SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Kraut what are you talking about ? This thread is referring to multiplayer games ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tom w Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Ok I can tell the auto surrender "feature" is a big problem for SS_PL And it has been debated ad nassausem here... BUT more importantly I think there is somthing VERY wrong with a ladder or organized competion of war gaming that allows one player to design a map and choose which side he will play. If thats the way this ladder is organized you can count me out. It "should" be double blind, both players are randomly assigned sides (axis or allies) and the map is randomly selected by a third party from a list of "approved" maps. I know SS_PL is suggesting there are unscuplous players, I know this to be true my self, one of my board war gaming buddies is known to cheat given ANY opportunity. I'm sure there will be attempts to cheat. But if It is a ladder then it should be double blind... random sides assigned, random map used. All Ladder maps/scenarios should be "somehow" evaluated for play balance. The "evaluated for Play balance" could be the next problem where that is questioned, I suppose. I am not adverse to the auto surrender feature when the global moral level drops to single digits. a Loss is a LOSS, lossing less or lossing more should be irrelevant. I would like to see the ladder reflect only three things; a WIN, a Loss, or a Draw Period. Just like chess, 2 points to win 1 point to draw. That would clear up SS_PL issue.. Its a Win or a loss how big does not matter A narrow or marginal win, ranks the SAME a decisive butt kicking! Then the auto surrender can stay and as Bill Murrey Said in MeatBalls "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!" Its just a win or a loss... -tom W <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader: Ok here goes: here is one way I see that an unscrupulus player could pull this off 1. slighty tweak terrain in favor of desired winning side 2. slightly tweak ammo loadout in favor of desired winning side 3. pick better quality units or adjust morale to favored side 4. set up a reinforcement schedule to coincide with morale collapse 5. Then simply throw em a bone to offset any questionability (ie cover tracks) VIOLA instant setup <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 I and many others belived in CC2 that the only way to go was with point battles. I also think it is going to hold true here - Otherwise its just potentially a screwing I think pregenerated scenrios should be rated for fairness by a panel and/or the players Point matches will allow dbl blind and you can view the map prior to playing to evaluate terrain The points will eliminate getting stuck with crappy troops and reinforcement schedules and elimiante this AUTO SURRENDER problem (provided you buy intelligently anyhow ) So far I see no other way to ensure a fair match - Playing both sides of a scenario is simply not fair and I stated why on anotehr thread ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Well, steves' last post didn't sound very "multiplayerish". It sounded like he was talking about single player games where the AI surrenders to you, which is absolutely OK (sorta a no-brainer). MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Well I wasnt going to post again and I think Steve has said his bit, but I just watned to respond to this..... 1. slighty tweak terrain in favor of desired winning side This is nothing to do with global morale, and is the same in any wargame that has a scenario editor. I guess the solution is to take out the editor and leave you guys with the canned scenarios Just kidding, but you can see my point 2. slightly tweak ammo loadout in favor of desired winning side ermm, as above 3. pick better quality units or adjust morale to favored side Yup, look up 4. set up a reinforcement schedule to coincide with morale collapse Ok, the point that addresses morale in a certain way. If you have reasonable forces to start with, and dont get the crap beaten out of them before your reinforcement arrive, then this isnt an issue. Really, what you are suggesting here isnt possible, Ive designed several scenarios and trust me when I say that after about 2 minutes of gameplay, ANYTHING can and usually does happen Good example : Im playing a scenario I designed at the moment. Part of the design was to have a german platoon ambush and wipe out the allies initial armoured column. Its worked before, but this time a weary recurit opened fire way to early cost the entire platoon their lives. War, as is CM, is not predictable enough to make the calculations you are suggest SS 5. Then simply throw em a bone to offset any questionability (ie cover tracks) Look up above one. If someone is out to cheat, I think its the people running the LADDER whom should put in place restraints to stop such problems. In a way SS youve proved that the surrender thing isnt as big a problem as you initially thought because if someone wants to cheat, there are many ways they can as you pointed out, fareasier than try to exploit the surrendering Now, one thing I will add to points 1-3 and 5. There has been a feature in CM for a while now to do with CM scenario design that I wont mention directly at this point (not sure if we are ment too ), but trust me in the fact it should seriously cut back on cheating in tournament and ladder style games as long as the origional scenario designer can be trusted.. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Well I'm not sure how you dismiss my points as impossible to set up - didn't quite follow that one. You say they aren't related to morale; but the morale was a very big factor in fact they are cenetred AROUND morale- All those little things add up to slighted scenario; The morale will have a huge effect when you start losing because of all these subtle edges you didnt notice when examining a scenario. You really haven't stated much that I can see that convinces me otherwise - except some unknown feature, but until I see that in action I can only go on what I see ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Ok after going through 7 pages of posts over two days i don't think I saw this mentioned. The ladder that is being currently developed is setup so that when you have a game that ends the results are sent to the ladder and then both parties are e-mailed and have to respond to have the game added. Now if you play someone that has created a scenario that is obviously overbalanced( correct me if I am wrong the formula takes into account a discrepancy like this)you can then not respond to the email sent out and post your reasons why. Teutonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Boy willthat ever open a can of worms Anybody can say oh I'm not reporting because that scenario wasn;'t fair -----OH man we DON"T want to go there Better to find a way to avoid the problem rather than reacting to it ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 I'm going away for a few days but when I get back I'll post an article to CMHQ about a feature which went in a while ago which should realy aid in ensuring good scenario balance. Won't please everyone but then again nothing ever does Ps. If you DO play the author of a scenario and don't expect him to have a MAJOR advantage over you when you play then you're a grade 1 fool. When I played another tester in a scenario he designed I stipulated that I would look at the scenario in the editor and see his forces and mine, along with reinforcements etc so we'd start off on the same level. Basically though with the vast number of new scenarios I expect to be made once CM is released ( the editor is extremely easy to use) I would expect that you'll have absolutely no problem finding a different scenario to play. In that situation, where you have a choice, IF you play a scenario designer in his own scenario without taking proper safeguards then you deserve everything you get cause you really must be a moron . My advice is simple... We don't need to create rules, balances, ranking systems for terrain etc etc when, instead of all that fancy **** we should all just use a little bit of common sense. If the guy made the scenario and wants to play you in it then either a: you need to make sure you know it as well as he does and need to ensure it is balanced or you need to get him to play you in another scenario. If it is beyond your powers to choose from one of the several hundred scenarios which will be on the net within a month or two of release then you have far larger problems than just being taken advantage of in PBEM games . Common sense obviates the need for all these rules etc etc. All we need to do is use a little of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Actually, after rereading I think I made myself pretty clear, wether you want to udnerstand it or not is up to you But to make it clear. There are MANY ways you can attempt to cheat, you pointed several out, that have NOTHING to do with global morale. The amount of AP rounds you tank has is nothing to do with overall morale, so thus has NOTHING to do with your gripe in this tread, understand ? Nor does terrain, which also does NOT affect global morale in any little way. My whole point, which you obviously missed, is that there would be FAR easier ways to design a scenario that was unbalanced than trying to induce a global moral collapse. Simple Solution. If you are playing against someone, DONT PLAY ON A SCENARIO THEY MADE !!!! Doing so is stupid as they aleady know your entire force setup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Fionn said : We don't need to create rules, balances, ranking systems for terrain etc etc when, instead of all that fancy **** we should all just use a little bit of common sense. Common sense only goes so far You may not think we need any gauge for scenarios, but alot of people are going to want some kind of gauge with the enormuos amount of scenarios that will be out there (as youpointed out) Having someway of keeping track of them and their playability is an asset an a Timesaver Kwazydog Said: But to make it clear. There are MANY ways you can attempt to cheat, you pointed several out, that have NOTHING to do with global morale. The amount of AP rounds you tank has is nothing to do with overall morale, so thus has NOTHING to do with your gripe in this tread, understand ? Nor does terrain, which also does NOT affect global morale in any little way.My whole point, which you obviously missed, is that there would be FAR easier ways to design a scenario that was unbalanced than trying to induce a global moral collapse. Sorry but i think it is you who missed the point - all those little factors add up and center around the morale factor - if you can't see that I'm sorry Its pretty plain and to make anything that isnt ellaborately designed to decieve would be OBVIOUS and wouldnt work People that design stuff like this don't design them so they can be easily noticed as lopsided -what would be the point in that? the idea is to subtly decieve the opponenet into playing and unbalanced scenario _ ONLY an IDIOT would fall for something that isnt crafted well enough to APPEAR even! Hopefully this feature you guys are saying is there will make a huge difference - personally I see myself ONLY playing point based games period for competition - it will avoid all this crap ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Yawn Okeydokey SS I do get your point and I have all along, but my point which you arent getting is that it is much easier to cheat other ways in scenerio design. Yes, those points to affect moral, everything does, but moral is something that cannot be controled that easily. Two issues I bought up which you may have missed or may have decided to not comment on * Why play someone whom has designed the scenario? You would be silly to, as they know before your whole force setup. * It would be next to impossible to design a scenario that instigated a global surrender. Remember that game I mentioned a few dozen posts back, where I reouted the entire allied force and there was no surrender? Now, if anyone was going to surrender I am sure they would have, but they didnt. Designing a scenario to cause this I would say is 99.999999% impossible. As Ive said, in dozens of