CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System

[Swift]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I'm using Excel 2000. Any idea on what might be wrong?<hr></blockquote>

Try changing the text colour.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Swift:

Try changing the text colour.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks, it worked. Should've tried that first...

[Philistine]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

CM also has a National Rarity which determines how likely the player will get a Nationality (Germany, Finland, etc) and Branch Type (Waffen SS, Luftwaffe Infantry, etc.) for a particular Region (Finland, North, Central, and South) on a particular month of the year. Confusing? Hopefully not , but if so, this should help...

<hr></blockquote>

Not sure I understand this, but is it, for example:

I pick a side (Axis/Allied) a Region (North/Central/etc.) and a month & year and the game will assign me a nationality & branch at random (based upon forces there at the time)?

If so, I like it

--Philistine

[Wolfe]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Swift:

Try changing the text colour.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks, Swift! &*$% incompatible Microsoft products.

- Chris

[Austrian Strategist]

The mother of all BUMPS!

Any news on the topic of Rarity? Or, more generally, how does the QB Creation/Force Selection Process work in CMBB, and what are the differences to CMBO?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Thanks for the bump, Austrian.

I am still adamant about using a roll of the computer dice to determine what a player can buy in a rarity game instead of forcing a player to pay a penalty to buy a rarity unit. The latter makes no sense!

I challenge anybody to tell me (without being flippant) why Battlefront's system is better than my proposed system in my first post.

Go ahead. I'm waiting...

[Tarquelne]

I challenge anybody to tell me (without being flippant) why Battlefront's system is better than my proposed system in my first post.

The system proposed in your first post had, I think, two main features:

1) Use rarity to determine whether or not a unit shows up at all on the purchace screen.

2) Use rarity to determine the # of units available.

BTS's system has #1 covered fine. Variable rarity will do the same thing _plus_ (and this may be why BTS considers their system "better") give you the option of getting a few items with a high "rarity tax" if you really want to. The "dice roll" system sounds fun, and I'd use it sometimes if it were included in the game... but it really is just a more restrictive version of the present system.

BUT I don't think #2 has been discussed enough. I think a limit on the # of units available would improve (Note the word - "improve", not "fix") the Battlefront system.

With variable rarity sometimes "rare" units won't be "taxed." The possible problem is that without any rarity tax a player could buy a LOT of the unit.

Now, units are usually deployed in like-groups. If you see 1 King Tiger you'll probably be seeing a few more... I think that's historical. At least for the large battles. And for the small ones you won't have the points to afford a slew of KTs anyway, discount or no discout - so still no problem.

However, if some rare units, especially low-point-cost ones, were often deployed in rather small groups (ex: 1 Pioneer platoon, 1 Puma, 1 IS-2) then we have something the BTS system doesn't address. Something that could be fixed by adopting part of the Colonel's proposal. That's a big "if" though. I don't know enough about historical deployments... I saw a not-especially-large historical scenario recently with, IIRC, 3 Pumas.

I will say, though, that I think the BTS system most definetly SHOULD occasionally discount even the most rare unit down to only "full price." Even if the odds are very very small the possibility should exist. Maybe the BTS reps have just been using language a little losely, not realizing how often their posts are taken to university Semantics seminars and analyzied... but occasionally BTS seems to have said that some units will never be only "full price", which seems rather bizzare to me - why exclude some of the units from the full variation possible with Variable Rarity?

(Possibly Steve (or whoever it was) just meant that an individual player may never actually see some of the rarest units without a rarity "tax"? Not because it can't happen, just because it's not likely to happen.)

[ June 16, 2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Tarquelne]

I challenge anybody to tell me (without being flippant) why Battlefront's system is better than my proposed system in my first post.

Go ahead. I'm waiting...[/QB]

I realized I didn't explain why I thought your "#1" wasn't better than BTS's system:

Your system would make it so that sometimes units are available, someimtes not, right? When units are available on the purchace screen you might get 'em, if they aren't you can't.

Ok.

With the BTS system somtimes units are not "overpriced", somtimes they are. When units are cheap you might get 'em, if they aren't you probably won't.

With your system the result is "might get" and "can't". With the BTS system the result is "might get" and "probably won't."

Thus, the only difference is that with the BTS system you _can_ get an "overpriced" unit if you really want to. I don't see this as a problem.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Thanks for the bump, Austrian.

I challenge anybody to tell me (without being flippant) why Battlefront's system is better than my proposed system in my first post.

Colonel, I actually think both approaches have their merit. Tarqulene has already covered much that can be said for BTS´s system, as of 6 months ago.

Anyways, I found this a most interesting discussion, and I would be very eager to hear about the current state of QB Setup alternatives available, and how they work.

[Tarquelne]

I actually think both approaches have their merit.

I think the "dice roll" system sounds like fun, btw. It'd offer far more control over your force than the computer-selection method, but could still be much more restrictive than a "you can buy anything" system.

I would be very eager to hear about the current state of QB Setup alternatives available, and how they work. [/QB]

I dunno... I'm having a hard enough time remaining patient. (I'm in bed sick, and CMBB facts might over excite me.) More news about more "kewel" features just makes waiting more difficult.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Well, CMBB seems to be about giving us more options so I think it would be great for them to include both methods in the new game.

There are those of us who want to use the rarity system but also place a high premium on winning. With this in mind, it makes no sense to penalize oneself by purchasing rarity units.

I suppose there will be times when it would make sense to take a rarity unit and pay a penalty for doing so if it was strategically necessary. Otherwise, I just can't see it being used if the player is seriously interested in winning the game which I suspect most people are.

For those of us who play to win, we'd like to see a "computer dice roll" to determine availability in addition to the current rarity option that's already been put in the game by BTS.

[Tarquelne]

With this in mind, it makes no sense to penalize oneself by purchasing rarity units.

Right....

I suppose there will be times when it would make sense to take a rarity unit and pay a penalty for doing so if it was strategically necessary.

(Something I like about the BTS system.)

Otherwise, I just can't see it being used if the player is seriously interested in winning the game which I suspect most people are.

Variable rarity.

Variable rarity.

Variable rarity.

Remember, with Variable Rarity there won't always be a rarity "tax" on all the units! That's key. Otherwise, as you say, rare units would always be a bad value. In the Fixed option BTS described a Tiger, for example, is always going to cost more than a Tiger is "worth." A competative player will rarely, if ever, buy one. But that's _Fixed_ Rarity. Variable rarity is very different.

Maybe if you think of it this way: It's just like the "dice" system, but all those units that "failed" their die roll still show up on the purchace screen - but at an increased cost.

There's still might be something to be said for limiting the total number of rare units that can be bought. (Like, "Only 2 Pumas available.") But, from what I've seen of the VR system "competative players" shouldn't be worried at all. (Unless some units can _never_ merely "full" price (or close to it)... that'd be annoying.)

I don't know anyone more competative than I am (possibly because of the "I'm strong willed, he's a stubborn jerk." phenom.), and I think the system's BTS has described sound fine.

[ June 17, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[U8led]

How do you stop the player that is setting up the QB from restarting the game until his favorite rare vehicle is at a cheap price?

I would guess that player A sets up the game/choose the parameters, picks a password then sends the file to player B who then makes his purchases after reviewing the parameters, picks a password and mails the file back to player A so he can purchase.

But it does cause one extra e-mail.

U8led

[Vanir Ausf B]

Anybody speculating about rarity in CMBB would be advised to read this thread, if they have not already. Many of the issues being discussed here are brought up there and addressed by BTS.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Posted by Steve:

You have three options:

1. No Rarity - same system as CMBO where each unit is priced according to general capabilities.

2. Fixed Rarity - base cost (as above) + penalty for how uncommon the vehicle was on the Eastern Front for that particular month. This means a long 75 Panzer IV might be quite pricey in 1942, but quite inexpensive 1944. Yes, it is possible for a unit to be priced BELOW its base cost if it is super common. However, the scale works so that discounts are small even if rarity is low, but penalties can be super high if the vehicle is very rare.

3. Variale Rarity - same as above, but there is random variation of prices. Meaning, a rare vehicle might be VERY expensive one game, only somewhat expensive in another. The more rare something is, the greater the possible discount or increase. However, you will NEVER see a situation where a very rare vehicle becomes anything but "pricey". In other words, no Jagdtigers prices at 100 points.

That is basically it in a nutshell!! And yes, it applies to *all* units, from an AT Rifle to a super heavy tank to a particular infantry formation.

