Whac-A-Mod 3 [COMPLETE!]

[Masli]

MODS : 246 - 208

[Pander88uk]

I'm waiting impatiently to send out invites to 2 remaining doubles and Gilligan is more than happy to invite you to one of the remaining 3 quads. Hurry!

1 more trips too! WWII Europe I think

[AgentSmith88]

Mods well and truly whac'd the community this time.

I had a lot of fun whac'ing and being whac'd hope everyone else did too!

Now while I don't really care whether the mods or the community won, the fact that community members were discouraged from joining any whac-a-mod games after they won means the mods didn't exactly face the same level of competition as the last 2. I understand that it was done to let more people have a chance at a medal, but it sort of takes the bragging rights down a notch if the mods win.

Anyway, it was a fun time. Thanks to mods for taking the time to set up and play so many games.

[Ffraid]

Now while I don't really care whether the mods or the community won, the fact that community members were discouraged from joining any whac-a-mod games after they won means the mods didn't exactly face the same level of competition as the last 2. I understand that it was done to let more people have a chance at a medal, but it sort of takes the bragging rights down a notch if the mods win.

Anyway, it was a fun time. Thanks to mods for taking the time to set up and play so many games.

I don't understand your logic. First of all, I believe people were discouraged from joining too many games during the last competition, although I also think that that was largely unenforced. But, let's take the first comp., which the mods won, as an example. How do you know that the people who joined multiple games didn't suck and that the mods wouldn't have faced stiffer competition had they been allowed to play a more varied segment of the community?

[jrh_cardinal]

Now while I don't really care whether the mods or the community won, the fact that community members were discouraged from joining any whac-a-mod games after they won means the mods didn't exactly face the same level of competition as the last 2. I understand that it was done to let more people have a chance at a medal, but it sort of takes the bragging rights down a notch if the mods win.

Anyway, it was a fun time. Thanks to mods for taking the time to set up and play so many games.

I don't understand your logic. First of all, I believe people were discouraged from joining too many games during the last competition, although I also think that that was largely unenforced. But, let's take the first comp., which the mods won, as an example. How do you know that the people who joined multiple games didn't suck and that the mods wouldn't have faced stiffer competition had they been allowed to play a more varied segment of the community?

Don't try to tell me you think the people that join first are the bad players. The better players definitely are the ones that join first and play the most. Of course there will be a few exceptions to this, but it is definitely true more often than not

[denominator]

There is an inherent bias towards the mods by limiting every person to one game (discounting the team games that had to be applied for, I only joined 2 in the end).

Let's set up a little scenario with Mod A and Players X, Y, and Z.

Mod A starts a 1v1 game, Player X joins, wins and leaves Whac-A-Mod with a 1-0 record.

Mod A then starts a second game, Player Y now joins and loses. Mod A is at 1-1, Player Y is at 0-1. However, unlike Player X, Player Y can and does join a second game.

Mod A plays Player Y again and loses. Player Y leaves Whac-A-Mod with a 1-1 record, while Mod A sits at 1-2.

Then Player Z comes along. Player Z sucks at AoR, which is what Mod A is playing on. Player Z is free to join multiple games against Mod A until he wins one and loses 10 before finally winning one.

Now the 4 players stack up as follows:

Mod A: 12-3
Player X: 1-0
Player Y: 1-1
Player Z: 1-10

The issue is that if we are going to take an overall tally of Mods vs Community, it's unfair. Each Mod gets to play as many games as he/she wants, on the map of his/her choice, racking up as many wins as he/she wants. Each Community Member is restricted to one win.

In the end, the Mods are picking on the weaker CC players and "farming" them for wins in the overall tally.

[Pander88uk]

Come on guys, it's just a bit of fun and a chance for everyone to try and get a medal, as well as play some of the mods that don't play so many public games

Of course the mods are going to have the advantage in terms of maps / settings, as they get to pick them, we wouldn't want to make it easy for you You can't have a competition like this without people keeping the score though, especially when it's so close.

That all said, many mods did create multiplayer games (6 player assassins etc.) which they technically have a 1 in 6 chance of winning, so the community was of course going to get a lot of wins on those!

[denominator]

Come on guys, it's just a bit of fun and a chance for everyone to try and get a medal, as well as play some of the mods that don't play so many public games

Of course the mods are going to have the advantage in terms of maps / settings, as they get to pick them, we wouldn't want to make it easy for you You can't have a competition like this without people keeping the score though, especially when it's so close.

That all said, many mods did create multiplayer games (6 player assassins etc.) which they technically have a 1 in 6 chance of winning, so the community was of course going to get a lot of wins on those!

I guess my post comes off in a very dissenting tone, and that was unintentional. I love the Whac-A-Mod series, and look forward to every one that comes out.

I also realize that there are multiple player games (I am actually in one), and most of these have not ended yet, which will favour the community's score.

However, my point stands that the overall score is not entirely true if you are limiting who can play on one side of the battle.

[king sam]

There were quite a bit of non team multi player games that were created, and I saw a whole lot of random maps being used.. I know for almost all of mine I used random maps..And I know in 1 of the multi player ones I am in the other players have decided to get the mod out first and then duke it out themselves although I am the weakest. So there's a lot that should be added to that equation of yours that I think would even it out.

It wasn't created to boost mod scores it was created for fun. I had a lot of fun as always in these things, and hope that the majority of the site did as well, its perhaps the easiest way to earn a medal..

Looking forward to the next 1.

[squishyg]

looking forward to the next one! it'd be great if it was a weeklong (or long weekend-long) event next time. i know a lot of folks are Monday-Friday players.

[wisemanpsemc]

I had fun. Lost a handful and finally earned myself a medal. Also in a multi player game that is ongoing. I look forward to the next time.

[Ffraid]

Don't try to tell me you think the people that join first are the bad players. The better players definitely are the ones that join first and play the most. Of course there will be a few exceptions to this, but it is definitely true more often than not

I have no opinion as to whether "the people that join first" are any better or worse than anyone else. I would think that that would have to do with availability and what time zone you happen to be in when the competition begins.

denominator: Interesting argument. Almost had me. Man, Player Z really sucks . But the point is not how bad Player Z is. He gets to join multiple games in either scenario. The point, I think, is that you don't know whether Players B through W, who got to join games because players X and Y didn't get to snap up as many as they possibly could before anyone else even had a chance to play, fared any better, or worse, than Players X and Y would have, had they been allowed to continue playing. A point which is supported by the first Whac-A-Mod competition, where the same people joined multiple games and the mods still won. I just don't see any evidence that the mods are giving themselves any advantage by setting a rule that will allow more people the opportunity to play.

Now, I do agree that they have an obvious advantage by being the ones who get to pick the settings, but that is not the statement to which I originally objected.

Not to sound like a mod suck up, because I am not a forum frequenter and I don't know any of them any better than I know you, but I have to agree with Pander, and I would imagine that you do as well, that the main purpose would seem to be to give people a chance to play the mods, who probably don't usually play too many public games (and to win medals ).

One question, when you say that "you are limiting who can play on one side of the battle," are you talking about the mods' side? Because there are a limited number of mods, but the rule discouraging people from playing in too many games would seem to be an attempt to not limit who all is playing for the community.

[TheForgivenOne]

So some of "Top notch players" get to play more games, even though they already got their medal, while the less known players keep trying and trying and trying to join, but are constantly filled by players who already got their medal...

Seems fair to me

[denominator]

First of all, I am arguing more for argument's sake than for anything else. I fully believe the rule was and is in place solely because there are a far greater number of community players than there are mod players and it's to be fair to all the community that everybody gets a chance to play rather than a few people hogging all the games.

denominator: Interesting argument. Almost had me. Man, Player Z really sucks . But the point is not how bad Player Z is. He gets to join multiple games in either scenario. The point, I think, is that you don't know whether Players B through W, who got to join games because players X and Y didn't get to snap up as many as they possibly could before anyone else even had a chance to play, fared any better, or worse, than Players X and Y would have, had they been allowed to continue playing. A point which is supported by the first Whac-A-Mod competition, where the same people joined multiple games and the mods still won. I just don't see any evidence that the mods are giving themselves any advantage by setting a rule that will allow more people the opportunity to play.

To quote a fictional pirate, the rules are really more of guidelines. Obviously, there is nothing to prevent anyone from joining every game there, and the only punishment offered is sam pointing out that those who hog games risk not getting their medal. I read this as "don't join all the games and you won't be punished" rather than a strict "once you win one, if you join another you get banned for life". Again, this was all for fun more than anything and I've heard nothing but that sentiment echoed in this thread.

IF the rules were strict rules, I would have an issue with the overall score. However, like all things, there are far more variables, like people joining multiple games, the random maps, and the multiple-player games that only have 1 mod in them. But again, it's all for shits and giggles so it's all cool.

Now, I do agree that they have an obvious advantage by being the ones who get to pick the settings, but that is not the statement to which I originally objected.

Nor a problem. I'd love to see some aspect where players pick settings, but I can see that being way too hard on the mods and so many ways that the community would abuse it, so it's best to leave that untouched.

Not to sound like a mod suck up, because I am not a forum frequenter and I don't know any of them any better than I know you, but I have to agree with Pander, and I would imagine that you do as well, that the main purpose would seem to be to give people a chance to play the mods, who probably don't usually play too many public games (and to win medals ).

I fully agree with you here. I play in enough tournaments that I see a few of the coloured names in games here and there, but it's fun to have a little friendly competition every once in a while. The medals are just an added bonus in my opinion, the same as they are in the rest of the game.

One question, when you say that "you are limiting who can play on one side of the battle," are you talking about the mods' side? Because there are a limited number of mods, but the rule discouraging people from playing in too many games would seem to be an attempt to not limit who all is playing for the community.

My view was (this is entirely hypothetical, I have absolutely zero evidence to back this up and it's more just an interesting thought than anything else) that if we take my above example of the 4 players and assign a rank to each of them as follows:

Mod A = Major
Player X = Colonel
Player Y = Captain
Player Z = Cadet

It seems logical to follow that the Captain and Colonel are far more likely to beat the Major than the Cadet (we all know that on CC this is not always the case). So essentially the Mods would be selecting more games against the Cadet than against the Colonel or Captain simply because the Colonel and Captain will get their win faster. Which means that the Mods are limiting the number of games that they play against high ranks while increasing the number against low ranks.

Again, this is all hypothetical and more of a thought experiment than anything else. But I think it's also fair to say that Player Z will probably come back after 10 losses simply because he wants to get his medal rather than actually having any fun at that point.

All in all, kudos to the Mods for a well run show, and please don't take any of my posts here personally.

[Ffraid]

First of all, I am arguing more for argument's sake than for anything else.

Me too

In fact, I agree with almost everything you said here and I hate to keep belaboring the issue, so I'm just going to point it out once more, sorry in advance, and then I'm out.

My original objection was to the statement that a mod victory would be somehow "tainted" by their not allowing the same players to play them over and over again.

I completely agree that "the Captain and Colonel are far more likely to beat the Major than the Cadet." My point is that we don't know that the people that are playing the Major in lieu of players X and Y aren't more Captains and Colonels rather than more Cadets. Just because X and Y aren't allowed to play (or are discouraged from playing) any more games doesn't necessarily mean that the players that have replaced them are any less skilled. I'm not sure that we can know that. At least, I don't know that we know that.

Regarding everything else you said: totally agree and very well said, too.