To All WineCape Tourney Vets

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by 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.

Treeburst155 out.

Understood. I think that the best way to handle this is (1) have two winners from each bracket, and (2) make each playoff game a fifteen hundred point QB game (set as a meeting engagement under default settings), allowing each player to reject up to 5 maps throughout the playoffs. That would force players to have to use their skills in reading maps and paths of attack to decide whether to challenge a given map. Some players might use all five choices in the first round; others might not use any until the Championship game. Either way, everyone would have the opportunity to change the QB map at least once per round in the playoffs, and would reward a player in later rounds who decide to work with what he had in the first couple of rounds.

I don't think it would be that difficult to manage. As I don't believe I will make the playoffs, I would be happy to organize/administrate those details for you.

Steve

[ April 23, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Treeburst155]

MrSpkr,

The dropout problem, though always with us, may not be as bad as you think. This group has already proved reliability for one thing.

The Wild Bill tourney was a randomly seeded event, and it worked out alright. One reason is that these tourneys are run under complete FOW. Nobody know anything about how other players are doing. They only know about the games they themselves played.

Having said that, I think you have presented the most convincing arguments on this topic thus far.

BTW, AARs are not required. They just give your final tourney score a little boost that could come in handy in a tight race. They also need only be 5-6 decent paragraphs in length for full credit.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

I think that's a fine idea for the playoffs, Mr Spkr. I would be more than happy to let you run it too. You see, my interest lies with the Nabla scoring system and the section play. I believe it is THAT good of a system for determining relative performance within a group, even with unbalanced scenarios. Unfortunately, due to the nature of PBEM (time), the group must be fairly small (6-8 players). My answer: eight tourneys (the sections) at once.

Players could roll dice for the final prize as far as I'm concerned. If you win your section, you deserve a shot at the wine. The nature of that "shot" does not matter to me. It could be a raffle ticket.

I'm just trying to accomodate as many people as possible. In order to do that, and still use the Nabla system, I have to have tourneys within the tourney. Ideally there would be eight prizes, but that will never happen unless players want to pay to play in order to provide all those prizes.

Treeburst155 out.

[Sir Uber General]

So, my name scares you does it!

[gredeker]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

I think that the best way to handle this is (1) have two winners from each bracket, and (2) make each playoff game a fifteen hundred point QB game (set as a meeting engagement under default settings), allowing each player to reject up to 5 maps throughout the playoffs.

FWIW, I would be less than enthused about using QBs (especially MEs) in the tourney. The total fog-of-war and Nabla scoring system worked fine in the ROW tourney, so my druthers would be to go with that.

My only problem with the ROW tourney (and a small one at that) was that 2 of the 3 playoff scenarios were significantly different from what was played in the first round. Throwing QBs and MEs into the mix is a move in the wrong direction, IMHO.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

The trouble with keeping everyone happy is that you cannot keep everyone happy.....the Invitational Tourney was a fine example.

I believe that the Tourney Manager should set out the perameters of the tourney that he wants to host and then invite players to join.........if they are not happy with the group or seeding then don't join the tourney. Keep it simple, with minimal headache to our fine Tourney Manager TB155

Don't give him a hard time fellas!

CDIC

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by 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???

Mike,

1) No comment.

2) That's the plan.

[JonS]

Originally posted by redeker:

FWIW, I would be less than enthused about using QBs (especially MEs) in the tourney. The total fog-of-war and Nabla scoring system worked fine in the ROW tourney, so my druthers would be to go with that...

Hear hear

My only problem with the ROW tourney (and a small one at that) was that 2 of the 3 playoff scenarios were significantly different from what was played in the first round. Throwing QBs and MEs into the mix is a move in the wrong direction, IMHO.

Well, I didn't have that problem But I see why it would have been one. I agree with your last statement.

Regards

JonS

[Treeburst155]

Don't feel sorry for me, CapDog. I encouraged this debate. :eek: It's quite interesting, but it is now clear that no agreement can be reached concerning the seeding issue. The playoff structure is just a side issue to breed more contentious discussion. In the end I will do what I want simply for the reason you stated. I can't make everybody happy, so I'll make myself happy. I like to pontificate anyway.

Let's talk about the problems in the Middle East...Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

I have an idea. It's a wild one. I would have to be very organized to pull it off, but I think I could do it. It's original and might be real fun.

We will assign sections randomly out of a hat; BUT, all turn files will be sent to me. I will pass them to your opponents. Nobody will know who any of their opponents are until the end! Talk about some FOW, eh?!

The playoff will be ran as normal with the modified Nabla scoring system and three new scenarios. This is the reward for winning your section. We will go from eight sections of six players to two sections of four players (three game round robin with modified Nabla scoring) to the final showdown for the wine. Each advancement would see virgin scenarios. There are some problems concerning the final showdown which I've already solved, but I'll explain all that later.

So, you are randomly seeded and your opponents remain anonymous for the duration of the tourney. Hehehe....sounds like great fun to me.

I would establish a file naming convention that must be followed so I know quickly and easily who to send the file to. A filename could be 27v18_32, for example. This means file 32 for the game between player #27 and player #18. The title of the email would be the same. Player 27's opponent, player #18, would name his reply file 18v27_33. The sender would always list his number first, followed by his opponents number and the file number. I consult my numbered list of players, complete with email address and out goes the move to it's final destination.

The player would have to remember his player number, the player numbers of his opponents, and which password to associate with each player number. I would just right this down neatly on a notepad or something if I were playing.

This is all off the top of my head. I can probably come up with something better for rapid identification of files after some thought. Maybe something more convenient for the players too.

Anyway, what do you think about anonymous opponents? At the end, all would be revealed of course.

Treeburst155 out.

[edgars]

Your ISP's mailserver doesn't like your idea

[Cpl Carrot]

That would certainly be an interesting way of doing it. It would be very time consuming and your mail box would have to be rather large - unless you maybe you could find a couple of other admins to cover a couple of sections each.

[Mattias]

I will be happy to play any way you decide TB, this discussion should only be a pro contra comparison, not one that gives rise to bad blood.

Personally I favour the random event, it is proven and approved. And this does not compute to 87.5% boredom against 12.5% glee, those who signed up did it for the duration and for the fun of playing.

I quote an esteemed PBEM opponent in this regard:

"Going out knowing you only played newbies is even *worse*. : )"

--

But please, please, please do not make the finals based on QB's. They are a completely different, and cruder, ball game when compared to the Nabla system. It is the latter that has elevated the tournament to this supremely enjoyable level. QB's at the end would be like fanatically following the NFL the whole season, only to see the super bowl being decided by the teams competing in tractor pulling.

M.

[ April 23, 2002, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I have an idea. It's a wild one. I would have to be very organized to pull it off, but I think I could do it. It's original and might be real fun.We will assign sections randomly out of a hat; BUT, all turn files will be sent to me. I will pass them to your opponents. Nobody will know who any of their opponents are until the end! Talk about some FOW, eh?!Treeburst155 out.

Very interesting. I like it. Shall we call this triple blind play?

a) Not knowing beforehand which side (Axis/Allies) you will be the generalissimo;

Playing a utterly new B & T quality scenario with a select set of semi/historical forces chosen for you to battle it out;

c) You don't know your OPPONENT(S) and all results are blacked out in your section until the latter group matches are finished.

Seems a good idea, apart from the fact that you will have to sign on Larry Ellison to install a mail server to handle that kind of MB of traffic, Treeburst. What do the participants-to-be think of this idea if Mike could handle the e-mail load?

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

----------------

The $100 bottle of California cabernet sauvignon, while hardly commonplace, is no longer the exotic rarity it was a few years ago. … Alas, for the buyer with a budget, the rising tide lifts all boats. Dozens of California's

winemakers, watching Diamond Creek and Caymus go for the gold, have asked: "Why not me?" And the answer came back: "Why not?"

-- Frank Prial, NY Times, January 7, 1998

[ April 23, 2002, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Mattias]

That would be, what, 15000-25000 turns for the first round...

I think Mike deserves a bottle of wine from each of us just for being ready to take on the load. If it works it seems big walk around to avoid the issues mentioned earlier in the thread, especially if the e-mail handling cannot be completely automated

Triple blind part sounds like a lot of fun though

M.

[Holien]

Hmmm,

Dear MrSpkr

I am starting to lose the will to live. We have a lawyer who has his teeth into a debate he wants to win. Fair enough....

I understand the arguments.

I believe that any groupings will be a subjective process and hence error prone.

This could then bring into play your arguments about drop outs etc..

"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."

What if you got it wrong and placed someone who was faced with a situation described above? Your approach could bring about this situation.

Also all of this is all based on the premise that "good" players will walk over "poor" players. In the group I played in I don't think that could be described as the case? This is a false premise. I am also at the moment getting hammered by my 8 year old godson. is he to be classed as an "Uber" player?

As for "Social Engineering" thanks for quoting a dictionary at me.

http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553558

"Utopian social engineering, associated with Plato, Hegel, Marx, and their totalitarian heirs, is committed to the wholesale transformation of society through central planning according to a comprehensive ideal plan and unlimited by any constraints from competing social institutions (e.g. the church)."

I still maintain you are trying to engineer a situation by subjective methods. You are trying to transform the competition by coming up with your perceived "ideal plan".

So far I have seen several people throw their caps into the random camp and several people into the grouping by perceived ability.

Lets just vote on it. TB and Winecape can choose the route they want to take based upon the votes received.

H

P.s. I presume that if we are to be grouped then I and Wreck will be placed in the same group as you. Obviously your debating skills translate to your playing skills and you are an "Uber" player, or am I being subjective?

[Holien]

While typing the above I see someone else typed Random.

Anyone want to keep a tally?

H

P.s. TB your suggestion is a interesting one if a tad impractical to pull off.

[edgars]

Originally posted by Mattias:

I will be happy to play any way you decide TB, this discussion should only be a pro contra comparison, not one that gives rise to bad blood.

Personally I favour the random event, it is proven and approved. And this does not compute to 87.5% boredom against 12.5% glee, those who signed up did it for the duration and for the fun of playing.

I quote an esteemed PBEM opponent in this regard:

"Going out knowing you only played newbies is even *worse*. : )"

--

But please, please, please do not make the finals based on QB's. They are a completely different, and cruder, ball game when compared to the Nabla system. It is the latter that has elevated the tournament to this supremely enjoyable level. QB's at the end would be like fanatically following the NFL the whole season, only to see the super bowl being decided by the teams competing in tractor pulling.

M.

I agree with everything Mattias said here, especially the QB part.

About the e-mail handling, i think section name or number should be included in Subject field too, for easier management.

And e-mails can be forwarded automatically, at least with Eudora – "Filters" are a powerfull tool.

EDIT: Spelling

[ April 23, 2002, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: ciks ]

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Hi Mike,

I like the idea of triple blind........cool!!

If you can get enough volunteers you can bring it down to manageble levels.

I hereby volunteer to help receive and distribute turn files for a couple of battles.

Let me know if you need some help.

CDIC

[The_Capt]

OK I'll wade in here,

TB why don't you run two seperate but parallel tourneys and split the original winnings between the two group winners.

This will mean that newer and lesser experienced (notice I am staying away from "skilled") players can have a chance against the "ringer" crowd.

Those more experienced players then can have a knock down drag out for their prize.

Each group could have a play off and even play the same scenarios, with the agreement that we won't talk (everyone here lived to the same restrictions in previous tourneys and it wasn't a problem).

I think this will allow everyone to have a chance to play at their skill level.

Seems more fair to me. Finally if there is someone who has been assigned to the lesser skilled area but who wants to play with the big boys, let them and let the buyer beware. The same would not apply for the higher fellas.

Just an idea.

[WineCape]

And of course, it stands to reason that I will help out with the triple blind e-mail load once we know your file naming convention and player numbers Mike. Thanks for volunteering CDIC. Much obliged!

Sincerely

Charl Theron

[Cogust]

Triple blind sounds really cool, but I fear that you will get a bit over loaded by shipping emails and that all games would proceed slower (the double amount ov emails are needed).

Random or assigned by skill? Dunno, I can live with both ways allthough I feel that the arguments for skill assignments being more fun are a bit strange.

The 'normal' way of doing a tourney is assigning places randomly and any other way of assigning players will redistribute win chances and fun factors from the 'normal' case, some people (they who want to play better/worse players for example) will have less fun and others (those who want to face even opponents for example) will have more fun. What is fair? Who is a good player? Who do people want to play?

I think the difference in enjoyment between the two seeding systems are minimal (it will be extremely fun regardless of seedings) and drop outs will be rare as everyone has concluded at least one tournament already and some people probably lost the majority of their games in that toruney. The main thing is to play in the tourney and play people you don't regularly play in blind, hand crafet scenarios.

I think TB should do this tournament as he feels like, but I don't think that redistributing the fun from the normal case will necessarily be better than the all random approach. Though it would of course be interesting to face the toughest players is a section from hell, but who says that I'll be seeded that high?

[Wreck]

Mike: I love the idea of blind email play. But the load on you is going to be too much. Also I am not so keen to lose days of play if you get sick, take a vacation, etc. I suggest it is not really feasible except if fully automated.

If you can find an email server with a decent connection that we can use, then it should be relatively easy to write a script to automatically strip off headers and redirect the mail to the real opponent. To determine the opponent we might do a few things. One is, as you suggest, to put that information into the subject line of the message. Another would be to have people standardize the naming of their attachments. So for example if I am playing someone in Flag Rush Hill, we would define the standardized name for the scenario as "flag rush hill", say. Then I send an email with any subject I like to the mail forwarding address. As long as there is an attachment named "flag rush hill XXX" then the program can look up me, and Flag Rush Hill, to determine the unique address that is the opponent. It then composes a new message and sends it, attaching the same attachment but otherwise completely standardized. It should also probably send back an ack to the originator. It should definitely send a nack to the originator if for some reason the mail did not get forwarded -- no turn was attached, or it could not read the turn, etc.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Wreck:

Mike: I love the idea of blind email play. But the load on you is going to be too much. Also I am not so keen to lose days of play if you get sick, take a vacation, etc. I suggest it is not really feasible except if fully automated.

I agree with Wreck here. Unless the auto-system he suggests can be set up to be very quick and seamless (which I somehow doubt), it's just not going to be worth the annoyance to achieve triple blind. Plus, it diminishes the social aspect of the tourney, which for me is one of the biggest benefits. I like to know who I'm playing and (sometimes) chatting with.

I'd suggest that we go back to an earlier position above:

1. You (Mike TB155) decide what kind of tourney you want to host.

2. We either happily agree to take part in it or bail out.

As long as I get to play the games, I personally don't care how you set it up.

[Enoch]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

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.

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. As one of Wreck's whipping boys in the Row tourney I can say I still had a great deal of fun playing the other scenerios against the other members of my sections. This, even after it became clear to me that I wasn't going to advance out of my section.

AFter reading a bit further I see this has taken a whole new direction. I wouldn't mind the whole triple-blind idea but I do think there might be some problems. As mentioned by others the system implemented would have to be able to keep up with the differing paces at which games are played. Also, how would we handle TCP/IP games?

In the end I agree that probably the best way to deal with this whole argument for how to organize sections is to have Mike choose a system and whoever doesn't like it is free to leave. I'm sure we can come up with enough people to fill out the tourney.

[ April 23, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Enoch ]