The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

Interesting. Lots of votes coming in. What's happened to poor old TGM's idea? Stuck in the stalls? TGM, you are doing a very good impersonation of Great Britain in the Eurovision song contest. Nil points!

[TheGrayMouser]

Interesting. Lots of votes coming in. What's happened to poor old TGM's idea? Stuck in the stalls? TGM, you are doing a very good impersonation of Great Britain in the Eurovision song contest. Nil points!

Well maybe they have become accustomed to the years of hyper competitive gameplay fostered post LOEG. You know i I feel strongly about it, but never believed you would consider it, nor asked for a poll, but thanks for the mocking.

[Kabill]

I've voted for option 2, but would argue a combination of that and option 3 would be better, i.e. score 1 point on a draw if you routed more than 20%, and 3 points if you routed more than 20% and finish ahead by 15% or more.

[Hendricus]

I voted for 4 cause it has my name, but I wanted the reward for losing to be higher as a draw. Remember the Alamo, that was his Waterloo. So many battles made the losing side famous. I could give 300 reasons why losing shows bravery, but they are all from Sparta. Rewarding losing above a draw makes players go for that last effort to win, because they know that losing brings points too. A player told proudly, I ran away to secure the point for a draw, it was boring for me and my opponent, but it kept me in the race. I want him to tell next time: I tried against the odds but the loss and the casualties I inflicted gave me enough points to become champion. This can be true for only one of us tough. Reward the leap of faith and the Lemmings go for the cliff.

[DzonVejn]

I have voted for the last option. I would just reduce value of win to 2 points, so won games would become more important.

Option 2: so we would now agree to give 20% to each other instead of 0-0....
Option 4: even worse - we would now agree to give 40% to each other instead of 0-0, and get more points for that....

[shawkhan2]

Personally, I see little reason not to just go with Slitherine's tournament scoring system, Option 4 approximates that effect better than any of the other options.

[Morbio]

I have voted for the last option. I would just reduce value of win to 2 points, so won games would become more important.

Option 2: so we would now agree to give 20% to each other instead of 0-0....
Option 4: even worse - we would now agree to give 40% to each other instead of 0-0, and get more points for that....

In theory you are correct, but I'd be amazed if our community would act this way. It's one thing to cheat the system alone, but when there's a need to ask others to collude it would soon be public knowledge... and this wouldn't go down well. So I think the risk of shaming would stop this.

[Barrold713]

Pete can you explain the new army selection more? 3-4 choices per "tier" ( which might be accurate or not, pretty subjective in many cases , obviously clear as glass on some armies though) but then allocated based on player rating? Difficulty getting your choice seems a little heavy for what, the top 4-5 in every division?.. And what this supposed to remedy? I suppose you dont want to bring back the old once you use an darmy you dont get tuse it again for several seasons ( booking keeping work)

It would be a very simple procedure. Once I have formed up the divisions of ten players in each, I would start the army allocation process by giving the lowest rated player in the division (according to the FOG2DL ratings) the first choice of army. And to do that I would use MikeC-81's classification as a guide. And then I would do the second lowest rated player and so on. That's it really.

It may be necessary to increase the number of initial army choices per player from 3 to 4, without an order of preference being indicated. I still need to test this increase in choices because it may not be necessary (I will get it tested by Sunday).

Players will still get one of their three (or four) choices, but if you have won the A division the season before with 8 or 9 wins then your chance of getting the Romans or Carthaginians (both tier A armies mostly) in the next season is not high. The purpose of this idea is to remove situations where a player further down the table feels outclassed by both his opponent and by his opponent's army from the outset and therefore resorts to negative play.

I have raised this idea in the context of trying to minimise the factors that are contributing to the increased numbers of draws we are seeing in Season 2. Over 50% of draws are really excellent matches but about a third of them are sterile stalemates. It is this group that of matches that I am seeking to minimise.

I would poll this idea before introducing it because it does involve a very mild form of handicapping which may not be to everyone's taste. The other poll ends on August 19th so I could start a second poll then and run it to the end of the month, That would fit in quite nicely as recruitment for Season 3 will open on September 17.

With my record, I can field an army of space lobsters with lasers in their claws that lay eggs that hatch into M1A1 tanks!

I would probably still lose though...good naturally of course.

[stockwellpete]

Well maybe they have become accustomed to the years of hyper competitive gameplay fostered post LOEG. You know i I feel strongly about it, but never believed you would consider it, nor asked for a poll, but thanks for the mocking.

I was just pulling your leg.

[stockwellpete]

I've voted for option 2, but would argue a combination of that and option 3 would be better, i.e. score 1 point on a draw if you routed more than 20%, and 3 points if you routed more than 20% and finish ahead by 15% or more.

Yes, I do actually prefer Ludendorf's marginal victory idea to my own suggestion now, but it is only attracting modest support so far.

[stockwellpete]

I have voted for the last option. I would just reduce value of win to 2 points, so won games would become more important.

Option 2: so we would now agree to give 20% to each other instead of 0-0....
Option 4: even worse - we would now agree to give 40% to each other instead of 0-0, and get more points for that....

In theory you are correct, but I'd be amazed if our community would act this way. It's one thing to cheat the system alone, but when there's a need to ask others to collude it would soon be public knowledge... and this wouldn't go down well. So I think the risk of shaming would stop this.

Yes, I agree with Morbio here. There is no way for me to know what is actually happening in any match, but I believe that players abide by the rules 99% of the time. I have only ever had one player complain about rule-breaking and he is history now. His allegations were completely unfounded as far as I am concerned.

[stockwellpete]

Personally, I see little reason not to just go with Slitherine's tournament scoring system, Option 4 approximates that effect better than any of the other options.

There is a great big reason. I don't like it.

[Ludendorf]

Weighing in as one of the people who suggested changes, I personally like the ideas Mike C and Hendricus put forward. A reward for inflicting losses on the opponents ensures that players who are lose, but lose valiantly, are still rewarded, while the winner still gets full credit for victory. This is something along the lines of my original thinking (pre-modification) but better. A system that rewards losing valiantly while not penalising the winner would help a lot I think.

[stockwellpete]

Weighing in as one of the people who suggested changes, I personally like the ideas Mike C and Hendricus put forward. A reward for inflicting losses on the opponents ensures that players who are lose, but lose valiantly, are still rewarded, while the winner still gets full credit for victory. This is something along the lines of my original thinking (pre-modification) but better. A system that rewards losing valiantly while not penalising the winner would help a lot I think.

I actually don't like option 4 very much at all as it will produce anomalies. Consider these two examples . . .

Match 1
Player A beats Player B 60-40 in open terrain where both players really go for it. Player A will get 6 points, Player B will get 2 points.

Match 2
Player C draws with Player D 39-15 in difficult terrain where Player D takes up a strong defensive position (Player D declined to change the map at the start). Player C gets 1 point, Player D gets 0 points.

So Player B who has been quite well beaten in the end will score more points than Player C who has just failed to beat a defensive opponent in difficult terrain. That is just plain wrong to me.

[Kabill]

I actually don't like option 4 very much at all as it will produce anomalies. Consider these two examples . . .

Match 1
Player A beats Player B 60-40 in open terrain where both players really go for it. Player A will get 6 points, Player B will get 2 points.

Match 2
Player C draws with Player D 39-15 in difficult terrain where Player D takes up a strong defensive position (Player D declined to change the map at the start). Player C gets 1 point, Player D gets 0 points.

So Player B who has been quite well beaten in the end will score more points than Player C who has just failed to beat a defensive opponent in difficult terrain. That is just plain wrong to me.

This is why I like combing yours and Ludendorf's idea (i.e. options 2 and 3): there's reward for players giving it a go (i.e. hitting the 20% routed mark); and where a player comes out ahead but does not quite get a victory (15%+ routed over opponent), they get rewarded with most of the points for a win. You shouldn't get any anomalies with that system, since the scoring system mirrors actual victory conditions (i.e. you score mostly by being ahead relative to your opponent, not by absolute % routed), and it also encourages players to fight as they have to get a fair routed result to score points (and if they can get more, they might get more points/stop their opponent from getting more points), addressing the original issue raised by TGM.

[stockwellpete]

This is why I like combing yours and Ludendorf's idea (i.e. options 2 and 3): there's reward for players giving it a go (i.e. hitting the 20% routed mark); and where a player comes out ahead but does not quite get a victory (15%+ routed over opponent), they get rewarded with most of the points for a win. You shouldn't get any anomalies with that system, since the scoring system mirrors actual victory conditions (i.e. you score mostly by being ahead relative to your opponent, not by absolute % routed), and it also encourages players to fight as they have to get a fair routed result to score points (and if they can get more, they might get more points/stop their opponent from getting more points), addressing the original issue raised by TGM.

Yes, this is a good argument, in my opinion.

Using my 2 examples again the scoring would be quite different with this system . . .

Match 1
Player A beats Player B 60-40 in open terrain where both players really go for it. Player A will get 4 points, Player B will get 0 points.

Match 2
Player C just fails to beat Player D with the score at 39-15 in difficult terrain where Player D takes up a strong defensive position (Player D declined to change the map at the start). Player C gets a marginal victory and 3 points, Player D gets 0 points.

Nothing anomalous there. If Match 2 had ended 44-20 then Player D would have received 1 point. This hybrid option 2/3 would definitely be more robust than option 4.

[shadowblack]

Sounds like we need a sixth option added.

[stockwellpete]

Sounds like we need a sixth option added.

I think we have got the basic message from the poll already. There will still be some more voting but maybe I can pull the plug on Sunday? I am not sure if I need to let it run to August 19th as originally indicated. Clearly players want a change and they overwhelmingly think that draws should win some points. Introducing option 2 across the board for Season 3 would be a very straightforward change, so I would also be quite happy to trial another of the options in one of the sections in Season 3 as well. At the moment option 4 has a lot of support, but we'll see if this hybrid 2/3 idea attracts some positive comments in the next few days. I do like the idea of the marginal victory rule very much and it fits in with the current scoring system.

As I say, I think option 4 is fraught with issues so, if we are going to trial it next season, I think I will need to draw up a longer list of match examples and post them on here so we can discuss and resolve some of the worst inconsistencies. I will not be introducing something that I feel is badly flawed, particularly if it means adopting a completely new points tariff as well.

Do you like the hybrid 2/3 idea, shadowblack?

[shadowblack]

Option 2 was my first choice from the original list largely because of its simplicity but the hybrid would appear to be a better option. An opponent who gave it a go and then found the plans went awry and tried to flee can still get the point for a draw but the opponent who can't get the last few % to get over the line should feel reasonably ok at a 3pt consolation.
I do feel it may not help the 0-0 battle where one player won't agree to redoing terrain. 0pts each is better than giving 4pts to your opponent, but I guess that's a different issue.

[stockwellpete]

I have just drawn this up and I hope it is helpful. If I have made a mistake somewhere in it please do tell me.


Possible scoring systems for FOG2DL

....................................Points awarded.......................................
Match Score Current Option 2 Option 3 Option 2/3 Option 4
40-15 4-0 4-0 4-0 4-0 6-0
45-20 4-0 4-0 4-0 4-0 6-1
60-40 4-0 4-0 4-0 4-0 6-2
60-60 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 3-3
59-35 1-1 1-1 3-0 3-1 2-1
59-59 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 2-2
39-15 1-1 1-0 3-0 3-0 1-0
39-39 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1
19-0 1-1 0-0 3-0 0-0 0-0
19-19 1-1 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0


I am not able to edit this because the system has squashed it all up. But you might be able to read it if you left-click on the quote option on the right hand side as if you were going to "reply with quote" to me. Can somebody try that please? (stockwellpete)