Another Broader Rule Question...Logic in motion..

[oneway]

To Any and All,

If you had a program that could accurately tell if a pilot sortie was Invalidated for any of a number of reasons, would it not then be Logical to invalidate the kills and objects destroyed for that sortie?

Take for instance a pilot,  that half way through a frame decided that instead of flying his squadrons assigned aircraft from their assigned field, he decided to pick another plane from another field. For the sake of this hypothetical, this pilot then goes on to get 2 kills and destroy 7 objects...

Would it not then be logical to invalidate those kills and objects in the course of scoring the event?

What about multiple lives?

Under the present understanding and manifestation of the rules, the team is assessed a 'life violation'...a single negative point....wouldn't it be more logical and appropriate to nullify all activity and gain of pilots that flew multiple lives?

What about pilots that fly from Non-Active airfields?

Shouldn't we nullify everything they do...basically erase it from the record?

This question assumes we have a program that can do that...accurately detect such violations on a sortie by sortie, event by event basis...and simply set the event to invalid...

Do we even want such a tool?...

If we had one, what impact would it have on Command?, what impact would it ultimately have on OUR game?...is this something good?...is something we want?

I am rapidly approaching the point I can deliver this...but I am totally unsure whether anyone wants it?

Oneway

This question is the same as asking on Country in MA: "Do you want me to drop the hangers?, I am in position to do so...or are you having too much fun with your fur-ball?...let me know...I am lined up to drop now..."

[Strip]

Where do you draw the line and how much do you penalize the group for a single players action?

Worst case scenario....a player using too many lives captures a field, only to find out after a day or two that the maproom is voided.

Would it matter that the people around him/her were following the rules? Would it matter that three people behind him were following the rules? And that they could have affected the capture by themselves?

I feel like such draconian measures would take away the fun for me, even as someone who follows the rules to the best of his ability.

Strip

[oneway]

Where do you draw the line and how much do you penalize the group for a single players action?

Worst case scenario....a player using too many lives captures a field, only to find out after a day or two that the maproom is voided.

Would it matter that the people around him/her were following the rules? Would it matter that three people behind him were following the rules? And that they could have affected the capture by themselves?

I feel like such draconian measures would take away the fun for me, even as someone who follows the rules to the best of his ability.

Strip

Interesting question you ask...

Simple Answer: By denying the gains of the player to the group...

Is nullifying a single players achievement, a direct or magnified penalty upon the team?

Which leads to yet more questions...

If Command makes a mistake and an entire squadron is nullified in an event...are the pilots in fact penalized if the nullification only shows in the broader teams output or result?

Discussing "penalty" as a result of such capability must be couched in the context of Team.Group.Squad.Player...in that order...

How would penalizing a Team...ever have an impact on an individual...unless that individual was a commander?...and if so...then where is the draw back?

One would expect that the temper of Command is ready to assume the fallout of failure...its the nature of being a Commander...great risks accompanied by great reward...

For the record we are not talking about voiding captures...that is a far too complex an issue to deal with...such as nullify gains gained from nullified captures...I am not remotely interested in probing that dark hole...

We are talking about an elevated scoring logic system at its most basic capability...anonymously...

Oneway

[Beefcake]

Well the thing is most dedicated players in scenarios do not break the rules intentionally, but that being said I can understand where someone may use to many lives which could change an outcome.

I know that in frame four 13 GvBAP had a walkon (a child) that used up both his lives crashing on takeoff. When we told him he was done for the day he apparently began upping IL2s at another base but was shot down almost every time. Had I know he was doing that I would've had a CM eject him instantly. The reason I post this is because I know I would be mad if my squad was penalized because a walkon was disobeying the rules 300 miles away from where the rest of us were flying....and obeying the rules.

[oneway]

Well the thing is most dedicated players in scenarios do not break the rules intentionally, but that being said I can understand where someone may use to many lives which could change an outcome.

I know that in frame four 13 GvBAP had a walkon (a child) that used up both his lives crashing on takeoff. When we told him he was done for the day he apparently began upping IL2s at another base but was shot down almost every time. Had I know he was doing that I would've had a CM eject him instantly. The reason I post this is because I know I would be mad if my squad was penalized because a walkon was disobeying the rules 300 miles away from where the rest of us were flying....and obeying the rules.

Lets make this crystal clear:

We are not talking about differentiating between Intentional and Accidental violations...

Most can be deductively reasoned to be Accidental...by simply applying some context and logic to the events...

But make no mistake...the list of 'violations'...and the 'violators'...is filled with 'top brass' of the game...players who are exemplary...and make mistakes...sometimes huge ones as commanders and they have far reaching consequences...

Beefcake...

You said this: "The reason I post this is because I know I would be mad if my squad was penalized because a walkon was disobeying the rules "

The system I am proposing would not penalize your squad...in fact its less arbitrary than the present system...Instead of automatically penalizing the team for a life violator...it simply deducts the violators achievement. Under the present system, some walk-on could violate lives 10 times and destroy nothing...yet your Team would be penalized for his 10 life violations...

Again the question:

Do we want to know the truth?

Do we want a system that accurately applies the rules to an event and scores it dead nuts, spot on?

If we don't want that, then explain why?

Oneway

[Strip]

Well, I am not against nullifying someone like Beefcake mentioned but it just seems like a slippery slope. Frankly penalizing an entire squad (by making their team contribution zero) for a command error is a bit harsh on them yet could be considered warranted. I agree with Beefcake though, having your efforts nullified for a walkons transgressions would be severely disappointing. For command this includes the week of planning, and the players showing up ready to rock for three hours or more. Although the battle is a large portion of the fun knowing I contributed to a team victory is just as important.

Strip

[Strip]

Lets make this crystal clear:

We are not talking about differentiating between Intentional and Accidental violations...

Most can be deductively reasoned to be Accidental...by simply applying some context and logic to the events...

But make no mistake...the list of 'violations'...and the 'violators'...is filled with 'top brass' of the game...players who are exemplary...and make mistakes...sometimes huge ones as commanders and they have far reaching consequences...

Again the question:

Do we want to know the truth?

Do we want a system that accurately applies the rules to an event and scores it dead nuts, spot on?

If we don't want that, then explain why?

Oneway

At what point do you take away from the event with finger pointing? If its anonymous, well, it still wont change the past, a rule was broke.  Souring an otherwise great event over a misunderstanding of the rules seems counter productive (ie command error).

Statistically rule violations would equal out over the duration of the event. Changing the final core is likely to have little effect on the average player. A few points subtracted for a rule breaker is fairly understandable. Telling a squad your efforts will not be counted for reasons beyond their control would be a sure fire way to lose players.

Strip
 

[oneway]

At what point do you take away from the event with finger pointing? If its anonymous, well, it still wont change the past, a rule was broke.  Souring an otherwise great event over a misunderstanding of the rules seems counter productive (ie command error).

Statistically rule violations would equal out over the duration of the event. Changing the score is likely to have little effect on the average player. Telling a squad your efforts will not be counted for reasons beyond their control would be a sure fire way to lose players.

Strip
 

Than it shouldn't matter should it?

And we are not talking about past events...

We are talking about the future...

And again I ask the question:

Why would you not want to score an event based on the rules?

Oneway

[Strip]

Well, I wont say the rules shouldnt matter....they should, and I do my best to make sure I fly by them as well as anyone following my lead.

In my mind its diminishing returns, the event is over, what good could come of very detailed finger pointing?

(Little bit of irony here but live and learn...)

Strip

[Strip]

Say you anonymously adjust the final score, team x is deducted 100 points, team y is deducted 58.

If you keep the process anonymous you forgo any chance for that team to defend their actions and you are basically the Judge/Jury/Executioner.

If you keep an open process you get the finger pointing and souring of an event after the fact which seems already to be too common.

That summarizes my concerns.....scoring by the rules is always a good thing though.

Strip

[Beefcake]

Lets make this crystal clear:

We are not talking about differentiating between Intentional and Accidental violations...

Most can be deductively reasoned to be Accidental...by simply applying some context and logic to the events...

But make no mistake...the list of 'violations'...and the 'violators'...is filled with 'top brass' of the game...players who are exemplary...and make mistakes...sometimes huge ones as commanders and they have far reaching consequences...

Beefcake...

You said this: "The reason I post this is because I know I would be mad if my squad was penalized because a walkon was disobeying the rules "

The system I am proposing would not penalize your squad...in fact its less arbitrary than the present system...Instead of automatically penalizing the team for a life violator...it simply deducts the violators achievement. Under the present system, some walk-on could violate lives 10 times and destroy nothing...yet your Team would be penalized for his 10 life violations...

Again the question:

Do we want to know the truth?

Do we want a system that accurately applies the rules to an event and scores it dead nuts, spot on?

If we don't want that, then explain why?

Oneway

The problem with a cold hard system is it doesn't account for errors that can be explained or understood by a human.

Take for example the bombing of tanks by planes that are not IL2's or F8s. There is the possibility that a B25 could be bombing a hanger and kill a tank thats parked next to it. Now by the "system" thats a violation and the B25 or the team gets penalized for it. However, any scorer looking at that (maybe through a film) is going that say "no thats collateral damage". OR another example would be a F8 or an IL2 thats NOT apart of the assigned ground attack squad for that frame killing a tank. Per the system there is no violation, however, the plane should not be credited with kill points.


Oneway, I respect what you're trying to do and have no problems with a system like this "helping" with scoring. But I just don't want scenarios to turn into court cases were each team has to bring in lawyers to examine every detail to ensure the event was scored correctly.

[oneway]

The problem with a cold hard system is it doesn't account for errors that can be explained or understood by a human.

Take for example the bombing of tanks by planes that are not IL2's or F8s. There is the possibility that a B25 could be bombing a hanger and kill a tank thats parked next to it. Now by the "system" thats a violation and the B25 or the team gets penalized for it. However, any scorer looking at that (maybe through a film) is going that say "no thats collateral damage". OR another example would be a F8 or an IL2 thats NOT apart of the assigned ground attack squad for that frame killing a tank. Per the system there is no violation, however, the plane should not be credited with kill points.


Oneway, I respect what you're trying to do and have no problems with a system like this "helping" with scoring. But I just don't want scenarios to turn into court cases were each team has to bring in lawyers to examine every detail to ensure the event was scored correctly.

That in fact is not a problem at all...the user of the program sets up the more variegated rules such as a certain squad can kill ground vehicles...in your case the fact you killed a ground vehicle (be it friendly or not) is totally irrelevant...

Only the chosen squad kills of vehicles are counted as kills. As to the kills your squad got on vehicles...the squad is not penalized at all...the program would simply look at the killer of the vehicle, and check whether he was authorized to kill vehicles...in fact the program checks what type of vehicle was killed, by what type of aircraft, in what squad...

Ultimately in the final stat crunch, your kill of the vehicle is simply marked as invalid...no penalty whatsoever to the pilot of the squad...your kill of the vehicle is simply not a kill, doesn't count as a vehicle destroyed/lost...everything else in your sortie is valid...as long as it was a valid target or valid kill by other params...unless of course you took off from the wrong field, wrong plane...then everything you did was invalid...and whether you killed a vehicle or not becomes irrelevant...you shouldn't have even been the air with that plane or from that base...

The logic flawless...and is not interpretable by humans...it simply looks at the guy, what he did, checks the rules...and then acts...

Lets go further...let say a pilot ups the wrong plane from a field...the program could care less...unless or until the pilot actually does something with that plane...in other words...normal human errors of upping the wrong field or the wrong plane is completely ignored...UNLESS...that invalid sortie has a consequence...such as a kill, assist or an object destroyed...

Thus...guys who grab the wrong plane...and figure out their mistake and land...NO CONSEQUENCE...NO EVENT OCCURRED...

I carry that logic forward with the Multiple Lifers...if  guy ups 20 times in an event...totally irrelevant...all that is relevant are his actions and consequences. In other words some nooby who ups an extra half a dozen times and crashes and bails...is nothing...but if some veteran grabs an extra ride by honest mistake...and goes and kills 5 guys...tough luck for him...no points are awarded the team...

Its perfectly equitable...the logic works...

Mistakes have consequences, leadership has responsibility...as it is in real life, so should it be in our scenarios...

Oneway

[Krusty]

I think it would take a lot of discussion to define what an "invalid" sotie would be comprised of...


Say player X ups 1 life too many... Say in that last life he shoots down player Y. Makes no difference to player Y that this was removed from the score -- his mission was cut short, he's done for the frame!

I think that unless it's a realtime calculation it will be hard to determine invalidity of a sortie. I think it'll be a useful tool between frames and whatnot, useful in scoring, but I don't know if I philosophically agree with negating entire sorties.


On that topic, though, I seem to recall once or twice in past scenarios where a base capture was reverted after a frame because of rules violations (Stalin's Fourth, probably is the most prominent in my mind). It's not unheard of. Short of using too many lives, and short of violations taking maprooms (or bombing things illegally -- often a major points issue), I think you might want to define or refine the tool's objective before going too far into making it.

[Krusty]

I was trying to land upon a phrasing or wording I had in my mind to describe it, but couldn't. Now I've realized what I wanted to type:

Lost potential. Player X shoots down Player Y. Had X not broken the rules with 1 extra life, player Y could, would, should, have accomplished his mission, gains countless kills, bombs, points for his team, perhaps even single handedly saved the entire campaign.


How do you even predict that to score a penalty in the first place? Answer: you can't. You have to move on, give a warning. If it repeats penalize or boot the player X.

It's such an intangible thing that logic really can't compute the impact of any one given event. It's all subjective.

Look at Snaphook intentionally missing a bomb near a GV, not causing one iota of damage. Look at the subjective outcry of whining on the forums afterwards. Logically it's absurd....

but it happened 

[oneway]

I think it would take a lot of discussion to define what an "invalid" sotie would be comprised of...


Say player X ups 1 life too many... Say in that last life he shoots down player Y. Makes no difference to player Y that this was removed from the score -- his mission was cut short, he's done for the frame!

I think that unless it's a realtime calculation it will be hard to determine invalidity of a sortie. I think it'll be a useful tool between frames and whatnot, useful in scoring, but I don't know if I philosophically agree with negating entire sorties.


On that topic, though, I seem to recall once or twice in past scenarios where a base capture was reverted after a frame because of rules violations (Stalin's Fourth, probably is the most prominent in my mind). It's not unheard of. Short of using too many lives, and short of violations taking maprooms (or bombing things illegally -- often a major points issue), I think you might want to define or refine the tool's objective before going too far into making it.

Invalidating sorties is actually a rather simple affair of flipping some switches...

Either launching from an inactive field is OK or its NOT OK...
Either changing planes is OK or NOT OK...
Either multiple lives are OK or they are NOT...
.......

It goes on an on...you decide...all I am saying is I have a tool that lets decide whether its OK or NOT OK and then pump out the results...

I don't care one way or the other whether multiple lives are OK or NOT...I don't care whether bombing your own base is OK or NOT...

All I am saying is I have the tool that does that...just like my question regarding troop carriers with no lives left...either its OK or NOT OK...flip a switch...

I think folks are not understanding what I am trying to do here...

Do you want a tool that lets you simply toggle on an off switches according to a set of Scenario rules, that goes far beyond the present capability of what we have, and pump out the score?

Oneway