MWiF Fan Site

[Anendrue]

Since no one can stop someone from playing we have no way to prevent that. However if someone wants to withdraw before the end of a game, perhaps a measurable penalty on the ladder. Something like a resignation counts as 1.5 losses instead of a single loss. This could prompt people to continue playing. Their reward for continued playing is increased ability. Perhaps they could try new desperation tactics as Hitler did in the "Battle of the Bulge" and his "Defense of Berlin". These were pretty desperate attempts with no basis in reality. Can you say gambit tactics...
 
Still Steve had a good point in slow PBEM or NEt Play. How do you measure cause and effect?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Personally, I think that it is acceptable to concede a game.  If I am clearly beat, then is it not better to acknowledge the superiority of my opponent and try again?  Or find new opponents?

If a player concedes, there should not be 'penalties' for not having finished the game.

If there are problems with someone returning a turn, there should be a facility for an automatic forfiet.

But please no penalties for admitting you lost and surrendering.

My opinion is that only the allied player should be allowed to ask for a game to be stopped.
The Axis side have all the fun from 1939 to 1941/1942, and then the allies have a chance to have "their fun". So an axis side stopping the game in 40/41 because he feels he is beated spoils the allies' fun.

Now, if the allies are OK, this is another matter, but the axis have to pay the price of his daring strategies if they fail, otherwise axis player try foolish things more and more, and drop from games that fail.

It is hopeless to try to continue a game if one side does not want to continue playing.

My wife has zero competitive spirit. At a picnic I talked her into playing lawn darts (big weighted darts a couple of feet long that you try to toss into a large circle; two players per side; you and one of your opponents alternate throwing darts up into the air, trying to get them to land in the circle; your partner stands by the other circle and play continues sort of like in horseshoes).

My wife simply threw her dart without a care in the world where it landed. Her first toss almost went into the lake.[X(] Random moves in a WIF game aren't as dangerous, but I don't think there is any fun to be had.

[Anendrue]

Maybe you should play with metal trash can lids as shields! [:D]
 

[Jagdtiger14]

I think 1.5 losses is a good idea...and keeping track of the 1.5 losses as well(ie...how many someone has).

As for the points Steve has made...1. Slow play...some time frame should be selected by the players or the ladder rules after which point the game could be considered "abandoned" by the non-responding player or side. 2. "Lawn darting"...that would be MWiF ladder lingo...I think I(not sure everyone) could figure out if someone is throwing the game. I dont think that would really happen too much, I mean...imagine someone throwing the game starting in late '42/early '43...the attention and time that would have to be paid into making all the random moves could still be frustrating, daunting, boring and time consuming for the person trying to do it...especially if they are trying to make it look good...thats my guess since only Steve and the Beta testers could know for sure at this point.
C

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Since no one can stop someone from playing we have no way to prevent that. However if someone wants to withdraw before the end of a game, perhaps a measurable penalty on the ladder. Something like a resignation counts as 1.5 losses instead of a single loss. This could prompt people to continue playing. Their reward for continued playing is increased ability. Perhaps they could try new desperation tactics as Hitler did in the "Battle of the Bulge" and his "Defense of Berlin". These were pretty desperate attempts with no basis in reality. Can you say gambit tactics...

Still Steve had a good point in slow PBEM or NEt Play. How do you measure cause and effect?

[Ullern]

My WIF group of mostly grognards sometimes quit early sometimes we keep on for long, into 45 even. We have been doing this for more than 10 years and know that none of us are quitters, but as WIF is very time consuming and times is limited resource for everyone of us it's necessary to evaluate the fun per hour invested for everyone. This fun per hour ratio sometimes drops to a level where we want to quit early, and that is mostly because someone has a clear cut advantage and it will take very many real hours to correct that, if it's possible at all.

WIF is also not your average game. The board game takes something like 50 to 100 hours to complete. I don't really know about MWIF yet. But if we guess it's in the same range. I would say that someone who has already invested 30 hours in a game is not likely to quit just for nothing. He/She would simply be too invested in the game to let it easily go unless the game was really boring or really lost. So I would think that such a case would always be justified, because if would not benefit MWIF if we get a lot of reports that half the playing time is boring. Then we simply loose a lot of players.
_ Based on this same though I would think that quitters is only a problem the first turns. A friend of mine who did a few CWIF campaigns earlier, had quite a few cases where someone quit after a turn or two.(There are 36 turns in the game.) That's annoying.

[Jagdtiger14]

All of us playing WiF in south Florida are long time grognards too.  There is a big difference in the fun/hour ratio between a bunch of guys making a large weekly time commitment PLUS the time and money(and risk) of driving(sometimes travelling as I call it from Miami Beach to Pembroke Pines or west Kendall(1.5 hours drive one way)) VS the relaxed atmosphere and comfort of your home and family, your food and drink, TV, other diversions, no opponent hanging over you, taunting you, or what ever else can and does happen ftf...there are far less reasons or excuses for someone not to be able to turn in their MWiF turn vs the huge ftf commitment.  MWiF competitors who are serious about a ladder or rating should try to have a good consideration for their fellow players.  I'm not saying people cant quit(I'm sure many will), just realize that those with no or poor excuses could then be penalized in the ladder/rating and if it happens often gain a negative reputation that can lead to less players interested in gaming with them.  These are factors that if a player is serious about the ladder will keep them in the game vs quiting.  The ladder should probably be for the more serious competitors.

[paulderynck]

The 1.5 losses is a good idea for a unilateral quitting, but in all the games I've seen with an early ending it was obvious to both sides that one was in a hopeless position. So if all agree to the cessation of hostilities, it would be a 1-point loss, but if one side dropped out without discussion and agreement, then it would be 1.5. I can't imagine someone wanting to grind a hopelessly lost side totally into the ground with overwhelming power when instead they could be starting a new game with all the usual expectations of strategy and close play.

[Gurggulk]

If a little Smacky talk offends you, stop here. [:'(]


Make no bones, WiF is a long ass game. Its a test of wills, that will break someone. Only gametime will show who is a poser and who plays for keeps.

I'd suggest if a Fan site is erected, there is room to write up a personal game history.
Including, Options played, how many players, start and finish.
Keep the facts of the game simple. Keep atitude out.

If you want to surrender, i'll accept. Don't expect me to surrender. Grind my bones.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

I just have one question.....
 
How do you equate 1.5 losses to a ranking ladder.
 
When you answer that, you will understand why I suggested a 'ladder' instead of a 'rating system'

[Jagdtiger14]

Paulderynck,

These suggestions are being made only for those who wish to be part of a ladder/ratings MWiF fan website that abj9562 has thankfully suggested(as I think its a great idea). Basically the competitive nature of this idea should attract the hard-core. I (and I think others) did mean that the 1.5 is meant for unilateral quitting, and 1.0 for a regular loss if both sides agree. Personally(in the games I will be playing) I think games should go until the losing side has dipped below the requisit objectives and has no hope of getting above that number at any future point. Although at another one of my WiFcon games where I(and Steve Balk) were playing against Rader and Pablo...Pablo as Japan sailed naked TRS's and AMPH's through my fleet and other pickets(I had the worst luck that game) to invade and take undefended objectives in the rear areas on the last turn...they won by 4 objectives! You can be surprised when its really over and when its not. On the other hand, the potential winner may very well accept an early surrender from his opponent just to get the "W" and move on to his next "victim"?

I assume there will be a "weighted" system somehow?...playing a higher rated person or team will count more than playing a lower rated(or non-rated) person or team? Other wise you could get your little sister to sign up for an easy victory?
C

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The 1.5 losses is a good idea for a unilateral quitting, but in all the games I've seen with an early ending it was obvious to both sides that one was in a hopeless position. So if all agree to the cessation of hostilities, it would be a 1-point loss, but if one side dropped out without discussion and agreement, then it would be 1.5. I can't imagine someone wanting to grind a hopelessly lost side totally into the ground with overwhelming power when instead they could be starting a new game with all the usual expectations of strategy and close play.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

I guarantee you that any 'rating' system you devise will be fraught with argument and strife as to the math used to assign points.
 
Why not a simple ladder... If you beat someone you climb to their rung.
 
This lessens the possibilities for abuse as someone has to have earned the rung on the ladder to have taken it away.
 

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Why on Earth would one side want to continue playing a game that is lost? Assuming players are not twisted megalomaniacs fearing a gallows, why would they prolong losing? If you want to see the game played to the bitter end, you have to offer some motivation. Say once the game is over, switch sides and see who held out the longest. Though some winning strategies require great risk that can early on render a game 'unwinnable' if they fail. You might consider paying an opponent to play for no reason beyond allowing you to roll him up. Teach your girlfriend the game! Maybe she'll let you do it. Stick to solitaire play is my advice.

First of all...relax. I've played dozens of WiF games and I would say maybe 1/4 made it to the end. But as reinforced in post 36 and 39 of this thread, surrender is not my favorite way to end the game.

Keep in mind we will no longer be tied to gamers who live nearby to play with. This usually limits the amount of players. With MWiF netplay, my preference, it will be possible to have many players, probably enough for each Major. How much fun will it be for the American player if the Axis has the ability to surrender and end the game just as he can start to make a difference...over and over again.

Who on earth would want to play a game that is lost...I would say there are more than you think, but not everyone. It's no big deal to me either way. That is the best part of a fan site, it usually ends up being a tight group of players who get to know one another's preferences. If I join a game where I know the players have a history of surrendering...I won't worry about it. But if you join a game where it is agreed to play to the end, or until a vote, quiting early on the group would be remembered.[:-]

As for teaching my wife how to play...don't know where that came from[8|]

You will wish all I played is Solitaire when you have to surrender to me.[;)]

You did have a good point though about saving the game and seeing who could last longer. That could be fun...maybe with a wager...[8D]

[Mike Parker]

Ladder's are fraught with as much controversy as a rating system.  There is no reason not to do both actually if your really wanting a competative metric.  There are some pretty well established mathematical rating systems something like this http://www.sizes.com/sports/chess_ratings.htm although having a provisional rating through 20 games would be ridiculous for a game of this scope, a rating system generally based upon this idea is a good one.

[Gurggulk]

Don't forget that WiF's is a multi-player game. All this talk about the indiviual is all cool. But, some players may want to be a "team". Over time this "Team" may want to play another "Team". A ratings System should include "teams" even if they play only 1 game together.

As a thought to be examined, Wif does have a Victory point condition for the end of a game including Sudden Death conditions. This area of the game is a good place to start in terms of rating a player or team.

There should also be a rating vs the AI. Just because you play an AI, should not be a reason not to be rated.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL:  Gurggulk
I'd suggest if a Fan site is erected, there is room to write up a personal game history.
Including, Options played, how many players, start and finish.
Keep the facts of the game simple. Keep atitude out.

The forums will handle that. Easy enough for topics on game reviews, analysis , etc... Forum rules and moderators can keep it from being antagonistic, demeaning, or ugly.

ORIGINAL:  SamuraiProgrammer
I just have one question.....
How do you equate 1.5 losses to a ranking ladder.
When you answer that, you will understand why I suggested a 'ladder' instead of a 'rating system'

 
There is room for both.
The ladder will allow for who has beat who. An individual's rank is the overall win loss record of that person expressed as a ratio.

ORIGINAL:  paulderynck
I (and I think others) did mean that the 1.5 is meant for unilateral quitting, and 1.0 for a regular loss if both sides agree.

yes
 

ORIGINAL:  paulderynck
 I assume there will be a "weighted" system somehow?...playing a higher rated person or team will count more than playing a lower rated(or non-rated) person or team?  Other wise you could get your little sister to sign up for an easy victory?

