Scoring System

[peterrjohnston]

DomRom neither can take much on frontaly without much clenching of all parts of the anatom

Going off topic, but the strength of the DomRom swarm is as much all those superior shooters, LH, MF and LF, as it is the the auxiliaries.

[peterrjohnston]

Basically, for every AP of the enemy you break you get a point for. This is capped at 10. Armies don't break until their normal level.

It's also open to subtle collusion that would be hard to detect, although slight. "Give me the +5 and I'll give you more attrition points of mine".

[peterrjohnston]

As I've said already, for me the whole problem is the scoring system is percentage based. It's a poor way to score games when the percentage value for the same BG can vary by a factor of 2 or even more. An identical unit in a 10 BG army is worth 10%, in a 20 BG army, 5%. But functionally they are the same.

The only way to get round this is to treat an army as a whole, in other words, W/D/L.

[hammy]

As I've said already, for me the whole problem is the scoring system is percentage based. It's a poor way to score games when the percentage value for the same BG can vary by a factor of 2 or even more. An identical unit in a 10 BG army is worth 10%, in a 20 BG army, 5%. But functionally they are the same.

The only way to get round this is to treat an army as a whole, in other words, W/D/L.

But WDL while a very valid way of doing things if there are lots of rounds and not many players just ends up as being whatever the tie break system is for the majority of players anyway.

[peterrjohnston]

But WDL while a very valid way of doing things if there are lots of rounds and not many players just ends up as being whatever the tie break system is for the majority of players anyway.

And the current distorted 20-0 system is better because...?

And no, you don't need lots of rounds. France used w/d/l for many years, including at big competitions of 50+ players. Getting 4 wins is hard work, believe me*, but you need to go for it if you want to win because everyone else is doing the same. And I'd rather play games where players are at least trying to win rather than avoiding defeat with big BG armies as often seems the case now.

If you want a tie-break system, do attrition points inflicted minus attrition points lost. Again giving incentive to attacking play.

This is also easy to work out for players. Currently it's like "Well, I lost 3 on 14, you lost 6 on 17, so.... ummmm, hmmm, maybe 11 point something to for me, 8 point something for you? Something like that... I think". On WDL (if it's 3/2/1), it's a draw, I have 1 and a tie break of +3. Even I can work that out, hungover, and with only a few hours sleep the night before


*The ITC is probably one of the hardest tournaments there's been; and in the 9 years up until it left Gent only two players got a perfect 12 on 3/2/1/0.

[hammy]

But WDL while a very valid way of doing things if there are lots of rounds and not many players just ends up as being whatever the tie break system is for the majority of players anyway.

And no, you don't need lots of rounds. France used w/d/l for many years, including at big competitions of 50+ players. Getting 4 wins is hard work, believe me*, but you need to go for it if you want to win because everyone else is doing the same. And I'd rather play games where players are at least trying to win rather than avoiding defeat with big BG armies as often seems the case now.

Peter, the main grumbles in this thread are not from players who win comps, they are from players in the middle of the field.

If you use WDL then yes, the winner might well have 4 wins and be a desrved winner but under any scoring system that is probably going to be the case after 4 wins.

Where there is an 'issue' and this is what I was refering to is splitting the middle of the pack. How do you distinguish between all the players on 2 wins, 1 draw and 1 defeat?? Essentially this boils down to the tie break system and with a four round comp using WDL you will find that in practice the WDL makes almost no difference to the placings compared to what they would have been with just the tiebreak system as the scoring system.

Have a think about it. It is true.

[dave_r]

But WDL while a very valid way of doing things if there are lots of rounds and not many players just ends up as being whatever the tie break system is for the majority of players anyway.

And the current distorted 20-0 system is better because...?

And no, you don't need lots of rounds. France used w/d/l for many years, including at big competitions of 50+ players. Getting 4 wins is hard work, believe me*, but you need to go for it if you want to win because everyone else is doing the same. And I'd rather play games where players are at least trying to win rather than avoiding defeat with big BG armies as often seems the case now.

I don't think the W/D/L would work in a tournament scenario. It is simply to open for collusion. At Athens I was the only player that got four wins, my first round game was a 25-0 defeat.

If you went for W/D/L then I think you may get people actively trying to lose their first game. It doesn't matter so much at the IWC since all players are reasonably good, but for a 60 player open tournament encompassing players of all skill levels I feel it would be an utter disaster.

[peterrjohnston]

Peter, the main grumbles in this thread are not from players who win comps, they are from players in the middle of the field.

If you use WDL then yes, the winner might well have 4 wins and be a desrved winner but under any scoring system that is probably going to be the case after 4 wins.

Where there is an 'issue' and this is what I was refering to is splitting the middle of the pack. How do you distinguish between all the players on 2 wins, 1 draw and 1 defeat?? Essentially this boils down to the tie break system and with a four round comp using WDL you will find that in practice the WDL makes almost no difference to the placings compared to what they would have been with just the tiebreak system as the scoring system.

Have a think about it. It is true.

Way to miss the point entirely Hammy. Placing 21st or 22nd on 40 players makes little difference. The grumbles are about the quality of the games, ie 3.5 wasted hours pushing figures round after someone who is either avoiding combat, or has an "unbeatable" army. Well, that player is going to get 4 draws and end at the bottom. Next time they might think it's better to take an army that actually engages in combat.

I've played WDL for several years. It takes a while for things to change, but armies and player attitudes do tend towards a more aggressive, exciting and enjoyable style of play. We're simulating a BATTLE here, you win lose or draw. It's not a production of dance of the sugar plum fairy "oh darling, simply splendid en-pointe work with those LH".

So you have a think about it, because frankly, 25-0 is crap. No amount of fiddling around the edges is going to fix that.

[peterrjohnston]

I don't think the W/D/L would work in a tournament scenario. It is simply to open for collusion. At Athens I was the only player that got four wins, my first round game was a 25-0 defeat.

If you went for W/D/L then I think you may get people actively trying to lose their first game. It doesn't matter so much at the IWC since all players are reasonably good, but for a 60 player open tournament encompassing players of all skill levels I feel it would be an utter disaster.

Athens was overplayed. On 20 players in Swiss, it should have been 4 rounds. You'd have been on 9 points, maybe, if lucky, placing 2nd and 3rd. From experience, 10 points was the least you needed to aim for to win a 4 round competition, but normally you'd need 4 wins. And of course, you're assuming nobody else would have changed their game style.

Believe me, if you went into one of the big French competitions like Lille with the intention of losing the first game deliberately, you'd never win unless something very strange happened.

[hammy]

Way to miss the point entirely Hammy. Placing 21st or 22nd on 40 players makes little difference. The grumbles are about the quality of the games, ie 3.5 wasted hours pushing figures round after someone who is either avoiding combat, or has an "unbeatable" army. Well, that player is going to get 4 draws and end at the bottom. Next time they might think it's better to take an army that actually engages in combat.

I've played WDL for several years. It takes a while for things to change, but armies and player attitudes do tend towards a more aggressive, exciting and enjoyable style of play. We're simulating a BATTLE here, you win lose or draw. It's not a production of dance of the sugar plum fairy "oh darling, simply splendid en-pointe work with those LH".

Now you really have lost me.

The fundamental concern seems to be from players in the middle of the table who find that some of their games are non events because they can't 'win' these games. You suggest changing the scoring so that 'winning' is even more important and that placing mid table is irrelevant. I am not convinced that the mid table players who have been grumbling would consider this to be an improvement.

Unless your WDL system rewards a draw less than it rewards a defeat then there will always be an incentive for players who are losing to avoid that last bit of damage and claim a 'draw'. IMO (and I am willing to be proved wrong) WDL if played with a little bit of thought to game theory actually encourages negative play in games where a 'win' is not possible.

Many of the most boring dull draw games I have played have been under WDL where my opponents started the game with the simple mindset that they were not going top try to win but that they would do everything they could to draw.

[dave_r]

I don't think the W/D/L would work in a tournament scenario. It is simply to open for collusion. At Athens I was the only player that got four wins, my first round game was a 25-0 defeat.

If you went for W/D/L then I think you may get people actively trying to lose their first game. It doesn't matter so much at the IWC since all players are reasonably good, but for a 60 player open tournament encompassing players of all skill levels I feel it would be an utter disaster.

Athens was overplayed. On 20 players in Swiss, it should have been 4 rounds. You'd have been on 9 points, maybe, if lucky, placing 2nd and 3rd. From experience, 10 points was the least you needed to aim for to win a 4 round competition, but normally you'd need 4 wins. And of course, you're assuming nobody else would have changed their game style.

Believe me, if you went into one of the big French competitions like Lille with the intention of losing the first game deliberately, you'd never win unless something very strange happened.

Right, so the scoring system doesn't work unless you have the right amount of players and the right amount of games. That's a huge improvement then.

[hammy]

WDL would work very well if everyone playes everyone else.

If you have more players than 2^rounds then you run the risk of someone submarining their way to a sneaky win although if it was a five round comp and there were three players with 3 wins after round 4 it would not be too bad.

That said if you have enough rounds to make sense of the mid table you can get very odd results at the top.

When I have played under WDL and not won the comp my placing was all about my tiebreak points. OK, it may have been the difference between 4th out of 60 and 10th out of 60 but I suspect that our mid table player would prefer to finish 4th than 10th.

[madaxeman]

The fundamental concern seems to be from players in the middle of the table who find that some of their games are non events because they can't 'win' these games. You suggest changing the scoring so that 'winning' is even more important and that placing mid table is irrelevant. I am not convinced that the mid table players who have been grumbling would consider this to be an improvement.

Unless your WDL system rewards a draw less than it rewards a defeat then there will always be an incentive for players who are losing to avoid that last bit of damage and claim a 'draw'. IMO (and I am willing to be proved wrong) WDL if played with a little bit of thought to game theory actually encourages negative play in games where a 'win' is not possible.

Many of the most boring dull draw games I have played have been under WDL where my opponents started the game with the simple mindset that they were not going top try to win but that they would do everything they could to draw.

I think Manchester must exist in some parallel universe. Are you really saying that if there were more points on offer for a "win" than at present, and there was a proportionally smaller differential between "losing" and "drawing" that the average player would respond by being more likely to bring "hard to beat" armies and will also be more likely to play for a draw than at present?

Eh???

[hammy]

I think Manchester must exist in some parallel universe. Are you really saying that if there were more points on offer for a "win" than at present, and there was a proportionally smaller differential between "losing" and "drawing" that the average player would respond by being more likely to bring "hard to beat" armies and will also be more likely to play for a draw than at present?

No. What I am saying is that those players who go out to not lose (which seems to be the main problem people are grumbling about) will be even more of a pain if you make the difference between a win and a draw larger.

Some players that play not to lose may change their plans but some won't so how is switching to a system that further emphasises wins going to improve something where the problem as reported in this thread is the difficulty of beating certain types of army????

Personally I don't actually care much about what scoring system is used. I will play according to whatever the system is which normally means bringing an army that I have a plan for how to win with. I have never taken an army for which my plan was not to lose. There are, however plenty of players who don't change the way they play or the armies they use based on the tournament conditions.

Further emphasising 'wins' over 'draws' will IMO just increase the number of complaints that players with a don't lose attitiude will cause.

[footslogger]

I think Manchester must exist in some parallel universe. Are you really saying that if there were more points on offer for a "win" than at present, and there was a proportionally smaller differential between "losing" and "drawing" that the average player would respond by being more likely to bring "hard to beat" armies and will also be more likely to play for a draw than at present?

No. What I am saying is that those players who go out to not lose (which seems to be the main problem people are grumbling about) will be even more of a pain if you make the difference between a win and a draw larger.

Some players that play not to lose may change their plans but some won't so how is switching to a system that further emphasises wins going to improve something where the problem as reported in this thread is the difficulty of beating certain types of army????

My guess is that if your target is people who are playing not to lose, fixing this issue because of *them* won't fix the root cause. Those players may have tons of battle groups now, but if that option goes away, they'll find something else. I've had the unpleasant experience of trying to dig someone out of a fortification under DBM. I imagine other creative things can be found in FoG.

[hazelbark]

At Athens I was the only player that got four wins, my first round game was a 25-0 defeat.

If you went for W/D/L then I think you may get people actively trying to lose their first game.

Ahh we were waiting for that explanation.

[SirGarnet]

In a war the first priority is almost always to avoid losing, if possible, for fear of the dire consequences.*

In a game players should play to win in a sportsmanlike manner. One can easily avoid losing by not playing.

However, should tournament time limits force people to change a valid battle plan for the army that takes more time to mature simply in order to facilitate a quick engagement and dramatic result?

If so, then cage-match scoring would seem appropriate - a decisive result is required for maximum points to be available. Those who care about points will be driven to frenetic action as desired.

What percentage of competition players go to play rather than compete?

Mike




----------------------------------------


* Subject to the Mountjoy exception - that it may be more profitable to judiciously lose rather than win a war against the United States of America.

[hazelbark]

I do think in general this is going round and round.

One side is determined to out post the other. The many that seemingly have a stake in a change are quiet.

scoring/BG size argument aside. It is not desirable to have the evolution of armies ala DBM, that "seemingly" drove the historical decent armies away from the playing table. Frankly that is my main concern.

In the US there seems to be a consensus that we haven't hit the same level of concern as europe. There are a lot of possible explanations including comp size and lack of a proliferation of 15+ BG armies. To some degree we have lots of playing pools in the shooty cav phase still. And many of those victims don't pressure the shooty cav enough in my view.

[david53]

What percentage of competition players go to play rather than compete?

Now that would be interesting to find out?

[madaxeman]

scoring/BG size argument aside. It is not desirable to have the evolution of armies ala DBM, that "seemingly" drove the historical decent armies away from the playing table. Frankly that is my main concern.

Good point well made. Once you have struck off armies who can't have decent numbers of armoured and/or superior fighters, and/or LH/LF bowmen there are few enough viable armies left already, so once "... and can work at 15+ BG's" gets added to the list it becomes a very small pool indeed