for a no-show? If the player, like Holien above only gets the 3-1 points spread for a partial game, then they are pretty much out of contention for the tournament, and I can see people not doing subsequent rounds because of the 3-1 partial system, causing more problems down the line.

[eniced73]

8 minutes ago, Holien said:

If I had a £1 for every time I heard that, from those I have managed IT projects for, I would be very rich.

I will leave it to Elvis to decide if he wants to adopt your suggestion.

Maybe it's really easy....

it is!  They are doing it now with the "no shows".  Awarding 1000pts.  I would say 500pts is more realistic in my opinion but that is a moot point.  I do not see this happening very often.  I got no problem with what Elvis choose on this.

 

18 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Again, 100% all in game surrender points will be awarded to the winning player.

 This is why "surrenders" should be discouraged and "cease-fires" encouraged. 

There is no way someone should be ending up with zero points.  I think it would be pretty much impossible if you play through or do a CF.  If you get your *** handed to you and with 10 turns to play realize it is "game over", let your opponent take the victory location and retreat.  If you surrender, then am I wrong to say the last 20+ turns you played are for nothing as you will receive a zero score no matter how many other kill objectives you satisfied?

I know the coding part is not easy.  I was not alluding to that.  I just see a chance the scoring system could be tightened up and make this more competitive and fun.  I just wanted to get the conversation started and hopefully a few people coming up with their own suggestions.  

I thank BF, Slitherine, and all involved in putting this together.  Appreciated.  

 

 

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

39 minutes ago, eniced73 said:

There is no way someone should be ending up with zero points.  I think it would be pretty much impossible if you play through or do a CF.  If you get your *** handed to you and with 10 turns to play realize it is "game over", let your opponent take the victory location and retreat.  If you surrender, then am I wrong to say the last 20+ turns you played are for nothing as you will receive a zero score no matter how many other kill objectives you satisfied?

Well the CM system can actually score something more than zero for the loosing side in a surrender. Surrendering gives the opponent all the occupy objectives. Touch objectives are still earned only. Parameters are still earned only and you can even just give points. So the scoring could be setup for a 2000 point match to straight up give each side 200 points, Then give 300 points for a few parameter objectives and the other 1500 to occupy objectives. Then the guys that completely gets trashed and surrenders gets only 200 points and their opponent gets a full scroe. The ones that surrender but have some forces left and put up a fight get up to 500 and their winning opponent does not get the full 2000.

Clearly I'm just picking numbers but the CM scoring system can already handle your objection against surrendering. Assuming of course its setup with that in mind.

[BFCElvis]

44 minutes ago, eniced73 said:

 This is why "surrenders" should be discouraged and "cease-fires" encouraged. 

There is no way someone should be ending up with zero points.  I think it would be pretty much impossible if you play through or do a CF.  If you get your *** handed to you and with 10 turns to play realize it is "game over", let your opponent take the victory location and retreat.  If you surrender, then am I wrong to say the last 20+ turns you played are for nothing as you will receive a zero score no matter how many other kill objectives you satisfied?

 

 

If we think about what a surrender actually is then it makes it easier to grasp the 0 points. Surrender means that you have been beaten so badly that there is "no tomorrow".

And, yes, surrender by players should be discouraged in the tournaments. Even in a ceasefire the winning player can get 100% of the possible points available to them but the losing player would at least get somefink. The only surrenders that there should be are game generated surrenders. And those are rare. I lost all of my troops in one of my 2 CMBN tournaments battles and the computer did not surrender. If someone surrenders and gets 0 points then shame on them.

Quote

I know the coding part is not easy.  I was not alluding to that.  I just see a chance the scoring system could be tightened up and make this more competitive and fun.  I just wanted to get the conversation started and hopefully a few people coming up with their own suggestions.  

I thank BF, Slitherine, and all involved in putting this together.  Appreciated.  

 And thank you for getting the conversation going. 

[Lethaface]

I guess over time the no shows will improve but RL can always show up as it did for me during last tournament. These are 100day+ lasting tournaments after all.

Nudges etc can improve stuff but after someone has some experience I guess the reasons for no shows aren't due to people forgetting about the tournament. Afaik there were always mails informing me that new challenge awaits, although sometimes I wouldn't get an email about a new turn. That could be improved perhaps.

And yes the scoring isn't ideal but then again the scoring system was designed more than a decade before the tournament feature was implemented. 

Not to say that things shouldn't improve, but it will probably never be perfect. And yes I'm also fanatical about competing when I'm fighting a battle but afterwards I realize it's only a game

[Holien]

476 points rather than 80 points...

Not sure how they were worked out.

Both games did not complete and I held the farm as the Germans and did not manage to take the farm as the Allies but I was up against the farm hedge line ready for the final push...

Next game I am again against some one who is new to the game and slitherine and has a handle of Dukals1848 which might be @Dukal?

Anyway lets see how many Shermans I lose.....

Onwards and maybe upwards...

Edited October 25, 2023 by Holien
80 points not 86

[Suzuya]

Just for my opponents in round 2 Pugstrom, Vampiro & Hekkler sorry if there is a delay starting i am going to be in and out of town for a couple of days not a no show just poor timing on the 2nd rounds start for me will get the games started when i can.

[Andrew Kulin]

Looking forward to an explanation from Elvis as to how the first round scores were calculated.  Some big shakeups in the scoring I see this morning on the Matrix Tournament sites.

[Jackal2100]

I'm very confused. On the Red Thunder set of matches, it shows that one of my games timed out when I had finished both games with my opponent several days before the round was over, and the scoring was changed because of it.