What Ladder Is Everyone Playing?

[Col Deadmarsh]

I noticed that T-House hasn't got a CMBB ladder yet. Not sure why...

Is everyone on Rugged Defense or are their others? Frankly, someone needs to make a nice, clean ladder site that doesn't look cheesy and have hard to follow links.

[Bruno Weiss]

Rugged Defense has a pure CMBB ladder (CMBB tourney starting up too!). The rest seem to be handling it as a continuation of players existing profile. Like CMHQ, which just totals both BB and BO on the same ladder.

[ November 15, 2002, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Seanachai]

Peng Challenge Thread.

Oh, don't worry, we always talk about you in a playful way.

Ladder play. Now, more than ever, an unbelievably daft concept.

In CMBO and even more so in CMBB, it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that there are so many factors that can affect the outcome, that ladder play has to be either brutally and concisely defined, or else become and exercise in 'Yah! I Beat You This Time, Wanker!"

Pointless.

Mind, there are some extremely good players out there, with a wonderous grasp of Real World tactics, and I would give them odds on in many situations to win, because of their superiour style of play.

But I wouldn't bet money on any of them, because the only guarantee that any of even the best players has of winning is near total control of the conditions of battle: terrain, turn length, units (historical vs. gamey, and how do you define historical, and still win, eh?), etc.

You're not seeing Ladder play because the ladder players aren't sure how to approach a new playing field in which 'History' may very well take a hand, and shove a sharp stick up your arse.

With the advent of CMBB we're starting to see several very interesting phenomena:

One: Trying to balance a scenario between players is difficult, and sometimes pointless, and occasionaly completely impossible.

Two: The 'historical' nature of play is taxing the players' ability to achieve balance under any given conditions.

Three: People are going to have to rediscover the horrors and joys of playing to play, rather than the over-riding 'Ladder Style' point of playing to win.

Four: The AI is going to come back into it's own, because the current engine configuration permits scenario designers to set up some very wicked and historically accurate treatments that will give the human player a run for their money.

Five: We've already seen a whole lot of whinging from people who learned tactics on a more forgiving game, that being CMBO. Now, as they re-learn what works, what sucks, and what will get all your dangly bits shot off in short order, we're going to see a jolly point/counterpoint lot of posturing and whinging along the nature of: This game sucks/ I can beat anyone/Hey, wait, I didn't beat everyone, this game sucks!

Under CMBO, there were a number of even Big Name players who would only play a game if they could define every sodding aspect of the conditions, from the Map, to the Units that were permissable, to the tactics that were right.

And, while everyone was going out of their way to avoid 'ahistorical' units, 'gamey' play, and 'unrealistic' force allotments and conditions, they missed the fact that there were people out there who were dictating to you the conditions under which they'd determined they could always win.

Now, no one wants to be subjected to a one-sided game because someone chose 'Ubertanks', while the other side chose 'historically accurate forces'. Nor does anyone want to be subjected to gamey tactics or flag rushes. But there comes a point when you either cut bait or fish. And that's a point that most Ladder Players want to define. And regulate. And control.

Rather unlike the realities of war, of course, which often ignore the concept of balance, and fair play, and 'will this allow me to defeat all my enemies and win the victories to which I'm entitled because of my superiour tactical ability'.

Which leads us to the Eastern Front of the Great Patriotic War to Annoy All the Ladder Players. Things are no longer, you see, quite so easy.

With CMBB the whole question of 'historical choice' becomes oddly moot. One can insist on a completely accurate representation of 'historical forces', terrain, and battle conditions, and pretty much tell one Player that they might as well put a gun in their mouth while singing the French National Anthem.

Or you can work like a dog to balance play between two sides, and have any number of people mock your efforts because the scenario has strayed into the realm of Science Fiction.

So, I imagine we're not hearing a lot from the 'Ladder Players' because they haven't come up with a formula for winning this game. Or even a clue as to what that formula might be. Because the game, like History, like Real War, is messy. And awkward. And stupid. And doesn't represent infantry properly, because they're too brittle and get tired too soon. And doesn't accurately represent this thing, or that thing, which I've always taken as a sodding given, and now it's not.

Don't get me wrong. There are probably, even definitely, things that need tweaking, adjusting, and re-defining within the current game. And they will be.

But the biggest contribution to the 'Silence of the Ladders' is the fact that game play, like War, has once again become messy and difficult.

Which is why I tend to look at my record over a large history of games played, against a large number of people (or, at least, Cesspoolers), under a massive variation of conditions to determine whether I'm advancing, stuck, or stupid.

Just like Commanders had to do in those weird real wars. What's the line? The General who makes the last mistake is the one who loses?

Of course, Ladder Players work on the concept that the General who makes the last mistake in defining the conditions of the game is the one who loses.

It's tough, avoiding people buying weird, unrealistic units, setting up unreasonable conditions, and worthless maps.

It's probably even tougher, given the 'sea change' in the game, to make sure you can arrive at the conditions that will guarantee your victory.

After all, the greatest tacticians in the world couldn't be defeated by a lot of primitives with clubs. No, wait! The Germans lost! But why weren't the Soviets in Berlin in early 1943? No, wait, the Germans almost won!

Ladder Players.

Not worth a toss, when the nature of the game is 'reality', and the stakes are 'playing the hand you're dealt'.

[Andreas]

Steven - that was beautiful. Did you like my card by the way?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Steven - that was beautiful. Did you like my card by the way?

I loved it. Send me a setup. Don't bother to attempt any sort of balance, and cheat like the German swine you are.

I don't give an f'ing toss what the game, map, sides, or conditions look like.

It'll all come out right, over the next 1,000 sodding turns, just as it does in the Real World.

Thank Christ we've got the patience, and the alcohol, to see things work out to my inevitable victory. Unless I lose.

[ November 16, 2002, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Seanachai ]

[Cyberfox]

Greetings Seanachai,

The main goal of the RD ladder is to have a place where you can find other players to have fun with.

The competition factor gives some extra challenge

for the players.

You can find who is playing who right now or have

played in the past. You can track all your games.

And you can check how "good" the players are. I agree that a ranking not really shows the skills of a player.

About unbalanced scen/qb's you are right.

Thats why we suggest to play the games mirrored or as duel with just one outcome. Or also using Fionn rules will help.

Gamey players/cheaters and disappearing players

who don't respond anymore will be banned.

Cheesy? Dutch cheese! btw the cm2 ladder is with

black background, not cheesy anymore.

Best regards,

Cyberfox

www.rugged.defense.nl/cm2/cm2.htm

[SurlyBen]

It's not really a ladder, but it has one : Band of Brothers. You've gotta play someone who's already a member in order to join, and they then sponsor you in, but this means we don't have as many problems with people bailing on games or whatever.

Ben

[Bruno Weiss]

I might agree with the assessment that scenarios are difficult to balance, particularly since anyone sleeping in front of the local bus station that has access to a library computer and a BB disk can design one. However I would take issue with the claim that QB's are somehow impossible to balance.

Particularly with CMBB, as opposed to CMBO. The new options in BB make it even easier to end up with a balanced fight. While there are those who become uncomfortable with the thought of playing a game without their favorite B-29 and accompanying atomic fission device, never-the-less, the majority of players realize that balance is achieved through near parity. Terrain, weather, and all the other variables do impact the balance and no unfortunately, the flag is not always near you. But that is where the "T" word comes in. Tactics. Right, it is the appropriate use of tactics that can spell the difference, along with strategy, use of terrain, and some luck.

Now, to put it another way I spose. While I've always enjoyed a good issue of Gallery on the can, in my experience playing with an inanimate object on the field of glory ain't nothing like that which compares to good ole person to person contact. The terrain might differ, silk sheets or flannel, and the environment may vary, lights on or off, but in the end it is how one uses ones equipment that makes the difference as to whom will achieve a superior position and ultimate victory.

[ParaBellum]

Seanachai, well said.

I usually play on the PBPLOHDATC ladder.

That is ParaBellum's Personal Ladder Of Humiliating Defeat And Tactical Blunders.

I'm the no.1 player so far.

[Firefly]

Well I play on both RD and Blitzkrieg, without checking I couldn't tell you what my ranking or record is. I use them to meet other players, as Cyberfox says, not to prove myself superior to other players, I know I'm not. As for balancing, I normally play scenarios, if the scenario is unbalanced, who cares? Life isn't balanced.

[Scipio]

Don't care what other people say. If you want to play on a ladder, just do it. If you don't want to, let it be. Who cares?

BTW; the best ladder is of course the CM ladder at WarfareHQ

BTW - Seanachai, nice talking, but there's one thing I would like to know: what's wrong on playing for victory?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I haven't decided yet if I will go back to the RD ladder for CMBB or take advantage of the new matchmaking forums. I will say though, that while I was on the CMBO ladder I was simply using it as a matchmaking service and as a convenient means of automatically keeping track of my past games. I didn't care about my rank. The RD ladder's ranking system only gives a very general sense of a player's skill anyway, so there is no point worrying about it. I think I was ranked #9 when I stopped playing, but I doubt I was one of the ten best.

Most of the people I played seemed to have been of a similar mindset. Sure, there is the occasional sore loser or rules lawyer, but the majority of the players I met bear little resemblance to the fictional, typical ladder player described in Seanachai's diatribe. If you want to know about the CM ladder scene listen to people who are involved with it (like Cyberfox) rather than someone who has probably never even been on one.

As for the original question, I think (but am not sure) that Tournament House is the largest CM ladder. My impression is that it is primarily TCP/IP oriented. It also appears to use a more exact ranking method than RD.

RD is also pretty good sized and is mostly PBEM oriented. I don't know much about BoB except that they are a little choosy about who they let in.

[Bruno Weiss]

Oh for crying out loud Seanachai. I'm on four or five ladders, have played for two years now or more, don't even know what the aggregate total of all my ladder games is as I never bothered to add them all up, but suffice it to say I've met and played a lot of different ladder players including playing in a couple of major tourneys. And in all of that, on only one occasion did I have someone bail on a final turn where I was winning. And, on only one other occasion did I experience any behavior at all that I would term gamey. Otherwise my ladder gaming has been both exciting and rewarding and I've met some really great opponents.

[ November 16, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[xerxes]

Just to clarify what BoB is. Band of Brothers is a Combat Mission club that has a wide range of activities.

- BAR (after action battle results record), a ladder of sorts.

- Campaign games

- Tournaments

- Scenario Designers

- Active message board and chat room

We aren't really picky about new members. We do vet people by making them temporary. As long as you don't act like an ass, you're welcome at BoB. That's really the only criteria.

Band of Brothers

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by xerxes:

As long as you don't act like an ass, you're welcome at BoB.

I guess you'll have to look elsewhere Seanachai...

Have you checked into that Peng thing? I've heard that long-winded, mental masturbators like yourself are welcome there.

Frankly, I'd like to see someone create a slick looking site that has a PBEM ladder only. At T-House, the mixing of PBEM and TCP players only serves to ruin any kind of rating system going on. Over there, the player who played the most games gets ranked the highest. The ratings system is based on the chess ranking system which is fine for chess because it awards that person who has been around for awhile and has played his share of games. In CM though, you play a limited amount of battles before the next edition of CM comes out. I don't think I played more than 20 PBEM games of CMBO while I was there, and those might be my last now that CMBB is upon us.

One could argue that since I'm only playing 20 games, why do I need a ladder anyway? Well, to me it's like playing poker for money vs. playing for peanuts. It just adds to the competiveness of the game. Some people need that.

