The "Analysis of Nabla scoring system" thread

[Treeburst155]

The Nabla System does not directly address the problems with EXTREMELY unbalanced scenarios. If the median is 90 for a side, it is impossible to leave the pack behind; BUT, if radical departures from the median are not heavily rewarded anyway.....

Treeburst155 out.

[GreenAsJade]

This is the key point.

Combine it with the fact that extremely unbalanced scenarios are

1) No fun

2) Not a test of anyone's skills

and you conclude

1) Nabla, with the magic forumula is good

2) Make sure that scenarios are not too unbalanced.

GaJ

[edited out illconsidered opinion]

[ June 16, 2005, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

[Treeburst155]

I agree fully, GaJ. A 70-30 scenario can still be fun for the underdog. It also leaves room for the great player to excel, even with the strong side.

Also, the curve must flatten for extreme scores so that the 90 pt score from the weak side (median 25) does not dwarf the 95 point score from the strong side (median 75)in importance to the final tourney outcome.

Treeburst155 out.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

2) Make sure that scenarios are not too unbalanced.

GaJ

(I think Push and Wet were borderline. Having two borderline unbalanced scenarios in one round may have been what triggered off the realisation of the problem)

Therein lies a problem, because I know for a fact that neither scenario was designed to be unbalanced, and the huge win/losses that we witnessed did not come up in testing.

I was the designer for Push, and I made sure that whatever advantage one side had was offset to a certain degree by advantages to the other side.

So, how does one ensure a scenario is not unbalanced, even borderline?

[Treeburst155]

There is no way to know about scenario balance for sure without MASSIVE BLIND testing IMO. I got wiped out in Moltke because my final reinforcements were gunned down immediately because I had chosen to abandon that area. I did not know to protect it for reinforcements.

Where do you get large scale blind testing? Only in the tourney. I think the trickier a scenario is, the more prone it is to unexpected results. All you can do is keep the curve flat, and try to think of everything players might possibly do in a blind state. That is VERY difficult to do....maybe impossible.

EDIT: Scenarios meant to be played blind (ROW) have to be tested blind if balance is to be accurately determined. You would need MANY testers willing to do TCP/IP. That's a lot to ask for.

Treeburst155 out.

[ June 15, 2005, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Treeburst155]

Here is a sample input file of a super lopsided scenario (90-10). Note that player six did really well from the weak side.

# Scenario_1, Medians (90-10)

Player_A 99 Player_1 1

Player_B 96 Player_2 4

Player_C 92 Player_3 8

Player_D 88 Player_4 12

Player_E 84 Player_5 16

Player_F 30 Player_6 70 ******

Here's the Nabla scores for this scenario.

Player_6 1.21

Player_A 0.50

Player_B 0.36

Player_5 0.36

Player_C 0.13

Player_4 0.13

Player_D -0.13

Player_3 -0.13

Player_E -0.36

Player_2 -0.36

Player_1 -0.50

Player_F -2.05

Player_6 takes the lead; but not by nearly as much as his opponent, Player_F, takes a hit for extremely crappy play. The reasoning here is that Player_F's poor performance was the main cause for Player_6's overwhelming victory, rather than brilliance on his part.

Note that all the other players' scores are opposites. This is because all scores were very close to the median where the curve is linear.

Treeburst155 out.

[ June 15, 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Nidan1]

True, you would probably need as many blind playtesters as you would have as contestants.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Seems like a reasonable outcome to me Treeburst with that extreme example you've provided.

Regards

Jim R.

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, KR. The strong side still cannot match the great performance on the weak side; but they aren't hopelessly devastated by the situation, even though this is a VERY unbalanced scenario with a brain-dead person playing the strong side.

Treeburst155 out.

[BigDog944]

Very good work, Treeburst, GreenAsJade, Malakovski and all contributors! I'm reading this thread with fascination.

<edit for spelling "fascination">

[ June 15, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: BigDog944 ]

[Treeburst155]

This thread is why it took me so long to get my setup to you, BigDog944.

Umm...you've had the setup for a couple hours now. Where's your reply??? I can't wait forever you know.

Treeburst155 out.

[BigDog944]

It's coming! I just got out of bed here on the West Coast! Stumbling to my laptop to check out this thread is a sad indication of where my life has lead me to, but I still have hope for the future!

Expect your turn in the next couple of hours. Now, back on topic...

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Perhaps players should always play the same side in a tournament. 36 Allied players, and 36 Axis players. Then have an Allied champ, and an Axis champ. This would alleviate the problems being discussed here.

Treeburst155 out.

Unfortunately this doesn't address the problems being discussed here at all.

The issue being discussed is the extra scoring range available to the "disadvantaged" people in unbalanced scenarios.

It is not the case that all scenarios will be unbalanced in favour of Axis or Allies.

GaJ </font>

[Holien]

One way of getting a final result between the two top players (or 5 or more) is for them to agree on a scenario to replay and then play that both ways.

If they could not agree on a scenario then give them the most balanced based upon the scores during the main tourney.

As for running the tourney that should be no harder than it is at the moment.

Just a thought.

H

[Treeburst155]

For an Axis vs Allies tourney there would not need to be groups. The actual scheduling of matches might be trickier than we realize however.

Requirements:

1) All Axis players must play each scenario once.

2) All Allied players must play each scenario once.

3) No player can play the same person twice.

It might be easy to figure out. It might not be.

Hehe....simply slide the list of one side's players down a notch for each scenario.

Treeburst155 out.

[Holien]

Sliding would work very simple.

Just an Excel sheet with two lines of players.

Each tab on the sheet would be for one scenario and a simple move one position down gives the player some different to play.

That would be far easier than the current grouping of players.

AAR storage would be easier as well. No trying to see what group a player was ijn, just what side did you play.

H

[Treeburst155]

There are some other great advantages to an Axis vs Allies tourney I just realized.

1) Any number of scenarios could be used (3 game tourneys? A single battle?).

2) Any even number of players could participate.

3) No worries about groups, sections, etc..

4) No bad effect due to the chance of a player getting Allies 4 times while the Allies enjoy greater scoring opportunities in 4 of 5 games due to balance that is difficult to predict.

[dieseltaylor]

If I may revert to my postings re: sections staying togther ......

First an aside on nomenclature - If you view sections as part platoons/squads they are togther to fight the enemy anyway not each other : )

The huge advantages to be gained from having sections fighting identical battles on the same side:

1. Scenarios can be as unbiased as all hell and it does not matter.

2. It will simplify the tournament organisation massively as the battles will not need to be play tested abnormally thoroughly. The setting of battle schedules will be done section by section so that will be easy.

3. The scheme is transparently fair and easily understood

Whether it is played that sections retain the Axis or Allied throughout or switch each round does not make a huge difference to section winners - though it is a little less transparent than staying the same faction throughout.

There are significant other advantages available

Section winners get kudos for winning and into the final round. [Alternatively you could simply take the 12 highest of each nationality .....regardless of whether they were a section winner]

Runners up provide the opposition for the finalists who now play two/three games as the opposite nationality/faction.

Out of this you get the two best players having played five games as Axis/Allied and two/three as the other side.

You have had the benefit of a Plate competition for the runners-up - which means they will be playing for keeps against the section winners.

For those who want an absolute winner I suggest a final battle with Rumanians : ) OR best AArs, OR best result from a final game played by them both against the second highest player in the opposing group.

Three phases with no dangers that unbalanced battles will screw the eventual out come of the best players. And awards on the way for players other than section winners.

My explanation is longer than the concept : )which I believe is very simple to understand and self-evidently fair. Any anomalies in the scoring system will be irrelevant as everyone up until the final will be competing on the same terms.

[JonS]

If you have an axis/allied tourney, doi you need a NABLA scoring system of any sort? Can't the raw scores be used?

[Treeburst155]

You could handle any semi-finals or finals desired in a number of ways, or simply have a showdown between the top Allied and top Axis player. "Post season" play would not be a problem.

There is just no real need for subdivisions of players other than an Axis "team", and an Allied "team".

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by JonS:

If you have an axis/allied tourney, doi you need a NABLA scoring system of any sort? Can't the raw scores be used?

I see no reason why raw scores would not suffice. We are no longer trying to pick winners from among people who have had different playing situations (different sides of scenarios).

There is a drawback to this Axis vs Allies thing however. He who is blessed with weak opponents may fair better than he should. The current ROW sections allow everybody to play everybody else who is their direct competition one time. This is a BIG drawback to "no sections" IMO.

Sections need to be worked in somehow. Hmmm....I think we're back to the current ROW format.

[Holien]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

There is a drawback to this Axis vs Allies thing however. He who is blessed with weak opponents may fair better than he should.

This is why I am experimenting with the Luga tourney to see how that works out by trying to match players of the same skill.

Should be interesting to see how WN does in it.

He got a reserve spot and is already towards the top of the list.

He is now being matched against the top Allied player and this should give him more of a challenge.

That or I will have one unhappy Allied player.

H

[Holien]

Ohh and on a sub note whatever system you use for a tourney will not be ideal.

There will always be winners and losers.

Just good to see the ideas being kicked around to see if anything new can be created.

Failing that just run it as is as you know the pros and cons better.

H

[Treeburst155]

Group (or section) One

Fred, Ralph, Harry, Jim, Joe, Jerry

Axis subsection: Fred, Ralph, Harry

Allied subsection: Jim, Joe, Jerry

Scenario 1 schedule:

Fred v Jim

Ralph v Joe

Harry v Jerry

Scenario 2 schedule:

Fred v Jerry

Ralph v Jim

Harry v Joe

Scenario 3 schedule:

Fred v Joe

Ralph v Jerry

Harry v Jim

Every player has played every player in the opposite subsection one time. Raw scores are used. There is a winner for each subsection who then moves on to some sort of semi-finals.

[Ace Pilot]

Suppose the Axis subsection has the following scores:

Fred:.....50...50...50

Ralph:...90...10...50

Harry:...10...50...90

Should they tie or is this a good reason to apply Nabla?

Edited to add: Obviously, I picked the scores to favor the Nabla scoring system, which could produce a tied result also. But my understanding from reading parts of the scoring manual is that Nabla was designed to favor the player that scored well consistently relative to others, as opposed to a player that happens to get a high score in one scenario that carries him despite so-so scores in other scenarios.

[ June 15, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Ace Pilot ]