Tournment scoring

[nikgaukroger]

Maybe there will be a strong favorite in the future, let's see....
And I#m more than happy coming to Britcon this year to have a nice discussion at the evening or during the breaks.

If you feel like having a serious discussion on Saturday night after 3 games at BritCon you are much tougher then me.

Indeed

[philqw78]

This means: Either use rounded points during the whole tournament with no exception, or use the floating point during the whole event, but don't do a mixture. This will really baffle people, for sure.

I have seen this mixture in operation and thought it was utter bollocks.

[hammy]

For me rounded scores has got to be the way to go. I want to say I won 22 to 3 not 21.7 to 3.3

Calcualting the fractional scores for tiebreak only is fine but it does mean more work for the program. It is however a far better tiebreak IMO than most of the other tibreaks used in wargaming.

The fundamental issue is that after a round it is nice for players to know their score and for it to be easy for them to check what it was. The only thing that players are likely to be certain of is the number of AP they lost and possibly the number their opponent lost.

[lawrenceg]

For me rounded scores has got to be the way to go. I want to say I won 22 to 3 not 21.7 to 3.3

Calcualting the fractional scores for tiebreak only is fine but it does mean more work for the program. It is however a far better tiebreak IMO than most of the other tibreaks used in wargaming.

The fundamental issue is that after a round it is nice for players to know their score and for it to be easy for them to check what it was. The only thing that players are likely to be certain of is the number of AP they lost and possibly the number their opponent lost.

So the ideal scoring system would be a function only of your own AP lost (and possibly who got an army rout, if any).

Score = 20 - AP lost, +5 if you routed the opponent, -5 if you got routed.

Job done.

[kevinj]

I agree with Hammy that a system that gives easily verifiable whole number scores is preferable. You do need a means of resolving ties but I think that this should also be something simple, such as:

1) The result of any game in the tournament between the players concerned.
2) Total AP losses Inflicted
3) Total AP losses Suffered

[Martin0112]

For me rounded scores has got to be the way to go. I want to say I won 22 to 3 not 21.7 to 3.3

Calcualting the fractional scores for tiebreak only is fine but it does mean more work for the program. It is however a far better tiebreak IMO than most of the other tibreaks used in wargaming.

The fundamental issue is that after a round it is nice for players to know their score and for it to be easy for them to check what it was. The only thing that players are likely to be certain of is the number of AP they lost and possibly the number their opponent lost.

So the ideal scoring system would be a function only of your own AP lost (and possibly who got an army rout, if any).

Score = 20 - AP lost, +5 if you routed the opponent, -5 if you got routed.

Job done.

Sounds easy, but it isn't. You must have a calculator for the army size in, which is not there.

Again, I think the system itself is good, no problems with it.

[KillingZoe]

So the ideal scoring system would be a function only of your own AP lost (and possibly who got an army rout, if any).

Score = 20 - AP lost, +5 if you routed the opponent, -5 if you got routed.

This looks to me a little like favoring a very defensive playing style, since by playing offensive you risk much more than there is to gain.
One thing I realy like with the scoring system used right now is that it slightly favors offensive players.

In the old WRG6th I've seen to much games that just did not take place since none of the players wanted to take the risk of attacking.

I'm affraid, your system would trigger a similar effect. If I'm going to attack I must be sure to gain an army rout, otherwise it's best to just stay clear of the enemy.

Edit:
Even worse, if I loose more then 5 Attrition Points, I will loose points compared to an eventless draw even if I managed to rout the enemy army.

[hammy]

So the ideal scoring system would be a function only of your own AP lost (and possibly who got an army rout, if any).

Score = 20 - AP lost, +5 if you routed the opponent, -5 if you got routed.

This looks to me a little like favoring a very defensive playing style, since by playing offensive you risk much more than there is to gain.
One thing I realy like with the scoring system used right now is that it slightly favors offensive players.

In the old WRG6th I've seen to much games that just did not take place since none of the players wanted to take the risk of attacking.

I'm affraid, your system would trigger a similar effect. If I'm going to attack I must be sure to gain an army rout, otherwise it's best to just stay clear of the enemy.

Edit:
Even worse, if I loose more then 5 Attrition Points, I will loose points compared to an eventless draw even if I managed to rout the enemy army.

I agree, this would definitley not encourage enjoyable games.

[timmy1]

Nik

'
apart from the terminally anal
'

I object - I am not terminal.

[lawrenceg]

So the ideal scoring system would be a function only of your own AP lost (and possibly who got an army rout, if any).

Score = 20 - AP lost, +5 if you routed the opponent, -5 if you got routed.

This looks to me a little like favoring a very defensive playing style, since by playing offensive you risk much more than there is to gain.
One thing I realy like with the scoring system used right now is that it slightly favors offensive players.

In the old WRG6th I've seen to much games that just did not take place since none of the players wanted to take the risk of attacking.

I'm affraid, your system would trigger a similar effect. If I'm going to attack I must be sure to gain an army rout, otherwise it's best to just stay clear of the enemy.

Edit:
Even worse, if I loose more then 5 Attrition Points, I will loose points compared to an eventless draw even if I managed to rout the enemy army.

I agree, this would definitley not encourage enjoyable games.

Sorry, forgot to add the