To All WineCape Tourney Vets

[Redwolf]

I think I have to restate my opinion since it was buried under too subtle irony and sarcasm.

I think the seperation into section according to past results is good and if anything I'm smug to end up in my section. There can be no doubt that several players there should be able to run over me under any normal circumstances, but they won't have it easy I second the comment that a free mix will probably raise the dropout quote. I don't think a random mix will be in any way better, after all the current mix may also result from a random selection. The "Über"player term bothers me, though.

As for balanced scenarios, I play for fun and learning, and even clear unbalanced scenarios without Nabla scoring would be fine for me, much better than scenarios that artificially try to be balanced.

In a word, I am not really into the final score. I guess we all know that a realistic final score would require more than 5 games anyway, and we have ladders for that (plenty of them...).

[ April 22, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Wreck]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

If the uber players play only each other, they get best games since they have the closest opponents.

I disagree. To me, a "fun" match is one in which the players are of relatively equal playing skill

</font>

[Cpl Carrot]

The major problem with my proposal is the extra scenario play time required to whittle the opponents down to the last two. One way to help in this factor is to have shorter battles (not offen a good thing). Another option would be for players to commit to one TCP/IP session per opponent per fortnight. I was going to say one a week but that is far to many especially at the early stages of the torny.

Running total $0.04

Cpl Carrot

[TexasToast]

I'm in favor of grouping by skill level (at least approximately, which is about all we can hope for). To me it comes down to simple mathematics: the round robin portion of the tourney consists of 48 people playing 5 games each, for a total of 120 games (each game takes 2 people). A single elimination tourney of eight people takes 7 games. It makes more sense to make the 120 games as evenly matched as possible, therefore more enjoyable for all, even if the final 7 may not be the optimum match-ups for determining the "best" player. I like the idea of considering the playoff portion as the icing on the cake, not necessarily the goal.

TT

[Treeburst155]

Nine scenarios is what we need as things stand now. More than that is really asking a lot from our unpaid designers. They aren't our personal scenario designers. They are donating their time to the community as a whole I think.

The Nabla system was not designed for tourneys divided into sections, or tourneys requiring playoffs. It was designed to determine relative skill in the most accurate way possible among a given group of players. For the same reason, the round robin structure is desireable.

I began dividing tourneys into sections simply because of the number of interested players, and an absolute necessity to keep the number of games participants must play to no greater than seven games. In effect, I was running several tourneys at once.

The playoffs were merely an afterthought, and a way to determine who would get the prize. Not even WineCape, as generous as he is, wants to send 12 bottles of wine to 8 different people. Even if the merchandise is overflowing in his wine cellar the effort involved in shipping the goods worldwide, not to mention the cost of doing so is significant. Apparently he's had to re-ship the wines to more than one of the previous winners due to some sort of customs glitch. See how long it takes you to box up something delicate and then get it to UPS for shipment. Now do it eight times. See what I mean? There can only be one winner of the wine.

So, when I opened up more sections (individual tourneys) I had to deal with how to decide which tourney winner got the prize. The REAL tourney is within the sections. The playoffs and the chance to win the wine are just the "prize" for winning your individual tourney.

When it comes to prestige and recognition for outstanding performance in a highly competitive situation, the section one winner takes the honors in my book, whether he wins the wine or not.

If you de-emphasize the prize and the playoffs and look at the sections, you will find them to be an excellent way to rate yourself among your peers. The section competition was carefully set up for this purpose.

Treeburst155 out.

[ April 22, 2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Holien]

"I am not a number...."

Well this is an interesting debate.

Who says anyone is a great player? Am I and others to be type cast based upon past preformance?

I know in some of my games in the current tourney I was very lucky and I bet some of my opponents would agree with that.

So I am to be placed with the other perceived better players?

I am also to be judged against people in other tourneys I have never played?

Hmmm not fair IMO, and a bit too subjective to me. Open to serious debate.

These better players are to be kept away from players that are perceived to be not so good?

Can we really assess the strengths of players based upon the small pools we swim in?

Will I have less fun playing stronger opponents or weaker opponents? Or will I have more fun?

Based upon the fact that we can only stab widly at who is strong and who is not and that might skew the final result. I still maintain a random draw is the fairest route.

Social Engineering is something that people try and I dislike as it requires "someone" making judgement on other people with limited information.

Throw the dice to winds and see where they land in a random draw.

H

[Treeburst155]

Holien say: "I am not a number." LOL!! Very good, Holien.

Your points are also very good. It's tough to know which is the best way to do this. I'm enjoying this immensely. We will work something out. There's plenty of time.

Treeburst155 out.

[Redwolf]

If we only have a few people who strongly prefer random, then I think we can assign them on a random basis into the otherwise preselected groups.

In any case, I guess that few of the Gladiators feel especially strong and/or feel that they ended up there with luck. The subgroup within the gladiators that are truely proven to be great even without luck is probably very small (and different for any different observer).

And a note on fairness: with preselected groups the gladiators still have the same fair chance to make first place. Only second and downwards places will be harder to reach in case another gladitors scores higher.

For me, the main point about the tourney is the first round, not the playoffs. Wreck is probably correct to say the playoffs are more fun with random first groups, but I guess the (for me more important) first round is more fun with preselected ones. The one end winner is more of an honour title with a given amount of randomness, unless we play very many games. I feel no great desire to make second or third place especially fair to reach.

EDIT to make it clear: I would play either way, but prefer grouping by pervious results.

[ April 22, 2002, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Treeburst155]

It is obvious that those most opposed to being grouped by prior performance are those in the highest group. This is understandable because members of the high group will obviously have the toughest time moving on to the finals. Or, to put it another way, they will find it no easier to make it to the finals than somebody in the bottom group when it should be easier for them.

Personally, the distinction of being placed in the highest group would appeal to me. I would consider it an honor of sorts, and be fine with the fact that my journey to the prize will be more difficult. I am, after all, in Section One. I can handle it. :cool:

I would want to show my fellow Section Oners just who IS the top dog. I wouldn't worry about the prize until after I had proved my supremacy over the other hot shots. How could I do this if they could just say, "Well, your section was easier than mine." No, if I were a top dog I would WANT to play directly against the other supposed hot shots where the Nabla scoring system is at its best, in the sections. The playoffs and the prize will take care of themselves, or not.

This is the ultimate in competitive spirit IMO. It's Double or Nothing. I want proven dominance over the top dogs AND the wine!!

It has been argued that determination of skill for section assignment purposes is little more than an ill-informed judgement call, etc.. This may be true; but if it is, why all the uproar over being in the highest section? Perhaps the skill assessment is actually rather accurate, eh?

Question for potential Section One players:

Do you want the wine, or do you want the top dogs to bow down before you and acknowledge your PROVEN superiority on the field of battle? The latter can only happen if they play in your section.

Treeburst155 out.

[ April 22, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Jack Trap]

I'm opposed to grouped by prior performance, and I scored below average in the NWT.

This is not a pride issue for me as much as wanting a truly challenging experience.

For example, when I'm playing bar pool, the best games are against those that are better players because I tend to focus better and defintely play better. The worst pool experience for me is a string of medicore players in which the game's pace slows to match their abilities.

Bring on the big guns. I, for one, won't coplain.

[Treeburst155]

Jack Trap,

I admire that attitude! That's the attitude I had counted on from the prospective section one players. More challenge at the cost of less likelihood of winning the section.

Perhaps I should let players choose their section themselves. That would be quite interesting, eh?

I have to get off the computer now. RL calls. I'll be monitoring the thread again in a few hours.

Treeburst155 out.

[Tuomas]

Hi!

Very interesting reasoning from you gyus. I think, as TB155 does, that the first rounds should be reward enough even for die Überspieler and the finals are only for the wine. If you are only in a tourney to get the wine not for having a good time, you are in the wrong place.

Anyway if you are the second best player you would not get any better chance for the wine indipendent of which section you would be assigned to. This is because if you could not beat the best one in the same section you would meet him in the final (or before!) and lose anyway. Only chance you would get is that in the final game the best player stumbles somehow (RL problems perhaps). Now I call that a spoiled victory, you get the wine and he gets to whine.

It would not bother me if I would be positioned even in über category though likely I would be the underdog in that one. At least I would appriciate the challange and try to do my best and not let my opponents get any easy victories. And I think I have done better if I am not the favor of a game but rather the one expected to lose. Maybe that has something to do me being Finnish and this thing called Reilu Meininki.

Anyway I'm not even on the tourney yet so I'll go get my coat.

-TNT-

[Edited due RL]

[ April 22, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Tuomas ]

[Sir Uber General]

As I said in the wannabe thread, I'm here to check in. Hi guys! I'm on the CMBB tourney wait list, position #2. I never get into actual tourneys, jusy overflow / wait lists

Cyas.

ps - someone please drop their puter into the bath, thanks!

[Treeburst155]

Well guess what Sir Uber General! You're number one on the list now.

Treeburst155 out.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

.....and speaking of scenario designers, I have just found all the designers we need! In fact, I have found an entire team of designers who have offerred to produce ALL the scenarios for our upcoming WineCape CMBB tournament.

Our scenarios will be created by none other than the Boots & Tracks scenario design team!!

The Boots & Tracks team consists of seventeen people and is headed up by Team Leader, Ted Quincey (Superted). SuperTed is enthusiastic about the project and is determined to give us the quality scenarios we desire. Each scenario will be delivered to me as an "Official Boots & Tracks Scenario", having met the high standards required for such a distinction.

To find out more about Boots & Tracks, who the designers are, etc., go to BOOTS & TRACKS.

Let's hear it for the Boots & Tracks Scenario Design Team!! Thanks, guys!

Now we need only wait for CMBB to be released. At least I'm well out in front on this tourney. I can relax for awhile. I have a feeling we may have to wait some for the new game. The 3D modelling contest just ended a little while ago. How many new models will be in CMBB? 200? 250? How long does it take to do all that work?

Anyway, we're all lined up and ready to go when the game hits. While you guys are getting familiar with the game, Boots & Tracks will be working on our scenarios.

I'll keep this thread alive for people to get on the waiting list, and for people to bow out if Real Life goes on the offensive. Check this thread regularly for any new developments, my new Game Results and AAR Submission Procedures, etc.. This thread is the source for your CMBB tourney news.

Thanks again, Boots & Tracks!

Treeburst155 out.

Thanks for the warm fuzzies, TB.

Yes, you folks heard right. B&T will be making the scenarios for what may well be the first CMBB tournament. We are proud to be a part of another fine TB and Winecape tournament.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by WineCape:

SuperTed and Boots & Tracks designer team, my gratitude in advance for your historical/semi-historical scenarios for the RoW tourney. Thank you!

Regards,

Charl Theron

Charl,

You are very welcome, sir. We're happy to be part of the fun.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Will this tourney be based on unblanced scenarios with Nabla's scoring system?

Redwolf,

The scenarios will be done by the Boots & Tracks team. We have very high standards and will make every effort to create scenarios that are as balanced as they can be.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

My guess is that they will make an attempt to present us with balanced scenarios, but I don't think they will go to any great effort to determine balance since we will be doing that for them. SuperTed may correct me here. He knows what will be going on with scenario development. I'm only guessing.

TB,

These scenarios will be treated no differently than if they were going directly to the public. In other words, they will be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other scenarios we design. So, they will be as balanced as we can make them.

We only apply one set of standards when we design scenarios. We want players to expect ALL B&T scenarios to meet those standards, whether they are playing in a tournament or against a friend.

[SuperTed]

Guys,

Regarding the discussion of labels, have any of you read the names of the sections in the Newbie Tournament? There are SuperNewbies, Garden Variety Newbies, and Newbie Rejects. When a Newbie is elimnated, he joins the ever-expanding Loser Pile.

[Treeburst155]

MrSpkr,

Your single elimination playoff has one drawback, and only one, that I can think of. In fairness it would require balanced scenarios, which are virtually non-existent IMO. I would surely hear complaints of imbalance from some who lost, and they could possibly be right too.

The best you can do is QB Meeting engagements where people get to choose their own forces (make their own mistakes). The maps would have to be rejectable several times too. Gameyness would rear it's ugly head. Been there, done that, and I have the permanent emotional scars to prove it.

Treeburst155 out.

[Sir Uber General]

All I can say is

[gredeker]

As someone who is currently set to be thrown in with the wolves, I wouldn't mind a more random seeding, whatever format it ends up to be.

As far as fun, fun for me happens in those little moments that comprise individual games - the tanks performing the T&L ballet, the well-executed ambush, the "Hail Mary" that either pays off or goes down in flames.

Frankly, I approach each game as a learning experience. It can be anything from a simple "hmmm, I wouldn't have attacked along that route, let's see how it goes" to the advanced course in ambushes I received while playing Wreck.

Debate away, but please try and keep the number of games down in the initial round - 5 or less - as it goes better for us married types.

[Michael Dorosh]

Good lord, these pre-game negotiations are absolutely Fionn-like!

I was wondering if the scenarios by Boots and Tracks would be made available to the general public AFTER the tourney - so as to keep them a surprise DURING the tourney???

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Wreck:

It is unfair. They are, by assumption, the best players (at the time the preseeding is done, anyway). We want (or at least I want) the best player during the tournament to win. That's what I am taking as fairness. By structuring the tournament so as to lower the winning chances of the best players, you make the tourney more unfair.

Perhaps, if you think the definition of fair is alowing the top players to skate into the finals at the expense of newbies, less skilled players, or those for whom CM time is a luxury (b/c of RL commitments, etc.). I submit to you that in the abilities grouping arrangement, the best player will probably win, because the best player will probably be from one of the top three categories.

Think of it this way: Indiana knocked Duke out of the NCAA tournament this year. EVERYONE thought Duke was the top team and would win the whole shooting match. ESPN reported that after Duke's loss, NO ONE in their 300,000+ tournament prediction pool had a perfect sheet -- i.e., NO ONE expected DUKE to lose.

Was Duke a better team than Indiana? Probably, in fact, almost certainly. Did Duke have a bad game and did Indiana get lucky? Yeah, that is accurate. Does that mean the NCAA tournament shoudl be thrown out because Duke would have won six of any seven games against Indiana? No, of course not.

No. I am arguing only half of that. I think all players are equally entitled to fun, but that fairness trumps fun.

I disagree on several grounds. First, you are assuming that getting to the playoffs is the only 'fun' thing in the tournament. I don't.

I don't, for example, think it is fair for a tournament to have, say, Fionn* play against, say, Mace*. It would be a walkover, and probably would not be 'fun' for either player.

Second, due to the fact that most of the guys now ranked in the bottom three tiers would realize after, say, the second game, they had NO chance to win their brackets, they would likely lose interest in the tournament. For them, it would no longer be 'fun', but would be tedious. We WOULD lose many of those players. I think that is unfair and unfortunate. It takes some guts to enter a tournament, particularly one requiring AAR's, if you are a beginner or a mediocre player.

Third, the only COMPLETELY fair way to run this would be as a round robin in which everyone plays everyone else one time. That is not an option due to the limitations on the available scenarios. Also, you would still face a severe attrition problem about halfway through the tournament, and the tournament would take FOREVER to play.

I *am* arguing if we are to preseed at all (which is to rate players), then fairness requires giving the high ratees a better chance to be in the playoffs.

Again, I think you are really saying that fairness is to set up the tournament so that either the top players have an easy walk into the finals at the expense of the other tournament participants, or so that pure luck determines who gets in the playofffs. For example, I don't think I will win my current bracket - I am an average player at best, and am in a high bracket. However, if in a random tournament grouping I am lucky enough to draw opponents largely from the bottom three tiers, I would have an excellent chance to get in the playoffs. I reject that possibility, however, because I don't think it is 'fair' for me to essential rape less experienced players, taking much of the enjoyment out of the tournament for them and for me. I would rather EARN my way into the playoffs, and know that I had to play VERY hard to get into the playoff rounds.

It seems wrong to me to say to a player: "we think you're good, so we're rigging it so you have be lucky to win".

I don't think that is what is being said at all. My experience is that luck very rarely decides a CM game. Sure, you may get that lucky shot in which your M5 takes out his King Tiger, but we both know those moments are few and far between. What really decides a CM match is how well you preserve, protect, and apply your forces, and whether you are able to take the initiative from your opponent and force him to react to your moves.

You may be right about the spread of ability. I have played people at tournamenthouse that just have no wargame sense. The question is how many of the 40 here are really dramatically weaker than me? I don't think the differences are that great, at least with the majority of the players. But I could be wrong.

I think there is quite a bit of spread. For example, I have been playing about a year -- but I took two and a half months off of CMBO earlier this year to study for the bar, so my skills are down.

Other competitors have only recently purchased the game. There is no way they have been able to learn the nuances that even I have picked up. And I don't even compare to some of the top tier players.

BTW, I have not played Dorosh, so I don't even really know what the joke is there. Obviously he is somehow a figure of fun, but where/why/how? Something from the Peng thread

Michael Dorosh is a uniform grog from Canada. Some people think he is an easy mark -- IIRC, however, he gave me a pretty good challenge when I played him last fall. In the Invitational Tournament, he was the Tournament whipping boy, and fared quite poorly.

I would assume from my impressions of Michael that he would complete the tournament as a matter of honor even if he was getting his tail whipped. Unfortunately, some players are not that dedicated, or are not sufficiently hooked on CMBO to stay with it under those circumstances.

Originally posted by Holien:

Based upon the fact that we can only stab widly at who is strong and who is not and that might skew the final result. I still maintain a random draw is the fairest route.

Respectfully, for all the reasons mentioned in my previous posts, I disagree.

Social Engineering is something that people try and I dislike as it requires "someone" making judgement on other people with limited information.

First, I think you are going a bit overboard by describing the Tournament brackets as "social engineering." They are nothing of the sort. <U>Social Engineering</u> is the management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society. See Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary.

This is merely the placement of players based on what knowledge is available of their prior wins and losses. It is not perfect, but it makes much more sense than any alternative.

Originally posted by Redwolf:

If we only have a few people who strongly prefer random, then I think we can assign them on a random basis into the otherwise preselected groups.

I totally disagree with this proposition. Let me ask, do you think the "uber" player assigned to a second tier grouping would be as happy about it as the uber player assigned to the eighth tier grouping? More importantly, do you think the other players in the eighth tier would be excited about it (or even motivated enough to finish more than a couple of games)? Placing an "uber" player in each of the other categories gets progressively more unfair as you go further down the lists.

Originally posted by Jack Trap:

For example, when I'm playing bar pool, the best games are against those that are better players because I tend to focus better and defintely play better. The worst pool experience for me is a string of medicore players in which the game's pace slows to match their abilities.

I think the difference is that bar pool is usually finished in a night; this tournament will take at least 90 days just to finish the first round of play. The likelihood of player burnout, particularly from lower ranked players seeing an "uber" player skating through their bracket would be comparatively high. If those players drop, and no one can replace them, is it fair for the "uber" guy to get into the playoffs with only three games (as opposed to five to seven) ? I would argue no.

Having a skills based preliminary round, followed by a seeded bracket single elimination playoff remains the best way to proceed.

Steve

[Treeburst155]

Redeker,

I can guarantee you the games will be kept down to five (not including the finals).

M. Dorosh,

We will get the scenarios before the community. Boots & Tracks will release them at their disgression AFTER we are finished with them.

Treeburst155 out.