Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Sugar

The victory conditions are already versatile. There are decisive victories, majors, minors and draws. Give 3 points to the first, then 2, 1 and 0.

Expanding on this would be a system that calculates each players performance and gives a rank (pvt => 4 star general). Then each players rank (statistics available in SC forum) is visible to opponents in PBEM. Maybe quits are -1 but you are allowed 1 or so a month.

Thinking about it the point system might need more variance like 10 decisive, 8 major, 3 minor, 0 draw, quits -3. Higher ranked players would get less beating lower ranked players and viceversa.

Also if a game in stagnant for 1 month (?) stagnant player gets -8. After 1 month changes to 2 weeks. Notifications of extenuating circumstances possible. Maybe there could be a rank below pvt (potato peeler) for habitual offenders.

Ranking players would add a whole new dimension to the game and increase interest.


This would work well in conjunction with games being compensated for skill level (equilibrium thread).


Of course we would always have to deal with the person who changes ID and says they are new but we deal with that now.

sounds interesting

Would be the first tournament punishing better players, and afaik impossibly complicated to implement ingame.

Make a tournament like the football world cup. This way it would be not too hard during group stage for better players to advance, even if they meet the best of the rest.

You all are trying to reinvent the wheel. WGCG http://www.ww2wargamesclubforgentlemen.com/ already has a ladder set up for SC games that tracks rankings. All you have to do is join by following instructions located at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1381597 ... &ref=notif

No ladder to set up for any players just join and report the games.

No record keeping by any players just join and report games.

I'm not sure how much easier it can get.

WarBaron you have way to much faith in your fellow man.

How many people have reported their games?

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Would be the first tournament punishing better players, and afaik impossibly complicated to implement ingame.

Make a tournament like the football world cup. This way it would be not too hard during group stage for better players to advance, even if they meet the best of the rest.

I'm astonished Sugar, I would think an undefeated player of 50-60 games would want more of a challenge.

I'm not talking a tournament I'm talking an ongoing record of player performance for others to see. Perhaps integrated with games that compensate for past performance.

Even the bare minimum win-loss & 'completed game' (displayed in parenthesis). Technically this would be easy to track server side.

I don't need to track resignation but I'd want to know if the player will complete their turn and not stop submitting turns if they are losing.

I've played three games and i did not report any. I won them all but since my opponent's had never played before I didn't think reporting a ladder game would be very sporting. Now if you want to join I'll be happy to play you a game and the victor can post it. There are now plenty of posters on this forum to support a ladder. Well the ladder already exists just need players to join and use it. The community is very friendly and helpful there although I don't play a lot of the games they support.

Regards,

I'm astonished Sugar, I would think an undefeated player of 50-60 games would want more of a challenge.

I´m playing for fun, and winning is the ultimate fun of course. I don`t feel the need to prove I'm the best, actually I already know I`m not in Breakthrough, since there were 2 players I lost more matches than I could win; nevertheless I played both of them several times in different scenarios.

One of them was the famous Isnogud, who also won the autumn tourney of AoD in 2013. I also met 2 players on my lvl, and I didn`t play them all, allthough I had around 250 matches in Breakthrough; so maybe I'm one of the 5 or 10 best players.

Of course SC3 would be more challenging, if the balancing would be better, but that has nothing to do with punishing players increasingly the better they are. Improve balancing at first, then you may judge who the best players are.

If (and I have no idea how big that 'if' is right now) I win my current game I will chalk it up to being very lucky in that Spain never tipped over to the Axis diplomatically. My opponent got only 1 diplo hit for all the turns he was at 15% chance (6 chits vs. the UK's 3) and that hit was just before the USA joined the war and was able to knock the Axis chance down to 1%.

I'm begining to feel that Spain is 800 lb. Straw that breaks the camel's back (to purposely mix metaphors). It's a ton of income and free units, The terrain is relatively easy to defend and most important it enables access to Gibraltar which locks down the Med and protects Italy and a (likely) conquered Egypt.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

If (and I have no idea how big that 'if' is right now) I win my current game I will chalk it up to being very lucky in that Spain never tipped over to the Axis diplomatically. My opponent got only 1 diplo hit for all the turns he was at 15% chance (6 chits vs. the UK's 3) and that hit was just before the USA joined the war and was able to knock the Axis chance down to 1%.

I'm begining to feel that Spain is 800 lb. Straw that breaks the camel's back (to purposely mix metaphors). It's a ton of income and free units, The terrain is relatively easy to defend and most important it enables access to Gibraltar which locks down the Med and protects Italy and a (likely) conquered Egypt.

Agreed


Eliminate: DE 603 & the 20% swing Spain => Axis on French surrender

Following my post on DE 603

DE 603 a little light? Just a little.

All the Axis has to do is attack after fall '41 and the 8-15% for the US is close to or totally irrelevant.


1)Axis gets the geography (& mines & ports), additional slots and eventually Gibraltar(which has a large impact on Allies in NA).

2) 1300 value in Spanish troops and ships immediately

3) 250 MPP per turn

4) Taking Portugal a piece of cake after Spain.

All this for 800MPP (200x4) and taking out a 3 str non entrenched corp (with 30% Spain).


Also in my last game that the person tried DE 603 I had two troops within 5 hexes of Casablanca and it still fired.

ORIGINAL: Sugar

I'm astonished Sugar, I would think an undefeated player of 50-60 games would want more of a challenge.

I´m playing for fun, and winning is the ultimate fun of course. I don`t feel the need to prove I'm the best, actually I already know I`m not in Breakthrough, since there were 2 players I lost more matches than I could win; nevertheless I played both of them several times in different scenarios.

One of them was the famous Isnogud, who also won the autumn tourney of AoD in 2013. I also met 2 players on my lvl, and I didn`t play them all, allthough I had around 250 matches in Breakthrough; so maybe I'm one of the 5 or 10 best players.

Of course SC3 would be more challenging, if the balancing would be better, but that has nothing to do with punishing players increasingly the better they are. Improve balancing at first, then you may judge who the best players are.

So why are you against a system that would show players performance (win/loss?)

If Spain goes Axis, 80% that they will win, if not, a good Axis player still has at least 60% chance of wining. I'm at best an decent player so Taxman has the advatage in our game but I will only give up when the he is knocking on the door of Berlin. I like being Axis on the defensive but victory conditions makes people give up early in games. Making it possible to get a minor victory if Axis holds Rome and Berlin would be nice. I'd like to see a more historical game that has 3 phases
1. 1939 to the fall of 42 Axis is on the move
2. 1943 balance
3. 1944-46 Allies on the move

If two players of the same skill fight it out, victory conditions can make either side a winner and still have the historical flow. A player like Sugar would probably win as Axis in 1943 against less able players but against other top players it should be something very unusual.

Thanks for the compliment. Not so sure I have the advantage though. I have 1 win against someone who was completely outmatched and didn't even get to Barbarossa (the youtube game); another game that was cut short in the late summer of 1942 but I believe I would have won it, and my first game where I got ROFL stomped. That's it not counting a few games against the AI.

So why are you against a system that would show players performance (win/loss?)

I'm obviously not. I`m against a ranking system punishing better players, like in your suggestion:

Higher ranked players would get less beating lower ranked players and viceversa.

In a world cup like tourney you won`t get less points by beating Liechtenstein or Luxembourg, in favour of Brazil or Italy (in fact the opposite is true in putting the groups together). If you want to advance, you'll simply have to beat them all. And by the way, afaik you`re not even participating in this tourney. I understand if the reason is the lack of balance, so this should be the first goal and nothing else.

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

ORIGINAL: Sugar

The victory conditions are already versatile. There are decisive victories, majors, minors and draws. Give 3 points to the first, then 2, 1 and 0.

Expanding on this would be a system that calculates each players performance and gives a rank (pvt => 4 star general). Then each players rank (statistics available in SC forum) is visible to opponents in PBEM. Maybe quits are -1 but you are allowed 1 or so a month.

Thinking about it the point system might need more variance like 10 decisive, 8 major, 3 minor, 0 draw, quits -3. Higher ranked players would get less beating lower ranked players and viceversa.

Also if a game in stagnant for 1 month (?) stagnant player gets -8. After 1 month changes to 2 weeks. Notifications of extenuating circumstances possible. Maybe there could be a rank below pvt (potato peeler) for habitual offenders.

Ranking players would add a whole new dimension to the game and increase interest.


This would work well in conjunction with games being compensated for skill level (equilibrium thread).


Of course we would always have to deal with the person who changes ID and says they are new but we deal with that now.

My original suggestion (above) was to rank players AND MAYBE have games that compensates for skill. All of my posts have included the base game that now exits, which you could play.

I find it very curious that a person of your self described ability would push back so hard on showing players performance (win loss) and having games that give newer players more of a chance.

Honestly it gives the impression that your interest in winning not fair game play.


Again, I'm not talking about a tournament I'm talking about ongoing game play.

About that "ranking" system... that's exactly how that pyramid was supposed to work. Call it pyramid, call it league... doesn't matter. you have to advance in your league or level to challenge someone that is above you. It was never intended to allow a challenge of a player who is ranked on no 27 vs the no 1 (or 2,3,...). So every win counts. You make your steps forward and that's it. Compared with football (that's soccer, US guys) that still means you can beat poor Andorra, San Marino and Luxembourg. They will be the players ranked on the floor of the pyramid / last league. They can not challenge a player every few weeks. Of course that only works if there are enough players. If we are just 10 - 20 players a world cup system works better. Make some groups, only the first of three or the first and second of four advance and then it's a K.O.

Maybe that won't be well balanced the first time when two very good players match in the first k.o. round but in the long run they will have a good rank. And after the games in the 4 player groups are played you can still switch to a modus that tennis tournaments are using. Best player ist first in the list, second best the last, no 3 and 4 are in between and everyone will find an opponent. That way the good players will meet in a final or half final and it won't punish good players.

I think it will be a mixture of everything. The game will change, there will be some re-balancing with the upcoming patches (maybe) and then we have to adopt our system too. My dream of a perfect ranking system is playing a balanced game and just use the different victories for counting points. And if that doesn't work there is still the possibility to play mirror games. If someone wins by July 1943 and in the mirror game the same player loses by June 1943 he lost. It's as simple as that. That's why I still think that if the challenging player chooses the side it is a bit better. In the worst case you get your rematch and then we know the result. If you still manage to win with the Allies it is even better/clearer.

We really don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Honestly it gives the impression that your interest in winning not fair game play.

That`s an impertinence. You quitted our last match without any comment, I never refused to play any offered match, no matter the side. I just like playing the Axis for several reasons, that they're in favour isn't my fault. Nobody plays to loose in a strategy game, that's a platitude.

If your horse is dead, get off.

So why don't you want the game to rank players?

I made it very clear at the beginning of the game that DE 603 is a game ender for me. You pulled 603 the game ended.

I still had 2 troops within 5 hexes of Casablanca by the way and it still fired.

If you'd like to play again with a gentleman's agreement no 603 and no more than 6 air groups ( 7 in '42/8 '43) in North Africa at a time I'm in.

Let me know I'll set it up.

PvtBenjamin just sent you a private message at 2/20/2018 9:23:25 PM:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
challenge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to give it another go as allies

at least I'll learn something and maybe I'll give u arun

let me know

----------- End of Private Message (PM) -------------

Hi

Do you know what causes Caucasus cities/ports(Grozny etc) supply to be reduced?

I think DE 603 is BS by the way but will carry on

ty

There wasn't any agreement, neither at the start, nor during the match; and as you said, you will "carry on". You didn`t.

I refuse to play without focussing, it`s ahistorical, and under the given circumstances not to compensate. If the german forcepool had 3 more tanks instead of tac. bombers, and the attack-values of land-units were the same as in Breakthrough SoE this wouldn't be an issue at all. By the way, I won 18 matches on Allies side without any restrictions.

Instead I'm offering a game with renouncing the DAK.