EU Online Campaign I – Looking for an Adjudicator!

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can sign OLL in as participating mercenary clan for this campaign. :wink:. We are looking forward to playing it.
 

kingofnoobia

Master Knight
M&BWB
Jezze said:
You can sign OLL in as participating mercenary clan for this campaign. :wink:. We are looking forward to playing it.

... and that means I'm no longer a canditate for being the abjudicator :wink:. However, if you really can't find anyone, I'm still willing to do so, even if that means I can't play myself.
 

longbow93

Sergeant Knight
M&BWB
Sum-up :smile:

The 22nd Imperium
Steward: Harlequin
Commander: Coffee_n_Smokes
Commander: (BigMac
Faction: Rhodoks. ( if not possible we choose Khergit )
 
5qv5h.png
 

RalliX

Count
M&BWBWF&SVC
I shall be your Holy Sunoan mercenary knight.

/sign up as merc.

Also, for the Republic of Istiniar and the King's Court of Reveran:
Maras Castle may very well become the most contested area ever.
 

okiN

N° 22
Count
M&BWB
kingofnoobia said:
... and that means I'm no longer a canditate for being the abjudicator :wink:. However, if you really can't find anyone, I'm still willing to do so, even if that means I can't play myself.

Well, I personally think you'd be a very good choice for the job. And since your clan is a mercenary one, there shouldn't be any serious worries about neutrality. However, you'd obviously also be an absolutely key player as a mercenary, and if you'd prefer to do that, I don't want to force you. I'll try to think of some alternatives. :smile:

RalliX added.
 

RalliX

Count
M&BWBWF&SVC
I'll also take the position of adjudicator until someone else wants the position.

Edit: Will the adjudicator be more than just a judge? If so, what duties shall I, or any adjudicator have.
 

okiN

N° 22
Count
M&BWB
The main duty of the adjudicator is resolution of all the turns, determining the results of all the orders from the various sides, and sorting out all battles in need of resolution. For this, a solid understanding of the rules is required. The fact that you apparently missed this whole bit doesn't really speak for you as a candidate. :razz:
 

Marmalade

Squire
WF&SNWWBM&BVC
I'm a little confused by your syntax:

"((base amount) * (100% + advantage * 20%))" formula.

Do you mean:

(base amount) * (base amount + ((0.2 * base amount) * advantage))

or

(base amount) * (base amount + advantage) * (0.2 * base amount)

or something else?


Assuming base amount was 8 and advantage was 2 (attack with two supports) then the top formula would give you:

(base amount) * (base amount + ((0.2 * base amount) * advantage))
( 8 ) * ( 8 + ((0.2 * 8 ) * 2))
= 8 * ( 8 + 3.2)

= 89.6?


or

(base amount) * (base amount + advantage) * (0.2 * base amount)
( 8 ) * ( 8 + 2) * (0.2 * 8 )
= ( 80 * 1.6)

= 128?

I'm assuming that the 100% and 20% refer to 100% and 20% of the base amount? (so... 8 and 1.6 respectively)

If the second 20% was meant to be 20% of the advantage, and 100% was meant to be 100% of the base amount, then this would read:

((base amount) * (100% + advantage * 20%))

( ( 8 )*( 8 + [2 * 0.2] ) )

= 8 * 8.4

= 67.2?
 

okiN

N° 22
Count
M&BWB
Yeah, that formula was put together by Nireco. The bit with the percentages isn't exactly good math, but I think the meaning should be pretty clear.

So obviously what he meant was: n+(n*0.2*x) where n is the base amount of players per team and x is the advantage. If you really think the current expression is too confusing, I can put it in those terms as well.
 

Marmalade

Squire
WF&SNWWBM&BVC
Okies,

So... for an example situation: base amount n is 8, advantage x in this case is 2, as one nation with two supports (a large advantage) is attacking the other with none.

n+(n*0.2*x)

Defender numbers = 8 + (1.6 * 0)
= 8

Attacker numbers = 8 + (1.6*2)
= 11.2

so an 11 vs 8 battle, or thereabouts.
 

okiN

N° 22
Count
M&BWB
Aye. 2 is a heavy advantage, after all.

Edit: for the record, the correct way to understand Nireco's original formula is this: n * (1 + x * 0.2)

It's just another way of expressing the same thing, though I guess his use of percentage values was a bit odd.
 

Marmalade

Squire
WF&SNWWBM&BVC
If you express it as

n * (1 + x * 0.2)

then you have a similar problem - the multiplication should be handled before the addition in the paranthesis. (are you trying to say [1 + X] * 0.2 or 1 + [X*0.2]?)

Expressing it as

n+(n*0.2*x)

Is fine, and makes sense without any ambiguity.
 

RalliX

Count
M&BWBWF&SVC
okiN said:
The main duty of the adjudicator is resolution of all the turns, determining the results of all the orders from the various sides, and sorting out all battles in need of resolution. For this, a solid understanding of the rules is required. The fact that you apparently missed this whole bit doesn't really speak for you as a candidate. :razz:
Wait, I just checked the rules again... Didn't see the Adjudicator part before... Must have been added later. I thought it was just something proposed out of the blue while I wasn't looking.  :eek:
 

okiN

N° 22
Count
M&BWB
Marmalade said:
If you express it as

n * (1 + x * 0.2)

then you have a similar problem - the multiplication should be handled before the addition in the paranthesis. (are you trying to say [1 + X] * 0.2 or 1 + [X*0.2]?)

I'm pretty sure there's no issue there, as the multiplication inside the parentheses is done first. The result is n+0.2xn, not n+0.2xn².

RalliX said:
Wait, I just checked the rules again... Didn't see the Adjudicator part before... Must have been added later. I thought it was just something proposed out of the blue while I wasn't looking.  :eek:

I can assure you it was there from the start.

Anyway, I've contacted Arch about being the adjudicator, and he said he'd be up for it, although he has no experience with Diplomacy. lumikant, one of our US clan members, has also volunteered, and I'm sure he'd be a good pick, but I'm a bit worried about accusations of partiality if he ever had to rule in our favor. :???:
 

Taalen

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
okiN said:
lumikant, one of our US clan members, has also volunteered, and I'm sure he'd be a good pick, but I'm a bit worried about accusations of partiality if he ever had to rule in our favor. :???:

We're all adults here. In the best traditions of the TaleWorlds forum all complainers can just be flamed to death.

Naw, seriously, unfortunately that's one thing that has to be considered. But I'm sure the participating clans can work out an arrangement that works for all of them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom