Eridani Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Hey All I decided that this could use a new thread... I've been thinking alot about the current debate about map balance, including SSs comments about cheating and unbalanced maps. I was thinking It should be possible to come up with a "ladder balance" ranking for scenarios in the CMHQ dataBase. This ranking would merely indicate the ability of each side to better their ranking if challenging and equally ranked indevidual. It would take into account points, role (attacker/defender) and possible an arbitrary terrain value (5 - terrain is neutral, 1 - terrain sharply favors allies, 9, terrain sharply favors axis) and most importantly victory locations, in an attempt to figure if the game is suitable for ladder play. Since it would have so many parameters, it would a negligable breach in FOW (all it would tell you is that you have a scenario that you could both possibly benefit from, it wouldn't give you any hint as to what size forces the other person had, what the terrain was, ect). I'm just throwing idea's out into the open here... wondering what some of you thought -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Ithink you are gonna have to elaborate on this _ rating scenarios Is something I'm all for and currently discussing with someone. if you have some concrete suggestions as to how this will work I'd love to hear them ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 I'm going to sleep on it and try to post tommorrow... I have a few Ideas but I was also wondering if anyones else had been thinking about this... or what their input on a ranking system in general is... God knows I can't think right now -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Ok man let me know if ya come up with some ideas _ I'd really like to hear them ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 There will be no accounting for terrain in the CMHQ system. Quite simply any attempt to account for terrain will lead to the possibility of intentional cheating, arguments over the rating given etc etc. My opinion is that if you play 20 or 30 games then difficult attacking terrain and easy attacking terrain should balance out over time and whatever difficulties are inherent in one map will be balanced by ease of traversing another map in a different game. Basically if you look at this with an eye on just one PBEM game then yes some adjustment would be necessary but when you take on overall view you'll see that anyone who plays a lot of games is going to see terrain balance out over time. That fact and my unwillingness to countenance arguments over terrain ratings and the difficulty of rating terrain due to different styles of play makes me say terrain rating won't go into CMHQ. FWIW I would happily press attacks home over open ground and, as a defender, I have more difficulty stopping attacks made over open fields than I have stopping attacks coming through restricted terrain. Someone else might butcher attacks coming in over open terrain and dread close fighting in woods. It's impossible to create 1 terrain rating without taking that into account and then you end up with huge disagreements between users etc. All in all its not a good situation to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Eriani This this is one area Fionn and eye don't see eye to eye evidently I feel the sceanrios are going to need to be rated in some sort of format for fairness. I am very much interested in hearing your suggestions _ email them if you would rather ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Wouldn't mirror games control for terrain issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hunt52 Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 What would be possible would be to record each game played on the ladder with: Who Played What Side they Were How they Did What Scenario they Played Assorted Other Statistics Now, if people are going to do primarily DYOs and single shot scenarios, this is worthless. If people are going to play scenarios that others have played a lot then I'll implement this for the ladder. If not, then I won't. (It is a not inconsiderable amount of code + server drain) I think I am going to wait till the ladder is running for a while to put this in to gague it's necessity. - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 Ok, here we go... I was thinking last night about tying the scenario database in the the ladder (don't kill me Bill ) When the scenario designer submits his scenario, he could give the scenario a "balance modifier", that is, lets say the scenario was 1 company of american troops to hold of 2 battallions of German troops as long as possible... obviously the Americans are going to get slaughtered points wise... but hey, if they somehow manage to knockout a full half of one of the german Batallions then they should be credited with a victory. The Scenario designer, when submitting his scenario, would then put in that the balance modifier for the game was say + 9 (from a scale of -10 to 10), +9 being way in the advantage for the allies. The modifier would then be taken into account when calculating the points spread... a 0-100 score (american/german) would still rank as a spank of American forces (and the american commander's rank would suffer accordingly) but the scale could be set so that if the american commander scored... say 25-75 the ranks would remain unchaged, and if he somehow pulled a 50-50 then he would win... I hope this is making some sense.... Also, by tying the maps dbase in the the