A Thought for PBEM

[KingHunter3059]

I wanted to know if there is any support out there for a GS Tournament? Maybe Borger, Jim (HappyCat), and Ronnie could moderate it? It may be most fun, and I have played against really good players (TRUS, PLAID, MASSINA_NZ), who I think can give the Kings (SUPERMAX, JoeROCK, Stauffenburg) a run for their money? Just my thoughts - How say you?


Jay

[gchristie]

And one I had suggested a while back...to deafening silence.

The AGEOD forum has tournaments for their American Civil War game that were very popular. I post the link to show rules and examples.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay ... 842b&f=256

The tournaments were also advertised in other forums to drive traffic to the site and the game.

Regards.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't mind playing good players, but I'm not a tournament kind of guy. I like playing at a speed suitable for both of us where it doesn't matter much who wins or loses. The important thing is to have fun and learn new things about the game. That's the reason I never joined multiplayer versions of games like Company of Heroes. Tournament games tend to become to intense and they're more like a choir than fun. You have to spend so much time with each move to get the edge or avoid losing that it becomes very exhausting.

I think the level we have now where Ronnie keeps track of game results is enough for me at least.

[KingHunter3059]

<sigh> I thought a Tournament would have been fun. I think it could have also helped determine what the level of play is, as well. Oh well, back to the drawing board.....


Jay

[gchristie]

OK, so the tournament idea went over like a lead balloon.

How about a different idea? Playing by email is an investment of our time, and it stinks when an opponent suddenly disappears without explanation .

So, it would be helpful to somehow know the player's record of sticking it out, or at least notifying you if they want to resign. Perhaps this isn't workable, but what do folks think? Have you seen this work well in other forums? Perhaps a sticky in the Opponent Finder part of the forum where players can recognize an opponent that played through to the "bitter end." I've a couple recommendations I'd make as a way of publicly thanking my opponents for following through to the end.

I am not suggesting the converse apply as we don't need to go down the path of disparaging players that quit without warning. They may have good reasons to do so, once or twice.

Regards.

[KingHunter3059]

Well, maybe like a Ratings corner? That would be completely subjective, as you would only enter your data and availability? And make announcements, if you need to take a Vacation or Business Travel? or if you are on emergency travel? Neat Thoughts....



Jay

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I also don't like quitters. It means all the effort you put into the game went down the drain. So it would be very nice to know if people keep on playing or not when things start to go bad for them.

One thing we could do is to use Ronnie's current end of game registration and even report games that were abandoned. The player who was left behind could send in the game results. Then we could have a separate column for abandoned. The guy who abandoned the game will get a +1 to his abandoned value. The other player will have a victory scored based upon the end time of the game. He will get credited for the victory level as if he had taken all capitals at that time, but the actual game should NOT be calculated against the game statistics.

One problem I see is that most of the people abandoning games would end up in the Anonymous row. So for this to work we need to keep track of the records of all people or at least keep track of it internally (with Ronnie). Then it's possible to send a message to Ronnie if a certain player you intend to play against has been recorded with abandoned games.

Another issue is how to deal with situation where both player agree upon the end result by one side yielding. Should the yielding player we reported with an abandoned game? Let's say the Axis played completely botched up 1940 and only took Paris late 1940, thus ruining his plans for Barbarossa. Both players know the game would end with an Allied ultimate victory. Should the Axis player be allowed to yield and accept the Allied ultimate victory score or will they have to play to the end to show that this is what would happen? I'm thinking mostly of inexperienced players who make big strategic mistakes. It can be demoralizing for them to play for months in real time with a lost position instead of making a rematch where they can show they learnt from the mistake. In chess it's accepted to yield when both players know who will win.

[KingHunter3059]

I also don't like quitters. It means all the effort you put into the game went down the drain. So it would be very nice to know if people keep on playing or not when things start to go bad for them.

One thing we could do is to use Ronnie's current end of game registration and even report games that were abandoned. The player who was left behind could send in the game results. Then we could have a separate column for abandoned. The guy who abandoned the game will get a +1 to his abandoned value. The other player will have a victory scored based upon the end time of the game. He will get credited for the victory level as if he had taken all capitals at that time, but the actual game should NOT be calculated against the game statistics.

One problem I see is that most of the people abandoning games would end up in the Anonymous row. So for this to work we need to keep track of the records of all people or at least keep track of it internally (with Ronnie). Then it's possible to send a message to Ronnie if a certain player you intend to play against has been recorded with abandoned games.

Another issue is how to deal with situation where both player agree upon the end result by one side yielding. Should the yielding player we reported with an abandoned game? Let's say the Axis played completely botched up 1940 and only took Paris late 1940, thus ruining his plans for Barbarossa. Both players know the game would end with an Allied ultimate victory. Should the Axis player be allowed to yield and accept the Allied ultimate victory score or will they have to play to the end to show that this is what would happen? I'm thinking mostly of inexperienced players who make big strategic mistakes. It can be demoralizing for them to play for months in real time with a lost position instead of making a rematch where they can show they learnt from the mistake. In chess it's accepted to yield when both players know who will win.

Yes I concur -

If a person abandons a game, then perhaps we could have that stored somewhere, as to yielding - I have done several myself, as in some cases you know if you lose Russia (allies), or Italy (axis) in the mid game, then I can see no reason to continue, and at no fault for the players to agree to a concession game.


Jay

[gchristie]

My initial goal is to avoid PBEM against players that bail with no notice. So I hadn't thought about how wins or losses would be affected. That is something for others to hash out. That being said, I believe that there is no dishonor in conceding a game (I know that is not being suggested), or offering some explanation as to why they are ending the game. So I would hope we don't give those folks a black mark.

New players I suspect are especially prone to wanting to start over if they foul things up early. Heck, I recently did so against Xriz (props his way). So I think we want to encourage noobs to keep at it and not stigmatize them if they good naturedly want to restart.

If Ronnie has the time and interest to keep track of players that leave their partner in the lurch, that could be an acceptable means of tracking the information without the downside of making it public.

[Crazygunner1]

Personally i would support such a tournament, could be fun. It´s like a playoff. You pretty much know who is the best when you look at the stats during regular season but when playoff comes, things change and you maybe have to adapt strategy to the person you are up against.

Could be fun....

Crazyg

[richardsd]

I certainly think we shouldn't penalise people who concede, it can be tough learning (silence is another thing!)

I have restarted a couple of games after 41 for a beginner who had everything wrong - trying for a 'real' German Navy for example and getting a failed Sealion.

We need to encourage people into PBEM, the AI is not a good learning ground!

[rkr1958]

If Ronnie has the time and interest to keep track of players that leave their partner in the lurch, that could be an acceptable means of tracking the information without the downside of making it public.

Yeah ... I'm not big on "secret" lists and the such and I believe that this community such self police such things. I do have two observations though.

The first is that before we can criticize someone for ending a game that we need to come up with a community agreed set of standards for ending a game. For example, I would assume that if a player is getting trounced and his opponent makes an offer for that player to concede that that would be acceptable. What if a player wishes to concede and asks his opponent. Then, it would be very difficult for his opponent to turn that down without looking like a jerk. So another guideline might be that a player getting beat never asks his opponent if it's ok to concede. He has to wait for his opponent to make the offer. Now there are situations where a player has to concede or leave the game for personal reasons. In that case players could decide that the game was a "no-game" or could agree on who won and at what level. What about in the case of an abandoned game? Under what conditions would that be considered a victory or a "no-game"?

The second thing is that players could establish their reputation for finishing games and returning turns in a timely manner by contributing to the victory stats thread. In you examine the stats you'll see that almost all players reporting games have a winning record. However; in my opinion there's nothing wrong with playing a good game, having fun and learning as long as you give it your all. For example, it would be a good bet that a player who had a high game count, even though they had a losing record, would indicate a player that was good at finishing games and returning game turns. So I would encourage all players who want to establish a reputation in the community and who wishes to play a variety of player and various skills levels to contribute the victory stats thread.

[richardsd]

if you want more stats, a quick how to would be helpful - is it a screen shot of the victory page and casualties? what, same for fall of France, which turn etc.. Allied/Axis?

[rkr1958]

if you want more stats, a quick how to would be helpful - is it a screen shot of the victory page and casualties? what, same for fall of France, which turn etc.. Allied/Axis?

All I need is your name, which side you played, if you won or lost and what was the level of victory or defeat. You only report your opponents name if they are, or wish to be, included in the table.

See: viewtopic.php?p=162348#162348

[KingHunter3059]

If Ronnie has the time and interest to keep track of players that leave their partner in the lurch, that could be an acceptable means of tracking the information without the downside of making it public.

Yeah ... I'm not big on "secret" lists and the such and I believe that this community such self police such things. I do have two observations though.

The first is that before we can criticize someone for ending a game that we need to come up with a community agreed set of standards for ending a game. For example, I would assume that if a player is getting trounced and his opponent makes an offer for that player to concede that that would be acceptable. What if a player wishes to concede and asks his opponent. Then, it would be very difficult for his opponent to turn that down without looking like a jerk. So another guideline might be that a player getting beat never asks his opponent if it's ok to concede. He has to wait for his opponent to make the offer. Now there are situations where a player has to concede or leave the game for personal reasons. In that case players could decide that the game was a "no-game" or could agree on who won and at what level. What about in the case of an abandoned game? Under what conditions would that be considered a victory or a "no-game"?

The second thing is that players could establish their reputation for finishing games and returning turns in a timely manner by contributing to the victory stats thread. In you examine the stats you'll see that almost all players reporting games have a winning record. However; in my opinion there's nothing wrong with playing a good game, having fun and learning as long as you give it your all. For example, it would be a good bet that a player who had a high game count, even though they had a losing record, would indicate a player that was good at finishing games and returning game turns. So I would encourage all players who want to establish a reputation in the community and who wishes to play a variety of player and various skills levels to contribute the victory stats thread.

Ronnie - I am not sure that concession is the central issue. Yes, I think the 'House' rules should be in play, but I think the larger issue is the 'quitting' without explanation or cause. I have had about 30% of opponents that have quit without communication as to why they quit, they also did not return any EMAIL communication as well. Those are the offenders here, I think. People, who regularly communicate with their opponent and mutually agree on concession, should not be penalized. CrazyGunner - Buddy! Yea, that’s what I had in mind - a 'Playoff' type tournament. I think it could be fun and exciting!

Jay

[gchristie]

I think the larger issue is the 'quitting' without explanation or cause. I have had about 30% of opponents that have quit without communication as to why they quit, they also did not return any EMAIL communication as well. Those are the offenders here, I think. People, who regularly communicate with their opponent and mutually agree on concession, should not be penalized.Jay

Bingo! Thanks for stating this more clearly than I did. Absolutely the issue in question.

[lannes06]

allo? the news ,i m very interresting??