Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I assume that's the NABLA ranking. The cold hard results would be reversed, I'm sure. But the results look right to me. Any Wet Triangle Allied that got a decent score couldn't help but have their scores massively boosted by NABLA because the rest of us got slaughtered. Whereas Axis had it so easy that they had to have an insane score to rise above the rest of the pack in NABLA. That's my take on it atleast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Sorry, yes; that's the NABLA scores. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Strange..I actually enjoyed Maleme the most - playing as Axis...I seem to be in the minority though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 This is too wierd! How can it be that across 5 tourney games the top 5 players in each one just *happened* to be assigned Allies in 23 out of 25 slots!???!? It can't be. I can almost buy Elmar's explanation for Wet, but what about the overwhelming improbability of the rest of the result? My faith in Nabla just took a big blow. I hope there's a good explanation! I'm hoping for "programming error" rather than some fundamental reason we didn't think of why Nabla doesn't really pick the best players... GaJ [ June 11, 2005, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by Other Means: I have recieved a score of 77 for St Edouards Sanitorium after I got kicked all over by kenfedoroff - is this correct? AAR's will be a little late as I've not had a chance to fix my XP partition. Hi OM, Thanks for sticking up for me. I think that is a mistake. They've got the numbers transposed. If I remember correctly, I got the win as Axis 77-23. Cheers, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: This is too wierd! How can it be that across 5 tourney games the top 5 players in each one just *happened* to be assigned Allies in 23 out of 25 slots!???!? It can't be. I can almost buy Elmar's explanation for Wet, but what about the overwhelming improbability of the rest of the result? It just means the Allies had a tougher time in these scenarios overall, and a big win for an Allied player meant beating the average by a lot. I drew Axis in four out of five scenarios and won my section by beating the average by a little in each. No huge nabla scores, but I did better than the average in each game. I think hysteria over the scoring system is a little premature, although it probably does reveal a bit of a German bias in this particular set of scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: This is too wierd! How can it be that across 5 tourney games the top 5 players in each one just *happened* to be assigned Allies in 23 out of 25 slots!???!? It can't be. I can almost buy Elmar's explanation for Wet, but what about the overwhelming improbability of the rest of the result? My faith in Nabla just took a big blow. I hope there's a good explanation! I'm hoping for "programming error" rather than some fundamental reason we didn't think of why Nabla doesn't really pick the best players... GaJ Yes, it's still a bit off to see such a cluster of same side players hogging the top spots. While I could see how the scoring went it shouldn't be that those who got assigned mainly Allied scenarios had an easier time scoring wise. It's pretty funny to see that the only scenario where honours are equal is "Highlanders" in which both sides could easily take a chunck out of the opposition. The less balanced the scenario looked to me, the more the results are clustered. Weird. :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 where can we download the scenarios? And which ones (if any) are pretty evenly matched? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: (I too would like to know why it matters what group you are in ... why it's not just the top people Nabla-wise going to the finals?) Don't know the "official" reason for this, but I can think of a few reasons. First, it isolates the effect of someone new who gets beaten horribly in every game. If you had, for example, three newbies in one group and two average players, those two guys might end up with huge scores just by virtue of the company, rather than their skills. Which leads to point two, you can only really be judged against those against whom you played, for reasons such as the above. So although a few people (especially those who beat the section leader) may feel robbed, I can't think of a better system. Just taking the top x number of scores would not necessarily be any more fair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by David Chapuis: where can we download the scenarios? And which ones (if any) are pretty evenly matched? Usually the scenarios are released halfway through the finals when the designers had a chance to read the AARs and make adjustments. Though I still haven't found ROWIV finals scenario "Proof of Honour". Yes it needed balancing but how hard can it be to turn fog off. :mad: :mad: :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sivodsi: I would have thought that since the scores are worked out in relation to how everybody scored in the scenario, so too the winners should be decided based on the top scores overall, not just who happens to score more in each group...? I'm quite happy with how everything is worked out, just curious what the rationale is. Tell me about it..... BTW, my personal preference for the battles was: 1. Highlanders 2. St Edouards 3. Map o' Tassie 4. Moltke Bridge 5. Maleme Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: This is too wierd! How can it be that across 5 tourney games the top 5 players in each one just *happened* to be assigned Allies in 23 out of 25 slots!???!? It can't be. I can almost buy Elmar's explanation for Wet, but what about the overwhelming improbability of the rest of the result? My faith in Nabla just took a big blow. I hope there's a good explanation! I'm hoping for "programming error" rather than some fundamental reason we didn't think of why Nabla doesn't really pick the best players... GaJ This is actually a very interesting observation as it appears that the players who were "lucky" enough to have the non favoured side in any battle (which tended to be the allies) stood a much better chance to score highly and therefore win their group compared with the ones who had the favoured sides. Perhaps this type of scoring favours the underdog side too much by rewarding a reasonable result disproportionally? Perhaps backing up this theory is that the 2 players who absolutely blitzed the rankings with their Nabla adjusted high score managed to play the Allies 4 out of 5 times and, coincidentally, happened to play exactly the same side for each battle. I'm not trying to detract from their ability mind you as they are clearly excellent players as I can certainly attest to having played Londoner & Walpurgis Nachts previous record speaks for itself. Regards Jim R. [ June 11, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 It would be interesting to calculate the maximum possible nabla score for a particular side in a given scenario. E.g., if the average score was 90% for a given side, you couldn't beat it by more than 10% no matter what, so that should create a maximum and minimum score for each side, per scenario, shouldn't it? Or does the formula already account for this somehow? I did not read all 33 pages of that nabla document... [[answer: yes, it does. It was in the document, and obvious from the fact that opponents always had opposite scores, e.g. winner +1, loser -1.]] [ June 11, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Malakovski ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 [[edited because I figured out my own question]] [ June 11, 2005, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Malakovski ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Perhaps backing up this theory is that the 2 players who absolutely blitzed the rankings with their Nabla adjusted high score managed to play the Allies 4 out of 5 times and, coincidentally, happened to play exactly the same side for each battle.Flenser, another section winner, drew the same mix of sides as WN and L. OTOH, Malakovsi and dangerous dave both had the exact opposite sides, and both ended up in the top 10 (with M winning his section). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: Flenser, another section winner, drew the same mix of sides as WN and L. OTOH, Malakovsi and dangerous dave both had the exact opposite sides, and both ended up in the top 10 (with M winning his section). If you do a few calculations on the spreadsheet Kingfish mailed out to those who requested it, the Allies had a mean score of > 50% (just barely) on three out of the five scenarios. It was really just Maleme and Wet Triangle where they, on average, got kicked around. The average of the average Allied score is 44%. Ultimately I think the sample set is too small and the relations too complex to draw any useful blanket conclusions since, as JonS pointed out, there are exceptions no matter how you try to interpret the data. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Sorry if it appeared I was inducing hysteria. I just wanted to make sure the topic got picked up. I'm thinking "let's have a separate thread to explore this topic". Here in this thread we'd probably rather talk about scenarios, scores, AARs etc... GaJ (goes off to create a thread). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 If you would be kind enough to post your thoughts on our strange Nabla result in this thread it will keep the discussion of that topic together, and not clutter up this thread with it... GaJ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Originally posted by Malakovski: (... see explanation above ) So although a few people (especially those who beat the section leader) may feel robbed, I can't think of a better system. Just taking the top x number of scores would not necessarily be any more fair. [/QB]Great explanation: thanks! GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Ok the raw scores are now available to view. There is a link at the bottom of the first results page, or use this one: http://www.robertbunting.net/rumble/players_raw_scores_wt.php 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simovitch Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Originally posted by Cpl Carrot: Ok the raw scores are now available to view. There is a link at the bottom of the first results page, or use this one: http://www.robertbunting.net/rumble/players_raw_scores_wt.php Holy crap I suck at this game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 0.85 total Nabla score is nothing to be ashamed of, Simo! There's just some darn good bastiges out there! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1steaks Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 What a bummer. The only scenario I was doing well in, Highlanders as Germans, and it's the one that doesn't finish. I wish I would have known it would just be clicked through to end it, I would have at least had all my forces make a beeline for the flag. Oh well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 My preferred sceanarios were Maleme and Highlander as they both provided some tactical options for both sides.Also enough troops to play with. I thought Wet was a little risky in that three lucky shots could put paid to the Germans very quickly so it it seemed a bit of a dice-roll. Obviously on average x tanks would go done before the Panthers died but the extremes would exist. Moltke was rather limited in tactical possibilities - and I was a little peeved to find I was allowed to set up my guns within range of the invisible pillbox my troops had been attacking all day ...... c'est la guerre. Sanatorium was not much fun - but then I suspect I played it badly and my opponent played it well - and that was why I did not like it. Probably quite a good scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 "Tactical Options" By this do you mean "different routes you could take"? That's not the only kind of tactical options there are. There is the choice whether to use smoke or HE. The choice of whether to go in a large mass or in smaller spread out groups. The choice of whether to support with tanks from behind or up front. The choice of whether to put the smoke down first, or scout first. I reckon there were plenty of tactical options in Moltke. GaJ. [ June 12, 2005, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ] 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.