MWiF Fan Site

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

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.

You are right. But instead of the question 'Do we want a rating system and which one do we want?' maybe we should be asking 'Is a rating system possible in a game where surrender before completion is the norm not the exception?'

I've been trying to think of how you could work surrender into any type of points system...nothing seems to work. Not saying someone else won't find a solution, but I couldn't.[&:]

Maybe the site should just be a place for gamers to meet and play on the one hand. This would still be great fun. Playing one another, swapping save games, etc..

Then on the other, it can have the gamers playing for points...playing till the end. Or at least till all can agree upon Victory Point distribution if it is decided to end early.

That way everyone is included. [:)]

It is good to see the excitement building...in all it's forms.

Me and the boys started a tabletop game a few weeks ago now to get back into it...it's all starting to come back. Wait till you play it. It really is an amazing game. I look forward to meeting you on the battlefield.[8D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

For evaluating a game that is abandoned before Jul/Aug 1945, perhaps a count of the Objective cities could be used versus the date of the last turn.

For example, if the Axis abandons the game in 1941 without having taken Paris, their objective city count would be pretty poor. But if they hang in there until early 1944, having conquered France, etc., and the Allies have made good progress counterattacking on all fronts, then that should be scored differently.

I have no specific metric in mind, but at a minimum game turn and objective cities would be useful parameters. You could also go into the last turn's BPs for each major power, or total BPs on the map/in production. The last seems too elaborate to my eye.

I guess my main point here is that instead of just a Win-Loss-Tie system, a magnitude of victory could be assigned. In chess, the rating system is based on W-L-T but a more finely tuned system could be used for MWIF.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

ORIGINAL: gridley

Me and the boys started a tabletop game a few weeks ago now to get back into it...it's all starting to come back. Wait till you play it. It really is an amazing game. I look forward to meeting you on the battlefield.[8D]

I used to play.. it has been 12 or 15 years.. I couldn't tell you for sure.

I have been rereading rules and looking at Vassal and Cyberboard and have even gone as far as setting a game up to 'dink around' with. I just haven't found the time to actually play.

I know how much fun it can be.

I look forward to meeting you on the battle field as well.

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For evaluating a game that is abandoned before Jul/Aug 1945, perhaps a count of the Objective cities could be used versus the date of the last turn.

For example, if the Axis abandons the game in 1941 without having taken Paris, their objective city count would be pretty poor. But if they hang in there until early 1944, having conquered France, etc., and the Allies have made good progress counterattacking on all fronts, then that should be scored differently.

I have no specific metric in mind, but at a minimum game turn and objective cities would be useful parameters. You could also go into the last turn's BPs for each major power, or total BPs on the map/in production. The last seems too elaborate to my eye.

I guess my main point here is that instead of just a Win-Loss-Tie system, a magnitude of victory could be assigned. In chess, the rating system is based on W-L-T but a more finely tuned system could be used for MWIF.

These numbers are obviously rough and there are a lot of other Grand Strategies to add but it could go something like:

Game till the end.
Victory J/A ’45…+10 pts
Loss J/A ’45……..+3 pts

Axis surrender after failed Sealion.
Allies……………..+5 pts
Germany…………-7 pts
Italy……………...-3 pts
Japan…………….-3 pts

Allied Surrender after successful Sealion.
CW………………..-10pts
Other Allies……….-3pts
Axis………………..+5pts

Historical Game Allies Surrender.
Allies Surrender 1942…..-10pts (other than USA -5pts)
Allies Surrender 1943…..-7pts
Allies Surrender 1944…..-5pts
Allies Surrender 1945…..-3pts
Axis ……………………..+10pts

Historical Game Axis Surrenders.
Axis Surrender 1942….-10pts
Axis Surrender 1943…..-7pts
Axis Surrender 1944…..-5pts
Axis Surrender 1945…..-3pts
Allies…………………..+10pts

Just a thought...

[paulderynck]

As a side-note: Have many people here seen a game won by auto-victory? I never have, although my present FTF game may come down to that being the only way the Allies can win it.

[lomyrin]

I like the rating method idea Gridley proposed above in post #54. 
 
Lars

[Gurggulk]

Gridley, Your work seems like a good starting point. If we could work in the actual bidding system, victory point hexes and options used it would be awesome. Or just keep it simple [:'(]
 
Yes, i think there is more than meets the eye when setting up any kind of rating system. What may work for a team may not be the best for the indiviual.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

Gridley, Your work seems like a good starting point. If we could work in the actual bidding system, victory point hexes and options used it would be awesome. Or just keep it simple [:'(]

Yes, i think there is more than meets the eye when setting up any kind of rating system. What may work for a team may not be the best for the indiviual.

I like to do this stuff in 4 steps:
1 - Define what you want to have when you are done. If you can't decide on a tightly defined objective, you aren't ready to begin any of the other steps.
2 - Define the criteria that you will use to judge how good a solution is. Don't get distracted by possible solutions until you know how you are going to measure success.
3 - Generate a lot of ideas, try cutting the good stuff from several and cobbling that together as a new possibility. Make this ideation phase a real free-for-all where no idea gets criticized. Do not move onto step 4 until no one is able to come up with anything new.
4 - Evaluate the ideas against the criteria.

There is a real tendency for people to start with #3 and others to denigrate proposals using their own personal set of criteria. Even worst is when someone has decided what they want to do and takes a sledgehammer to any other ideas.

If you can reach consensus on #1 and then on #2, and be extremely polite to everyone involved during #3, some really nice results can be produced.

[IKerensky_alt]

You want a ladder for WiF ???
 
Oh boys... have any of you really play this game ?
 
There is bidding rules in the game to know who have won or lost ( the game, not the war mind you ). You can even bid negative point so you can have a chance to win when forced to take a smaller MP.
 
If you rate points for surrender then thoses ladders games will always be played to the 2 first turn of Barbarossa/Sealion and the endgame nearly never played.
 
Also, is your system for 2 players ( Allies versus Axis ) or for multiple players ( MP-centred ? )? There are many options that seriously adjust the game balance to the point they need their own ladder (1D10-2D10 combat, invasion by SCS or not, Oil rule).
 
Perhaps the first task would be to speak with the people that are refering the Wif-Con and Euro-WifCon and ask them how they evaluate the winner on games that doesnt go the full length ?
 
IMNSHAOEO, WiF is not a RTS and doesnt work well with a ladder or league. Sure you need a way to know who won the game, and there is one in the rules. A player that surrender just did that, he forfeit the game and lose, the other side win and there is much rejoicing. Except that Axis will always surrender early if things doesnt go their way ( as soon as 1940 sometimes ) because they didn't feel like they have any fun if their expansion isn't maximal. Allies on the other hand are more prone to fight to the bitter end because they are taking a beating at start and have already fight their hopeless battle and are expecting some kind of payback. Just check WiTP PBEM, there is only an handfull of games that go through '44, and WiF is sharing the same syndroms for the earlier aggressor, it is hard than after having the first half of the game crushing anything under your boots you have to defend to the death what you have earned... especially if you can bail out by surrendering...
 
The games that will more often play to the end are the ones players are bidding for individual country (because they set achievable and interesting objectives ) and the ones people doesnt bid at all and just want to play history. Using WiF as a competitive game to generate ladder is not into its scope.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf
Perhaps the first task would be to speak with the people that are refering the Wif-Con and Euro-WifCon and ask them how they evaluate the winner on games that doesnt go the full length ?

I'm not a wif con refere, but I know that ADG have published tables showing the number of objective cities for each major power for each game turn of the game. So victory can be assessed midgame by comparing the number of objective needed against the number of objective helds, modified by the bids if any.

[Anendrue]

All very interesting ideas.

[brian brian]

I have a couple ideas...

maybe a rating system could be finalized after the game has been out for at least a few months

one definite, clear, criteria of it is that it should be optional...and there could be an opponent finding service that did not require it's use

as far as the 'surrender' problem, an important point would be whether all players agree to one. If I hold Paris until the Yanks arrive on the flanks or successfully defeat a SeaLion by wiping out a secondary beach-head and sinking a lot of Axis lift just as the Russians break the Pact, I would be more than happy to accept a forfeit and start up a new game. I find that a successful defense can be a satisfying victory but I guess I am in a minority on that.

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I'm not a wif con refere, but I know that ADG have published tables showing the number of objective cities for each major power for each game turn of the game. So victory can be assessed midgame by comparing the number of objective needed against the number of objective helds, modified by the bids if any.

Although you and I are on the same page how a game should end. The reality is, unilateral surrender is going to be the way most games finish.

The problem with counting objectives is that the axis will time thier surrender when they know thier offensive has been stopped...when they know they will get no more objectives.

[Anendrue]

Update:

MATRIX: Matrix has given an OK on the site and will let me know when it can go public since it will have copyright material designed by Steve and the community. They have graciously made this content available for the community. Three cheers for Matrix, Steve and the community!

ASSISTANCE: Patrice (Froonp) has offered his help and this has definitely been accepted. He has already sent good ideas my way and wants to work with the wiki as he previously stated. Steve has been working behind the scenes to make this happen. Erik R. at Matrix has led the way in allowing us to use the copyright material. Thanks to all of you.

JUNE GOALS: Obtain dedicated hosting for better bandwith and speed than shared hosting. Get the basic framework running, stable and secured.

OTHER: I will start monthly updates on the 1st of each month or Monday if it falls on a weekend. Steves example is a good one to follow I believe.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
maybe a rating system could be finalized after the game has been out for at least a few months

Since the game is several months away, there is no hurry at all. So far everything is ideas and suggestions. We will build in more features as time goes by.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
one definite, clear, criteria of it is that it should be optional...and there could be an opponent finding service that did not require it's use

The community aspect is a definite at this point. As for ladders, ratings, etc... I pay attention to the discussions. However, nothing had been decided and more discussion is obviously needed to get to a community agreement on what the community desires.

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Update:

MATRIX: Matrix has given an OK

Congrats abj!!!

I will be of any assitance I can...on the content side. I am not a techie.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Congratulations!
 
Kudos to Matrix
 
I have one request.  I don't know if it is for the fan site or for Matrix, but here it is.
 
When you start publishing AARs, please differentiate them into categories
 
[ol][*]Suitable to help new players adapt to the game (very detailed, virtually step by step so that a new player could almost follow along with his game)
[*]Suitable for improving players (not as detailed, focusing more on the big decisions and how they are made rather than which counters to push)
[*]Humorous / Role Playing / General Report (lots of fun but hard to sift through when looking for help as a new player)[/ol]
The reason I ask for this is simple.  Recently, I have been playing Europa Universalis III.  The learning curve was monumental (similar to WIF).  I tried to use the AARs for guides as to how to survive the early part of the game.  Most AARs were unsuitable for that (although they had a valid purpose).  Sifting through them to find the ones that were helpful was a very time consuming task.
 
Just a suggestion.
 
 

[Jagdtiger14]

Way to go abj! If i can help, let me know, but I'm not a techie either.
C

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Update:

MATRIX: Matrix has given an OK on the site

[Caquineur]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
...
I have one request.  I don't know if it is for the fan site or for Matrix, but here it is.

When you start publishing AARs, please differentiate them into categories

[ol][*]Suitable to help new players adapt to the game (very detailed, virtually step by step so that a new player could almost follow along with his game)
[*]Suitable for improving players (not as detailed, focusing more on the big decisions and how they are made rather than which counters to push)
[*]Humorous / Role Playing / General Report (lots of fun but hard to sift through when looking for help as a new player)[/ol]
...

I second SamuraiProgrammer's suggestion (for the same reasons he gave, see his original post - two posts above this one)

Alain

[Anendrue]

AAR requests. At this point I can say there will be an area for AArs obviously in the fan site forums.

[Anendrue]

World In Flames Fan Site Update:

Using Steve's post as an example. I have decided to keep the community updated on the world in flames fan site.

I have registered and obtained the domain name worldinflames.net for the web site. Matrix, Steve and myself are happy with this selection. I notified Harry Rowland (ADG) of the site and have not heard any reply from him.

Matrix Games has given permission to use some of the copyright materials from the game and website. They will also provide some basic graphics such as logos and existing screenshots. I am awaiting the RAC document (currently with the publisher) to integrate into the web site.

Steve has actively worked in the background with Matrix to promote the use and need for a fan site. I am keeping his time to an absolute minimum as he has many more important items to deal with.

Patrice has sent me tutorial information he has created which I will integrate into the site.

The basic framework was installed this afternoon. The site is secured until Matrix gives their authorization for public release. So no need to stop by the site for now.

The profile and social networking software is installed. This still requires quite a bit of customization.

July Goals:

• Finish customizing the community builder profile system.
• Build the war college. An area featuring the tutorials.
• Install the wiki software. Patrice has volunteered to handle the wiki.

Future Goals:

• Turn the RAC document into an extensively hyperlinked and cross referenced online document.
  a) Make it easily searchable.
  b) Add a glossary.
  c) Add a bibliography with links.
  c) Add RAC to the wiki.
• Set up the fan site forums.
• Obtain, customize and integrate the ladder ranking software.
  a) This is a commercial product used for ranking gamers.
  b) Review and understand the customization of the ranking parameters
  c) Start a community discussion on the parameters when I finish installation and setup.