Proposed ranking formula (basic version only)

[guachi]

I like the idea.

If you were a real statistics junkie (like I am) you could even subdivide ranks by nationality (of the units commanded not the player).

This way you could have best overall, best German commander, best American commander, best British commander. Ranks could then take on nationalistic flavor - Oberst and Colonel, Hauptman and Captain. For the rankings a little jpg of the appropriate rank insignia could appear next to each persons name.

Even more statistic stuff could keep track of records for all kinds of things. Followers of sports (baeball probably being the worst abuser) know how ridiculous stats can get, but, hey, it might be useful to someone to know who has the best record in attack scenarios or who is best during night ops.

The possibilities are almost endless.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-19-2000).]

[Hunter]

Fionn,</p>

A few more (hopefully ) helpful comments:</p>

1. The more I wonder about this 'Attacking Forces/Defending Forces' factor, the more I convince myself it isn't necessary?! For example, imagine that the Attacker has three times the forces of the defender. As the scenario designer, I would ensure that the defender has advantages in 'Axis Bonus Points' to ensure that even a fighting loss would be a draw. But then you propose to penalise the attacker again for his overwhelming numbers?! I have already done that once as the scenario designer, in trying to give equal odds of getting a victory. </p>

So in this case, wouldn't it be sensible to ignore the 'forces factor' and just see who won the game? </p>

2. IF you ARE going to have a 'forces factor' or as per my previous suggestion a 'battle difficulty factor' for each side (one the inverse of the other) THEN maybe a super duper method of maintaining fairness would be if the factor was modified by the results of the battle (and the ratings of the people playing it) !

This would mean that a result of 70:30 on a battle by two evenly matched players may give a (say) +30 rating to one, and -30 to another. It would ALSO give a change of +30/constant (or something) to the battle difficulty factor.</p>

A game that results in no changes to ratings would lead to no change in the battle difficulty factor. A draw by two uneven players WOULD lead to a change in difficulty factor</p>

I know this is pretty complex, and may be beyond the scope of a manual system. It would benefit greatly from an automated results posting board, where each of the battles would also be updated as the results came in. The advantage would be that the difficulty factor of battles would be continually updated and would not require anyone to sit down and look at every one to rate it 'objectively'. A 'market mechanism' if you will </p>

Bruce</p>

[Fionn]

Hunter,

1. Ah, you assume that the scenario designer is going to be able to COMPLETELY balance out the effects of a massive overmatch of forces by judicious use of "extra points" for the defender. I happen to think that most scenario designers won't go to these lengths when balancing and must design the system so as not to ASSUME "brilliant scenario design".

I've GOT to assume stupid scenario design in order to create a robust system . I will choose robustness in the face of poor scenario design than complete useleness of the programme in the face of poor scenario design any day.

2. This will run into problems with DYO scenarios AND people simply aren't going to:

a) like the fact that what WAS rated as a win is now rated as a loss for them due to the scores others got in that scenario AFTER they played it ( obviously ALL players who played the scenario before the new difficulty rating came into effect would have to have their rankings retrospectively calculated.).

I can envision a situation in which two players playing a HIGHLY unbalanced scenario which has only been played once or twice before could result in the loss of dozens of points from the ranking of the top-most player. In fact, I can already visualise at least two ways in which players could use the system you suggest to "fix" games with the express purpose of reducing the rating of a specific player (probably the top player obviously).

Good ideas though. You just have to remember that I have to factor human laziness, error and cheating (all of which are common in a ranking system) into any design and while I'd LOVE to go for a 100% brilliant system which utilised the honour system and made everyone fill in half a page of data for every game that simply isn't going to work in the real world.

So, I'm settling for a 90% system ( which is a hell of a lot more applicable to CM than any other ranking systems out there) which is robust and actually goes a little out of its way to stop the "beating up" of newbies which is so common on these systems.

I'm open to more discussion though. These are interesting ideas being expressed IMO.

[David Stone]

Man !!

Algebra RULES !!!

stoner

[Guest hunt52]

The way I see it all you would need is:

Player 1 Name

Player 1 Score

Player 1 Role (Attacker, Defender)

Player 1 Purchase Points

Player 2 Name

Player 2 Score

Player 2 Role (Attacker, Defender)

Player 2 Purchase Points

For meeting engagements you could just have attacker, attacker. Now, for prebuilt scenarios will the game report the purchase points for both players?

Also - on the stopping cheating front, the ladder should require confirmation from both players before counting a game.

How this would work:

Player A reports a game.

An e-mail is sent to player B with a confirmation hyperlink. Player B clicks on the link. The engine reports the game. If no confirmation is sent in a perdetermined amount of time the game is wiped. Now, this won't prevent someone from making two players and reporting 100 - 0 victories against themselves, but it will prevent people from claiming to have beaten Fionn 100-0 (except for when he and I play )

- Bill

[yobobo]

I was browsing the CM forum, looking in on the(new)rating system. So far it seems it might be the exact same as the Chess style rating system, but with a few newly added bugs. I have played CM many times, but not by any means an expert in this field. Was wondering why anyone would think that the defending player has an advantage? If the battle is well balanced e.i. deployment zones, force strength, and victory locations. Then it is possible for either side to gain a victory. Or is it not possible to, before each pbm is played state what is needed for a victory, loss or draw? I am trying hard to understand what I have been reading in the CM forum about the proposed force strength modifier. Not sure but it seems to me that force strength, defending, attacking, who has the terrain, where the V.L. is located, all have a role in the outcome of a battle. But if the bpm is well balanced and either side can gain a victory, if defending or attacking why do we need a modifier?

I also wonder why record how great a loss, or how great a win each player might be in for. As new players join, and loose, and loose big as they will. These players might find them selves in a ranking hole that is too big to dig out of. I also feel that it might make these new players shy away from the game. If they loose why not just that. A loss, not a huge loss just a loss.

Well, I have already made the CM ranking format using the Chess rating system. And I also had set a page up for CM. I would like to host CM ranking because I love the game. I think it does not have to be that complicated, when numbers are thrown into the system, it becomes inaccurate.

Tournament House has come a long way this last month with tons of player options etc...The system works great.

Check the CC2 area out http://tournamenthouse.com/ We are having fun with this style ranking system, and would love to get CM going.

[This message has been edited by yobobo (edited 03-20-2000).]

[yobobo]

Whoops, P.S.

The Chess(Tournament House)system also does not allow vetran players to make points off of low rating newbies. This has been around for many years and is nothing new

Players are ranked by skill. But what is "skill"? The rating system is based on the chess skill rating system. A player enters the ladder with a skill rating of 1000.

For each game a player plays, the skill of the gamers are compared.

If your skill is much higher than your opponent, your opponent is theoretically not as good a player as you are and therefore should be easy to beat. You will not increase your skill rating much for beating "easy" players, however, you will lose a great deal if you lose.

If your skill is much lower than your opponent, your opponent is theoretically a better player than you are and should be difficult to beat. If you do, your skill will be raised greatly because you have proven yourself to be better than your skill reflected.

Ratings are always in a constant battle to asses your true level of skill. For every game you play, your skill is adjusted accordingly, reflecting a closer assesment of your real abilities.

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.

For players with established ratings (based on 20 games or more), the equation is:

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.

where Rn is post-tournament rating and Ra is "crossing K factor" adjustment. Ra becomes the new post-tournament rating.

Rating floor:

Your rating floor is largely based on your highest rank achieved

Sample Winning Expectancies

Scoring Probability

Difference

in Points

Higher

Rated

Lower

Rated

Difference

in

Points

Higher

Rated

Lower

Rated

0 0.500 0.500 250 0.808 0.192

10 0.514 0.486 260 0.817 0.183

20 0.529 0.471 270 0.826 0.174

30 0.543 0.457 280 0.834 0.166

40 0.557 0.443 290 0.841 0.159

50 0.571 0.429 300 0.849 0.151

60 0.585 0.415 325 0.867 0.133

70 0.599 0.401 350 0.882 0.118

80 0.613 0.387 375 0.896 0.104

90 0.627 0.373 400 0.909 0.091

100 0.640 0.360 425 0.920 0.080

110 0.653 0.347 450 0.930 0.070

120 0.666 0.334 475 0.939 0.061

130 0.679 0.321 500 0.947 0.053

140 0.691 0.309 525 0.954 0.046

150 0.703 0.297 550 0.960 0.040

160 0.715 0.285 575 0.965 0.035

170 0.727 0.273 600 0.969 0.031

180 0.738 0.262 625 0.973 0.027

190 0.749 0.251 650 0.977 0.023

200 0.760 0.240 675 0.980 0.020

210 0.770 0.230 700 0.983 0.017

220 0.780 0.220 725 0.985 0.015

230 0.790 0.210 750 0.987 0.013

240 0.799 0.201 775 0.989 0.011 800 0.999 0.010

I hope this shows up the way i see it

Sorry for the long post

[This message has been edited by yobobo (edited 03-20-2000).]

[Guest hunt52]

yobobo,

I think there was a thread that discussed the shortcomings of the chess ranking system. Briefly, a win is not a win in CM. If I beat someone by 1 point and neither of us has an army left to speak of I shouldn't get the same point boost as if I wipe the floor with him 100 - 0. (51 - 49 != 100-0)! I don't think anyone here will try to stop you from hosting a CM ranking site and you certainly don't need anyone's permission. Should you host one, I don't think it would be the only one (hint hint )

- Bill (happily PERLing away )

[Guest hunt52]

Also as to the balance thing - Lood at Last Defence:

A veteran (!) company of SS

4 HTs

1 Tiger Veteran (!!)

2 Stugs (1 Veteran)

3 FOs all with big stuff (2 Veteran)

3 Mgs (2 Veteran)

against

A normal company of Riflemen

3 Zooks (1 Green)

3 Small mortars (Regular)

3 'Cats (Regular)

4 Mgs (Regular)

The germans have a HUGE material advantage yet don't always win. There needs to be something to account for this discrepancy. In an (intentionally or not) unbalanced scenario you just can't ignore points as they effect victory.

- bill

[yobobo]

Yes I know what you mean, but cant it be decided before the battle takes place. What constitutes a win, a loss or a draw? What is needed for an Allied victory? And what is needed for a German victory in the way of points etc…

[Guest hunt52]

I think that that really limits the scope of coolness. If possible (which Fionn's algoriths is) I think a ladder should capture the full range of what the game is capable of.

Now, agreeing with your opponenet is a fine way to do it. I don't think it's the best, but it's not evil or anything.

- Bill

[Neutral Party]

Fionn

Can you post the corrected version of your formula.

Thanks

Joe

[Guest hunt52]

Yeah Fionn!

Please please let us see the algorithm

Actually, I will need it soon. Progress is being made. I am very mad at PERL now thought

- Bill

[Colin]

I've seen Bill's ladder and it looks great.

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

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Guest hunt52]

Thanks Colin.

It may become public soon, but right now it is still too alphaish. When you can submit games correctly up it goes.

- Bill

[Hakko Ichiu]

One topic that I haven't seen discussed yet in this thread -- if it was buried amidst some of the algorithms running around, MEGO apologies -- is the issue of double-blind/single-blind/played-the-heck-out-of-it-like-CE scenarios.

Clearly, in the first and last categories, neither side has the advantage. Is there any way to account for the middle case, where one player has seen the scenario at most a time or two, while the other can recite the map coordinates in his sleep? I don't know if there is, short of having a separate tournament ladder -- which I think would be a good thing, btw, were someone willing to devote the time and energy to administrate it.

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest hunt52]

Once one ladder is running making 748 is no problem. I thought of the problem too, but I have no Idea what to do about it

I think your idea about multiple ladders may be the best solution.

[Hunter]

Fionn,</p>

sigh... </p>

I am not convinced from your reply that you have given my er, suggestion, sufficient thought. At least, your post does not show that you have. I admit that may be a limitation of this kind of forum</p>

I'm really not trying to start something here, but I am trying and failing to communicate something </p>

Regarding my Point (1) above:</p>

Your system absolutely prevents the right result in the face of good scenario design, let alone poor scenario design!</p>

Where the scenario designer has used Axis Bonus Points (especially) OR good defensive terrain, or weather, or the ability to dig in or any combination of the above to create a balanced scenario (a scenario where two equal players will achieve a 50:50 result on average), your system will penalise the player with the larger force than he 'should have' according to your system.</p>

For example (and I really didn't want to have to do this ), Let's say that the attacker has 1600 points and the defender has 1000. Two equally rated players play a draw. The system says there is no rating change right? Great.</p>

Now let's say we give the attacker 3200 points and keep the defender at 1000. We expect the attacker to do better. But as the scenario designer I can make it interesting by one of several mechanisms. I can add Axis Bonus Points to the defender so that getting wiped out but causing a lot of casualties still counts as a draw. I can add defensive terrain or the dig in ability or muddy terrain or whatever suits the defender. So now we have a 'balanced scenario', where the expected result is again a 50:50 result when the victory screen pops up</p>

Your system would in such a situation, AGAIN penalise the attacker, even after he has accepted the penalties that the scenario designer has imposed</p>.

This problem would not of course occur SO MUCH (but still somewhat) where it was a 'roll your own' scenario</p>

Am I thinking clearly here?</p>

Regarding my Point (2) above:</p>

You seem to be making a point of including things that I never suggested (but that's OK, it just makes me think harder about the idea)</p>

I would not suggest that results be altered retrospectively. The rating of a scenario would be X at a point in time when it was chosen to be played, and that would be the rating used to calculate the result. After that battle, new players would use the new rating for the battle</p>

I can think of any number of ways that you can get around almost any ranking system you can suggest (so don't just pick on mine! )</p>

I guess it would make sense to ensure that each battle had been played a number of times before it was made available for 'general use' or in other words had been thoroughly playtested. This could be done in a way that doesn't affect players ratings, or it could be done such that 'expert' players construct the ratings. I guess what I am heading to here is a set number of 'accredited' scenarios, any one of which you can play for ratings points. That number could be ten, fifty or five hundred, but each one would require either a history or some vetting before being 'accredited'.</p>

If we allow any scenario by any player to be used for rating points, I find it hard to imagine people won't be constructing some 'interesting' scenarios and ambushing unsuspecting players with them</p>

Call me a cynic (or an old CC2 player )</p>

Take Care</p>

Bruce</p>

ps: Yobobo, I can't imagine you getting away with a chess system that doesn't take in to count the size of the win. It won't wash </p>

[Fionn]

Yobobo,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Was wondering why anyone would think that the defending player has an advantage? If the battle is well balanced e.i. deployment zones, force strength, and victory locations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so a battle must be pERFECTDLY balanced under your system for it to be fair . I feel that since not all battles are perfectly balanced and not all battles give the attacker a force which would allow him to win exactly 50% of the time it is better to simply account for possible imbalance by looking at force ratios.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I also wonder why record how great a loss, or how great a win each player might be in for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple, I don't believe a player should lose as many points for losing 40/60 as he would for losing 0 /100. Do you?

Wouldn't you agree I should get more ranking points for winning 100/0 than I should get for winning 51/49 or do you think both victories are exactly equal?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would like to host CM ranking because I love the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I'm not going to try to stop you. Remember that I offered to let you host MY ranking system some time ago but you turned me down. So, in the same way that you want to host your ranking system and I'm not going to stop you I am also going to set up a ranking system on CMHQ because I happen to think your ranking system simply doesn't take a whole rash of important factors into account.

So just to make sure I'm VERY clear on this. Yobobo, at NO time have I EVER tried to stop you hosting a ranking system. In fact, if you remember, I offered to give you my formula and allow you to host it but you turned me down. Since you turned me down I am going to host a ranking system at CMHQ using a variation of the formula posted above. I wish you the best of luck with your ranking system.

Yobobo,

As for players negotiating as to what constitutes a win etc... This will result in more experienced players being able to negotiate from hugely advantageous positions. I've seen what happens in player negotiations in Close Combat and Steel Panthers and it isn't something I want to repeat. It simply results in a massacre of newbies by certain unscrupulous individuals.

Hunter,

Sure no problems... It can be difficult to make yourself understood on the net. In situations like that I just try a 2nd time (as you are doing now) and alert the person they may have misunderstood me( as you're doing now). Just keep it cool and we'll go through the various issues k?

Ok, as to your first point:

1. There WILL be accounting for bonus points in the final algorithm (I'd forgotten that and am adding it in .. probably tonight if I get all the other work I have to do today done by then).

2. It is my experience that terrain very usually "equalises out". Whether closed terrain aids the defender or the attacker REALLY does depend on the skill of the players. I've been playing another tester in PBEM a lot recently ( 6 or 7 games) and the progress he has made has been EXCELLENT! In the past he would have totally died when pushing attacks home in what he thought was even the most advantageous terrain possible for the attacker since I simply used the terrain better. Now, he is able to advance quickly and confidently in terrain EXTREMELY beneficial to the defence.

Why the difference? Simple, he's become a better player. I simply don't accept that map and terrain types favour one side or the other. It is your SKILL which is needed to use the terrain to your advantage.

Furthermore, I've seen the maps and scenarios you will ALL be playing which will ship with the game. I've played and tested most of them multiple times. I think you can trust me when I say that my views on this will be borne out once you see the scenarios I've seen .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For example (and I really didn't want to have to do this ), Let's say that the attacker has 1600 points and the defender has 1000. Two equally rated players play a draw. The system says there is no rating change right? Great.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope (although the algorithm I gave you was screwed and MIGHT say this.. I haven't checked it out in detail.) In this case if BOTH players got 50% and were equally rated the attacker would GAIN ranking points and the defender would LOSE ranking points since when you square 1.6 you get 2.56 ( you forgot the squaring). This all equalises out cause an attacker will have more support weapons than the defender so the amount of infantry etc at the "sharp end" won't be hugely disproportionate.

I do see your point BUT I have NO confidence in the veracity and reproducibility of any system featuring a "roll your own" scenario system. I'd prefer to accept some CONSISTENT ERRORS than subject everyone to virtually randomly "rolled" modifiers. Trust me, scenario designers WILL assign the wrong modifiers through inexperience and incompetence .

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the IDEAL in my system would be for the players to play MIRRORED GAMES ! In this way all the various intricacies and bonuses of one side will be evened out since each player will play 2 games and be both sides of the conflict.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You seem to be making a point of including things that I never suggested <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely. Your points are correct BUT I felt you didn't think their ramifications through fully and that is why I mentioned some of those ramifications which you seemed not to have thought of.

I would not suggest that results be altered retrospectively. The rating of a scenario would be X at a point in time when it was chosen to be played, and that would be the rating used to calculate the result. After that battle, new players would use the new rating for the battle [/quoting]

How would you deal with complaints from players who played the scenario when it first came out and it was rated as a 2 and got a MAJOR DEFEAT but would, if they had played now, and gotten the EXACT SAME SCORE, would have gotten a minor victory since the rating changed?

Your system will end up not only penalising players for playing badly but will end up penalising or benefiting them for playing a game at a certain time or not.

You could end up with a situation where virtually no-one wants to touch "new scenarios" until the "rating has stabilised" so they aren't hugely disadvantaged by the scenario designer picking an incorrect rating modifier .

Thorny issue isn't it?

Ps. I guarantee that if you say tough luck to these guys you'll lose 50% of them the first time this happens to players.

Your accreditation idea is VERY good and is something which I've said I want to do. Ideally I'd like to see 1 or 2 "accredited" and play-balanced scenarios coming out every week from CMHQ for the general playing population.

I realise that people can create lop-sided scenarios etc so one corner-stone of the ranking system would be the release of regular, balanced scenarios. However, I'd still let players play DYO scenarios and non-accredited scenarios too whenever they wanted to.

BTW DYO scenarios DO result in well-balanced games. I've played a few of them PBEM and they've been very interesting and fair games.

[guachi]

Fionn:

Hunter's example of 1600 points for the attacker and 1000 for the defender is correct, at least using the initial formula you gave (the only one we have).

We could discuss and discuss and come up with any kind of formula we want to ensure a good result. The best way, I think, to ensure fairness is post some guidelines for players in the ranking web site.

Play mirrored games

Play games where both players have equal knowledge of the scenario (double blind, each played 100 times, etc.)

Play people close to you in rank

Careful selection of opponent and scenario should go a long way to playing a fair game

Ultimately, If there IS a bias i hope that it is small and systematic so that it affects everyone more or less equally.

The more we discuss the formula, the better it will get, I think. A ranking system that doesn't engender nmuch confidence in its accuracy isn't very usaeful.

Hunter (aka Bruce)

I thought I recognized your name. Hello from one crazy graph dude to another!

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 03-21-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Fionn,

If I am not reading this correctly forgive me, But from what I have read this morning am I to understand that your system is not supportive of point style battles or random scenarios?

Point in case, CM battles are lenghty to say the least; for each player to constantly be required to play mirrored games to ensure the equalization of modifiers may not be something that is feesible for all players.

With this in mind should there be a seperate ladder for point style games? Personally I feel there is more skill and blind play involved in a point style game and it's much easier to determine game balance.

Any thoughts on this? If everyone does play to games against the same opponent, how is that going to be figured? as one match? or both logged individually? If the latter is in fact the case what is to ensure someone taht gets the better side of a pregenerated scenario winning- having the match posted and simply becoming unavailable for the next? No matter how we slice this trust will have to take part in ranking system IMHO, don't you agree.

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Fionn]

Oops, that'll teach me to post at 7am .. Jason, you're right, my bad.

SS Panzerleader,

Your understanding is incorrect. I was merely saying that the BEST way to ensure a "level playing field" is to play "mirrored games". However I realise that most people don't have time/like doing that ( I HATE mirrored games with a passion) and so the system I am suggesting won't require mirrored games.

I was merely saying that all those people worried about terrain effects etc should simply play a mirrored game since, by definition, terrain effects will cancel out in mirrored games.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Fionn,

Hi I'm still not certain Im getting this

I know you didn't mean that we had to play mirrored games, but do you mean that inorder to balance out the games then that is what it will take? If so then inorder for the ladder to be accurate there wouldnt be much choice if you wish to rise with out a sever disadvantage . Not trying to be argumentive jsut seeing a potential problem for those that dont' want or don't have time to play a mirrored match.

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Dschugaschwili]

Some more questions regarding the ranking.

First, I assume we're talking about PBEM games here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A game has to come to an end for a score to be calculated. Only then can we get the new ranking for both players. This leads to two problems:

1. If I see that I'm losing badly, I could "abandon" the game, ie. stop sending the PBEM files, so I don't get a low score. Any plans on this topic?

2. How do you distinguish this from a player pausing for a while because he's gone on vacations?

3. What happens if I HAVE to abandon a game because the game always crashes when I try to load it (like it sometimes happens in the demo)?

Another topic: When does the ranking system look up the players' old scores? When the game finishes? Then there's the following problem:

The ranking system is initialized. Everybody has 1000 points. I can only send at most one e-mail a day to any one opponent because of the particularity of my internet access, so a PBEM game with me will take a while. I start a game against a supposedly equally strong opponent that can play his games much faster. While our game is going on, he plays some games against other players with fast response times. So by the time our game finishes his score is significantly higher than mine (because I still haven't finished a game yet). So suddenly he looses a lot of points because he only managed a draw against a much lower ranked player (me), while I gain a lot of points, although our scores were the same when we started the game.

Don't get me wrong, I like the system you propose, but I want to help making it better by pointing out possible weak points in it.

Dschugaschwili

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Dschugaschwili

I agree PBEM is going to be a hard thing to implement without a large amount of trust that an oppenent will not do that. No matter how many factors are incorporated into getting a sound basis for judging a PBEM match, we still revert to the issue of honor which is instead of focusing on what is fair for an even game we are now focusing on the aspect of honor in relation to abandoning games. I pointed out that a player may not want to play his second match in a uneven scenario, you contend that they may just not send back at all or stahl the results for god knows how long. Both of the previous factors are a very real issue, these are the same kind of things that plagued the ladders for cc2, and CC2 was not pbem but even so scenarios with pregenerated rosters were pushed to the side as impossible to gain impartiality. With this Battlemakers and points replaced them to reduce the chances of a loaded scenario.

Pregenerated scenarios were not pushed by the wayside entirely as tournaments seemed to use them some. Yet IMHO the only way a ladder can be accurately implemented will be fore online games only with point battles, tournaments are another matter.

If point style battles are used in for ladder both players can view the map and then choose a side as in CC

If a map looks to be lopsided maybe a modifier can be included in teh formula to recognize this factor and both players can agree on the handicap

These are merely suggestions. I do believe that two ladders will be in order for the different views on the game

i also believe that no matter what we do a certain amount of trust will be required

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out