It's also nice to see yourself ranked. Seanachai, if ranking is so overrated, then why do we see it everywhere? Maybe MLB and the NFL should just play their games and not keep score. Everyone could just go home when they're tired. Do you think the fans would like that? CM is a game just like everything else. There needs to be a scoring system and a ranking system in place...at least for most of us--the competitive ones in the bunch.

P.S.--Is Rugged Defense looking for a new web designer? If so, get in touch with me.

[ November 16, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Generale_Pasquini]

Hey,

I agree 100% with Deadmarsh... the ladder is a fun way to make friends, keep a record of your progress, and play with the stakes raised a bit. I love ladder play and can't wait for CMBB to show on Tournament House. If you hate ladders so much, don't play them. Period.

[Cyberfox]

Hello Colonel_Deadmarsh,

We are already working on a full automatic ladder sysytem and an automatic opponent finder/member registration. Should be working in januari 2003.

But we can always use help with the pages...

regards

Cyberfox

[Pvt. Ryan]

I play on the Steppe Ladder because I am afraid of heights.

[Abbott]

I enjoyed ladder play when CMBO first came out for quite awhile. When I began seeing that historical type play did not lend itself well to the ladder system I turned away from it.

The term “Gamey” became a common phrase fueled mostly by ladder play. Jeep rushes, SMG rushes and the old “load up troops on the US 75m gun carriages rush”. This last tactic was actually invented and employed by one of the Ladders most renowned players. Uber tank battles also were much too common for my taste.

CMBO brought so much to head to head Wargaming it attracted a wider audience then just the traditional Wargamers. Many of which had no idea what was or was not considered historical orders of battle. Many just used the game engine strengths and weakness to advantage, which is how computer games are played.

Competition and arguments abounded, especially on the ladders. After awhile things settled down to a dull roar as players learned whom they enjoyed playing and whom they did not. The advantage on the ladders still remained with the (for lack of a better term) Gamier type players however.

I have found the most enjoyable play for myself comes from PBEM players found on this forum. It is easy to find players with the same likes and dislikes of play style here.

[xerxes]

There are plenty of historical minded players over at BoB, personally I pretty much only play scenarios. Then again, I just hate shopping for anything.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I understand that way of thinking. To be perfectly honest, a small part of me is attracted to the historical scenarios, even ones where I'm at a disadvantage. But the ultra-competitive, and significantly larger part of me wants to stick with ladder play where the best man wins...or so I like to believe. This gives me validation as to why I spend so much disposable time playing this game--so I can become the best of the best. Top Gun of Combat Mission!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Frankly, I'd like to see someone create a slick looking site that has a PBEM ladder only. At T-House, the mixing of PBEM and TCP players only serves to ruin any kind of rating system going on. Over there, the player who played the most games gets ranked the highest. The ratings system is based on the chess ranking system which is fine for chess because it awards that person who has been around for awhile and has played his share of games. In CM though, you play a limited amount of battles before the next edition of CM comes out. I don't think I played more than 20 PBEM games of CMBO while I was there, and those might be my last now that CMBB is upon us.

One could argue that since I'm only playing 20 games, why do I need a ladder anyway? Well, to me it's like playing poker for money vs. playing for peanuts. It just adds to the competiveness of the game. Some people need that.

It's also nice to see yourself ranked. Seanachai, if ranking is so overrated, then why do we see it everywhere? Maybe MLB and the NFL should just play their games and not keep score. Everyone could just go home when they're tired. Do you think the fans would like that? CM is a game just like everything else. There needs to be a scoring system and a ranking system in place...at least for most of us--the competitive ones in the bunch.

Colonel, check the Ranks and Rating system @ WarfareHQ. We use indeed two different ladders, one is an alltime ladder for simple point scores (to get a rank), the other uses an (AFAIK) unique rating system (developed by me ) that considers the victory level and rating of a player and is nearly independent from the number of reported games.

[ November 16, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Nice site Scipio. I just joined up.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Nice site Scipio. I just joined up.

Welcome

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah, welcome abroad Deadmarsh. You still owe me one.