games, Ive never seen an auto surrender. SS, I understand your point, and arent having a go at you in this thread It just seems that you arent overly willing accept others positions for the time being on this as well, others whom have played a much more recent version of the game, and instead are arguing against their opinions. Seriously SS, your point does have substance, but I dont think it will be an issue in the final game. Its not going to change for now, Steve said that, so do me a little favour Keep this point in mind, play the gold demo and start up this thread again IF you find yourself in a similar situation I honestly dont think you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Kwazy _ I know you've got experience with a later build, And I appreciate that< but I have a lot of experience with ladders (which I'm sure you have some too) But I know that if it can be exploited it will be based on what I've seen I hope you are right really _ but as I said before it will be unlikely after all this that I play ANYTHING other than point games -which was the safest bet with CC2 and I will hazard a guess it will be the best bet here I've never liked my stuff bought for me anyhow I will save prebought games for the me and the AI or for fun only I do appreciate you input tho ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 I have to agree with Fionn here, just remembering my own experiences from CC2 ladder. Sometimes people would make and try and play me at their own dodgy maps. Now, in setup I could pretty easily tell if it was crap, so what do i do? Well, in the setup phase I tell them i'm not happy with this map and don't continue. Easy! No reason why you can't do this in CM. It eliminated the "I've been given crap troops in a crap setting" problem. And yeah, if you play a Ladder game, against an unknown person, on their own map, without chcking it first, well.. They deserve the win! "Too stupid to live" comes to mind. Now, I imagine within a month or so, there will be a site or 2 with "approved scenarios". I'd suggest that any CM ladder hosts such a section, for ease of use. These would be maps that had been thoroughly played and found acceptable for ladder play. I don't expect there to be more than a few dozen because ladder-freaks will want to know each one in and out totally, and so you can only learn so much. And of those, only a dozen will be played regularly, is my guess. There you go, problem solved. I think I will be like many tho, and only play now and then on the ladder. I love to play a totally sigh-unseen scenario, and so i'm more than happy to challenge my mates on something they've made, and i'd be more than happy if I pulled of a draw! I think people are getting a bit too worked up. After all, as has been shown, even if the morale problem was removed, there's still many other ways to 'cheat'. I think for the real 'purists', one could specify a CM ladder totally devoted to 'random battles'. I think that would be a -true- test of players, constantly playing on totally fresh maps and setups. All other forms of cheating would be eliminated. anway, enough ramble from me. PeterNZ ------------------ .C O M B A T. .V I S I O N. * Film From The Front * http://combatvision.panzershark.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanE Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I love to play a totally sigh-unseen scenario............................... I think that would be a -true- test of players, constantly playing on totally fresh maps and setups. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Couldn't agree with you more Peter. I played each scenario in the demo a couple of times and that was it. Once I played a couple of times from each side the "fun" was no longer there as I knew what forces were present. I am not planning on playing a scenario more than twice (once for each side tops) once we have the final product. There will be more than enough maps avialable to keep me guessing. For me, nothing can beat that feeling I get when I run into something unexpected. The first time I played RB, I jumped in my seat when the hidden 88 blew up my tank. When I replay a scenario, it is no longer a surprise because from the very beginning I am thinking: "Watch out for that 88. If I advance this way, it shouldn't have a LOS to my tanks until it is too late." Just not the same, IYAM. ------------------ Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 DAn said: When I replay a scenario, it is no longer a surprise because from the very beginning I am thinking: "Watch out for that 88. If I advance this way, it shouldn't have a LOS to my tanks until it is too late. Well If you don't think "watch out for those 88's when you play the new scenarios even blind you are gonna get ripped a new one ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanE Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well If you don't think "watch out for those 88's when you play the new scenarios even blind you are gonna get ripped a new one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I got a new one ripped big time in that RB game. I had two smoking Shermans, an accelerated heart beat, high blood pressure and still NO clue what shot me. All of this in the first couple of minutes. I had some unlearning to do after that game. ------------------ Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Heh Heh Once we start encountering pillboxes heavy arty and airstrikes -i think we'll all have a bit of "unlearning" to do ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 must ..... mu-ust ..... re re re reach .... t t tt two hundred ..... p p p posts ... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Fat Guy Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Uh, all this about ladder games? Ladders are for losers. I really hate the idea about ladder players having to OK results. That is like asking my mom for sex. No winners there. In my history playing CC the people I have beaten always disconect before the ladder score can be recorded. No honor in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 OK, I am *trying* really hard to follow SSPL's position, but I am just not getting it Here is the deal... In a multi-player game the ONLY thing that will force an end (auto-surrender) is when the ratio gets to a certain range that is overwhelmingly in favor of one side. Note, this is a RATIO, so if one side is doing piss poor and the other side is doing so-so, the game WILL NOT END on its own. It isn't like one side takes a beating and then packs it in even if the other side has also taken a beating. There is a random element in here as well. Global Morale is dependent on one thing and one thing only -> casualties. Ammo loads, terrain, whatever have nothign to do with Global Morale. There is no way to make subtle changes to a scenario to somehow achieve victory. Sure, one side can have more AP rounds than the other, but you know what... that already happens quite often because of the standard loadouts for each vehicle (for example, the Marder II has only SEVEN HE rounds). And since it only takes ONE round to score a kill, the odds mean that you can tweak the crap out of stuff till the cows come home but it isn't likely to give you any advantage. What WILL give you a HUGE advantage is playing a scenario you have made. So you should not play competively against anybody who has made the scenario you are going to play. Simple as that. Nothing more than that is needed because whatever else the knowledge of what is going to happen is more important than everything else put together. In a ladder game I don't understand what is the problem with auto-surrender taking into account everything above. What is the difference if the game ends automatically when it is CLEARLY a victory for the other side? Games have to end sometime, so why is this such a problem? In fact, it solves the weenie problem with competive play very nicely. It is more realistic this way too, since weenie game players won't get to try and rack up a few more kills when it in any real world situation the forces would have called it a day and ended the battle. Overall, I think this is one of the least productive threads for its size. There really isn't a problem here, or if there is it is a minor one that most people disagree with. So why does this thread just keep on going? There should be an Auto Close Up Thread feature Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Party Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Steve You are the auto close up thread feature Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tom w Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Perfect! Steve just said it all in these five lines right here.... "In fact, it solves the weenie problem with competive play very nicely. It is more realistic this way too, since weenie game players won't get to try and rack up a few more kills when it in any real world situation the forces would have called it a day and ended the battle." OK its time for a joke..... (ok its an old and its not so good but that post reminded me of it) How many knees does a man have...... ? Three! the left knee the right knee and The Weenie! ha ha ha ok bad joke but it was a great Post by Steve. Its good to know it is a Ratio And I assume it reflects the point spread between the low Morale of the losing side and the hide moral of the winning side. In Ladder games I vote for a win to be defined VERY simply as a any result that is NOT a Loss or a Draw, A Victory no matter how decisive only counts as ONE victory, I would say (to repeat myself) A victory (any flavour) is worth two points, a tie is worth one, losers get NOTHING! Auto surrender is then completely irrelevant. Simple. Autosurrender will likely work JUST fine the way it has been implented in the Gold Master I Totally Trust Steve and BTS on this one. Now about that LOS Terrain and structure FOW (for recon sighting purposes), feature in CM2 .... (oops wrong thread sorry -tom W (tom w and major_tom {junior member} are the same user) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: OK, I am *trying* really hard to follow SSPL's position, but I am just not getting it Here is the deal... In fact, it solves the weenie problem with competive play very nicely. It is more realistic this way too, since weenie game players won't get to try and rack up a few more kills when it in any real world situation the forces would have called it a day and ended the battle. Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 In a 7 page thread we should have been able to negotiate peace in the Middle East. SSPL, why not lock this one up and let's talk about maps? ;} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 Steve said: In a ladder game I don't understand what is the problem with auto-surrender taking into account everything above. What is the difference if the game ends automatically when it is CLEARLY a victory for the other side? ******************** Well part of my pointi s that If I have several tanks or any for that matter, being The AI is not a good JUDGE of my abilities with these tanks - just because I'm getting the crap kicked out of me when I'm outnumbered (before reinforcements) - hence I dont think it should have the final say COLLECTIVELY - surrender them when they start taking fire they cant refute and dying - much more realistic then you siad : In fact, it solves the weenie problem with competive play very nicely. It is more realistic this way too, since weenie game players won't get to try and rack up a few more kills when it in any real world situation the forces would have called it a day and ended the battle. I don't feel that killing enemy armor over three turns back to back is being a weenie that I don't follow . If i Had no armor and I was running around HIDING then thats BS I just would like to be able to play the game out if both players agree to the option. Thanks for at least trying to see my position Steve with regards to the scenarios As far as scenario design goes - I don't have the editor so until I do I won't argue the balance point in this thread any longer I still thing this should be an option just for playability if both players agree to the option. But I contend I will still ONLY play point games for Ladders it will solve all this, just as it did in CC2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts