Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?

Byte Battles Brawl 1: CM Final Blitzkrieg - ROUND 2

Meat Grinder

FGM Colonel
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
7,394
Age
54
Location
Tennessee
Ok, but I get to be Tom Cruz

(World is full of nuts)

Only if I'm "Iceman". ;-)

Actually, I got lucky on that game. A bazooka team took out one Hetzer and then my Stuart (!) took out the other. It even got a penetrating hit on the Hetzer's frontal armor. Never did I expect a 37mm to penetrate a Hetzer from the front. I remember Hetzers from the old CM1 days. They were damn near invulnerable from the front.
 
My battle with @Bootie has come to an end with a narrow tac victory for him. Somehow he got the extra pts for enemy cas and I didn't. Losses were pretty much the same. But I figure the Stuart counting as a tank and his AA does not made the difference. Helluva game at any rate, thanks Bootie! (y)



(feels more like a Draw but whatya gonna do... thats CM for ya!)
 
@Meat Grinder @Badger73 what the hell are you guys smoking? o_O I completely disagree, ladder matches are usually agreed to before the game starts, not afterwards. Nor are they automatically ladder matches by default, thats up to the tourney masters to decide (which usually defaults to players choice). I've been playing here for 8 yrs and have never had a problem, so clearly others are doing the same.

Besides, @Rico never makes his Byte battle, quick and the dead, or the very ancient king of the hill tourneys ladder mandatory.
 
These matches are usually only reported to ladder if players agree up front to make them a ladder match.

Default is non-ladder match.

@MeatEtr is correct.

Actually.... I know for a fact that I have stated previously that the default for all games is for them to be a ladder game... an opt out rather than an opt in approach.

I dont mind either way.... yes I would have liked to have got a win on the ladder but for future reference can we make it clear that these games are not ladder games.

Thanks.

Shane
 
Actually.... I know for a fact that I have stated previously that the default for all games is for them to be a ladder game... an opt out rather than an opt in approach.

I dont mind either way.... yes I would have liked to have got a win on the ladder but for future reference can we make it clear that these games are not ladder games.

Thanks.

Shane

Haha ... ok with me ... when asked I have always told players it's ladder by arrangement... but I'm easy.
 
Actually.... I know for a fact that I have stated previously that the default for all games is for them to be a ladder game... an opt out rather than an opt in approach.

I dont mind either way.... yes I would have liked to have got a win on the ladder but for future reference can we make it clear that these games are not ladder games.

Thanks.

Shane

Honestly I don't think this should be the way. Mainly because often times tourney scenarios can be very imbalanced. Just look at the 1st rd of Gunners Probes tourney, Allies steamrolled the Germans. Same thing for this battle with the heavily favored Luftwaffe. Nearly all tourneys I've played in have at least one. Players just don't like putting stuff on the ladder they feel like they had zero chance of winning. It just plain sucks. :confused:

Another side effect of this opt-out vs opt-in is that players are bound to either forget or not even know of this club rule. Which can lead to disputes.

Also having it players choice (or opt-in) feels more like a natural extension to the traditional challenge post followed by discussing parameters/rules etc.

I get why you are leaning towards a opt-out approach is to promote more ladder participation. But If FGM does impose this then I'll just have to change my sig to explicitly opt-out of all ladder games! :D

So now to an idea or possible solution... how about adding ladder preferences to a players profile? Perhaps in between game numbers and email?
 

SlySniper

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
706
Location
KENTUCKY
Well, the whole ladder format is really a joke anyway as far as I am concerned.

If its a meeting engagement, it should count, even if one side still has the advantage.

As for players opting when stuff counts or not, makes the whole thing a joke.

Lets see, I will go play all the newbies as ladder matches but screw accepting any ladder match against someone I know is good. (What does it represent) nothing.

The funny thing is, I report almost nothing but tournament matches that were meeting engagements and a bunch of byte battles me and Ian played against each other from Rico's stuff.

I could care less, win or lose. All that ladder thing does it let you see who someone has played and how have they done against certain people.

But as for the rating points and how the reporting can be about as realistic as most facebook post - its not worth (A bunch of nasty words here) but maybe I am the only one that sees it as such.


Meatetr, I am not trying to direct this at you, you are just stating how you see this thing work. I am just attacking the system, not the people.


If this was a chess match and bootie wins an higher level player, (which meatetr is in this case. ) Booties rating would go up - as it should. ( and even in chess, the match favors white - white wins 75% of all won matches - by the fact that it controls the opening in most cases and maintains the aggressive advantage to at least the middle portion of the game)


Having a ladder system is only good if it actually demonstrates a skill level in some way.


Enough with my rant. basically, I group players in 4 categories.

There is a small handful of top players that have the skills to turn almost any situation into a victory

There is another group of good players that have most of the skills needed for producing victories, but given a challenging opponent, the battle can swing either way.

There is a group with a skill level that provides them wins against players of equal skill but they find it very hard to compete against the next two higher levels.

Then there is the group that really do not have correct skills and in general cannot compete other than with others in the same situation.


(And if people are honest with themselves, they know which group they are in.)


Done - Now I can be attacked for my comments
 
Well, the whole ladder format is really a joke anyway as far as I am concerned.

If its a meeting engagement, it should count, even if one side still has the advantage.

As for players opting when stuff counts or not, makes the whole thing a joke.

Lets see, I will go play all the newbies as ladder matches but screw accepting any ladder match against someone I know is good. (What does it represent) nothing.

The funny thing is, I report almost nothing but tournament matches that were meeting engagements and a bunch of byte battles me and Ian played against each other from Rico's stuff.

I could care less, win or lose. All that ladder thing does it let you see who someone has played and how have they done against certain people.

But as for the rating points and how the reporting can be about as realistic as most facebook post - its not worth (A bunch of nasty words here) but maybe I am the only one that sees it as such.


Meatetr, I am not trying to direct this at you, you are just stating how you see this thing work. I am just attacking the system, not the people.


If this was a chess match and bootie wins an higher level player, (which meatetr is in this case. ) Booties rating would go up - as it should. ( and even in chess, the match favors white - white wins 75% of all won matches - by the fact that it controls the opening in most cases and maintains the aggressive advantage to at least the middle portion of the game)


Having a ladder system is only good if it actually demonstrates a skill level in some way.


Enough with my rant. basically, I group players in 4 categories.

There is a small handful of top players that have the skills to turn almost any situation into a victory

There is another group of good players that have most of the skills needed for producing victories, but given a challenging opponent, the battle can swing either way.

There is a group with a skill level that provides them wins against players of equal skill but they find it very hard to compete against the next two higher levels.

Then there is the group that really do not have correct skills and in general cannot compete other than with others in the same situation.


(And if people are honest with themselves, they know which group they are in.)


Done - Now I can be attacked for my comments

Okay — if you guys want a discussion on merits of ladde vs non-ladder and the ladder system overall, please
Move it to another thread, to avoid cluttering this one.

PS: I don’t really pay much attention to the ladder myself, so usually don’t think of mentioning it when setting up tourneymatches/battles.
 
Top