ladder, the ladder could keep track of who had played what map, check to make sure that people weren't playing ladder games on their own maps something that I think should be forbidden in general, save for all but the most balanced scenarios, and only if both sides knew the map. I dunno... I don't have any specifics... just throwing out random ideas here... any thoughts anyone? -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Hmmn < I'm not sure altering the points in the alogothim is the best way to handle the scenario situation . i thought you had something separate in mind ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hunt52 Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 So: 1. A database of Players 2. A database of Games 3. A database of Scenarios {me: loads and aims 88 at Scott} Only if you help write it - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 I'm thinking about it... I dont' have anything concrete yet... part of the point of this thread was discussion... and bill, sure, if we work something out -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Well... If you keep track of who plays who as who on the different scenarios as well as their scores, it should be relatively simple to come up with a dynamically weighted value for winning/losing and the point spread in a given scenario. Suppose one scenario typically has the allies winning handily. Taking into account the relative rankings of the two players who fought the battle, it would be reasonable to discount a win by a strong player in a scenario that favors (statistically) the side he played. Likewise, if a player of lower rank fares better than the scenario average against a player of higher rank, he could be awarded extra points for the scenario. Needless to say, in the early goings, you could see some strange results until the sample size had been built up, and more players have had the chance to play ladder rankings, but in the long run it would all stabilize. Now interestingly enough, to make this truly dynamic, you would have to keep all the scores from all the matches around, and periodically reweight all the scenario difficulty levels, the player scores and hence, their rankings. People could see their rank, and points scored earlier on a given scenario discounted if, in the long term, it turns out that the side they played does better than average no matter the relationship between the player rankings who fought in the scenario. Better than a person-imposed balance modifier (IMHO), this one lets the scenarios speak for themselves. [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 As far as keeping track of games, sides, results, etc., I believe that nifty site—www.pantherworks.com—probably has a lot of the info already available. But, as I know nothing of web page design or tabulating and presenting that information, I don't know how much work would be needed ... or if the owner of the site is even interested. just my $.02 ------------------ I'm drinkin' wine, I'm eatin' cheese and catching some rays, you know. — Oddball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Herr Oberst,</p> I agree.</p> (and I think I suggested something like this in another thread concerning the ladder) </p> Of course, the coding involved is non-trivial. I see this as the rolls-royce solution.</p> Bruce</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Better a working Volkswagen than a broken Rolls-Royce (in terms of functionality etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 < I feel it won't de as difficult to get a scenario rating system implemented as some believe ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hunt52 Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 No, it won't be the end of the world. Can I get it done before the game ships? Maybe. Probably not (stupid final exams!) I don't think that that will be in the first version of the ladder, but I do think that it's a good idea. The coding is non trivial but not conceptually challenging (just a crapload of work). Probably not for 1.0. Probably in for 1.1. Herr Oberst, that's the idea. What you outlined is essentially what I'll do. - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 22, 2000 Share Posted April 22, 2000 My 2 cents worth... Rating Terrain is almost impossible to do. Besides what Fionn is talking about (i.e. play style differences) there is the interplay of terrain and units. Tough defensive terrain with thinly spread defending forces is totally different than the same terrain with more defending units. I am of the opinion that Ladder players *must* accept overall results for their standing rather than focusing on standing game by game. Give me 30 balanced scenarios (like the ones I made for the Beta Demo) and play against me. Whoever wins more is the better player. I don't give a crap if one scenario puts me at a disadvantage terrain wise or unit wise, I don't care if I have more or less units. All that matters is what I can do with them vs. what the other player can do with what he has. Some sceanrios will be tougher than others, but in the end things will even out. Really as simple as that IMHO. Also, I bet if you took 20 pairs of players and had them play the same 30 scenarios there will probably be about the same number of winners from each side. In other words, don't forget that ratings don't mean a 1/10th as much as the player behind the size. Rate things as much as you like, but I think the better players will surface on merrit alone just fine. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts