Scoring system for 2019 - Call for a vote...

[nikgaukroger]

You think I'm negative, Nik.

No, I think you are positive about FoG:AM. However, what I am saying is that despite that you come across as negative and thus, manage to work against what you want. Have a think about how you present your message

[grahambriggs]

When I started playing in FOG comps at the end of 2014 there were heading for 200 players in the FOG rankings. Now there are less than 70. I find that an alarming trend and, in the absence of any apparent effective action to try and reverse that, have made several posts, suggesting what might be done to help. What do I get in return?

I'm sure it is, however, it always seems to me that you actually just come across as being negative

Apart from Martin Stephenson and Phil Powell, who have both shown open minds when it comes to discussing possible improvements, I get nothing but complaints and opposition, especially from the FOG-AM 'establishment'. There have been some improvements since Version 3 came out but, overall, we're fighting a losing battle when it comes to player numbers. if nothing is done the FOG community will eventually disappear up its own backside (and it's well and truly heading that way if players like Graham Briggs are trying out MeG!). Who wants that?

When you say absence of effective action to try and reverse that are you perhaps forgetting the introduction of version 3? Which many people on this list put here put a great deal of effort into for no monetary reward. And Mr Gaukroger, while you not be aware of it, has put a huge amount of his time into the development of a new set of army lists; so you are not alone in shouldering the load.

And in term of my trying out MeG, it's caused by the same thing that made me try out FoW some years back and keeps me playing the odd game of FOGR: it helps club members get a game if there are people who play more than on rule set.

I'd like to think I've an open mind when it comes to scoring systems. I just know that from my own point of view as long as they are vaguely sensible (and I've seen some years ago that weren't) I don't particularly mind what they are when a novice or when an experienced player. I have, though, found that systems that reward creating damage o the enemy does tend to lead to more interesting games. In the old system, against a top player, there were times where we'd look at the situation and agree a 10-10 draw after deployment. That was because the only way to get at the enemy would be at a disadvantage - so why bother? - the 35-0 system makes such a 10-10 less appealing as it is no longer a zero sum game.

[madaxeman]

The other thing that puzzles me about FOG's scoring system is that points conceded aren't taken into account at all. General Greedy says "Let's grab as many points as possible, never mind the cost!" Don't most real life generals want to minimise their own casualties as well as inflicting more on the enemy? Wouldn't points difference (as in many sporting leagues, such as football) be more sensible, rather than encouraging 'Pyrrhic' victories?

According to Terry's explanation in this thread viewtopic.php?f=55&t=82431 (where there was a vote on the scoring system), there is a direct link between your losses and your score. Take fewer losses, gain more points.

Points conceded are taken into account in the current system, they just have half as much weighting than losses inflicted. FWIW this is exactly the same as the weighting of losses vs kills as used in the ADLG scoring system.

[berthier]

The point system is really not the issue, IMHO. You can use whatever system you want but if the tournament organizer just randomly pairs players to start together you will always have those sharks who will pounce on new players just get the points. We routinely make a conscious effort in GCC tournaments, regardless of the rule set, to pair new players against new players in the first round and second round where there are at least four rounds and a large enough pool. Yes, it is still possible for a huge differential of points even between new players but there is less a feeling that the new player was thrown to the wolves early on. In later rounds, the points will dictate who plays who for the most part. Having experienced 3-2-1 scoring, 2-1-0 scoring, 25-0 scoring, 30-0 scoring and the ADLG scoring, the points had very little to do with how I felt after a trouncing. If I played a shark and lost badly, it had more to do with how we both played than the points.

I had the privilege of being on the US Team for the ITC in 2009 and lost 3-0 (25-0) to Graham Evans in round 2. Graham was by far out of my league and my play was not up to his game. But I did not feel screwed either. Now on the other hand in the early days of FOG (and back in DBM for that matter), I played many games her in the states that I felt screwed because of the way my opponent played and the points system had nothing to do with it.

I do realize that I play in a different region than most of you and that has an effect on my perception of things.

[ChrisTofalos]

When you say absence of effective action to try and reverse that are you perhaps forgetting the introduction of version 3? Which many people on this list put here put a great deal of effort into for no monetary reward. And Mr Gaukroger, while you not be aware of it, has put a huge amount of his time into the development of a new set of army lists; so you are not alone in shouldering the load.

I have no doubt there a quite a few people who do a great deal for FOG, Graham, including yourself and Nik. I listed my efforts to show I don't simply complain.

There's no arguing we've lost a lot of players over the past few years. Many seem to have changed to ADLG and have persevered with that to the point where they're now successful, compared to their old FOG rankings. The point I'm trying to make is a closer scoring system might give encouragement to the less experienced and, therefore, help keep them involved.

Why do we have to have an exaggerated scoring system? Isn't winning a game enough? A simple 0-10 score would do the job, with points conceded deducted from those scored. You'd get closer games and closer league tables. That might also lead to more interesting games, with players having to manage their resources more carefully. The worst a less experienced player will have to suffer is finishing 40 points behind the winner of a 4-game comp (which would take some 'achieving'!), instead of the, say, 87 points deficit at Roll Call (if my maths is correct the bottom placed player would have got 10 against the winner's 30 odd - a much closer - and fairer - outcome).

I am convinced we need to do more to help the less experienced, instead of riding roughshod over them (and an inflated scoring system is allowing exactly that). Then we might be able to build on the rising numbers Version 3 has brought about...

[madaxeman]

A simple 0-10 score would do the job, with points conceded deducted from those scored. You'd get closer games and closer league tables. That might also lead to more interesting games, with players having to manage their resources more carefully.

Chris - I you've actually explained your proposition very clearly here, however the reason that these threads keep rolling on is that the majority of players (current and ex-) disagree with you on this specific point, and instead believe that a scoring system that places more weight on kills compared to "non losses" is preferable.

The supporting evidence for this is that;
- most of the changes in FoG 3 were brought in specifically to make games more decisive and emphasize aggressive play, and were done so explicitly in response to a widely-expressed critique of FoG that it was a slow and indecisive game,
- plenty of current players have given examples and explanations of why they favour a system that emphasizes kills over "non-losses", and the downsides of a straight kills/losses system in encouraging negative play,
- a vote on this forum showed a decisive result in favour of systems that emphasizes kills over "non-losses" comared to the sort fo system you are suggesting,
- the two other main Ancients systems that FoG players appear to have left FoG for both have game mechanics and scoring systems that incentivize and reward army breaks and emphasize kills over "non-losses"

So, it's honestly not that any of us are trying to be negative here about FoG - it's more that we (whether we are past or current players) pretty much all believe that the changes you are proposing to the scoring system would encourage the sort of negative play which FoG has been accused of prior to V3, and so would actually have exactly the opposite effect on FoG player numbers and participation as you believe they would. The reasoning behind why many people hold these views is based on a combination of the reasons / evidence I've set out here.

[petedalby]

I've re-read all of the posts on the previous thread that you started on this same subject less than 2 months ago Chris.

Despite a lot of contributors I couldn't identify anyone else other than yourself who wanted to change the system we'd only just voted to introduce. When I suggested re-running the poll it drew a negative comment from one of our most consistent attendees which is why I haven't done it.

The conclusion from the previous thread was that we all have an opportunity to create a better press for FoG. That's why I went to all of the time and trouble to post my Britcon battle reports to try to help. Graham did his excellent summary of his army choice and tactics. This is what I think we need more of.

There is an opportunity for more democracy but I'm not convinced that is what players seem to want. The feedback I'm getting privately is "tell me what we're doing - make it interesting and I'll be there" - or not of course.

The measure of our collective success will be the number of people signing up for future events. Reading remains oversubscribed but I still need an extra player for the Forged in Battle Team Challenge. And yes, we will be using the 35-0 scoring system there.

[dave_r]

The conclusion from the previous thread was that we all have an opportunity to create a better press for FoG. That's why I went to all of the time and trouble to post my Britcon battle reports to try to help. Graham did his excellent summary of his army choice and tactics. This is what I think we need more of.

This possibly isn't helped by the Slitherine Forum - if we had just a single forum rather than dozens of sub-forums I suspect we'd get better viewing. Is there somebody within Slitherine we can speak to about re-organising the forums?

[philqw78]

You need the people listed as admins, I don't think any play anymore
Hammy, Core, moderator, design

[dave_r]

Is Nik one of those doodahs?

[philqw78]

Who knows
Think Hammy might be

[nikgaukroger]

My guess is you need somebody from the Admin group - memberlist.php?mode=group&g=8955

[vexillia]

I've re-read all of the posts on the previous thread that you started on this same subject less than 2 months ago Chris.

Despite a lot of contributors I couldn't identify anyone else other than yourself who wanted to change the system we'd only just voted to introduce.

You missed something in your re-reading. I put forward a different system and Phil Powell posted lots about it.

[dave_r]

I've re-read all of the posts on the previous thread that you started on this same subject less than 2 months ago Chris.

Despite a lot of contributors I couldn't identify anyone else other than yourself who wanted to change the system we'd only just voted to introduce.

You missed something in your re-reading. I put forward a different system and Phil Powell posted lots about it.

Incorrect, Phil put forward a lot of commentary, but never once did he say he was in favour of changing the existing scoring system.

[petedalby]

This possibly isn't helped by the Slitherine Forum - if we had just a single forum rather than dozens of sub-forums I suspect we'd get better viewing.

So given your technical expertise is this something you could do? MeG set something up from a standing start.

[madaxeman]

Back in my list of suggestions to promote FoG from a month or so ago, I put forward the idea of setting up a Yahoo Groups FoG Group. This takes no technical expertise, the format is familiar to many already, it combines advantages of both an email list and a forum (a decision made at the choice of each individual user) so would reduce the number of discussion forums by combining the email list and the forum into one system - and it can be set to "public" so that the content of each posting is discoverable via Google or linkable-to from other sites as well. Both DBM and DBMM use Yahoo Groups as their main (only?) forums, with both having similar numbers of active players to FoG3. The Taptalk system used by MeG is in theory also easy to set up for free, but seems to have a lot of critics of it's format and usability.

The other 'hack' to get round the multitude of sub-forums here would be for everyone to just stop using the sub-forums and agree to only post all new topics on the main page. Posting a message in all the sub-forums saying they are now closed wouldn't take long - you might even find an admin willing to lock them for you at some point.

Both options would then allow this form to remain as a 'live' archive of historical content.

Either way, I suspect the French sub-form may well continue to be active, as it seems to be the main single-sub-group forum for the French community.

[Caliph]

I don't think that the scoring system makes that much difference for players. Generally, I think it is pretty much irrelevant. Win, draw, loss - what else matters? Points are only there to separate players with the same numbers of wins, draws or losses. Really, who cares, and what real difference does it make, which scoring system is used?

I disagree with the 35 point system encouraging aggressive play. The way to maintain your own points is to prevent your opponent breaking your own troops - and at Britcon I spent practically all of one game chasing an army, who could easily have won, whose troops would have won Olympic medals for running away.

I think that a major reason for falling numbers of players is time.
Unless you have unlimited funds at your disposal, it takes a long time to get your toy soldiers ready to play with. Rules needing smaller numbers of toy soldiers have a built in advantage. What seems to be a trend towards larger points games is making this worse.
Games are generally quite long, so over a day or a weekend you don't get to play so many. Again, the trend towards larger points games is making the likelyhood of games taking the whole of the alloted time more common.
Play smaller points totals on smaller tables and reduce the time for each game.

I have enjoyed going to competitions for quite a few years and personally, I am quite happy to have a series of quick and enjoyable games. I do have other issues with the way things are at the moment but nothing relevant for this thread.

[philqw78]

handicapping obviously doesn't work. You had an extra 50 points and beat me 0-35

[dave_r]

Some of us would therefore argue it worked perfectly

[philqw78]