Competition Points systems

[guthroth]

Hi

recent discussions about competition games got me thinking.

Apart from the 25-0 system that seems common, what other comp scoring systems are there ?

Pete

[peterrjohnston]

DBM has 10-0 from the rules, which was modified by the BHGS to 32-0, based on 10-0. So a 10-0 became anything between 29-3 and 32-0, depending on percentage losses. It was also adopted by the IWF for the various World Championships. The score sheet is here:

http://www.bhgs.co.uk/RuleClarifications/bhgscore.htm

There was always debate about whether or not it encouraged a drawing style of play (10-0 and 32-0). And also the tactic of targeting breaking one command at the game end, ideally the C-in-C's command as that would be an 8-2 or 7-3.

In France, they developed 3-1-0. Which was 3-0 for a complete win, otherwise 1-1. It was modified slightly to make 3-2-1-0, with a 2-1 for a winning draw. The ITC also uses or did use this system. Again there was debate as to whether or not in encouraged a more aggressive style of play; aggressive in the sense of playing for wins, not argumentative! (My experience was it does, but for one tournament it makes no difference, it takes a while for everyone to get the "message", as it where). There seems to be a counter-argument that with a lot of players there would be too many "winners". But in France they had big tournaments using 310 and it didn't seem to be a problem.

Other variations included big bonuses for wins, basically amplifying 3-1-0. So, for example, 10-0 with +100 for a complete win. The 10-0 game score then becomes a tie-breaker in effect. FoG's 25-0 could easily be modified for this by making it say 50-0, with +30 for the win. I suspect this would reduce the big army, swap BGs style of playing for winning draws as one win is about as valuable than 4 draws.

I can't remember what was used for 7th and 6th... I think 6th was percentage based on army points of 1250, but it's been a long time.

Not sure what other rules use, haven't played FOW or DBMM, for example.


So basically you have percentage systems, like FoG's 25-0, or some sort of abstract percentage system, like 10-0. Or a scoring system that concentrates on winning, like 3-1-0, +100, or indeed the victory conditions in the FoG rules.

I know which one I prefer.

[hammy]

In DBM there was also the 'Gulf South' system which awarded double points for damage inflicted so in a DBM game where you broke one enemy command and would have scored a 6-4 win (5 points kept plus 1 for a point taken) the score became 7-4.

[guthroth]

Interesting, thanks.

I was wondering about a 3-2-1-0 type-of system myself. Maybe -

4 - Outright win
2 - Winning draw
1 - Losing draw
0 - Outright loss

Pete

[hammy]

Interesting, thanks.

I was wondering about a 3-2-1-0 type-of system myself. Maybe -

4 - Outright win
2 - Winning draw
1 - Losing draw
0 - Outright loss

Pete

The ITC in Lisbon uses a 3-2-1-0 system for FoG but the hard bit is deciding what defines a winning draw.

[guthroth]

The ITC in Lisbon uses a 3-2-1-0 system for FoG but the hard bit is deciding what defines a winning draw.

Huh ?

Either you play to a conclusion - in which case no draw is possible - or you play to time - in which case the player who has accumulated the greater number of unrecovered AP when time is called gets the 'Losing Draw'

Or am I missing something really obvious ?

Pete

[philqw78]

But what about, what would be now a 16-9, which has happened in a number of games I have played. The winner gets max points, but the loser, by the narrowest of margins, will get zero. Even though only 1 AP from breaking the enemy. This could encourage both sides to Benny Hill at the end with parts of their army..

[guthroth]

But what about, what would be now a 16-9, which has happened in a number of games I have played. The winner gets max points, but the loser, by the narrowest of margins, will get zero. Even though only 1 AP from breaking the enemy. This could encourage both sides to Benny Hill at the end with parts of their army..

Again, I might be mising something, but any result which under the 25-0 scoring now used would yield a 16-9, I would score 2-1.

I must be missing some subtlety somewhere ...

Pete

[hammy]

The ITC in Lisbon uses a 3-2-1-0 system for FoG but the hard bit is deciding what defines a winning draw.

Huh ?

Either you play to a conclusion - in which case no draw is possible - or you play to time - in which case the player who has accumulated the greater number of unrecovered AP when time is called gets the 'Losing Draw'

Or am I missing something really obvious ?

Pete

If you have a system where a 'winning' draw is having inflicted 1 AP on the enemy and received none then you will find players specifically playing to get a string of such 'winning' draws. I believe in the days of 6th edition games were sometimes decided by a side inflicting one casualty then running away and claiming a 'win'.

[hammy]

But what about, what would be now a 16-9, which has happened in a number of games I have played. The winner gets max points, but the loser, by the narrowest of margins, will get zero. Even though only 1 AP from breaking the enemy. This could encourage both sides to Benny Hill at the end with parts of their army..

Again, I might be mising something, but any result which under the 25-0 scoring now used would yield a 16-9, I would score 2-1.

I must be missing some subtlety somewhere ...

Pete

Player A loses 13 AP out of 14, player B loses 14 out of 14. Player A has broken player Bs army so gets the 5 point bonus but player B has taken 90% of the break point of player As army so still gets 9 points. On a win , winning draw, draw, loss system this would be Player A beats player B so A gets 4 and B gets none?

[azrael86]

One of the more satisfactory 7th edn was the system used at Derby, which was what you kill up to X, plus the difference if positive up to a further X, plus I think 50 for winning?

X I think was 600 when armies were 1500 pts, giving a max of 1250 per game

So translated into FoG terms you'd get something like: what you kill up to 350, plus the difference if positive up to a further 350 plus say 50 for a rout

So if the winner kills BG's worth 500 pts and loses 200 pts: they would score 350+300+50 =700
The loser scores 200
if the loser only kills 50 pts then it is 750:50
In a draw where the 'winner' kills 350 and the loser none, 300 and zero
In a draw where the 'winner' kills 350 and the loser kills 300, 400 and 300....

An extreme rarity which used to be an issue was simultaneous breaking. IIRC one year this happened twice at Abingdon, and no one got the bonus for routing the enemy, which seemed a little harsh!

[kevinj]

One of the more satisfactory 7th edn was the system used at Derby, which was what you kill up to X, plus the difference if positive up to a further X, plus I think 50 for winning?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't remember this system so fondly. No only was it awful if you got one of those types who refused to play (and there seemed to be a lot more about in those days), it was also open to abuse, which was one of the main reasons for adopting a system with a fixed number of points available.

[caliban66]

What if you only scored the AP you cause your opponents? The more AP they loose, the more points you get. Just that. No matter if you break your enemy or if you get broken, since you would still score the AP that your opponent loose. That may turn games quite bloody.

[marty]

The system we used for Warrior (updated 7th ed) here in OZ allowed you to score up to 3 points for the enemy troops Broken/killed/shaken/off table (based on their points values) then another point if the difference exceeded a certain value and another point if you doubled your opponents points score.

This was IMHO an excellent system where the biggest win was 5-0 and the sort of girly men who played bloodless draws got nil all. A nice bloody, manly draw might be 3 all. This system had the advantage of making it clear that killing your opponents unit of knights was worth more than that unit of peasants you lost, while still not allowing sacrificial units as they were included in calculating whether the command broke. It also allowed the value of killed generals to be included. The system would need to be modified slightly for FOG as whole armies beak rather than commands but it should basically work.

Definitely worth a try

Martin

[LambertSimnel]

The ITC in Lisbon uses a 3-2-1-0 system for FoG but the hard bit is deciding what defines a winning draw.

Huh ?

Either you play to a conclusion - in which case no draw is possible - or you play to time - in which case the player who has accumulated the greater number of unrecovered AP when time is called gets the 'Losing Draw'

Or am I missing something really obvious ?

Pete

If player A inflicts 12 out of the 16 he needs and player B inflicts 11 out of the 12, should the winning draw go to player A (who inflicted more APs) or player B (who was only 1AP from a real victory). Neither would be entirely unreasonable.

[michaelguth]

IMO the best system is double elimination. Lose or draw two games and you are out of the tournament. If you can't do double elimination, then do single elimination. Tournaments with 'scoring systems' all artificially favor certain armies, and penalize players excessively for luck of the draw, that is having to play against two light horse armies in timed games, or finding a player who won't engage at all and finally loses, but slowly enough that you can't get maximum points.

Scoring systems make FOG look ridiculous compared to games like DBA, which can almost universally be played to completion in the alloted time.

[david53]

IMO the best system is double elimination. Lose or draw two games and you are out of the tournament. If you can't do double elimination, then do single elimination. Tournaments with 'scoring systems' all artificially favor certain armies, and penalize players excessively for luck of the draw, that is having to play against two light horse armies in timed games, or finding a player who won't engage at all and finally loses, but slowly enough that you can't get maximum points.

That being the case what do you do after you have played two games and lose both?

I don't think the points are wrong.

Try the seeding process.(ducks)

[wildone]

Why not a simple 5 - 1 - 0 system where you get 5pts for the win and 1pt for a draw. Use the 0-25 points to sort out rankings.
So in a 4 game competition, a player who wins 3 games and draws 1 gets 16 pts. A player who wins 3 games and loses 1 gets 15ps.
If you have 2 players who both win 2 games they get 10 points each and their respective rankings are determined by the 0-25 points system.

I define a draw as either running out of time or both armies mutually breaking.

regards
Brent

[hammy]

Why not a simple 5 - 1 - 0 system where you get 5pts for the win and 1pt for a draw. Use the 0-25 points to sort out rankings.
So in a 4 game competition, a player who wins 3 games and draws 1 gets 16 pts. A player who wins 3 games and loses 1 gets 15ps.
If you have 2 players who both win 2 games they get 10 points each and their respective rankings are determined by the 0-25 points system.

I define a draw as either running out of time or both armies mutually breaking.

regards
Brent

In practice this is close to identical at the top and bottom at least to just using 25-0 anyway.

It only makes a difference really in the mid table where a player might get 2 wins and 2 losses while another gets 1 win and 3 draws. It is likey that the one with one win and 3 draws will have more points on the 25-0 system but not in a win loss system.

At the top and bottom you will most likely have either one player with 4 wins but they will almost certainly have the most 25-0 points anyway or several with 3 wins and a draw in which case you are back to 25-0.

[peterrjohnston]

In practice this is close to identical at the top and bottom at least to just using 25-0 anyway.

It only makes a difference really in the mid table where a player might get 2 wins and 2 losses while another gets 1 win and 3 draws. It is likey that the one with one win and 3 draws will have more points on the 25-0 system but not in a win loss system.

At the top and bottom you will most likely have either one player with 4 wins but they will almost certainly have the most 25-0 points anyway or several with 3 wins and a draw in which case you are back to 25-0.

You're talking tosh Hammy, sorry. It doesn't always matter, but it can make a big difference. For example, Tim would have won Britcon 2009 ancients by some distance on 5-1-0. And Pete Dalby and Terry Shaw would be tying for first place in the medieval (Pete would win on countback).