TDC - Archive

[kronenblatt]

... I think scoring systems are more powerful if they set players incremental targets...

I haven't thought about it that way before, but you've got a very good point there. It's adding some nerve and a game within the game, so to speak: the game itself may be lost, but you may still achieve getting some point(s) from it and denying the winner any bonus points.

[devoncop]

+1 for the incremental scoring system.

As one of the "less stellar" players if I am getting crushed it makes for a much more engaging game if I can grab a consolation point or two. In losing situations it would also give me as a player an incentive not to just run away and try and run the timer out for a 0-0 draw.

[ericdoman1]

Another option which has been suggested by Pete, is using the Slitherine tournament scoring system.

It has some similarities to the Ancient WRG 7th edition scoring system way back.

I can't remember it exactly (nearly 30 years ago) but if the winner had won by a "X" margin he would receive an extra 500 or 600 points. The maximum score you would receive would be 1200 (1250) points

Does anybody remember that scoring system?

The Slitherine tournament system is based on the outright victor receiving an additional 60 points to be added to the difference in the score

So if a score was 40 - 27 it would remain 40 -27. It is not an outright victory

A 42 - 16 = 86 - 16; 60 - 55 = 65 -55; 68 - 37 = 91-37

[kronenblatt]

Another option which has been suggested by Pete, is using the Slitherine tournament scoring system.

It has some similarities to the Ancient WRG 7th edition scoring system way back.

I can't remember it exactly (nearly 30 years ago) but if the winner had won by a "X" margin he would receive an extra 500 or 600 points. The maximum score you would receive would be 1200 (1250) points

Does anybody remember that scoring system?

The Slitherine tournament system is based on the outright victor receiving an additional 60 points to be added to the difference in the score

So if a score was 40 - 27 it would remain 40 -27. It is not an outright victory

A 42 - 16 = 86 - 16; 60 - 55 = 65 -55; 68 - 37 = 91-37

Except that you don't get the incremental scoring, which in my view is quite a neat feature, producing desired incentives and a game-in-game nerve.

[LuciusSulla]

Another option which has been suggested by Pete, is using the Slitherine tournament scoring system.

It has some similarities to the Ancient WRG 7th edition scoring system way back.

I can't remember it exactly (nearly 30 years ago) but if the winner had won by a "X" margin he would receive an extra 500 or 600 points. The maximum score you would receive would be 1200 (1250) points

Does anybody remember that scoring system?

The Slitherine tournament system is based on the outright victor receiving an additional 60 points to be added to the difference in the score

So if a score was 40 - 27 it would remain 40 -27. It is not an outright victory

A 42 - 16 = 86 - 16; 60 - 55 = 65 -55; 68 - 37 = 91-37

And I would like to reiterate my point that in my view the winner's own routed percentage should be the indicator instead of the margin of win. I think a 40-15 win should be rewarded with more points than a 60-35 win.

[Aetius39]

Another of the ideas that I had for scoring in the DL that never went further than the drawing board was this . . .

Winner of match gets 5 points.
Loser of match gets 1 point if inflicting 15% or more damage on winner, 2 points if inflicting 30% and 3 points if inflicting 45%.

To give some examples . . .
A 40-10 win would be scored 5-0
A 42-17 win would be scored 5-1
A 56-30 win would be scored 5-2
A 60-46 win would be scored 5-3

You could consider giving +1 winning bonus point if the losing player did not reach 10% e.g. 42-8 would be scored 6-0.

Note: giving 5 points for a win and keeping 2 points for a score-draw where a player had inflicted 25% damage on an opponent (0 points for inflicting less than 25% in a drawn game) further reduces the value of a draw against the win.

I think scoring systems are more powerful if they set players incremental targets. So you might be a mid-table player playing someone at the top and you might be expecting to get beaten, but can you get to 10% to deny the bonus point? Can you then get to 15% to get a point for yourself? What about 30%? And so on.

This approach seems quite nice to me. It definitely gives more reason to fight hard till the very end. I know a lot of guys fight hard till the end no matter the score out of pride/shame/sportsmanship in general, but this definitely adds more motivation, and also more fun if you're on the losing side.^^

[tyronec]

I like Pete's suggestion, maybe amend it to:

Winner of match gets 10 points.
Loser of match gets 1 point per 10% inflicted.

