Latest Club News from Bootie

Bootie said:
Sorry I haven't been around the last day or two... had family over staying so havent had the time.

DasTiger the newsletter will just wait until the 1st of November. Sorry.
Click to expand...

No problem Boss. The amount of work you do on this site is amazing. When ever you are ready!
 
I have a proposal for the new ladder system. I think everybody knows how difficult it is to score a draw of even a victory as defender in CM. . I just checked the last completed battles in Domination Normandy and this short view showed me that of 23 games the defender just won 3 games. And winning in this chase includes draws. As draws are not possible in the new system (which I like btw), and the rule is a bit squishy, it could be solved by counting a draw as a victory for the defender. As the defender basically achived what he is supposed to do. Stop the enemy advance and defend the area. This also takes into account that defending is so much more difficult than attacking. In Meeting Engagements of course, a draw is a draw.
Waht do you guys think?
 
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
I am in disagreement with your statement "defending is so much more difficult than attacking", but not your concern for the integrity of the Ladder. If defending were so much more difficult, why did Von Clausewitz say that the attacker needed a larger force to achieve the desired results? Personally, I find defending much easier than attacking.
 
After looking through the technical capabilities of the new Ladder System, I believe as Bootie stated in a previous post that the 'Points' gained by each side during the battle should determine winner/loser.... thus a 302 -297 score which would be a 'draw' would be considered a win for the side with the 302.... I think this is the only fair way in determining a winner (especially from a 'game' pov).... The only time an issue would arise woulde be if the final score is 302-302... and thus a determination could be made amoung the players of how the game should be reported.... And of course 'regular opponents' can always converse and determine victory conditions any way they see fit and thus report the result based upon their agreement... so if you feel the defenders did their job in acheiving a draw, and that should be a victory, then so be it.... Remember the reporting function is not locked in stone as long as both sides agree to the outcome....

I will look into the ladder system to see if there is any flexability to the code or if any options/settings can be enhanced and report back here....

:)
 
Facman said:
I am in disagreement with your statement "defending is so much more difficult than attacking", but not your concern for the integrity of the Ladder. If defending were so much more difficult, why did Von Clausewitz say that the attacker needed a larger force to achieve the desired results? Personally, I find defending much easier than attacking.
Click to expand...
Clausewitz was truly right on this. And many other things. But this hold not completly true in CMBN or CMFI. Correct me if I am wrong but a rule of thumb for the attacker is attacking with a 3:1 ratio to get a good chance to crush the defence. In CM you are normaly attacking with roughly just 2:1. And still the attackers win about 85-90% of the games. Normally at this attacker/defender ratio the attacker should not win that much of games. This has to be taken in consideration.
 
The only complaint of the new ladder is that it requires the loser to post. Or if the guy you're playing just ups and disappears in the last few turns of a months long battle that was HUGH and that you worked really hard to win and doesn't respond to emails..... Wahhhhhhh!!!!! <----- Me crying.
Speaking of that game, has anyone seen Cpt T again?
 
Trying to undestand how the ladder ranking system works. I read the rules and understand them but they dont seem to make sense when looking at the ladder. Joe, SAM, Shorker and Scipio all only have one win. All have been inactive for more than 15 days. Can you explain how they are still in the tops of the ladder? Is it that they were one of the first to report wins and thus have been stuck there since they have not reported a game since?

According to the rules if I play Walt and Jackal two more times and report wins that will give me 6 wins with no loses. But since they are numbers 8 and 10 on the ladder I will not move up any further since Walt is below me and beating Jackal will only move me up halfway to his spot.

Sorry Bootie but just trying to understand the logic behind this. Thanks.

Untitled.jpg
 
Yes its a hybrid type ladder. In ladder (proper ladders) not leagues of olde times you challenged those above you to gain places.

I have rejigged the inactivity penalty. Every 15 days with no result posted will cause you to drop 2 places.

So you are technically only winning against those of equal skill when you need to be fighting in the higher echelons.

If Walter played Krieger he would move up to 5th. Challenge the guys above you. In 2 days JoeQ will drop to 4th if he hasnt posted a result.

The way you do well in this ladder is to stay active and beat those above you and beat those who challenge you.

And yes JoeQ only poplulates 2nd spot because he won his first game then suffered the drop penalty.

I know it looks confusing but really its not. Its just a completely different way of doing it than any other club out there and perhaps if the majority feel it isnt working Fredrocker might have a look at the coding and come up with something a little better presented.

Bootie
 
15 days seem a bit short based upon the average length of a CM game
 
Bootie said:
Most people dont play one game at a time though. :)
Click to expand...

Oh I didnt realize that.... lol.... (you are correct of course).... :( send me the info on how I can peruse the ladder code please... :) ...
 
Guys... Ive been out of the loop recently as I upgraded to windows 8 and am having some issues. Hopefully they will be sorted tonight once I finish work after 10-ish. Sorry guys.

Win8 has some nice features and some annoying features. I wouldnt rush to upgrade though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom