To All WineCape Tourney Vets

[Cpl Carrot]

I am happy with number one.

[Mattias]

Voting for Nr. 1.

M.

[Treeburst155]

von Lucke,

Since you voted, does that mean you want to get on the waiting list for this tourney? Yep, that's right. You're too late for the main event. You are number four on the waiting list.

Have no fear however. There will be an overflow tourney consisting of all the guys who don't get into this one. It will be an exact duplicate except for the prize. I will provide the overflow tourney prize.

ciks,

If I understand correctly your idea would mean everybody gets to play the playoff scenarios. They just don't get a shot at the wine. I kinda like this idea, but it detracts from the reward for winning your section. How about the top half of every section gets to play in "make believe" finals? If you make third in your section you play the finals against the #3 guys in the other sections. If you make second you play the #2 guys in the other sections. I like it! We can do that. Most everybody will have some hope of achieving third place. It will make the final revelation of the scores more exciting for more players.

_____________________________________________

OK, it's becoming clear that random seeding is preferred. That is what I wanted to know. The polls will remain open just to be sure the trend does not change. If I start seeing a lot of #2's and 3's I will re-tally the votes.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Since it is likely we will be using random seeding, I would like to bring up an idea presented by "The _Capt" on page 7 of this thread.

His suggestion was to divide the 48 players into two groups of 24, making two separate tourneys. Each tourney winner would receive 6 bottles of the fine South African wines, rather than twelve. IOW, the prize would be split. This would of course need to be approved by our generous sponsor, WineCape. He's the one shipping the goods.

We would place players in the two tourneys based on past performance. There would be the "experienced" tourney and the "inexperienced" tourney. The range of experience in each tourney would be quite large since we are just making two groups, rather than four or eight.

If you are placed in Tourney II, or the bottom half of Tourney I you will be allowed to switch tourneys if you want, as long as you can find somebody to switch with who is eligible to do so. The top half of tourney I would be frozen.

Once this shuffling is complete the two tourneys would be divided into four section each in a completely random manner.

Doing this would give the lessers that are gluttons for punishment a fair chance of moving to the tourney containing the big guns. On the flipside, people who would rather not face the big guns have a chance to move down.

I think it's an interesting idea. Any comments?

Treeburst155 out.

[edgars]

Treeburst,

Yes you got my idea right.

I have another thing that i want to discuss with you, guys.

One of the coolest thing, in my opinion, at the Nordic Wannabe Tourney was, that some scenarios were UNbalanced (particulary Gotta Get Up). Possible only because of Nabla's Scoring system™, it added a great variety to the CM gameplay.

Knowing that Boots & Tracks will do their best to make the scenarios as balanced as possible (which is good for "stand-alone" scenarios), i think that some "fun-factor" of playing unbalanced UNUSUAL scenarios, which is only possible in tourneys like this, will slip away. Could you guys consider including at least one of those "fun" scenarios in the tourney?

[Mattias]

Originally posted by ciks:

Could you guys consider including at least one of those "fun" scenarios in the tourney?

Second that massively! Gotta Get Up was the most interesting CM experience I have had for at least a year, I was completely sold on the uneven scenarios

Regarding your suggestion TB, is the idea to find a kind of 1.5 vote, somewhere between the pick of the hat and based on previous performance?

M.

[Holien]

Hi TB, I vote "1", random as the fairest route IMO.

MrSpkr, in regards to this bitter statement.

"I also note with interest that the strongest support for the random still comes from those most likelyl to benefit from it -- the strongest players that would rather have a cakewalk into the playoffs rather than having the same chance to play against people of equivalent skill and having a harder row to hoe".

Hmmm of course you "know" that for "fact" and that is obviously why some people are voting for random. (Perhaps you are in training to be a judge and jury and can truly discern what people’s motives are?)

I guess the fact that more people have voted for random, and those that have, span a range of "perceived" playing abilities means nothing.

I certainly know that in the group I played, there was no cakewalk for anyone.

If I were being cynical I would look at the statement above and reverse the logic in that you want an easy ride. But that would be absurd so please disregard that statement.

TB I would be against playing blind as it adds nothing to my experience and would prevent TCP IP play for those that wanted to play that way.

As for the two groups I would prefer that we do not make any arbitrary decisions as those are fraught with danger of getting it wrong.

However like everyone else I am just happy to be playing and happy to offer my opinion when asked, so whatever is chosen is fine as long as I get to play.

H

[Wreck]

Could you guys consider including at least one of those "fun" scenarios in the tourney?

I also second the notion.

Also if we do this, please don't make it possible for us to determine which scenarios are which! If boots and tracks do all of them, great; otherwise please remove the designer and tester credits from all the scenarios.

The idea here is, that *every* scenario we play we don't know for sure if it is a balanced B&T job or a horrid setup from the beginning... like those wonderful/awful nordic scenarios. So we will be forced to take all of the scenarios more seriously.

[Wreck]

I have thought about playing double blind, and while I like the idea a lot, I also think that Holien's objections to it have a lot of weight. Namely, (1) that it would make TCP play difficult (though I suppose still possible using pseudonyms...), and (2) some people like to talk a lot while they play. I, for one, don't. But some do.

Anyway, how about if we can set up double-blind remailer, we make it optional? I don't see any big advantage to playing double blind or not. The only way I can see it giving much difference to a game is if you happen to know specific strengths or weaknesses of specific players that you plan to exploit. But surely when I set up to play someone I don't change plan any differently except if I think him the rankest newbie.

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Wreck:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Could you guys consider including at least one of those "fun" scenarios in the tourney?

I also second the notion.

Also if we do this, please don't make it possible for us to determine which scenarios are which! If boots and tracks do all of them, great; otherwise please remove the designer and tester credits from all the scenarios.

The idea here is, that *every* scenario we play we don't know for sure if it is a balanced B&T job or a horrid setup from the beginning... like those wonderful/awful nordic scenarios. So we will be forced to take all of the scenarios more seriously.</font>

[WineCape]

Treeburst155:

…suggestion was to divide the 48 players into two groups of 24, making two separate tourneys. Each tourney winner would receive 6 bottles of the fine South African wines, rather than twelve. IOW, the prize would be split. This would of course need to be approved by our generous sponsor, WineCape. He's the one shipping the goods.

That’s fine by me Mike. I can split the Rumblings of War II tourney prize to 6 bottles each and send it to the winner of each 24-player section.

Including a “fun” scenario (i.e. one that is deliberately unbalanced) seems to be a good idea Mike, more so because you use the Nabla Scoring System which does not need balanced scenario’s to score participants results. I don’t think that SuperTed’s Boots and Tracks team will object here – it’s less testing work for them

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

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

I don't care for war, there's far too much luck in it for my liking.

-- Napoleon III (1808 - 1873), French emperor. Said after the narrow but bloody French victory at Solferino (24 June 1859)

[Enoch]

I support the use of unbalanced scenerios and relegation rounds. Both are grand ideas.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Including a “fun” scenario (i.e. one that is deliberately unbalanced) seems to be a good idea Mike, more so because you use the Nabla Scoring System which does not need balanced scenario’s to score participants results. I don’t think that SuperTed’s Boots and Tracks team will object here – it’s less testing work for them

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

Charl,

Since we are so good at getting scenarios balanced, it wil be more work to have to make one that is not. :eek:

But seriously, I can't imagine why adding one (or more) of these abominations would be a bad thing. Of course, it could always be released as a single-player scenario later and the issue of balance would be irrelevant.

[Scheer]

Ummm,

mebbe its to late but I vote for "1" .

[MrSpkr]

Treeburst, I accept your position on this issue - it appears that amongst the 50%(+/-) of tournament participants who voted, a majority prefer random.

I do like the_Capt.'s idea, allowing players to choose which of the two tournaments they will be in. Have one that will be grouped by skill, one grouped randomly. Sounds fun.

Now, while I acknowledge my position is not supported by a majority of those voting, I do want to respond to one poster in particular.

Originally posted by Holien:

MrSpkr, in regards to this bitter statement.

As I noted, it had been a bad day at the office. I did apologize for the acerbic tone.

Hmmm of course you "know" that for "fact" and that is obviously why some people are voting for random. (Perhaps you are in training to be a judge and jury and can truly discern what people’s motives are?)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said I "KNEW" for a "FACT" that this was the reason behind some people in the uber group voting for random -- I merely commented upon that group appearing to offer the strongest support for a level of play that would, in my opinion, make it much easier for as many of them as possible to make the playoffs, and would result in some people having an extremely difficult time winning their division while some other, more experienced players had a much easier time because they were playing someone well below their own abilities.

I offered this as my personal opinion in an ongoing debate regarding the path the tournament would take. As I mentioned, supra, my tone might have been defensive b/c of RL issues, but I still stand by the essence of my earlier remarks.

I guess the fact that more people have voted for random, and those that have, span a range of "perceived" playing abilities means nothing.

Never said it meant nothing, but again I note the largest voting block came from that "uber" category. Seven of the ten members in that group support a random event - more than all of the other groups' members who voted for random. In the end, just under 50% of the votes for random came out of the uber category. IOW, nearly half the votes for random came from players in that group. Another 25% of the votes for random came from players not originally listed in one of the groups, a couple of whom would likely have appeared in the "uber" category. The remaining 25%(+/-) were spread out over the other groups. I think my perception was accurate. Over 50% of the players in the tournament did not express a preference.

Again, this is simply a quick and dirty analysis of the data at hand.

I certainly know that in the group I played, there was no cakewalk for anyone.

Perhaps that has been your experience; if so, great - but I posit the law of averages would suggest some people did. And I personally think that is unfair. Getting into the second tournament (the "playoffs") should be just as hard for beginners as it is for veterans.

If I were being cynical I would look at the statement above and reverse the logic in that you want an easy ride.

Please note my previous post:

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Also, for those wondering, I am not necessarily happy with my position, either - several of the guys in my group have beaten me like a drum in past games. However, I think it is fairer for me to play them for victory in the bracket than for some people to play opponents well beneath their abilities and experience.

I think that answers your question. I have no illusions about winning my particular group - I seriously doubt that I would have won my original assigned division (I think Treeburst may have overestimated my abilities somewhat).

Steve

[ April 24, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Holien]

I am teasing...

Fair enough I perhaps have teased a bit too far and on that note I will say no more.

H

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Hey, you guys may be on to something here. Everybody gets a Hotmail account with an email address I assign them that won't reveal identity.

Not good. First of all the 1MB limit hit me during the nordic wannabees, and it is a pain.

Then, I don't know whether you can use your own mailer for sending hotmail stuff, or have to use their web frontent.

If you can use your own mailer, then identity is revealed through envelope and header lines, mutt-1.2.x on FreeBSD-4.x is probably not too common and can be tracked back to me.

If you have to use the web interface, and maybe even have to use Windows because Hotmail might not work with other browsers than Internet Exploder, you can as well take a shorter route to get me very very upset

[Holien]

Hi,

On the issue of triple blind can I ask what exactly are the benefits people see from this?

H

[Redwolf]

The unbalanced scenarios were a blast. I would very much like to have them in this tourney.

The amount of additional thrill is much more than people believe. If you can assume that your opponent is about as strong as you, you will always excecute your normal drill: advance carefully until something happens. If you know that you might be hit by a Panther company and need every bit of coherence in your force, you will consider sitting there for some time, as happend in "The Aftermath" (BTW, please don't spoil the scenario by getting more specific).

Even if you are defender, you might realize that you have lots of stuff. If you know the scenario is balanced, you prepare for a massive onslaught and a long bloody battle for the flags. But if you don't know it is balanced, how do you deploy? Imagine there the other map side is marked as exit zone for the opponent.

The scenario might have a very weak attacker, so that the defender can wipe them out by advancing out of the defense line, and by sitting in the defense you let the opportunity slip.

Or the scenario might have an attacker that is overwheliming (although the defender is already strong) and the exit zone is fake -no units are actually marked for exit. The defender's only chance to fare good in comparision to the guys playing the same side will be to kill as many enemy units as possible without getting trapped and then flee off the map.

BTW, I think exit zones that possibly may be fake add a lot of nice headache for the players. Just remember than reinforcements are always eglible for exit points, so that doesn't really mix.

And removing the designer's name fromt he briefings is good. I know what WBW designed battles end up with

[Holien]

Redwolf if that was an answer to blind play it might have missed the mark...

The idea of Un-Balanced idea is good and I would enjoy that.

It is the Triple Blind I am not sure what the benefits are of that?

H

[TexasToast]

I vote for #2, for the same reason that the local city leagues organize softball teams into A, B, C, and D levels - it's more fun for the participants. But, it's not really that important to me, I don't mind playing it however it comes out.

Holien, I don't see the big advantage for blind opponents either. What difference does it make if you know who you are playing? It certainly doesn't seem worth the headaches.

TT

[Treeburst155]

Hehe....players ASKING for unbalanced scenarios in a competition setting. That just goes to show how really good the Nabla Scoring System is. Congratulations, Nabla!

Players need to remember that Boots & Tracks works for the entire community, not just us. Deliberately unbalanced scenarios would probably not be as popular as balanced ones. People would be limited to playing the AI from one side.

I'm for throwing in ONE wildcard scenario that is definitely skewed. This adds interest to ALL the scenarios. "Is this the one? Yeah, this is the unbalanced one, and I have the strong side. It's time to go all out." Two turns later: "Oh nooo, a platoon of Panthers!! I'm doomed!" LOL

SuperTed,

If you want your guys to devote time & energy to an unbalanced scenario, fine by me. If you would rather not, then Nabla and I can take care of that one. I'm aware that deliberately "bad" scenarios is not what Boots & Tracks is all about. Thanks, Nabla, for volunteering here if Boots & Tracks would rather not spend time on it.

So, there will be one wildcard, deliberately unbalanced scenario. Players will run into this one during the "regular season".

Someone mentioned keeping the scenario designers anonymous. This is a good idea IMO. Some are familiar enough with some designers to devise tactics based on that knowledge of design style.

The scenario designers would have their names put in "lights" at the end, before the scores are revealed.

Mattias,

Yes, my idea (The_Capts actually) with the dual tourneys is just me trying to interest the "random" crowd in at least a little bit of division according to past performance.

Having two prizes and two tourneys also eliminates the need for a final showdown. This is good from my perspective because of the "balance" issue for that final scenario. There's lots riding on that last one. The loser is apt to perceive imbalance whether there is or not.

ANONYMOUS PBEM

Like seeding, this may be a controversial issue. It also requires lots of thought to implement, if it can be done at all. I think we should have a vote on this one at some point. If people like it we can expend energy trying to see if it can be done.

NEW TOURNEY FEATURES

1) One deliberately unbalanced scenario

2) Second and Third place players will have a playoff "for fun" with their counterparts in the other sections. They would use the same scenarios and scoring as the "real" playoffs.

BIINNGOOO!!! A sudden realization just hit me! ALL players will get to play their counterparts in the other sections in a playoff. Why? I will once again have my accurate median scores!! The playoffs could be scored identically to the "regular season". For purposes of the wine of course, only the four "real" finalists final playoff score will be considered.

So, everybody plays in the finals.

3) The split tourney/prize idea is still undecided. Please feel free to discuss the issue. It will probably be voted on. Keep in mind that sections within the two tourneys will be assigned randomly.

Treeburst155 out.

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

So, there will be one wildcard, deliberately unbalanced scenario. Players will run into this one during the "regular season".

If you have only one unbalanced game, it is true that at the start of the tourney all games are possibly unbalanced. But different games are played at different times. If you have only one nasty surprise, then people know that there are no more such available.

So may I make a suggestion. Just say that there are unbalanced games in the tournament, but don't say how many. Then just pick a number, and tell it only to the designers.

Now people expect the number to be small, so you have to take that into account. Twisted, eh?

[JPS]

I vote for random. Also, unbalanced scenarios would be great.

Note, however, that the number of unbalanced scenarios should _not_ be known by players before/during the tournament, as that would give players that (by luck) start/play the unbalanced one(s) early on in the tournament unfair advantage.

Edit: Nabla beat me.

[ April 24, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: JPS ]

[Wreck]

Ditto Nabla and JPS on unbalanced scenario count. It should definitely not be known the players. Keep us on our toes.