To give some examples . . .
A 40-10 win would be scored 10-1
A 42-17 win would be scored 10-1
A 56-30 win would be scored 10-3
A 60-46 win would be scored 10-4

Draws are scored the same way as for losers.
An 8-5 draw would be scored as 0-0
A 20-19 draw would be scored as 2-1
A 50-43 draw would be scored as 5-4
A 63-61 draw would be scored as 6-6

[devoncop]

I like Pete's suggestion, maybe amend it to:

Winner of match gets 10 points.
Loser of match gets 1 point per 10% inflicted.

To give some examples . . .
A 40-10 win would be scored 10-1
A 42-17 win would be scored 10-1
A 56-30 win would be scored 10-3
A 60-46 win would be scored 10-4

Draws are scored the same way as for losers.
An 8-5 draw would be scored as 0-0
A 20-19 draw would be scored as 2-1
A 50-43 draw would be scored as 5-4
A 63-61 draw would be scored as 6-6

I like this. Simple and fair as far as I can see and should encourage aggressive play.

[kronenblatt]

I like Pete's suggestion, maybe amend it to:

Winner of match gets 10 points.
Loser of match gets 1 point per 10% inflicted.

To give some examples . . .
A 40-10 win would be scored 10-1
A 42-17 win would be scored 10-1
A 56-30 win would be scored 10-3
A 60-46 win would be scored 10-4

Draws are scored the same way as for losers.
An 8-5 draw would be scored as 0-0
A 20-19 draw would be scored as 2-1
A 50-43 draw would be scored as 5-4
A 63-61 draw would be scored as 6-6

I like your suggestion of draws scoring like losses: creates the right incentives. Although in the setup above, wins are too favoured in my view (with 10 points, in relation to the maximum 5 points for loser at 50+%). Plus that the smaller the steps, the lower the incremental effect.

I actually think Pete strikes the right tone and balance, with his steps and the potential bonus point for the winner if denying the loser 10% inflicted casualties:

Winning player gets 5 points, plus 1 point if loser inflicts only 0-9%.
Losing or drawing player gets 1 point if inflicting 15-29% damage on opponent, 2 points if inflicting 30-44% and 3 points if inflicting 45+%.

[ericdoman1]

Another option which has been suggested by Pete, is using the Slitherine tournament scoring system.

It has some similarities to the Ancient WRG 7th edition scoring system way back.

I can't remember it exactly (nearly 30 years ago) but if the winner had won by a "X" margin he would receive an extra 500 or 600 points. The maximum score you would receive would be 1200 (1250) points

Does anybody remember that scoring system?

The Slitherine tournament system is based on the outright victor receiving an additional 60 points to be added to the difference in the score

So if a score was 40 - 27 it would remain 40 -27. It is not an outright victory

A 42 - 16 = 86 - 16; 60 - 55 = 65 -55; 68 - 37 = 91-37

And I would like to reiterate my point that in my view the winner's own routed percentage should be the indicator instead of the margin of win. I think a 40-15 win should be rewarded with more points than a 60-35 win.

You can look at it in 2 ways. The loser has lost 40% of his army or he has lost 60% of his army. I could see the "enemy" returning with an army now reduced to 60% of it's original number but not with 40% of it's initial force. So the 60-35 victory would be a more decisive victory. Just a thought that is.

[SpeedyCM]

I like Pete's suggestion, maybe amend it to:

Winner of match gets 10 points.
Loser of match gets 1 point per 10% inflicted.

To give some examples . . .
A 40-10 win would be scored 10-1
A 42-17 win would be scored 10-1
A 56-30 win would be scored 10-3
A 60-46 win would be scored 10-4

Draws are scored the same way as for losers.
An 8-5 draw would be scored as 0-0
A 20-19 draw would be scored as 2-1
A 50-43 draw would be scored as 5-4
A 63-61 draw would be scored as 6-6

I like your suggestion of draws scoring like losses: creates the right incentives. Although in the setup above, wins are too favoured in my view (with 10 points, in relation to the maximum 5 points for loser at 50+%). Plus that the smaller the steps, the lower the incremental effect.

I actually think Pete strikes the right tone and balance, with his steps and the potential bonus point for the winner if denying the loser 10% inflicted casualties:

Winning player gets 5 points, plus 1 point if loser inflicts only 0-9%.
Losing or drawing player gets 1 point if inflicting 15-29% damage on opponent, 2 points if inflicting 30-44% and 3 points if inflicting 45+%.

I agree that the winners in this system getting 10 pts is way to much, as in this example a final score of 60% - 59% would be scored 10-5 - a massive score margin for a 1% difference in casualties.
As a modification of this I would suggest keeping the percentage scoring system as in the draw where you get 1 point for every 10% damage inflicted with the one difference being that in matches that gets a result the winner gets 6 points even if he has only inflicted 40%-59% casualties.
Also I would suggest if the winner has a big last turn and inflicts casualties of 70%+ (a rarity to be sure) I would suggest continuing the point for every 10% casualties, so if someone manages to win 72%-48% it is scored 7-4.

[ericdoman1]

Here's another one:)

Both players start off with 4 points

A loss or a draw

If the player has scored 50% + = 0 point
" 30 -49% = -1 point deducted
" 15 - 29 = -2 points deducted
" 0 - 14 = -3 points deducted

An outright victory

By 1-15% = +1 bonus point
16 - 30 = +2 bonus
31 - 45 = +3 bonus
45% + = + 4 bonus

So if the score was 29-16 = 2 - 2; 60-55 = 5 - 4. 40 - 0 = 7 - 1, 70 -45 = 6 - 3

It will mean that a player will always score a minimum of 1 point. Yes you could have a final decider where a player only requires 1 point to win a division but after 6 to 9 games he probably deserves it?

Both players could start with 2, 3, 5, 6 or any other number and the deductions and bonus points can also change

You could also try and score based on costs of units routed, fragmented, off table. This will be completely different but may well be impossible. Both players would have to record their units and their opponents and both would hopefully have the same end results. so 100% of the cost of the unit if it is in rout or dispersed, 50% of the unit cost if it is fragmented and 25% of the unit cost if off table. You only use one of these for each unit. I'll leave this one for somebody else to work on:) Possibly more useful in campaign tournaments?

[Kroche]

Another option which has been suggested by Pete, is using the Slitherine tournament scoring system.

It has some similarities to the Ancient WRG 7th edition scoring system way back.

I can't remember it exactly (nearly 30 years ago) but if the winner had won by a "X" margin he would receive an extra 500 or 600 points. The maximum score you would receive would be 1200 (1250) points

Does anybody remember that scoring system?

The Slitherine tournament system is based on the outright victor receiving an additional 60 points to be added to the difference in the score

So if a score was 40 - 27 it would remain 40 -27. It is not an outright victory

A 42 - 16 = 86 - 16; 60 - 55 = 65 -55; 68 - 37 = 91-37

And I would like to reiterate my point that in my view the winner's own routed percentage should be the indicator instead of the margin of win. I think a 40-15 win should be rewarded with more points than a 60-35 win.

I agree that a 40-15 loss feels much worse than a 60-35 loss.
If a base point system for a win is used then the winner could receive bonus points on casualties received rather than inflicted.

Losing less than 15 +2 bonus and less than 30 +1.

The losing player could get a bonus if they lose by less than 15.

This way the loser,if things are going badly,is only incentivised to deny bonus pts to his opponent rather than gaining points for themselves (so not as incentivised).

Bonus points would mean leagues may be decided earlier as people with big wins may be out of reach. But it will be the decisive winners at the top, so can be argued it is fair enough.

[Geffalrus]

Have adjudications been discussed? Some of these scoring systems seem like they’d remove some of the adjudication difficulty because players would be getting most of their points from rout % one way or another. Thoughts?

An additional thing for adjudication could be early and frequent reminders for players to F2 screenshot their end turn positions. So if organizers do need to judge, army positions are easy to see.

[LuciusSulla]

Another option which has been suggested by Pete, is using the Slitherine tournament scoring system.

It has some similarities to the Ancient WRG 7th edition scoring system way back.

I can't remember it exactly (nearly 30 years ago) but if the winner had won by a "X" margin he would receive an extra 500 or 600 points. The maximum score you would receive would be 1200 (1250) points

Does anybody remember that scoring system?

The Slitherine tournament system is based on the outright victor receiving an additional 60 points to be added to the difference in the score

So if a score was 40 - 27 it would remain 40 -27. It is not an outright victory

A 42 - 16 = 86 - 16; 60 - 55 = 65 -55; 68 - 37 = 91-37

And I would like to reiterate my point that in my view the winner's own routed percentage should be the indicator instead of the margin of win. I think a 40-15 win should be rewarded with more points than a 60-35 win.

You can look at it in 2 ways. The loser has lost 40% of his army or he has lost 60% of his army. I could see the "enemy" returning with an army now reduced to 60% of it's original number but not with 40% of it's initial force. So the 60-35 victory would be a more decisive victory. Just a thought that is.

Lets say that a game has now reached 40-15 status, but we have removed the rout threshold win condition and the game continues. What will likely be the winning player's rout percentage when the player inflicts another 20% rout on the losing player and reaches 60 score?

The most likely scenario is that the losing player only managed to inflict a loss percentage much less than 20% during the second stage and I would guess the overall score would be around 60-25 or so. Because the losing player is fighting with an army at 60% strength against a 85% strength army during the second stage.

Accordingly, I would think a 40-15 victory to be more decisive than 60-35, because if the 40-15 game is allowed to continue, the winning margin will likely further increase.

[ericdoman1]

And I would like to reiterate my point that in my view the winner's own routed percentage should be the indicator instead of the margin of win. I think a 40-15 win should be rewarded with more points than a 60-35 win.

You can look at it in 2 ways. The loser has lost 40% of his army or he has lost 60% of his army. I could see the "enemy" returning with an army now reduced to 60% of it's original number but not with 40% of it's initial force. So the 60-35 victory would be a more decisive victory. Just a thought that is.

Lets say that a game has now reached 40-15 status, but we have removed the rout threshold win condition and the game continues. What will likely be the winning player's rout percentage when the player inflicts another 20% rout on the losing player and reaches 60 score?

The most likely scenario is that the losing player only managed to inflict a loss percentage much less than 20% during the second stage and I would guess the overall score would be around 60-25 or so. Because the losing player is fighting with an army at 60% strength against a 85% strength army during the second stage.

Accordingly, I would think a 40-15 victory to be more decisive than 60-35, because if the 40-15 game is allowed to continue, the winning margin will likely further increase.

What do you think of my other scoring system?

[ericdoman1]

Have adjudications been discussed? Some of these scoring systems seem like they’d remove some of the adjudication difficulty because players would be getting most of their points from rout % one way or another. Thoughts?

An additional thing for adjudication could be early and frequent reminders for players to F2 screenshot their end turn positions. So if organizers do need to judge, army positions are easy to see.

I don't think they have. Although I know in the WTC it was suggested to take screenshots, not only for the end turn(s) but from the very beginning and I had suggested to my teammates to take screenshots of dates as well. If the next new league is 4 months long, players probably take their time because of it. Maybe players should only issue challenges for X games at a time, let's say 5 and just stick to having 5 games on the go. I have contacted Slitherine to find out if there is a way they can help out by keeping track of turns played etc. No reply as of yet.

I am not sure how many players use the multiplayer "End Stalled Game". I have suggested if a player has been in comms with another player and the person who is running that period and has had no reply, then he can claim the game and or if a player has not contacted the person running the period and his opponent to explain that there will be a delay, then once more his opponent can claim the game. It would have to be highlighted in big bold capitals within the rules and even emphasized at the beginning as for example " It is expected that all players must know the rules and to accept them". Also if neither player has made any effort to do anything, then this would be noted if an adjudication is required. I personally would then make it a 0-0 score?

[Geffalrus]

I don't think they have. Although I know in the WTC it was suggested to take screenshots, not only for the end turn(s) but from the very beginning and I had suggested to my teammates to take screenshots of dates as well. If the next new league is 4 months long, players probably take their time because of it. Maybe players should only issue challenges for X games at a time, let's say 5 and just stick to having 5 games on the go. I have contacted Slitherine to find out if there is a way they can help out by keeping track of turns played etc. No reply as of yet.

I am not sure how many players use the multiplayer "End Stalled Game". I have suggested if a player has been in comms with another player and the person who is running that period and has had no reply, then he can claim the game and or if a player has not contacted the person running the period and his opponent to explain that there will be a delay, then once more his opponent can claim the game. It would have to be highlighted in big bold capitals within the rules and even emphasized at the beginning as for example " It is expected that all players must know the rules and to accept them". Also if neither player has made any effort to do anything, then this would be noted if an adjudication is required. I personally would then make it a 0-0 score?

I guess it depends on what we want to prioritize: finished games, obvious and clear score rules, easy adjudications, or player enjoyment? I feel like adjudications are most controversial when it’s for one match and the result determines whether the player/team is knocked out. Like in themed event sections, the knock out league, or your WTC knockout sections. Not that those have been mishandled; rather that those situations seem likely to be the most adjudication stressful.

[Geffalrus]

As for match challenges - maybe a system similar to the group stage of WTC where players have say 3 matches to complete in the first two weeks, then 3 more the next two weeks, etc. That way the scheduling of matches isn’t solely on the players?

[ericdoman1]

As for match challenges - maybe a system similar to the group stage of WTC where players have say 3 matches to complete in the first two weeks, then 3 more the next two weeks, etc. That way the scheduling of matches isn’t solely on the players?

That's a good idea OK we should work on that G