dieseltaylor Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Sounds much more like I imagined it should work when I first read the guiding principles in the Nabla guide. Encouraging stuff. Whether this negates the purity of splitting the sections into sides I think not though Nabla would still be active in rating throughout the games The work involved in sides and battle balance would still seem to reduced and visibly fairer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDog944 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: You're trolling me about that plane, aren't you? You know my opinion of aircover in competitive matches. In this case it was a massive blow to me. (You can read about this in this sneak preview AAR) GaJ GaJ, Very entertaining! As an Axis player who got creamed in this scenario, it was interesting to see where I went wrong. It was all in where one placed the gun, I believe. BTW: You've got yourself listed as playing Axis in your AAR, when in fact you were playing Allies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: I've managed to put together the huge input file for the original Nabla DOS program. I've run the entire tourney through the program. No group winners changed! There were only a handful of ranking changes below the winners. However, the final Nabla scores correlate much better with actual tourney performances IMO. I can post the results if the handful of non-winners who dropped a notch can take the pain gracefully. I'd love to see the list, especially if it's in excel for easy tinkering. The lack of changes in the section winners just confirms what's been said over and over--this is just tweaking the system, not radically changing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Malakovski, It's a plain text file generated by the Nabla DOS program, and I have no Excel. Had there been any instances where 1st and 2nd place were very close, there could have been a change in a group winner. I did have a handful of ranking changes. I'm just dying to post the results because there are only a few ranking changes in non-winning positions. Surely, people can take this in stride. No? Once posted, we can all analyze and evaluate performances together. This to me can be great fun. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 OK, I'm posting the tourney results as calculated by the original Nabla DOS program using the parameters I recommended in late 2002, and spelled out in the Nabla Manual. These Nabla scores are not the official scores for the tourney just run, and never will be. In fact, it is entirely possible that I have made mistakes with the input file. If you slip down a slot from the official results, keep that in mind. Group 1 Steve_McClaire 0.37 *** JPS 0.29 stikkypixie 0.26 Renaud 0.01 yacinator -0.26 Nefarious -0.84 Group 2 GreenHornet 0.29 *** Vadr 0.16 GreenAsJade -0.02 jbertles -0.16 Gtimthane -0.18 ded -0.19 Group 3 Flenser 0.59 *** Elmar_Bijlsma 0.15 Nestor 0.07 mPisi -0.06 Bigduke6 -0.12 Sgian_Dubh -0.71 Group 4 Walpurgis_Nacht 1.01 *** BigDog944 0.03 Cpt_T -0.04 Treeburst155 -0.24 peterk -0.30 a1steaks -0.78 Group 5 JonL 0.65 *** Kanonier_Reichmann 0.48 tabpub -0.02 Europa -0.09 sandy -0.35 Jeff_Wilders -0.78 Group 6 StoneAge 0.41 *** simovitch 0.13 kenfedoroff 0.09 Other_Means 0.02 Heavy_Drop -0.12 The_Enigma -0.55 Group 7 DawgBonz 0.47 *** Sivodsi 0.27 JonS 0.19 Cuzn -0.14 BigMik1 -0.44 JohnO -0.46 Group 8 Malakovski 0.57 *** Sripe 0.25 Paco_QNS -0.07 Larry_Thorne -0.25 flammenwerfer -0.31 FGM_Smashing -0.32 Group 9 SteveS 0.54 *** Lt_Bull 0.41 Ted 0.07 dieseltaylor -0.11 Mick_OZ -0.46 Foxholerob -0.51 Group 10 Panzertwat 0.29 *** CombinedArms 0.19 Raketenpanzerbuchse -0.06 Merkin_Muffley -0.07 Frenchy -0.08 Andrew_Kulin -0.28 Group 11 Platehead 0.52 *** dangerousdave 0.50 Sleekit 0.07 The_Capt -0.20 Michael_Dorosh -0.51 GSX -0.53 Group 12 Londoner 0.82 *** Melnibone 0.09 Jim_Crowley 0.07 Redwolf -0.26 Artavash -0.45 General_Colt -0.60 _________________________ Overall Rankings 1) Walpurgis_Nacht 1.01 2) Londoner 0.82 3) JonL 0.65 4) Flenser 0.59 5) Malakovski 0.57 6) SteveS 0.54 7) Platehead 0.52 8) dangerousdave 0.50 9) Kanonier_Reichmann 0.48 10) DawgBonz 0.47 11) Lt_Bull 0.41 11) StoneAge 0.41 13) Steve_McClaire 0.37 14) JPS 0.29 14) GreenHornet 0.29 14) Panzertwat 0.29 17) Sivodsi 0.27 18) stikkypixie 0.26 19) Sripe 0.25 20) JonS 0.19 20) CombinedArms 0.19 22) Vadr 0.16 23) Elmar_Bijlsma 0.15 24) simovitch 0.13 25) Melnibone 0.09 25) kenfedoroff 0.09 27) Sleekit 0.07 27) Jim_Crowley 0.07 27) Nestor 0.07 27) Ted 0.07 31) BigDog944 0.03 32) Other_Means 0.02 33) Renaud 0.01 34) tabpub -0.02 34) GreenAsJade -0.02 36) Cpt_T -0.04 37) Raketenpanzerbuchse -0.06 37) mPisi -0.06 39) Merkin_Muffley -0.07 39) Paco_QNS -0.07 41) Frenchy -0.08 42) Europa -0.09 43) dieseltaylor -0.11 44) Bigduke6 -0.12 44) Heavy_Drop -0.12 46) Cuzn -0.14 47) jbertles -0.16 48) Gtimthane -0.18 49) ded -0.19 50) The_Capt -0.20 51) Treeburst155 -0.24 52) Larry_Thorne -0.25 53) Redwolf -0.26 53) yacinator -0.26 55) Andrew_Kulin -0.28 56) peterk -0.30 57) flammenwerfer -0.31 58) FGM_Smashing -0.32 59) sandy -0.35 60) BigMik1 -0.44 61) Artavash -0.45 62) JohnO -0.46 62) Mick_OZ -0.46 64) Michael_Dorosh -0.51 64) Foxholerob -0.51 66) GSX -0.53 67) The_Enigma -0.55 68) General_Colt -0.60 69) Sgian_Dubh -0.71 70) Jeff_Wilders -0.75 71) a1steaks -0.78 72) Nefarious -0.84 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Some points of interest to me: 1) DangerousDave had the highest 2nd place score, ranking 8th overall. 2) Michael Dorosh actually beat eight people. 3) GreenHornet and Panzertwat were the lowest scoring group winners with 0.29 each. 4) The closest 1st/2nd race was Group 11 with Platehead and DangerousDave 5) There were two ranking changes in Group 4 where Walpurgis had huge victories from the weak side. 6) Lt Bull and Kanonier Reichmann are worthy of an Honorable Mention. Both were 2nd place finishers with very high scores. Only Dangerousdave finished 2nd with a higher score. [ June 16, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 St. Edouard's Nabla Scores (Highest to Lowest) Walpurgis_Nacht 1.04 mPisi 1.04 DawgBonz 1.03 Renaud 1.01 SteveS 0.96 Melnibone 0.92 Artavash 0.92 Londoner 0.89 simovitch 0.86 Vadr 0.86 Nestor 0.86 StoneAge 0.83 Jon_L 0.82 sandy 0.78 CombinedArms 0.78 kenfedoroff 0.76 flammenwerfer 0.72 Malakovski 0.70 Steve_McClaire 0.68 Sleekit 0.63 Ted 0.58 Michael_Dorosh 0.58 Frenchy 0.56 JPS 0.50 JonS 0.47 Raketenpanzerbuchse 0.41 BigDog944 0.34 Treeburst155 0.26 Paco_QNS 0.22 Flenser 0.22 Cuzn 0.22 Platehead 0.18 Lt_Bull 0.18 Europa 0.09 ded 0.00 Gtimthane 0.00 GreenHornet 0.00 GreenAsJade 0.00 Kanonier_Reichmann -0.09 dangerousdave -0.18 Mick_OZ -0.18 Sripe -0.22 Elmar_Bijlsma -0.22 BigMik1 -0.22 Cpt_T -0.26 peterk -0.34 Andrew_Kulin -0.41 Sivodsi -0.47 stikkypixie -0.50 Merkin_Muffley -0.56 dieseltaylor -0.58 The_Capt -0.58 GSX -0.63 yacinator -0.68 FGM_Smashing -0.70 Larry_Thorne -0.72 Other_Means -0.76 Panzertwat -0.78 Jeff_Wilders -0.78 tabpub -0.82 Heavy_Drop -0.85 jbertles -0.89 The_Enigma -0.89 Sgian_Dubh -0.89 Jim_Crowley -0.93 Redwolf -0.97 General_Colt -0.97 Foxholerob -1.03 Nefarious -1.13 JohnO -1.17 Bigduke6 -1.20 a1steaks -1.22 ________________________ Highlanders JimCrowley 1.08 Sivodsi 1.05 Kanonier_Reichmann 1.04 GSX 1.00 Redwolf 0.97 Panzertwat 0.97 Dawg_Bonz 0.97 dangerousdave 0.94 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.94 Jon_L 0.91 Elmar_Bijlsma 0.87 ded 0.83 Flenser 0.80 BigDog944 0.78 Other_Means 0.73 SteveS 0.70 Lt_Bull 0.70 Sripe 0.61 peterk 0.58 Platehead 0.58 Paco_QNS 0.58 tabpub 0.42 StoneAge 0.38 Nestor 0.38 JonS 0.38 JPS 0.38 Heavy_Drop 0.38 stikkypixie 0.28 GreenAsJade 0.28 Steve_McClair 0.23 Malakovski 0.23 CombinedArms 0.23 Londoner 0.12 Andrew_Kulin 0.12 Ted 0.06 GreenHornet 0.06 Vadr -0.06 Mick_OZ -0.06 Melnibone -0.12 Frenchy -0.12 Nefarious -0.23 Merkin_Muffley -0.23 Larry_Thorne -0.23 yacinator -0.28 Gtimthane -0.28 mPisi -0.38 kenfedoroff -0.38 The_Enigma -0.38 Renaud -0.38 Cuzn -0.38 sandy -0.42 flammenwerfer -0.58 a1steaks -0.58 The_Capt -0.58 FGM_Smashing -0.61 dieseltaylor -0.70 Foxholerob -0.70 simovitch -0.73 Treeburst155 -0.78 Bigduke6 -0.81 jbertles -0.84 Sgian_Dubh -0.89 Europa -0.95 Sleekit -1.00 Cpt_T -1.00 Raketenpanzerbuchse -1.05 General_Colt -1.05 BigMik1 -1.05 Michael_Dorosh -1.11 Jeff_Wilders -1.22 JohnO -1.24 Artavash -1.32 ___________________________ Moltke Walpurgis_Nacht 1.17 Londoner 1.17 GreenHornet 1.08 Bigduke6 1.07 JonS 0.98 Ted 0.94 jbertles 0.91 Platehead 0.91 Sivodsi 0.83 dangerousdave 0.76 ElmarBijlsma 0.76 flammenwerfer 0.72 Flenser 0.72 Larry_Thorne 0.68 stikkypixie 0.64 Cpt_T 0.64 Raketenpanzerbuchse 0.54 MerkinMuffly 0.54 General_Colt 0.54 Sleekit 0.48 Panzertwat 0.48 Malakovski 0.48 Europa 0.48 Gtimthane 0.42 BigDog944 0.42 LT_Bull 0.36 JPS 0.36 tabpub 0.29 simovitch 0.29 dieseltaylor 0.29 kenfedoroff 0.21 Other_Means 0.21 Melnibone 0.21 KanonierReichmann 0.21 Steve_McClaire 0.13 Cuzn 0.13 Renaud -0.13 Dawg_Bonz -0.13 The_Enigma -0.21 StoneAge -0.21 JonL -0.21 JimCrowley -0.21 MickOZ -0.29 JeffWilders -0.29 Heavy_Drop -0.29 yacinator -0.36 SteveS -0.36 a1steaks -0.42 Vadr -0.42 sandy -0.48 The_Capt -0.48 Sripe -0.48 Frenchy -0.48 CombinedArms -0.54 Artavash -0.54 Andrew_Kulin -0.54 peterk -0.64 Nefarious -0.64 Paco_QNS -0.68 mPisi -0.72 FGM_Smashing -0.72 Nestor -0.76 GSX -0.76 BigMik1 -0.84 Michael_Dorosh -0.96 GreenAsJade -0.96 Foxholerob -1.00 JohnO -1.08 Sgian_Dubh -1.28 ded -1.32 Treeburst155 -1.71 Redwolf -1.71 ___________________________ Meleme Walpurgis_Nacht 1.20 JPS 1.18 Londoner 1.16 Platehead 1.14 Vadr 1.06 Foxholerob 1.04 Cpt_T 0.99 simovitch 0.96 SteveS 0.82 tabpub 0.80 Jon_L 0.72 Bigduke6 0.72 Malakovsi 0.61 Jim_Crowley 0.55 Melnibone 0.51 JohnO 0.51 Flenser 0.51 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.48 Treeburst155 0.44 Lt_Bull 0.40 Heavy_Drop 0.40 DawgBonz 0.40 Renaud 0.36 Paco_QNS 0.36 StoneAge 0.31 jbertles 0.27 Frenchy 0.27 Sripe 0.17 Sgian_Dubh 0.17 Andrew_kulin 0.17 stikkypixie 0.11 dangerousdave 0.06 Sleekit 0.06 GreenHornet 0.06 Sivodsi 0.00 Panzertwat 0.00 Merkin_Muffley 0.00 Cuzn 0.00 The_Capt -0.06 Michael_Dorosh -0.06 GreenAsJade -0.06 Steve_McClaire -0.11 mPisi -0.17 Larry_Thorne -0.17 CombinedArms -0.17 Raketenpanzerbuchse -0.27 Gtimthane -0.27 Other_Means -0.31 yacinator -0.36 FGM_Smashing -0.36 dieseltaylor -0.40 The_Enigma -0.40 JonS -0.40 peterk -0.44 sandy -0.48 Nestor -0.51 BigMik1 -0.51 Artavash -0.51 Redwolf -0.55 flammenwerfer -0.61 Jeff_Wilders -0.72 Elmar_Bijlsma -0.72 Europa -0.80 Ted -0.83 kenfedoroff -1.03 a1steaks -1.10 Mick_OZ -1.21 ded -1.26 GSX -1.56 General_Colt -1.63 Nefarious -1.81 BigDog944 -1.99 __________________________ Wet Triangle Sripe 1.18 JonL 1.01 Redwolf 0.97 dangerousdave 0.93 Steve_McClaire 0.92 kenfedoroff 0.86 dieseltaylor 0.84 Malakovski 0.82 FGM_Smashing 0.80 stikkypixie 0.78 ded 0.78 Londoner 0.78 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.78 Panzertwat 0.76 StoneAge 0.73 Europa 0.73 The_Capt 0.71 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.68 JohnO 0.68 Flenser 0.68 GreenAsJade 0.63 CombinedArms 0.63 Treeburst155 0.60 BigDog944 0.60 SteveS 0.56 BigMik1 0.46 Lt_Bull 0.42 yacinator 0.38 Nestor 0.38 Other_Means 0.24 GreenHornet 0.24 Sleekit 0.19 General_Colt 0.14 Raketenpanzerbuchse 0.09 ElmarBijlsma 0.09 DawgBonz 0.09 mPisi -0.09 Sivodsi -0.09 MerkinMuffley -0.09 Jim_Crowley -0.14 Platehead -0.19 jbertles -0.24 HeavyDrop -0.24 Nefarious -0.38 Bigduke6 -0.38 Ted -0.42 JonS -0.46 Mick_OZ -0.56 a1steaks -0.60 Cpt_T -0.60 Vadr -0.63 Frenchy -0.63 peterk -0.68 Sgian_Dubh -0.68 Cuzn -0.68 GSX -0.71 simovitch -0.73 JeffWilders -0.73 Andrew_Kulin -0.76 tabpub -0.79 Renaud -0.79 Gtimthane -0.79 Artavash -0.79 Larry_Thorne -0.81 Paco_QNS -0.84 Foxholerob -0.86 The_Enigma -0.89 JPS -0.96 Michael_Dorosh -0.99 Melnibone -1.06 sandy -1.14 flammenwerfer -1.79 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Average Nabla Score of the Group What does this stat mean? Who knows, but the groups containing the top two players overall have by far the lowest Group Nabla Score. This is true even though the two highest scores are there to bring up the average. Group 1 -0.0280 Group 2 -0.0166 Group 3 -0.0133 Group 4(Walpurgis) -0.0533 Group 5 -0.0183 Group 6 -0.0033 Group 7 -0.0183 Group 8 -0.0216 Group 9 -0.0100 Group 10 -0.0016 Group 11 -0.0250 Group 12(Londoner) -0.0550 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Pilot Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: Average Nabla Score of the Group What does this stat mean? Who knows, but the groups containing the top two players overall have by far the lowest Group Nabla Score. This is true even though the two highest scores are there to bring up the average.Isn't this just reflecting the fact that the parameters you have chosen for the scoring curve dampen the effects of outliers (i.e., it dampens more as the score gets farther from the median)? In the case of WN, I think you've shown that his Nabla score is not as relatively high as his opponent's score is low. For example, in Maleme, WN had a Nabla score of 1.2, but his opponent had a Nabla score of -1.99. This was the scenario where WN scored a 90% when the median for his side was 22%. The negative impact WN has on his opponent more than offsets WN's high score, pulling the group average down. Which brings me to a nasty mathematical proposition. Could the Nabla score be enhanced even more by taking into account how well your opponent did? For example, scoring a 50-50 draw against WN should earn you more Nabla points than scoring a 50-50 draw against me. I'm thinking that the overall relative performance of your opponent should influence your individual score. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 You're right Ace Pilot! You've explained the Group Scores perfectly. I've been a bit puzzled by them. On factoring in the overall relative performance of your opponent, how can that be done unless past tourneys are taken into consideration? You'd need a chess-like rating system I think. One way to accomplish something similar is to arrange groups by previous performance. IOW, The top six overall would form Group 1 for the next tourney, the next six would be Group 2, etc.. This would give some weaker players a better chance to win a Group. However, the top dogs will fight this idea tooth & nail. I've tried it before. [ June 16, 2005, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I like my idea above because players could advance to higher groups as their tourney performances improved, the long term multi-tourney goal being to get to Group 1. A player could lose in his section; but still advance to a higher group in the next tourney. This is a type of victory in itself IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 The differences could between Mr Burst and the web results is that I can not have a minslope value. Did you use one Treeburst? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I used minslope. However, it only affects super-crummy scores compared to the median. You should have the same scores as I do from the best to about the middle of the negative scores for each scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Those results are very interesting. There is much more going on that just tightening up the spread. Looking at my score compared to number 2 in my ground, the difference went from 3.21:3.04 (hardly any at all), to 0.57:0.35, a much bigger ratio. So in this case it opened up the difference. My overall ranking also increased from 10th-ish to 5th. This seems to indicate this scoring system strongly rewards consistency. I had no big wins (nabla-wise), but beat my average every game. Number two in my group had one big win, but also two minor losses. WN had a bunch of big wins and won every time, so his score is again almost twice mine. I like it. The ROW V system does not seem to take consistency into accout, whereas this sytem does, probably by penalizing losses more than it rewards wins. This would encourage, imo, more "realistic" play, less wild risk-taking, becauce you know you have to pull it off or the scoring system gives you a big spanking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: I used minslope. However, it only affects super-crummy scores compared to the median. You should have the same scores as I do from the best to about the middle of the negative scores for each scenario. I will go over my maths again then. I will post the code if anyone what to double check? R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> $result = $a / $alpha * (1 - exp (-1 * $alpha * (abs($a)))) echo round($result,3); $total += $result;</pre> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Herr Carrot, If I could remember how to use the formula with my scientific calculator, I could help you; but, I can't for the life of me figure it out. Nabla helped me the first time. Malakovski, Consistent strong play is what Nabla decided should be rewarded. Huge outlier victories are considered to be the result of factors other than the winner's skill, more often than not. Great victories still get rewarded; but only to a certain extent. No single outlier result will win a tourney for you, or lose one either. Of course, my carefully considered choice of parameters for the formula reinforce the above scoring philosophy. The curve could be flattened even more for a super-competitive, very close race where 10 points over the median just about maxes your Nabla score for a scenario. Outliers would mean next to nothing. I didn't want to take it that far, simply because a brilliant performance against competent opposition can and probably does occur from time to time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Here's the overall scores with a much flatter curve. There are some ranking changes and more ties. The race is real tight. I think this curve is too flat; but outlier results aren't much of a factor. This means opportunities for very high scores from playing the weak side of an unbalanced scenario are minimized nicely. Walpurgis_Nacht 0.75 Londoner 0.62 JonL 0.51 Flenser 0.50 Malakovski 0.49 SteveS 0.43 Platehead 0.40 dangerousdave 0.39 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.39 Lt_Bull 0.37 DawgBonz 0.37 StoneAge 0.34 Steve_McClaire 0.31 GreenHornet 0.23 stikkypixie 0.22 Panzertwat 0.22 JPS 0.22 Sivodsi 0.19 Sripe 0.17 CombinedArms 0.15 JonS 0.15 Elmar_Bijlsma 0.11 Vadr 0.10 simovitch 0.08 Sleekit 0.06 Melnibone 0.06 Nestor 0.05 kenfedoroff 0.05 Ted 0.04 Jim_Crowley 0.02 Other_Means 0.02 BigDog944 -0.01 Renaud -0.02 GreenAsJade -0.02 tabpub -0.02 Raketenpanzerbuchse -0.06 Paco_QNS -0.06 Merkin_Muffley -0.06 Frenchy -0.07 Cpt_T -0.07 Europa -0.09 mPisi -0.09 dieseltaylor -0.11 Heavy_Drop -0.11 Cuzn -0.12 Bigduke6 -0.16 jbertles -0.16 Gtimthane -0.17 The_Capt -0.18 ded -0.22 Treeburst155 -0.23 Larry_Thorne -0.23 yacinator -0.23 Andrew_Kulin -0.25 peterk -0.27 FGM_Smashing -0.29 Redwolf -0.30 flammenwerfer -0.31 sandy -0.33 BigMik1 -0.39 Mick_OZ -0.42 Artavash -0.43 JohnO -0.44 Michael_Dorosh -0.47 Foxholerob -0.49 The_Enigma -0.50 GSX -0.51 General_Colt -0.56 Sgian_Dubh -0.64 Jeff_Wilders -0.67 a1steaks -0.71 Nefarious -0.78 Scenario scores alphabetically # St_Edouard Andrew_Kulin -0.37 Artavash 0.72 BigDog944 0.31 BigMik1 -0.21 Bigduke6 -1.11 CombinedArms 0.64 Cpt_T -0.25 Cuzn 0.21 DawgBonz 0.77 Elmar_Bijlsma -0.21 Europa 0.09 FGM_Smashing -0.61 Flenser 0.21 Foxholerob -0.94 Frenchy 0.49 GSX -0.55 General_Colt -0.88 GreenAsJade 0.00 GreenHornet 0.00 Gtimthane 0.00 Heavy_Drop -0.76 JPS 0.45 Jeff_Wilders -0.69 Jim_Crowley -0.84 JohnO -1.08 JonL 0.66 JonS 0.42 Kanonier_Reichmann -0.09 Larry_Thorne -0.63 Londoner 0.71 Lt_Bull 0.17 Malakovski 0.59 Melnibone 0.72 Merkin_Muffley -0.49 Michael_Dorosh 0.51 Mick_OZ -0.17 Nefarious -1.04 Nestor 0.69 Other_Means -0.67 Paco_QNS 0.21 Panzertwat -0.69 Platehead 0.17 Raketenpanzerbuchse 0.37 Redwolf -0.88 Renaud 0.76 Sgian_Dubh -0.80 Sivodsi -0.42 Sleekit 0.54 Sripe -0.21 SteveS 0.74 Steve_McClaire 0.58 StoneAge 0.67 Ted 0.51 The_Capt -0.51 The_Enigma -0.80 Treeburst155 0.25 Vadr 0.69 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.78 a1steaks -1.13 dangerousdave -0.17 ded 0.00 dieseltaylor -0.51 flammenwerfer 0.60 jbertles -0.80 kenfedoroff 0.63 mPisi 0.77 peterk -0.31 sandy 0.64 simovitch 0.69 stikkypixie -0.45 tabpub -0.74 yacinator -0.59 # Highlanders Andrew_Kulin 0.12 Artavash -1.23 BigDog944 0.64 BigMik1 -0.96 Bigduke6 -0.72 CombinedArms 0.22 Cpt_T -0.91 Cuzn -0.35 DawgBonz 0.74 Elmar_Bijlsma 0.69 Europa -0.86 FGM_Smashing -0.53 Flenser 0.66 Foxholerob -0.61 Frenchy -0.12 GSX 0.76 General_Colt -0.96 GreenAsJade 0.27 GreenHornet 0.06 Gtimthane -0.27 Heavy_Drop 0.35 JPS 0.35 Jeff_Wilders -1.13 Jim_Crowley 0.79 JohnO -1.15 JonL 0.71 JonS 0.35 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.78 Larry_Thorne -0.22 Londoner 0.12 Lt_Bull 0.59 Malakovski 0.22 Melnibone -0.12 Merkin_Muffley -0.22 Michael_Dorosh -1.02 Mick_OZ -0.06 Nefarious -0.22 Nestor 0.35 Other_Means 0.61 Paco_QNS 0.50 Panzertwat 0.74 Platehead 0.50 Raketenpanzerbuchse -0.96 Redwolf 0.74 Renaud -0.35 Sgian_Dubh -0.80 Sivodsi 0.78 Sleekit -0.91 Sripe 0.53 SteveS 0.59 Steve_McClaire 0.22 StoneAge 0.35 Ted 0.06 The_Capt -0.50 The_Enigma -0.35 Treeburst155 -0.69 Vadr -0.06 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.73 a1steaks -0.50 dangerousdave 0.73 ded 0.67 dieseltaylor -0.61 flammenwerfer -0.50 jbertles -0.75 kenfedoroff -0.35 mPisi -0.35 peterk 0.50 sandy -0.38 simovitch -0.64 stikkypixie 0.27 tabpub 0.38 yacinator -0.27 # Moltke Andrew_Kulin -0.48 Artavash -0.48 BigDog944 0.39 BigMik1 -0.75 Bigduke6 0.79 CombinedArms -0.48 Cpt_T 0.55 Cuzn 0.13 DawgBonz -0.13 Elmar_Bijlsma 0.63 Europa 0.43 FGM_Smashing -0.63 Flenser 0.61 Foxholerob -0.91 Frenchy -0.43 GSX -0.67 General_Colt 0.48 GreenAsJade -0.87 GreenHornet 0.79 Gtimthane 0.39 Heavy_Drop -0.27 JPS 0.33 Jeff_Wilders -0.27 Jim_Crowley -0.20 JohnO -0.99 JonL -0.20 JonS 0.75 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.20 Larry_Thorne 0.58 Londoner 0.82 Lt_Bull 0.33 Malakovski 0.43 Melnibone 0.20 Merkin_Muffley 0.48 Michael_Dorosh -0.87 Mick_OZ -0.27 Nefarious -0.55 Nestor -0.67 Other_Means 0.20 Paco_QNS -0.59 Panzertwat 0.43 Platehead 0.72 Raketenpanzerbuchse 0.48 Redwolf -1.62 Renaud -0.13 Sgian_Dubh -1.19 Sivodsi 0.67 Sleekit 0.43 Sripe -0.43 SteveS -0.33 Steve_McClaire 0.13 StoneAge -0.20 Ted 0.73 The_Capt -0.43 The_Enigma -0.20 Treeburst155 -1.62 Vadr -0.39 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.82 a1steaks -0.39 dangerousdave 0.63 ded -1.23 dieseltaylor 0.27 flammenwerfer 0.61 jbertles 0.72 kenfedoroff 0.20 mPisi -0.63 peterk -0.55 sandy -0.43 simovitch 0.27 stikkypixie 0.55 tabpub 0.27 yacinator -0.33 # Meleme Andrew_Kulin 0.16 Artavash -0.46 BigDog944 -1.90 BigMik1 -0.46 Bigduke6 0.61 CombinedArms -0.16 Cpt_T 0.76 Cuzn 0.00 DawgBonz 0.37 Elmar_Bijlsma -0.63 Europa -0.71 FGM_Smashing -0.33 Flenser 0.46 Foxholerob 0.78 Frenchy 0.25 GSX -1.47 General_Colt -1.55 GreenAsJade -0.06 GreenHornet 0.06 Gtimthane -0.25 Heavy_Drop 0.37 JPS 0.82 Jeff_Wilders -0.63 Jim_Crowley 0.48 JohnO 0.46 JonL 0.61 JonS -0.37 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.43 Larry_Thorne -0.16 Londoner 0.82 Lt_Bull 0.37 Malakovski 0.53 Melnibone 0.46 Merkin_Muffley 0.00 Michael_Dorosh -0.06 Mick_OZ -1.12 Nefarious -1.72 Nestor -0.46 Other_Means -0.29 Paco_QNS 0.33 Panzertwat 0.00 Platehead 0.81 Raketenpanzerbuchse -0.25 Redwolf -0.48 Renaud 0.33 Sgian_Dubh 0.16 Sivodsi 0.00 Sleekit 0.06 Sripe 0.16 SteveS 0.66 Steve_McClaire -0.11 StoneAge 0.29 Ted -0.74 The_Capt -0.06 The_Enigma -0.37 Treeburst155 0.40 Vadr 0.78 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.83 a1steaks -1.01 dangerousdave 0.06 ded -1.17 dieseltaylor -0.37 flammenwerfer -0.53 jbertles 0.25 kenfedoroff -0.94 mPisi -0.16 peterk -0.40 sandy -0.43 simovitch 0.74 stikkypixie 0.11 tabpub 0.65 yacinator -0.33 # Wet_Triangle Andrew_Kulin -0.67 Artavash -0.70 BigDog944 0.52 BigMik1 0.41 Bigduke6 -0.35 CombinedArms 0.54 Cpt_T -0.52 Cuzn -0.59 DawgBonz 0.09 Elmar_Bijlsma 0.09 Europa 0.61 FGM_Smashing 0.66 Flenser 0.58 Foxholerob -0.77 Frenchy -0.54 GSX -0.62 General_Colt 0.14 GreenAsJade 0.54 GreenHornet 0.23 Gtimthane -0.70 Heavy_Drop -0.23 JPS -0.87 Jeff_Wilders -0.65 Jim_Crowley -0.14 JohnO 0.58 JonL 0.76 JonS -0.41 Kanonier_Reichmann 0.64 Larry_Thorne -0.72 Londoner 0.64 Lt_Bull 0.38 Malakovski 0.67 Melnibone -0.97 Merkin_Muffley -0.09 Michael_Dorosh -0.90 Mick_OZ -0.49 Nefarious -0.35 Nestor 0.35 Other_Means 0.23 Paco_QNS -0.75 Panzertwat 0.63 Platehead -0.19 Raketenpanzerbuchse 0.09 Redwolf 0.75 Renaud -0.70 Sgian_Dubh -0.59 Sivodsi -0.09 Sleekit 0.19 Sripe 0.82 SteveS 0.49 Steve_McClaire 0.72 StoneAge 0.61 Ted -0.38 The_Capt 0.60 The_Enigma -0.80 Treeburst155 0.52 Vadr -0.54 Walpurgis_Nacht 0.58 a1steaks -0.52 dangerousdave 0.73 ded 0.64 dieseltaylor 0.68 flammenwerfer -1.70 jbertles -0.23 kenfedoroff 0.69 mPisi -0.09 peterk -0.59 sandy -1.05 simovitch -0.65 stikkypixie 0.64 tabpub -0.70 yacinator 0.35 [ June 16, 2005, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Pilot Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: On factoring in the overall relative performance of your opponent, how can that be done unless past tourneys are taken into consideration? You'd need a chess-like rating system I think.I think taking past tourneys into account would be the most accurate method. However, I don't think it would be desirable because it leaves open the question of how to deal with rookies. My thought was to somehow weight a players score based on the overall performance of their opponent during that round of play. Rank everyone by their total Nabla score and then go back and adjust individual scenario scores based on how the opponent ranked. Perhaps your score would be increased by 10% against opponents that ranked in the top 1/3, and decreased by 10% against opponents that ranked in the bottom 1/3. This would help reduce the impact of high scores gained by playing inexperienced players. It would also enhance the score from good play against skilled opponents. I think this might be an interesting concept to explore, but my gut feel is that Nabla already deals well with this situation through the scoring curve and rewarding consistent play instead of isolated spectacular play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 This is an interesting idea Ace Pilot, and it is similar to what happens in chess. Luck due to assignment to a less experienced group would be countered to some extent, as would the bad luck of getting placed in a group of hotshots. Couple this idea with the Axis/Allies idea mentioned earlier, which counters any advantage in scoring opportunities that one side may have in the tourney as a whole. Then throw in the nice flat Nabla curve I recommend, and you just might have one wild tournament. I would want to spend quite a bit of time analyzing the Nabla Score modifier (your 10%) to be sure it had an appropriate impact on the final results. Perhaps quarters instead of thirds would be better too. For example, a guy in the bottom quarter who plays a guy in the top quarter might get 15% added to his Nabla score for that scenario (5% for every quarter above). Should the guy in the top quarter have his score reduced the same 15%? These are things that need to be carefully explored, just like I did with the parameter values. It IS a very interesting idea that deserves to be studied, and I will likely do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Calculate the overall final Nabla scores Determine the difference in the FINAL Nabla scores for every matchup in the tourney. Adjust the scenario Nabla scores in some way yet to be determined, based on this difference. Recalculate overall Nabla scores. You would have a customized score adjustment for every game played. Every matchup has it's own modifier based on the relative overall performance of the two combatants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 The flatter curve definitely seems to be closer to the NABLA tenets - and I say this as my score drifts lower .... and lower. The high risk/reward factor is well addressed and it is all very encouraging. The concept of -10% + 10% I am not feeling very comfortable with at first sight. Without pre-knowledge you treat all players as potentially good when you play them. Though it is not easy to reflect it in published scores how often do you find that an opponent has inadvertantly delayed you, and reduced your total score by doing many militarily illogical things. Scenarios of course amplify this effect as you know the forces are likely unbalanced - and not necessarily the way you think : 0. A level of refinement too far possibly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Hi Treeburst. Your listing above of the original Nabla parameters as applied to this tournament seem about right to me from my non scientific viewpoint as it provides results that, as has already been said, more rewards consistency rather than the spectacular one-off. This is a good thing as anyone can get lucky in any one battle where, for instance, a lucky airstrike can destroy one sides armour support and cause a blowout of the score. For example in Push to Maleme, my score in that battle could well have become an outlier if the Stuka airsupport had hit it's target of 3 tightly bunched Vickers tankettes probably resulting in a premature Allied surrender. This would not be reflective of gameplay however since such an incident is completely outside of the players control. Overly rewarding a player for one potentially lucky result is not a good thing for this type of tournament in my opinion. The original Nabla system seems to succesfully correct for this possibility as far as I can tell. Regards Jim R. [ June 17, 2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Pilot Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: Calculate the overall final Nabla scores Determine the difference in the FINAL Nabla scores for every matchup in the tourney. Adjust the scenario Nabla scores in some way yet to be determined, based on this difference. Recalculate overall Nabla scores. You would have a customized score adjustment for every game played. Every matchup has it's own modifier based on the relative overall performance of the two combatants. The use of a sliding scale is a much better idea than the step function I proposed. If such a correction is to be used, I think you’ve hit upon the correct methodology, Treeburst. Originally posted by dieseltaylor: The concept of -10% + 10% I am not feeling very comfortable with at first sight. Without pre-knowledge you treat all players as potentially good when you play them. Though it is not easy to reflect it in published scores how often do you find that an opponent has inadvertantly delayed you, and reduced your total score by doing many militarily illogical things. Scenarios of course amplify this effect as you know the forces are likely unbalanced - and not necessarily the way you think : 0. A level of refinement too far possibly? That is sort of my gut feel, as well. I’m also thinking that this may be “double counting.” The scoring curve of the Nabla system already attenuates those high scores that can result from playing inexperienced opponents. Reducing the score again feels redundant to me. However, that still leaves open the question of whether a modest score against a really good player deserves some sort of upward adjustment, as Treeburst outlined above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestor Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 This is a fascinating thread and without really understanding the detail, it does seem that flatter would be better (perhaps because I would have finished equal 27th, rather than 28th overall ) One thing that I've been pondering is whether all scenarios should be treated equally when Nabla scores are being generated. What I mean is, shouldn't each scenario's contribution to the overall Nabla score for a player be weighted based on the number of points in the scenario? This may be bollocks - I've been trying to make this post make sense for 10 minutes and I'm not sure I've succeeded. It just seems fairer to the total score for a player that scenarios with fewer points have proportionately less impact on the overall score, but I seem unable to express this logically! Does anybody agree and more importantly if you do, can you express it in a more scientific fashion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.