Scoring System

[dave_r]

I notice that there are no real details of a scoring system other than minor / major / decisive victories. i.e. there are no points described within.

Since the rules are already being used on the competition circuit (albeit as a demo comp only) then would it be worth attempting to ascribe points values? I think the last version basically had a nine point scoring system, which in my opinion not detailed enough to separate players in a comp. Would we be looking at the standard BHGS 32 point system, or since we usually have four games in a comp look at a 25 point scoring system?

I am kind of guessing that this has been looked at allready, but either not finalised or not confident enough to put it in 5.04?

[rbodleyscott]

I notice that there are no real details of a scoring system other than minor / major / decisive victories. i.e. there are no points described within.

I am kind of guessing that this has been looked at allready, but either not finalised or not confident enough to put it in 5.04?

We don't intend to put a tournament scoring system in the rule book. It will go on the web page.

However, we do need to decide on what tournament scoring will be used in the various FOG tournaments that are planned this year.

So, please post any proposals here.

[nicofig]

I think It will be good to have a system like Battlefront Flames of war for exemple :
- 70% for general ( Victory and defeat)
- 15% for background- paint
- 15% for Fairplay.

[hammy]

I think It will be good to have a system like Battlefront Flames of war for exemple :
- 70% for general ( Victory and defeat)
- 15% for background- paint
- 15% for Fairplay.

I am not conviced this is the way to go. Have sportsmanship and painting prizes by all means but not included in the main score.

Most of my armies are attractive but few of them were painted by me. Should I get good painting marks because I can afford to pay someone elese to paint for me?

Sportsmanship is totally subjective, yes there are players who are a pain to play against and are unsporting but how can you judge if your opponent was a 9/10 or an 8/10 sportsman.

Hammy

[dave_r]

I think It will be good to have a system like Battlefront Flames of war for exemple :
- 70% for general ( Victory and defeat)
- 15% for background- paint
- 15% for Fairplay.

I am also opposed to this sort of scoring system.

I cannot paint for toffee - why should I therefore be punished because of this in a competition? If I get my figures painted by somebody who can paint people will argue that I should get no points becuase I didn't paint them (this has also happened) - so how do I win?

Fairplay is totally subjective and the person who loses tends to get better sportsmanship points than the winner...

As for scoring system, if we start at 10 points then gain 5 points per victory and then have a negative based on percentage casualties? Would appear to be as good as anything?

i.e.
Marginal Victory = 15 points
Moderate = 20 points
Major = 25 points
Decisive = 30 points

Have say bands of 10% for casualties - i.e. a decisive victory with 45% casualties would be 26 for the winner and 4 for the loser (30 minus the victors points). If it is a flat draw then have 10-10. Which should encourage people to get stuck in.

Thoughts?

[nicofig]

OK, I will try to explain my opinion:

- 70% for generalship
Ok, we can use this system for 5 games :

Marginal Defeat = 10 points
Marginal Victory = 15 points
Moderate = 20 points
Major = 25 points
Decisive = 30 points

Results : 50 to 150 points x 0.7

- Painting Quality and Historical army
Unpainted army : 10 points
Poorly painted or just undercoated. : 20 points
Good basic painting, faces, hands, shield... : 30 points
Well-painted force with added details, accurate colours and scenic basing! : 40 points
Every model is a masterpiece. : 50 points

bonus for use the good figures for the army :
10 to 50 points

Results : 20 to 100 points x 0.15
I think we must have beautifull armies for the respect of the visitors and players. Yes, it's true : someone have money to buy a beautiful painted army and some have two left hands but if you look the scoring, the difference is only 10 or 20 points x 0.15; Not very important but it's symbolic.

- Sporting Play
Normally everyone should be fair play but we know that it is not always the case. Rather than to encourage something of normal, let us penalize unsporting players like this:

Every player have 100 points for the tournament ( for a 5 games tournament)
After each game, the player can refuse that the 10 points are left with its unsporting adversary. It says that to the referee. Thus the unsporting player loses points whereas those which are fair play and courteous keeps their maximum base of points.

Result : 100 for all players x 0.15
except for the player who received penalties of his adversaries.

It is a proposal, to certainly improve.
They are the authors who will be able to say if they wishes that FoG be only one rule of generalship or not.

It will be also possible to the organizers to choose between several systems but the authors will have to indicate their preferences.

[markm]

Painting is always a pain in the ass!

IME the time taken for judges to go round and score all armies; the disputes where one judge is more lenient that another; who painted the army, etc. All of these plus others make it difficult and IMO a waste of time.

At Toy Soldier we give all players 5 Tournament points if they vote for their favorite army. We add 'em up and give out best army prizes. Little work for the organisers and it gives recognition for those who do put the effort in. Works a treat.

For sportsmanship we ASSUME that all players score 3 out of 5 for sports and 3 out of 5 for army selection (this latter will not be required by FoG). Players can then change this with the scorers IF they want to. This keeps the scoring secret (I have seen players agree to give each other maximum where it is written down). Last year with 90 players and 5 rounds, we probably had 20 occassions where a player asked to change the sports score - usually to a 1. So it doesn't happen much, but this IS worth it IMO. It highlights the complete asses/cheats. These players are spoken to by the organiser (I get all the good jobs ). Two players have had entires refused as a result of this - some people just will not learn. Harsh, but it improves the playing experience for everyone else!

just my 2p.

[nicofig]

Painting is always a pain in the ass!

IME the time taken for judges to go round and score all armies; the disputes where one judge is more lenient that another; who painted the army, etc. All of these plus others make it difficult and IMO a waste of time.

At Toy Soldier we give all players 5 Tournament points if they vote for their favorite army. We add 'em up and give out best army prizes. Little work for the organisers and it gives recognition for those who do put the effort in. Works a treat.

In our tournaments, that does not pose a problem. They are not the referees who judge but spectators or other players who do not play in the tournament.
Some times 2 or 3 judges, and then we make the average of the notes.

The advantage is that we do not see any more figurines just under-painting and the players make efforts for it was beautifull. The game is also a pleasure for the eyes.

For sportsmanship we ASSUME that all players score 3 out of 5 for sports and 3 out of 5 for army selection (this latter will not be required by FoG). Players can then change this with the scorers IF they want to. This keeps the scoring secret (I have seen players agree to give each other maximum where it is written down). Last year with 90 players and 5 rounds, we probably had 20 occassions where a player asked to change the sports score - usually to a 1. So it doesn't happen much, but this IS worth it IMO. It highlights the complete asses/cheats. These players are spoken to by the organiser (I get all the good jobs ). Two players have had entires refused as a result of this - some people just will not learn. Harsh, but it improves the playing experience for everyone else!
just my 2p.

Yes , it's another system. "My" system that I proposed appeared simpler me but it is practically the same idea.
What is well it is that even if we do not have the same ideas we can discuss.
I waits to have the opinion of the authors.

[dave_r]

I would like to re-iterate that a competition is exactly that. A test of your capability. In my opinon time wasting side shows should have no impact upon the scoring of the comp.

By all means have separate comps for best painted army (get each player to submit their vote) and the highest gets a small prize.

The sportsmanship is already done at Britcon. I have had players state to me before the game begins that they will refuse to fill in the sportsmanship award so what is the point?

As Mark suggests, if you have a problem with somebody go tell the umpire - let them deal with it.

Why should I lose a competition because somebody has better painted toys than me or because they bribed their opponent to get better sportsmanship points?

[nicofig]

Why should I lose a competition because somebody has better painted toys than me or because they bribed their opponent to get better sportsmanship points?

No, no, no, in my system everybody has 5 points ( for example) but only the unsporting adversary loose some point.

But, you know, I play in tournament with the two systems. It's two different philosophies. I like the Field of Glory rules so I would play with these rules some is the selected system.

The authors will be able to deliver their opinions what will influence the organizers.

[niksharp]

I dont think there should be any scope within a competative scoring system for "subjective" judgements.

The scoring system should produce a result for a game that would be the same no matter who worked it out. It has to be this way so that all the competitors feel the results are fair and equitable (ignoring the fact they may have thought they should not have lost the last game on dice throws/ bad luck/ bad hair day/ worse hangover/ etc).

