Winter 2022/2023 Tournament

[huntdaw]

Just curious, what happens score wise if you try to play a scenario and your opponent never shows up. Am I stuck with 0 points for the match?

[AdmiralYamamoto]

If your opponent is a no show in the tournament, you are awarded the default score for the scenario. In this scenario it appears to be 180 points. This would put you even with Amenhotop13 who had a bye the first round due to an odd number of sign ups.

[AdmiralYamamoto]

So I acknowledge this might seem like overkill but I have a question about scoring.

I seized a HQ, my opponent re-took it, and then I seized it again for good. When I seized it the second time, I didn’t seem to get any additional points. Do we only get bonus points the first time we seize the HQ?

Also, I ended the game by seizing both HQ. Is there an extra bonus to ending the game this way?

You only get the bonus for capturing an HQ the first time. Once you get the bonus VP points you never lose them even if your opponent recaptures the objective. You also do not receive any additional bonus points for retaking it. You may earn some additional points each turn for holding the objective if the scenario so dictates.

No, there is no bonus for ending the scenario early with an immediate victory by taking both primary objectives. For the tournament scoring it is actually better not to take the 2nd primary objective so that you can continue to earn points for kills and holding objectives.

[AdmiralYamamoto]

I do have some additional comments regarding the tournament scoring. It appears to me like there is a logic issue with the scoring for "Timed out" games where one player does not finish the game. When one player does not take any turns in a game then the offended player receives the default score which is usually 90 points per game or 180 point total. But, if one player only takes 2 or 3 turns then the offended player receives less than the 180 point total. Why?

Here are some examples from the Victorious tournament.

EX1: In round one Daveyboy79 obviously only played a few turns earning 7+3=10 points. His opponent Jmiller23 was then awarded 83+77=160 points.

EX2: In round 1 Spearor earned 3+3=6 points while his opponent Cowboy00 was awarded 76+78=154 points.

EX3: in round 2 Uchmundak earned 38+16=54 points while Blondus earned or was awarded 62+75=137 points. In this game we have some information posted in the Victorious Tournament thread that Blondus's opponent stopped playing just before he was going to take a primary objective which might have earned him more than the default 90 points per game.

From these examples it looks like the offended player gets screwed if his opponent shows up but only takes a few turns. It appears like you earn more points if your opponent does not play at all. It looks like the scoring system ratio's the points based on how many turns are played. This does not seem right to me.

In my opinion the tournament scores for a timed out game should be based on the higher of the offended players actual score or the default score. The bonus points should not be reduced for partial play. To me this should take affect for any game in which one player prevents the other from completing all the turns (usually15).

I could see an argument that maybe neither player was ever going to achieve the default score because of equal skill levels. Even in games between players of vastly different skill levels, it is very hard for a good player to exceed the default score in less than 2/3 of the scenario turns (usually 10 turns). Most of the tournament scenarios are very balanced and do not offer any quick scores like the St Lo gambit in the Cobra scenario. Getting higher than the default scenario usually requires a significant amount of time an effort. I could see maybe instituting this proposed scoring option only for games that to not exceed 10 turns.

I would love to here everyone's comments on this suggestion. Thanks.

[Bobster66]

This is only my third tournament and am very happy that it appears I'll get complete games in the first round, for the first time. I had a no-show in the first tournament and got the standard # of points as everyone else in the same situation. The first round of my second tournament was very frustrating as my opponent continued to play slower as we progressed and I kept gaining ground. I think we only completed 11 turns and that is where my score stopped, even just keeping the status quo I was due many more points over the next 4 turns just from control of the objectives. As it was, my scored ended up much lower than those who didn't get to play at all.

Unit kills are a variable that can not be accounted for. However, the number of points available for control of the objectives is a known variable. I suggest, for games that didn't finish, that the affected player gets awarded for the number of objectives controlled, times the number of turns remaining. If this is too difficult to implement, then just give them the maximum number of points for objectives, times the number of turns.

As the Admiral pointed out, you also get penalized for finishing early. But dragging out a game just to rack up points is totally unsportsmanlike. So I think we could also apply the same process in these situations. If you finish a game early, besides the regular bonus points you should also get points for all the objectives for each unplayed turn.

[blondus]

I like admiral arguments and I agree with him.
Cheers
Luca

[LN59]

Hi Shards,
As the 1st round of the OoB: WW2 Winter Tournament ends tomorrow,
I'm worried that my opponent doesn't seem to have completed the final round of the second game on his side,
of which I'm awaiting the replay ...
Could this be due to the mailing problems mentioned above?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All!


Post scriptum: I also support the Admiral's arguments.

[Erik2]

I don't think my games will finish in time either.
Server/email issues and probably playing in different time zones.

+1 to the Admiral's arguments.

[Celeborn]

I am with the much-loathed Admiral as well.

I would also note that Invitationals are another way of tackling the problem

Not sure why there was never a second Invitational.

or maybe I just wasn’t invited

[Netballman]

Likewise I generally heartily agree with the Admiral, plus I have a couple of other comments.

The most important discrepancy is as he noted the fact that players who are/may be doing well in partially played games score worse than those who have no-shows. If the system is to be fair there really needs to be some kind of review of the scoring system for incomplete games to better reflect the actual states of play, however far they have got. Certainly as a start I'd agree a scaling up of points based on currently held objectives at end point should be standard: it's easily quantifiable and at least some reflection of the likely end score balance. I've been screwed before more than once getting a low score simply due to my opponent not completing even though I was massively on top (it happened again in this first round, where my opponent stopped playing at the 8/9 turn point when I had demoralised him across the fronts in both games, already had 91 points, and I looked well set for a major win, and only ended up with 176).

Perhaps another consideration in points loading for unfinished games could reflect who in the pairing was being laggardly. If one person rapidly completes their turns once able and the other is slower, then perhaps the faster player should gain a bonus and/or the slower one be penalised. This might also need to take account of things like the failures of the notification system, as people can be highly reliant on them as they expect them to work!

A more general consideration here, already mentioned above in the htread in passing, is the time normally allocated to a game. One day per turn sounds reasonable in principle but in reality it can be problematic; aforementioned server and notification problems, combined with peoples' real lives can easily mean you lose a day here or there, and if you are playing someone in an opposite time zone (which frequently happens in my experience) then you really have to make an effort to get more than one turn played a day as you are 12 hours out of synch. I'm sure none of us want to be hanging about for ages to complete a tournament, but that said, why on earth do we not (for a start) simply allocate a longer time for completion - 20 days, say, instead of 15? That would then make allowance for the delays of all potential kinds I'm sure many of us have experienced - and has particular relevance around holiday times, too (hint hint!). Of course it still won't address games where someone "drops out" but in other games where people are genuinely making an effort it could make all the difference. I don't know how others feel but personally I hate it when I can't get a game finished through circumstances beyond my control. This one tweak takes no effort and IMHO could really help some players' experiences.

These tournaments are SO much fun (thank you Shards and all players!) but these scoring issues are very frustrating! I appreciate a perfect solution is going to be evasive but clearly there are some steps which could be taken which would alleviate at least some of the difficulties.

[stevefprice]

or maybe I just wasn’t invited

We did miss you

[roywfw]

I just received an email containing the following statement, "We noticed you have downloaded some turns multiple times."

My opponent and I have played multiple turns today and unless that is what you're referring to...that statement is not accurate!

[rth]

Hi
I usually don't get along with the points system

I captured 4 flags and destroyed 2 enemy units

Competitive opponent captured 2 flags and destroyed one of my units

I took a flag away from the opponent in this round
and yet opponent leads with 18 to 14

maybe it's because I'm a round behind, and basically it's not important to me, tournament is good as always and is fun, unfortunately again only 3 round tournament, at least 5 or even better 7 would be excellent

or end of 1st round: why does zultor only get 173 points if his opponent didn't play (0:0)

maybe I'm missing or forgetting something
no verification needed
... please do not take this as criticism

[roywfw]

I just received another email warning me that I had downloaded a turn multiple times... that is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!
This same thing happened to me in a tournament last year and I'm getting real tired of it. Not only is it annoying but no one has ever addressed whatever the problem is with the monitoring system. Please, at least, try to correct this.

P.S. While not a serious problem, I can't help but wonder why this post and my previous one both say I've posted the same number of times.

P.P.S. What does the diagonal blue banner in the upper right corner signify?

[pupski]

You get points for holding flags too? Now wait a minute...

[pupski]

Is this a bad thing?
Just asking...
I pressed yes 12 times but it doesn't respond.
I have internet because I am uploading this message...
-

2022-12-24 (3)-1600px.jpg (812.72 KiB) Viewed 896 times

[Bobster66]

Is this a bad thing?
Just asking...
I pressed yes 12 times but it doesn't respond.
I have internet because I am uploading this message...
-
2022-12-24 (3)-1600px.jpg

I had that warning twice in the first round. The first time the Slitherine website was also down but after 5 minutes the website was back and the turn completed. However, the second time nothing happened for 10 minutes so I shutdown. Surprisingly I had to replay the turn all over again, thought the reason to be connected to the server was that it handled the game play to prevent cheating. Seems to be a weakness in the process if we can shutdown the game if we didn't like the results of our turn.

[rth]

sorry yes i was too impatient

Luckily I haven't had any technical difficulties so far,
as I read from some of the previous speakers

[Bombur]

Question:

Why I´m losing on round 2 (winning +2 in one game and losing -9 in the other), if I control the same number of victory points and destroyed more units than my opponent in both games? What I´m missing?

[pupski]

Planes and ships are double points. Not sure about infantry in landing-crafts. Not sure about paratroopers in planes. Maybe charisma?