Okay, so the "Dice Roll Rarity" plan I proposed way back when is different from "Variable Rarity" in that instead of paying a variable penalty for a certain rare unit, you are instead either allowed or not allowed to purchase that rare unit in your game, depending upon the dice roll. In addition, the dice roll also determines how many of those rare units you are allowed to purchase.

"Variable Rarity", although more ladder-friendly than "Fixed Rarity" is still in essence, ladder-unfriendly.

No one playing in a competitive ladder league will spend more than 5-10% over the base price of a unit because it would no doubt cripple his chances of winning.

If the "Dice Roll Rarity" is implemented, there is no penalty and yet rarity is still put into play, resulting in the same realistic game which the "Variable Rarity" provides.

I'm not asking for the removal of "Variable Rarity", just the inclusion of the "Dice Roll Rarity" for ladder players and others who play to win.

[Tarquelne]

I'm not asking for the removal of "Variable Rarity", just the inclusion of the "Dice Roll Rarity" for ladder players and others who play to win.

What's wrong with "Variable Rarity" for "ladder players and others who play to win?

Frankly, I thought I did a decent job of showing that they're equivilent. One might like the "flavor" of one over the other, but "winning" shouldn't be a concern.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Tarqulene,

The basic principle of having to pay any penalty in a ladder game is a problem in itself. Obviously, you don't play competitive ladder games, because if you did you would understand how important each point is and how ridiculous these penalties are when playing those games.

Vanir just posted a link which has PanzerLeader, Mattias, and Rex Ballator expressing similar concerns about the lack of a dice roll system and why any competive player would choose to cripple themselves paying rarity penalties.

A good post on this subject is by Wreck who exposes the faults of "Variable Rarity" and "cherry pickers" using this system.

Steve, the use of price alone as a means to implement rarity is not an ideal system.

Assume for the moment that all the prices in CM currently are perfect. What will a cherry-picker pick? Anything; it would not matter. Now, we all know the prices are not perfect. Some units are overpriced and some under; all that means is that these are the ones avoided and picked, respectively. This is what currently cuts down on variety in competitive games. To the degree that the bargains also happen to be rare, this is a problem from the POV of historicity. But not all bargains are rare. In fact "bargainness" and rarity are quite orthogonal. There are rare bargains, and common bargains, and rare ripoffs, and common ripoffs.

Now consider what happens when you adjust prices of common and rare items. Again, assume that all prices were perfect to begin with. Then you can see that with knowledgeable players, in any price-adjustments system whichever prices are adjusted upward become ripoffs, and any adjusted downward, bargains. In the rarity-by-price system, no rare item should be chosen by a player playing to win. Common items all become bargains, and rare ones, all are overpriced.

Therefore you will see a sort of historicity overshoot. It used to be that you never saw PzIVs; they were common but not bargains. Now you will only see them. Of course, seeing only PzIVs is not as bad from the POV of historicity as seeing only Hetzers. So rarity-via-price is still an improvement. But it is still not as good as seeing a variety of things.

And this is why we need an additional "Dice Roll Rarity" for ladder players. These people make up a very large percentage of the CM community and I feel our needs here are being ignored.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Okay, so the "Dice Roll Rarity" plan I proposed way back when is different from "Variable Rarity" in that instead of paying a variable penalty for a certain rare unit, you are instead either allowed or not allowed to purchase that rare unit in your game, depending upon the dice roll. In addition, the dice roll also determines how many of those rare units you are allowed to purchase.

You will note from reading the linked thread that I talked about a "dice roll" (I called it binary) system. However, your version adds a second part that makes no sense to me, from a historical persective. If a vehicle is available for purchase I see no reason to limit the number available. This just encourages people to buy "one of these and two of those" and end up with mixed platoons. This would also be problematic to implement as I'm not sure how you would reconcile it with buying units in formations ("what to you mean my KT platoon only has one vehicle!")

Tarqulene:

What's wrong with "Variable Rarity" for "ladder players and others who play to win?

It has to do with the frequency that rare units will be available at cost with no rarity premium under variable rarity. I went into this in some detail in the linked-to thread. In essense, I object to the notion that some units should ALWAYS have at least some rarity premium added to their cost under variable rarity. That should be the case only in fixed rarity, IMO.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

And this is why we need an additional "Dice Roll Rarity" for ladder players. These people make up a very large percentage of the CM community and I feel our needs here are being ignored.