Painting quality and sportsmanship are purely subjective. By all means give prizes for them but they should not have any impact on a competition scoring system

NS

[malekithau]

The argument here highlights the differences between ancients (DBM/Warrior) and many other popular tournament sets ie FOW, WHFB, WAB etc. The competitors are rewarded across the whole scope of the hobby rather then just those whom know the rules and how to bend them the best. Have generalship categories but also reward those who put time into their armies and play in a sportmanslike way.

I've played in many different types of tournaments and without a doubt the most fun where those that rewarded all aspects of the hobby. Yeah its nice to win games but that shouldn't be the be all and end all of tournaments - I go to meet new people, play new armies and basically have a good time. It's how I'm raising my kids in the hobby too. Winning is great but its better for both players to have a good time.

The concentration on winning only is what paints ancients players in a bad light. Many people tell me they don't want to play in ancients tournesy because they are too intense.

Just my 2 cents

[nicofig]

Totally agree with you You write my opinion better than me
But, just one thing : I am an old player

[rogerg]

This myth about competition players needs burying. The atmosphere at competitions has never been a problem. The large number of ancients competitions in Britain has resulted in a large group of players who form what amounts to a very friendly nationwide club. We play competitively because we enjoy it. Being competitve does not mean being unfriendly.

This notion about competitions being unfriendly seems to come from those who play infrequently at such events. Most regular competitors are pleased to see newcomers and will be helpful. However, there is an obligation on the newcomer to accept the culture they are coming into. There is a largely unwritten etiquette about speed of play, explaining moves, marking positions and the like. The regulars accept these common standards because they work.

If an opponent makes a move you have not seen before, then asking the umpire is quite acceptable. Implying that anything you haven't seen before at the local club is 'competitive rule bending' is not acceptable. It is an unfortunate fact that DBM, because of the element structure of the game, has some complex rule issues. Field of Glory clears away a lot of these issues with its use of battle groups. This should make the step from club to competition play easier.

[markm]

Other than sorting out the scoring system for FoG, I'm not sure that the authors should become embroiled in these other areas. Sports and Painting are for Tournament organisers to agree on, not the rules writers (IMO).

Funnily enough I can agree with most of what has been written here. The bottom line is, in any wargames environment there are some assholes. I have no idea how they have been dealt with on the DBM circuit. In the circles I have played in, a quiet word was had by the organisers. If things did not improve that player was asked not to enter further such events. It has happened 3 or 4 times in the last few years.

I play hard and to win. But I never cheat. IME this is the attitude of the vast majority of players.

Nicofig's idea's of everyone getting a flat Sports bonus (unless you are a !"?$%^&*) is fine. Simple, and only needs any input if someone has a really bad game.

Keep painting as a separate prize if you want.

At the end of the day I want to win Best General. And Nico, I am also an old player

[niksharp]

The argument here highlights the differences between ancients (DBM/Warrior) and many other popular tournament sets ie FOW, WHFB, WAB etc. The competitors are rewarded across the whole scope of the hobby rather then just those whom know the rules and how to bend them the best. Have generalship categories but also reward those who put time into their armies and play in a sportmanslike way

I think you have slightly missed my point. I was arguing that you should not have subjective criteria in a scoring system within a set of rules. Who is going to decide if you played more sportsmanlike than I did? Will there be a table to tell the players how to gauge "sportsmanship"? This is nothing to do with styles of play, it is about producing a fair and objective scoring system that everyone understands and can implement to achieve the same results.

Yeah its nice to win games but that shouldn't be the be all and end all of tournaments - I go to meet new people, play new armies and basically have a good time

I totally agree here and I think it is why most of us go to tournaments, regardless of the rule sets used.

The concentration on winning only is what paints ancients players in a bad light. Many people tell me they don't want to play in ancients tournesy because they are too intense

Ancients players are like the rest of humanity - sort of - they come in all shapes and sizes and many different temprements but they don't all play to win at any cost. Tournament players are competative, otherwise they would not be there. I believe the intensity level will always be higher at a tournament than a club; its the nature of competitions and you cant really do much about it and certainly not through the rules.

NS

[donm]

Do you not think that most problems are actually caused by the rules. If the rules are full of chesse then players will exploit this. To confuse the issue with painting, research and sportsmanship is only to make allowances for poor rules. Hopefully all this play testing and feed back will make these a good set of rules.

I do not read ancient history or do my own research, but that has not stopped me enjoying ancient wargames for more years than I care to remember

Don M

[lawrenceg]

(see Hammy's post on this subject in the thread "First 5.04 game: once again Burgundians vs Byzantines ")
(NB I've edited this post as I've just discovered that BHGS may use this system for FOG at BRITCON)

I discussed scoring systems with Simon Hall at the Leeds competition. Discussion was restricted to points for the actual game result (i.e. not painting, sportsmanship etc).

The main points were:

1. Some players did not like calculating percentage losses in the BHGS system, so a simple table with a minimum of calculations was desirable.

2. We wanted to avoid the current situation in DBM where a very close game can come down to "If I win this combat, I win 9-1 but if I lose it I lose 9-1". I.e. the final score does not reflect how close the game was.

3. We pretty much took it for granted that it would be "zero-sum" i.e. the two players' score would always add up to a fixed total.

After the discussion I proposed a system somewhat similar (but not identical) to Hammy's suggestion. According to the BHGS web site, it is likely to be used for the Fog of War tournament at BRITCON.

The underlying principle is that your army is worth a certain number of points and you get a share of those points for the percentage of your own troops surviving and the percentage of the opponent's troops broken . You gain or lose some bonus points if you break the opponent's army or your army is broken. (This is a key difference from Hammy's suggetion where you get a bonus for winning but don't get a penalty for losing)

The main question is how many of the points come from attrition and how many from the win bonus.

My personal feeling is that the win bonus should be relatively small because in a close run thing the win is mainly determined by luck. BHGS seem to be going with 26 points for attrition and 6 for winning (these numbers are easy to change). Then if you are almost at breaking point when you win, you score 13-19. This is the same score as a draw in which you are 25% of the way to breaking the opponent and lost nothing yourself. If you win by a large margin then this will be reflected through the points you get for attrition.

The system is implemented through a table which avoids the need for calculating your percentage losses. The table gives you a number, which I call the "Attrition Ratio", based on the size of your army and your lost Attrition Points. The win bonus is automatically accounted for in the table, so the only calculation is:

Your score = 16 plus (opponent attrition ratio) minus (own attrition ratio).

BHGS have put the table on the net at

http://www.bhgs.co.uk/Nationals/rules/FOGrules.htm

The instructions for using the table to find your Attrition Ratio (in case it's not self-evident) are:

1 Locate the number of battle groups in your army at the top of the table.
2 Read down the column until you find the largest number less than or equal to your AP lost.
3 If lost attrition points is equal to or more than the number of BG in the army, then use the "ALL" row.
4 Go to the right hand end of the row and read the corresponding AR.

The table on the BHGS site has a couple of cells highlighted which correspond to an example in which :
"Red" had an army of 10 BG and lost 3 AP. (AR = 3)
"Blue" had an army of 16 BG and lost 13 AP. (AR = 11)
"Red" score = 16 + 11 - 3 = 24
"Blue" score = 16 + 3 - 11 = 8

[nicofig]

Do you not think that most problems are actually caused by the rules. If the rules are full of chesse then players will exploit this. To confuse the issue with painting, research and sportsmanship is only to make allowances for poor rules. Hopefully all this play testing and feed back will make these a good set of rules.

Indeed. This is why I find the step around FoG very positive.
It is thus necessary to benefit from it to take part in its development and thus to prevent the fuzzy zones.

[nicofig]

My personal feeling is that the win bonus should be relatively small because in a close run thing the win is mainly determined by luck. My suggestion is 16 points for attrition and 4 for winning (these numbers are easy to change). Then if you are almost at breaking point when you win, you score 12-8. This is the same score as a draw in which you are 75% of the way to breaking the opponent and only 50% of the way to breaking yourself. If it is not a close run thing then this will be reflected thorugh the points you get for attrition.

Very interresting system.
Just a word : I think the system must be for all the players around the world. So, if you compare with dbm, in England you play with 0-20 system or with 0-32. These systems seem more favorable to a manner of playing defensive ( and we can see that with your explanation) . I
n France, maybe we are more offensive, we don't play with this score system. We have two great system for DBM : BB 3-2-0 and BB 3210. 3 points for victory, 2 points for egality, 0 for defeat and some adaptations according to the number of losses of troops.

So I think we must have a neutral system nor too favorable to the aggressivity nor too favorable to defense.