I am open to ideas and suggestions.
 

ORIGINAL:  Mike Parker
There is no reason not to do both actually if your really wanting a competative metric.

I agree as the ladder is more of a king of the hill aspect while the ranking will allow for win loss records impacted by those who quit as opposed to a joint agreement of surrender.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

A POST WITH 3 SUBJECTS

SUBJECT ONE

I don't have any problem with a rating system per se but I don't see myself participating if I have to take an extra hit in points because I admit that I am beaten and surrender.

Without that caveat, I am willing to admit that a rating system is better than a ladder because people will 'find' their appropriate rating quicker than with a ladder.

I will barely have time to play much less play out an untenable position.

I cannot describe how strongly I feel about dropping the penalty for conceding a loss. If I did, I would be called a troll and/or accused of flaming (and it would probably be accurate). In the spirit of cordial discussion I will do my best to refrain from mentioning it again.

Clearly, the people who are actually playing should decide. Perhaps a poll would be appropriate when the rating system (whatever form it takes).

NEW SUBJECT

As for the concept that WIF is a team game and there needs to be ways to rate teams...

OKBridge had a rating system called the LEHMAN system that worked out ratings for pairs so that each person had their own rating but it was meaningful no matter who they were playing with.

Introduction To the LEHMAN RATING system

I hope this is helpful or at least thougth stimulating. Be advised that it cause large arguments and prevented some people from playing with others on their team/pair if they were concerned about their rating. The discussions about this system were lively to say the least. The only thing it had going for it was that it made everyone equally unhappy. [:D]

Mathematically, it may be sound... In practice nothing may make everyone happy.

No matter what formula is used, I strongly suggest that the raw data is preserved so that if / when the rating methods change, they can be recalculated instead of being reset.

NEW SUBJECT

Just out of curiosity as I won't be lobbying for anything about the ratings anymore... what kinds of controversy does a ladder system have that does not boil down to a disagreement over who won?

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

A POST WITH 3 SUBJECTS

SUBJECT ONE

I don't have any problem with a rating system per se but I don't see myself participating if I have to take an extra hit in points because I admit that I am beaten and surrender.

Without that caveat, I am willing to admit that a rating system is better than a ladder because people will 'find' their appropriate rating quicker than with a ladder.

I will barely have time to play much less play out an untenable position.

I cannot describe how strongly I feel about dropping the penalty for conceding a loss. If I did, I would be called a troll and/or accused of flaming (and it would probably be accurate). In the spirit of cordial discussion I will do my best to refrain from mentioning it again.

Clearly, the people who are actually playing should decide. Perhaps a poll would be appropriate when the rating system (whatever form it takes).

NEW SUBJECT

As for the concept that WIF is a team game and there needs to be ways to rate teams...

OKBridge had a rating system called the LEHMAN system that worked out ratings for pairs so that each person had their own rating but it was meaningful no matter who they were playing with.

Introduction To the LEHMAN RATING system

I hope this is helpful or at least thougth stimulating. Be advised that it cause large arguments and prevented some people from playing with others on their team/pair if they were concerned about their rating. The discussions about this system were lively to say the least. The only thing it had going for it was that it made everyone equally unhappy. [:D]

Mathematically, it may be sound... In practice nothing may make everyone happy.

No matter what formula is used, I strongly suggest that the raw data is preserved so that if / when the rating methods change, they can be recalculated instead of being reset.

NEW SUBJECT

Just out of curiosity as I won't be lobbying for anything about the ratings anymore... what kinds of controversy does a ladder system have that does not boil down to a disagreement over who won?

Samurai Programmer I do not and will not think of you as a troll. Trolls are argumentative over anything and just stir up trouble. Believing in what you say is admirable. The problem I see is many people enjoy full games and others do not. If you have an idea on how to accomodate both opinions I would love to hear it.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

ORIGINAL: abj9562
Samurai Programmer I do not and will not think of you as a troll. Trolls are argumentative over anything and just stir up trouble. Believing in what you say is admirable. The problem I see is many people enjoy full games and others do not. If you have an idea on how to accomodate both opinions I would love to hear it.

(If I fail to live up to my self imposed limits on subject matter, I apologise. I was asked a specific question.)

Etiquitte in online play is one of those things that will never be enforceable. By and large, people are anonymous (for lots of reasons). That anonymity is important but it breeds irresponsibility.

I can say anything I want to and if it offends everyone, I can disappear and sign up with a new name and start all over again. I don't because I have been using SamuraiProgrammer as my online moniker ever since the first day we could log on to the internet in Paducah.

The same problem exists in the ratings... The only thing that will keep people from participating in unacceptable behavior (whether it be flaming, tolling, or quitting a game early) will be the value of their rating. Otherwise, they can just pick a new name and start all over. Penalizing their rating will just drive the problem (if it is a problem) underground.

The simplest thing of all is to accept the early win, take the points added to your rating and look for another game.

The second simplest thing of all is for people to be honest about whether they will continue in the game if the position becomes untenable and if you don't like it, don't play with those people.

No one has talked about the other side of the coin. Lets say that you and I are playing and you have beaten the holy snot out of me. Let's say that it will take three or four turns to bring everything to conculsion but it is obvious to both of us that you have 'won' the game. BUT being an unnatural love for my rating system, I make you spend the next 2 months of your gaming time finishing me off on the chance that you will say 'screw it' and I will win by forfeit even though I am beat. Or maybe that you will have to work extra overtime for two weeks and are late returning a turn and I can claim a technical victory. How bad would that be?

I find these possibilities much more offensive than someone admitting they are beaten and conceding rather than spending their gaming time being a stand up puching bag. Wouldn't you?

Ultimately, people will gain a reputation for what they are and how they act. Reprobates will be ostracised and will assume new names and continue to misbehave.

(It gets philosophical after this and I don't mean to offend anyone. I really don't.)

The thing that we need to understand is that this discussion is not about 'Do we want a rating system and which one do we want?' It is about 'what is our code of conduct and how do we enforce it?'

This bothers me. I haven't even played the game yet and I am being told that in order to participate in the first online community, I have to agree to do things that I know in my heart I will not live up to. IMO we need to be more inclusive than exclusive --- especially if we want to use the release of this game to attract more people to play.

Anything else I could say would start to sound like a rant and I won't do it.

Another thing to notice is that all this excitement is mostly sublimation of our energy building up to release date. It is nice to see everyone excited.

[Gurggulk]

Playing WiF has always been a journey. The end of the journey is no more than a beginning to the next. Be it with 1 companion or a group. Short or long the journey is what you make of it. I think back to playing WiF with the same people for years on end. We argued, quit games early, played to the end, had interruptions for long weeks. Everything imagined and still we contued to play. Met new players and lost others in the swirl of time. But we always come back together, at some point. Common ground makes for kindred spirits. We all look forward to the "Dogs of War", in a virtual sense.

Some companions have decided long ago to sit on the side and allow others to continue. Upon hearing about MWiF, that virutal tug is enough to make a few begin the pregame exercises that are needed to begin a new journey. Those i know, will be the 1st to play with, cuz i miss their gaming companionship.

Just about everyone knows someone they will play with. When they get to the point of including virtual friends, that is when people will adjust to choices not known before. MWiF fan site, ratings, ladders will have more to offer a single player at that point, looking for a good game.

If anything, this forum is full of potential players.

[Anendrue]

I have heard from people who wish to participate in building or maintaining the fan site.  I am willing to build a team of administrators and anyone who wants to participate is welcome.  Send a PM if interested.  Please remember though everything is tenative until we get a response from Matrix.  If I do not hear anything from Matrix whoever has offered to participate in the site will discuss and decide if we want to go ahead and build a more limited site.  Most of the necessary software I already have license to use (Joomla CMS, Community Builder, lots of different forum software, and other tools to handle and secure the site).