One other thing I will say is that I think we should try to not be too judgemental at this point sinse none of us (posting in this thread) have actually seen the rarity system in action. From the very beginning when BTS laid out their plans for implementation of variable rarity I had serious reservations about the very concept of rarity by price manipulation (as did others, as you can see). However, it should be noted that everyone who has used the system so far seems to like it and think it will be fine for ladder play. BTS has received an earfull on this and so I know they are aware of our concerns. I am inclined to withhold final judgement of it until I see for myself.

That is not to suggest we cannot discuss this, but only to say that accusing BTS of ignoring a large section of their customer base may be premature at this point.

[Tarquelne]

Colonel and VAB:

1) In an earlier post I did say that I thought the second part of Colonel's proposal was something that should be included _if_ it does actually reflect an historical reality. However, doesn't effect the "competative" nature of either system.

2) I agree that no unit should _always_ have a price increase under VR. (I've said that before in this thread, and I stated the same in the "linked thread" too.) I'm hopeing that BTS was simply expressing itself less than clearly whenever it seemed to say there'd always be a price increase for some units under VR.

The basic principle of having to pay any penalty in a ladder game is a problem in itself.

3) That isn't quite correct.

What's problematical is needing to pay _more of a penalty_ than your opponent.

IIRC, the purchace screen will show you any price increases. Thus a competative player can easily avoid any bad deals and spot any good deals. You'll never have to pay any penalties if you don't want to.

Now, if BTS impliments the system _poorly_, and there are often big penalties on many items and significant discounts for some then ladder players are, indeed, going to be more-or-less forced into buying only certain items in a game... might as well have just had the computer choose the sides. Even worse (an extrme example here) one player could get +10% price for everything, the other -5%. However, "bad implimentation" and "bad system" are two very different animals.

If the system is well implimented, OTOH, players will be discouraged from buying the rarer items, and encouraged to buy the common ones. The Variable nature of the system will ensure fair (remember, assumeing a well implimented system) but ever changing force compositions. Sometimes PzIVs will be a bad buy, so a ladder player will not buy 'em... sometimes they'll be good. Much of the time they'll be no change to the price. I see this as being just like the "dice" not offering PzIVs some games but making them available in others.

The "dice" system certainly is the easy way to go... If Tigers have a "12% rarity", some Tigers only show up on the purchace screen 1 out of 8 times. Simple. The BTS system seems like it'll be tougher to impliment properly... but with BTS's track record I'm confident they'll get it right.

By CMBB v1.12, at least.

And, again, the Colonel's system _is_ something I'd like to see in the game... but I don't think it's at all necessary for ladder players.

[Austrian Strategist]

One Serious Problem I Just Thought Of

What with items that were ubiquitous, in relatively small numbers?

If they are considered 'rare', that wouldn´t feel right at all.

Take German Engineers, for example.

Every Infantry Division had them, so they were everything but 'historically rare'. To pay extra for Engineers, just because 'there were more Rifle Squads' doesn´t make sense, imo.

According to this logic, Batallion HQs were exceedingly rare (only one per Batallion!), and should only be available for 400% their value.

[ June 17, 2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Austrian Strategist]

There could be a problem with units that made 10% or so of most historical forces. Such units were not 'rare' in any historical sense, but they were 'rare' in a purely statistical sense.

This could sure produce pretty counter-intuitive results. Did you think of that? Any official word here?

[WWB]

AS:

Do you buy Bn HQs individually? Or as part of a Bn?

Given that they cannot be bought except as part of their relatively common unit, I would suspect that this is not an issue.

WWB

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

AS:

Do you buy Bn HQs individually? Or as part of a Bn?

Given that they cannot be bought except as part of their relatively common unit, I would suspect that this is not an issue.

WWB

I think you didn´t quite get my joke.

Engineers and such are an asset of every Division; therefore not, in any sense, 'rare'. The comparison with HQs served to illustrate my point.

[Austrian Strategist]

To put it differently: There is a category of units that are 'common-but-in-limited-quantity'.

Treating such units as 'uncommon' would mean overpricing them.

Treating them as 'common' would mean you could get too many of them. With such units, a pool would definitely work better than rarity. This is very different from the issue of rare tanks, for example.