The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[harveylh]

I like the idea of a marginal victory amendment as that should give the losing player more incentive to play their best to the bitter end.

Harvey

[cromlechi]

The only downside is that a good player with an inferior army can sometimes win close battles but will need to take things to the wire because of the nature of the army. An inferior army is unlikely to get a decisive victory even in the hands of an expert player. A close victory with a poor army should not be rewarded less than a decisive win with a top rated army. That's my thoughts anyway.

[paulmcneil]

Terrain plays a huge part, I just destroyed a Western Greek army with Libyan LI and mediums nothing else (ok one lCav unit) but just enough trees and a rough hill

[cromlechi]

Terrain plays a huge part, I just destroyed a Western Greek army with Libyan LI and mediums nothing else (ok one lCav unit) but just enough trees and a rough hill

That's a good point. There are a number of factors that can weigh either in or against your favour that could influence the winning margin.

[stockwellpete]

I have just done a quick statistic to see what proportion of matches might be affected by this marginal victory idea. In Classical Antiquity (up to last Sunday's table) 147 matches had been completed and in 35 of them the losing player had scored 40% or more. So, roughly, that suggests that around 1 match in 4 might be affected by a rule change of this nature.

[nyczar]

The only downside is that a good player with an inferior army can sometimes win close battles but will need to take things to the wire because of the nature of the army. An inferior army is unlikely to get a decisive victory even in the hands of an expert player. A close victory with a poor army should not be rewarded less than a decisive win with a top rated army. That's my thoughts anyway.

I understand your point. If we leave aside the issue that a designation of poor is subjective, A circumstance where a known "poor" army list would be chosen for competition in the Digital league is unlikely. If there was a rule change, it would be another factor that would weigh on the decision and any player that took a "poor" army list would know the risks before he sent in his ranked choices.

From Pete: I have just done a quick statistic to see what proportion of matches might be affected by this marginal victory idea. In Classical Antiquity (up to last Sunday's table) 147 matches had been completed and in 35 of them the losing player had scored 40% or more. So, roughly, that suggests that around 1 match in 4 might be affected by a rule change of this nature.

Given that losses where the loser caused 40% or more in damage represents 25% of the games Pete analyzed, that is a far more concrete data point that suggests there is indeed something that can be the bases of a rule change. For me, if an general makes the victor pay in blood for their win, that should be recognized. Right now, a bunt is the same as a line drive in the box score (I know this is horribly US centric metaphor so perhaps one of our European friends can make the translation to cricket).

Lets see the sentiment and perhaps an up or down vote on a change?

[cromlechi]

I might be on a sticky wicket but some people like to try there luck with less highly rated armies for the fun of it and for variety. Not sure this rule would encourage that so you might end up with a less interesting and diverse (in terms of army choice) league. Just a thought.

[stockwellpete]

If the tables allowed for it, i would suggest that a new column for "marginal loss" be included to show the nature of one's defeats. All in all, I think the 3 point amendment is good and allows for "capable losses" to have impact on the overall results.

I don't think it would be necessary to alter the format of the tables because the 3 pointers would be easily shown in the charts that I put in the "Arrange your matches here" threads. So this proposal would involve no extra work for me in terms of recording results and compiling tables.

I will open a poll on this subject tomorrow once I have done the Sunday round-up.

[gamercb]

If the League is just about who can win the most battles, then changing the points system is not necessary. If it is about having enjoyable games that test ones ability then I am for giving the loser a point as I believe it encourages players to fight to the end. It is also frustrating to be close to a draw only to lose it in the last turn when a unit double drops on the roll of a virtual die.

[GDod]

The only downside is that a good player with an inferior army can sometimes win close battles but will need to take things to the wire because of the nature of the army. An inferior army is unlikely to get a decisive victory even in the hands of an expert player. A close victory with a poor army should not be rewarded less than a decisive win with a top rated army. That's my thoughts anyway.

I agree with cromlechi. The tournament results are showing a dominance of some armies in the hands of an experienced player, such as Jewish revolt. This belies the fact that while these armies should have dominated in open battle and thus, conquered the known world, they did not. Clearly, this list is mythical in it's effectiveness and composition. Although, not unbeatable it does give an advantage to players particularly given the usually rough hilly terrain that seems to come with it [or am I just unlucky?]. The difficulty for an organizer is in determining what should be classified as an inferior/superior army, and a points system to reward players who not only opt for inferior armies in competition, whether through choice or necessity, but achieve a significant near loss, draw or victory.

[stockwellpete]

Latest statistics - there have now been 20 draws from 480 results, which is 4.16% (or roughly 1 in 25). None have been agreed 0-0 draws, although one Themed Event match was adjudicated as a 0-0 draw. Apart from this match, all players involved in drawn matches have received one point each. There has also been one tied match.

[stockwellpete]

There has been some debate about this already in "The Rally Point". The proposal is that, in future, in matches where the defeated player scores 40% or more, the winning player will receive only 3 points instead of 4 (for example 61-40). The losing player will still receive 0 points. The general idea here is that players who suffer considerable losses when winning a battle should receive less points than players who win decisively. It is estimated that about 1 in four matches would be affected by this rule change. You need to weigh up whether, on balance, this more nuanced scoring system would be preferable to what we have now.

Edit: the threshold has now been amended to 50%.

[cromlechi]

Hope this doesn't end up like Brexit.

[stockwellpete]

Hope this doesn't end up like Brexit.

It looks like we are going to be fairly evenly split on this issue. To those who have voted "no" so far, would it make any difference if the threshold for a marginal victory was moved from 40% to 50%? To give you all a statistic, in Classical Antiquity, up to yesterday's tables, 159 matches had been completed and 15 of them involved matches where the losing player scored 50% or more, so roughly 1 in 10 or 11 matches would be affected instead of 1 in 4. Is that more acceptable?

[stockwellpete]

I am suggesting now that the threshold for a marginal victory be lifted to 50% instead of 40%, which would affect just over 1 in 10 matches instead of 1 in 4. If you have already voted "no" and this revised suggestion meets with your approval then you are able to change your vote if you want to.

[cromlechi]

The principle is the same for me, I don't think it adds anything and there are so many many factors that can influence a game that a narrow win can be as indicative of a good performance as a large margin victory depending on particular factors. Things are rarely equal in this game. The game also comes with a scoring system that everyone understands. That's my view and don't see how tweaking the proposal changes anything. I'm a firm no. But appreciate there are many people with much more knowledge of the game than me.

[nyczar]

For me, in the end after much consideration, a point for strong play is the missing ingredient. I respect the existing system for determining the value of a Win, Tie or Draw result. If it were changed, it is more important for me that the point be awarded to the loser, regardless of 40% or 50% threshold. Therefore, I will be supporting the No position from here on.

[shadowblack]

For me, in the end after much consideration, a point for strong play is the missing ingredient. I respect the existing system for determining the value of a Win, Tie or Draw result. If it were changed, it is more important for me that the point be awarded to the loser, regardless of 40% or 50% threshold. Therefore, I will be supporting the No position from here on.

+1

[klayeckles]

I hadn't voted prior, but i like the 50...usually when it is that close, both armies are battered and teetering, and anyone could win...those are often emotional roller coasters for the generals, so a little moral victory of a nip in the score of the victor...and from a practical standpoint it makes for an good tie breaker on the overall scoreboard...so for instance, if i win 6 of my nine battles, and so does Hidde, if one of us got a marginal victory it would help determine the overall ranking. beyond that there won't be much impact on the overall scorecard.
my three cents worth.
klay

[stockwellpete]

I hadn't voted prior, but i like the 50...usually when it is that close, both armies are battered and teetering, and anyone could win...those are often emotional roller coasters for the generals, so a little moral victory of a nip in the score of the victor...and from a practical standpoint it makes for an good tie breaker on the overall scoreboard...so for instance, if i win 6 of my nine battles, and so does Hidde, if one of us got a marginal victory it would help determine the overall ranking. beyond that there won't be much impact on the overall scorecard.
my three cents worth.
klay

Yes, exactly so. I think it would be quite useful to have it in the Themed Event, where the groups can be very tight, even if there is not enough support to introduce the idea right across the tournament.