32 Turns for Tournament Games

[devoncop]

In a non-league game that I am playing now my opponent has tons of cavalry that he will probably want to sweep around me and his infantry is way at the back of the map on a hill. It is turn 4 now and I don't know when I will make contact...

As his entire army is heading to his right it is hardly subtle and pretty one dimensional....

[kronenblatt]

Currently the points system in the Digital League is as follows, right?

4 points - for a win where the losing player has not scored 50% or more
3 points - for a marginal win where the losing player has scored 50% or more
2 points - for a tie where both players score 60% or more, or for a draw where a player has scored at least 25%
1 point - for a marginal defeat where the losing player has scored 50% or more
0 points - for a loss, or for a draw where a player has not scored 25% or more

So in the case of a draw, do I understand it correctly that if one player has scored 25%+ at the end of the 24 turns, he/she gets 2p, and if he/she hasn't reached 25% will instead get 0p? So draws can produce different points to the two players?

Would it then make sense to instead somewhat tweak the points system? For example, adjusting the 25% to something lower to de-incentivize passivity?

I think the 2 points for a draw works well at the moment. I remember one game this season in the Digital League where I was on a hill and my opponent wouldn't attack me. We had done some skirmishing and used a few units up and the score was 17-9 to me or so. The turns were ticking down and I decided to attack to get over 25%. He needed to do the same so it was a good incentive.

I was thinking for example lowering the 2 points / 0 points threshold to say 20%. But maybe it wouldn't make any difference with such a small change. I was only thinking that 20% is more within reach (than 25%) and therefore would activate a player.

[kronenblatt]

Here's an idea for draws:
3 points for a draw where the player has scored at least 30%, and the opponent has scored less than 15%
2 points for a draw where the player has scored at least 30% and the opponent scored at least 15%, or where the player have scored at least 15% but less than 30% and the opponent scored less than 15%
1 point for a draw where both players have scored at least 15% but less than 30%
0 point for a draw where the player has scored less than 15%

The idea is that once you reach 15%, you get 1 point. And if the opponent doesn't reach 15%, you get his/her 1 point too, i.e., you get 2 points in total whereas the opponent get 0 points. Once you reach 30%, you get an additional 1 point, i.e., potentially 3 points in total (if your opponent didn't reach 15%, and 2 points if your opponent reached 15%).

The 15% and 30% levels are just examples; could very well be 20% and 30%. Or 20% and 35%. Whatever levels are suitable.

[SimonLancaster]

Here's an idea for draws:
3 points for a draw where the player has scored at least 30%, and the opponent has scored less than 15%
2 points for a draw where the player has scored at least 30% and the opponent scored at least 15%, or where the player have scored at least 15% but less than 30% and the opponent scored less than 15%
1 point for a draw where both players have scored at least 15% but less than 30%
0 point for a draw where the player has scored less than 15%

The idea is that once you reach 15%, you get 1 point. And if the opponent doesn't reach 15%, you get his/her 1 point too, i.e., you get 2 points in total whereas the opponent get 0 points. Once you reach 30%, you get an additional 1 point, i.e., potentially 3 points in total (if your opponent didn't reach 15%, and 2 points if your opponent reached 15%).

The 15% and 30% levels are just examples; could very well be 20% and 30%. Or 20% and 35%. Whatever levels are suitable.

What are you actually trying to bring about with all of this? Do you think it will make players more proactive and attack minded?

3 points is already given for a marginal win so giving 3 points for some form of draw is a non-starter, I think.

Setting the threshold at 25% for 2 points makes players attempt to 'get stuck in' and a lot of battles will be resolved once that happens as well. 15% for 1 point will lead to more passive play I would have thought.

[kronenblatt]

Do you think it will make players more proactive and attack minded?

Don't know: I'm just presenting an idea. But I hope so, because obtaining 25% for 2 points is maybe too remote to strive for, whereas 15% for 1 point may be viewed as feasible. And from there, getting to 30% and 2 points may suddenly seem to be within reach.

[SimonLancaster]

Do you think it will make players more proactive and attack minded?

Don't know: I'm just presenting an idea. But I hope so, because obtaining 25% for 2 points is maybe too remote to strive for, whereas 15% for 1 point may be viewed as feasible. And from there, getting to 30% and 2 points may suddenly seem to be within reach.

I do find it quite ironic that you are presenting all these great ideas and yet you have never played a multiplayer battle!?

[Karvon]

A scoring system I'm contemplating using in future tourneys I organize is as follows.

4 pts for breaking the enemy army.

Plus:
3 pts for killing 60% or more
2 pts for killing 40-59%
1 pt for killing 20-39%.

This rewards players for winning and for killing the enemy. It also spreads scoring out a bit in drawn games in favor of more aggressive play.

Karvon

[SimonLancaster]

Sometimes you can get the domino effect where one unit routing causes a whole set of units to rout. This changes the scores considerably. Maybe you could say that you want to try to encourage players to achieve this and that is a skill in itself..

[kronenblatt]

Do you think it will make players more proactive and attack minded?

Don't know: I'm just presenting an idea. But I hope so, because obtaining 25% for 2 points is maybe too remote to strive for, whereas 15% for 1 point may be viewed as feasible. And from there, getting to 30% and 2 points may suddenly seem to be within reach.

I do find it quite ironic that you are presenting all these great ideas and yet you have never played a multiplayer battle!?

That was uncalled for and beside the point.

Firstly, the quality of a suggestion depends on the suggestion itself, not on who gives it.

Secondly, I only relate to myself and how I as a human react to the different score thresholds (even in a SP game) and then came up with an idea, nothing more. I'm new to FoG2 and to its forum, trying to learn the game and its intricate mechanics and rules, also for MP and (in this case) how points are distributed, so I ask many questions and throw out ideas and suggestions. Is that wrong?

So if you can ignore that is was me with zero experience who had the idea (assume instead that it was RBS or Ludendorf for the sake of simplicity), what do you think of it?

[SimonLancaster]

Don't know: I'm just presenting an idea. But I hope so, because obtaining 25% for 2 points is maybe too remote to strive for, whereas 15% for 1 point may be viewed as feasible. And from there, getting to 30% and 2 points may suddenly seem to be within reach.

I do find it quite ironic that you are presenting all these great ideas and yet you have never played a multiplayer battle!?

That was uncalled for and beside the point.

Firstly, the quality of a suggestion depends on the suggestion itself, not on who gives it.

Secondly, I only relate to myself and how I as a human react to the different score thresholds (even in a SP game) and then came up with an idea, nothing more. I'm new to FoG2 and to its forum, trying to learn the game and its intricate mechanics and rules, also for MP and (in this case) how points are distributed, so I ask many questions and throw out ideas and suggestions. Is that wrong?

So if you can ignore that is was me with zero experience who had the idea (assume instead that it was RBS or Ludendorf for the sake of simplicity), what do you think of it?

It wasn't meant to offend. I said you had some good ideas. I also said in another thread that we are looking forward to playing you soon!

[kronenblatt]

I do find it quite ironic that you are presenting all these great ideas and yet you have never played a multiplayer battle!?

That was uncalled for and beside the point.

Firstly, the quality of a suggestion depends on the suggestion itself, not on who gives it.

Secondly, I only relate to myself and how I as a human react to the different score thresholds (even in a SP game) and then came up with an idea, nothing more. I'm new to FoG2 and to its forum, trying to learn the game and its intricate mechanics and rules, also for MP and (in this case) how points are distributed, so I ask many questions and throw out ideas and suggestions. Is that wrong?

So if you can ignore that is was me with zero experience who had the idea (assume instead that it was RBS or Ludendorf for the sake of simplicity), what do you think of it?

It wasn't meant to offend. I said you had some good ideas. I also said in another thread that we are looking forward to playing you soon!

Ah, then I took it the wrong way: my apologies. Yep; you'll shortly meet me in MP. Currently struggling with a horse-only Turkish army against Khazar Emperor AI... Very difficult to be 25% down in points when horse vs horse army, since the enemy moves so quickly around the battlefield that I cannot muster any long-term local superiority in numbers.