Competition Questions

[Desert Dave]

To overcome inertia, I propose a one week discussion period - deadline noon Sunday, January 19th.

My experience suggests that little is actually accomplished unless a specific time period is designated.

Should the decision to establish some sort of competiton be in the affirmative, seems like we could get something going by the first week of February. :cool:

I am presuming a site will be found or created to host the ongoing competition and ratings system. IIRC, Otto & CvM have indicated a willingness to allow their site to be used. Still true?

Also, we need to determine if enough members would be willing to participate. This thread should help to determine that.

So. To start off, let's address the following 6 questions. Any and all responses should be kept to the topic at hand, yes?

1) What format? Tournaments, League, Ladder or something other?

2) What ratings system? Numerical, ie 1-100, or Military, ie Private to General, or... ?

3) What game scenario? Original? Mod?

4) How much time allowed for each game? A week? 10 days?

5) What rules should be enacted (... and enforced)?

6) How to settle disputes?

We WILL have some kind of organized competition IF we begin asking, and answering these kinds of questions.

And, it should NOT be an arbitrary decision. Rather, based on forum consensus.

I am merely acting as TEMPORARY Organizing Principle. ANYONE can volunteer to do whatever they are willing and able to do. Some already have, such as 82ndReady and JJ and Comrade Trapp and Jim Boggs, etc. Undoubtedly there are others.

Well, time to decide.

[kenfedoroff]

Will this tournament include Rambo's idea of "bidding" for what side you will play? I like this idea for play-balance and I was curious if this will be incorporated.

Sincerely,

Ken

[82ndReady]

Ok Immer here are my thoughts on these questions

1) What format? Tournaments, League, Ladder or something other?

Answer = "League" IMHO promotes continuous competition

2) What ratings system? Numerical, ie 1-100, or Military, ie Private to General, or... ?

Answer = "Numerical" as I have mentioned before each member should show there Experience at SC and game rating overall.

3) What game scenario? Original? Mod?

Answer = "1939 Fall Weiss Campaign" although Bill Macons adjustment to this campaign is a one to consider.

4) How much time allowed for each game? A week? 10 days?

Answer = "14 days no more no less from start of playing. This I believe is a good amount of time to complete a challenge.

5) What rules should be enacted (... and enforced)?

Answer = Guidelines should be outlined then agreed upon by a select few that would head this project and not by the entire group(IMHO this would drag out into i'm sure good debates but not really worth the problem!).

6) How to settle disputes?

Answer = Again whomever sets the Guidelines will outline how it shall be dealt with.

Im willing to offer site space IP address and my talents in this matter, thanks.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by kenfederoff:

Will this tournament include Rambo's idea of "bidding" for what side you will play? I like this idea for play-balance and I was curious if this will be incorporated.

Well ken, we are in the process of determining just exactly what we want. :cool:

Here is how I envision part of this.

When a player sends in an entry e-mail for this first tournament, they will include at least 3 items:

a) Self rating. Somewhere on a 1-10 scale to start, with 10 being... "Quite Confident," and 1 being... "mostly in it for fun," etc. Details can be elaborated later.

But, certainly, the ratings will change according to tournament victories and defeats. **Or, alternatively, if the board prefers, some sort of League type results.

Bid for playing the Axis. If you prefer to play the Allies, then you will bid "0." Otherwise, any bid from 1 to 1000-or-so would provide each of the 3 Allied countries that many addditional MPPs to start. Obviously, this could be used for research or favored units. IMO, this is better than trying to add research or IT advantages to the Allies in a mod.

**After a tournament or two there will be a "break-even" figure established. In other words, the average # of MPPs that would make the game 50-50. This # would continually be adjusted after each tournament. Eventually we will attain some sort of approximate "gold standard."

And so, the pairings would be made according to who would bid the most for Axis. If everyone bids "0" then the brackets would be made ONLY on the basis of self-ratings. If everyone rates themselves a "5" for instance, then the bracket pairings would be purely random. So, it will ultimately be a combination of ratings (... for seeding purposes) and bids to play the Axis and finally, pure random choice.

c) Willingness to participate in an on-board AAR, so that one (... at least; could be more, depending on demand) game in each round is a FEATURED game. This would be optional, so that those who do not care to write or comment could refrain. However, IMO, the sem-final and final rounds would have to be posted for all to share in the championship matches if they cared to.

82ndReady has adroitly answered the question I posed, and this is the way that we will eventually reach a "commonly desired" tournament or league or ladder, etc, so that there will be maximum participation.

My comments as outlined above are NOT the final say. That is yet to be determined.

Though, I would agree that there needs be some "final authority," but, for now let's just guage the general interest and in what particular direction we would like to go, yes?

[82ndReady]

Immer,

How about nominating possible canidates to head this project, then comprise the list, create a new thread for voting and see where it ends up at?

I nominate you Immer to be apart of this project.

[ January 13, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: 82ndReady ]

[Hueristic]

As I have stated earlier I will Participate as a player and will donate my time to create a Turn Saver program to Combat Cheating/on or Accusations of such.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hueristic:

As I have stated earlier I will Participate as a player and will donate my time to create a Turn Saver program to Combat Cheating/on or Accusations of such.

Impressing Hueristic.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

As for ranks:

I like the name idea as opposed to the Number system, however there is one change i'd make.

Allied Rank: Major

Axis Rank: General der Infantrie*

That way the people that play more on allies will only have a higher rank for the ALLIES, same with mostly axis players.

CvM (Feldmarschall und Brigadier General (1 star))

[82ndReady]

Ties and Disputes IMO they allow for discussion when it should a be open and shut case! Ties lead to disputes and disputes lead to debates that can go on and on!

Ranking Problem here is if you allow everyone to choose there own ranking then everyone is #1 hence the many references by members on this Forum already!

If no one objects I can start this by drawing up guidlines and then email a select few that I hold to be good objective members of SC where they can pick it to apart, unless someone objects then I will start tonight?

I await the responses.....

[ January 13, 2003, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: 82ndReady ]

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

As for ranks:

I like the name idea as opposed to the Number system, however there is one change i'd make.

Allied Rank: Major

Axis Rank: General der Infantrie*

That way the people that play more on allies will only have a higher rank for the ALLIES, same with mostly axis players.

CvM (Feldmarschall und Brigadier General (1 star))

Yes I like that seperate ranks for seperate sides. Good one. I will be Von Private/Major lol

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

Sounds good to this point. I think the players themselves should establish the ground rules as they're the ones affected by it.

Beyond that I don't know who should decide how disputes are resolved or how ratings would be arrived at. Probably the players should make all the decisions on structure, and rating premise and all the other details then decide on which non-playing voluteers will carry out specific tasks.

On disputes I'd suggest three arbiters conferring through e-mail and voting, no abstentions, each arbitor has to vote either yes or no so a tie is impossible, and the decision has to made in as little time as possible; one day would be ideal.

The decision votes in each dispute should be posted by each individual along with the reason or reasons that decision was reached.

Ineveitably there will be hard feelings and accusations of favoritism and perhaps even a broken friendship. If reasons are publicly posted they'll also be open to second guessing and that also leads to ill-advised remarks by some people. So potential arbiters should not make their offer without thinking it over carefully.

If decisions aren't just and impartial they aren't worth much to anyone, least of all the competitors.

[ January 14, 2003, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hueristic]

It looks like The rankings can be based on Zaps thread. It seems to be panning out with no issues. But as soon as the site is up and a more "profesional" method is available i'm sure most of use will play this ladder. Well i did a search for the old Civ2 2 ladders i used to play but it looks like they have all disapperaed must be cause civIII is out. Shame CivIII PTW sucks.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Hueristic:

It seems to be panning out with no issues.

So far.

My feeling is this: if Zapp or anyone else wants to have a separate ladder or league or tournament, fine by me. This is a free and open forum. I only started this thread with the hopes that a COMMON CONSENSUS might be reached.

Zapp seems to be indicating that he won't participate here (... said he hadn't read, why should he bother?) and that he will only use "his rules." My way or the highway, eh?

Yet, at the same time, warns that he will not have enough time to sufficiently maintain a detailed and comprehensive site for his own ladder? :confused:

Look, I still think a common site should be established, but I think someone more popular and less....ummm, iconoclastic than I am should be acting as organizing principle.

I therefore bow out, as of now, and suggest that one of the others, perhaps 82ndReady or Hueristic or anyone else with time and interest should take over here.

So. Whoever wishes to do that, please start another thread. As long as it is a common site with rules and specific parameters reached by CONSENSUS, I will support it and participate, and I am sure many others will also. :cool:

This whole thing doesn't need to degenerate into a popularity contest or some settling of old disputes and disagreements, does it?

[pzgndr]

You'll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm for tournaments and ladders and ratings and such. And I have zero desire to compete using the default scenario and bidding system.

My current mix of solo and TCP/IP games is just fine. I plan to continue tweaking the Campaign mods based on player feedback and my own experiments. That's keeping me busy. I hope to have another update ready in a couple of weeks. Anyways, I shall continue to march in that direction while others pursue their own glory in the competition arena.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

I shall continue to march in that direction while others pursue their own glory in the competition arena.

I personally don't join leagues for "The Glory" Others may. I join them for the competition. If you don't participate you are only missing out on some great games.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Bah i think of zaps thread as something to do until a REAL Site is setup for competion. I'm sure most of the others do also. I don't see his "Thread" As lasting that long as it seems he intends on being in on every championship match LMAO. I've also noted that after he's been beaten 3 times straight he still ranks himself #1. LAMO@ZAP Hahaha said he was a math major.