Scoring System - Please vote if you ever play in tournaments

[KillingZoe]

Your comment would be more useful if you outlined why you object to 3-2-1-0... or indeed any simplified scoring system for that matter.

Its just that Karsten and Martin created the ranking system which involded a huge amount of work and is build on the 25:0 system. I think they could live with any other system using the same range, but are comprehensible unwilling of rebuilding the whole thing again.

Also, I see the current calculation chart as counter-intuitive, as you get the points gained from your attrition points lost, which is like, huh? Points gained from attrition points remaining would be far more intuitive.

Well, that is exactly the way it works: You get 10 points minus your percentage of lost attrition points, which is quite the same as a bonus for own remaining attrition. (minus times minus gets plus )

Anyway, I don't think the system is broken. Indeed I think it works really good. If anything, we should think about gaming time.
By the way: I think its abolutely important not to calculate the attrition points directly into the scoring, but to weight it with the number of battle groups. The current system works with each tournament size. We used it for 600, 800 and 900 points with no problems. Having just the attrition points in the scoring like hammy suggested will have very different effects on different game sizes. Dividing it by the number of BGs just normalizes the score.

[peterrjohnston]

Its just that Karsten and Martin created the ranking system which involded a huge amount of work and is build on the 25:0 system. I think they could live with any other system using the same range, but are comprehensible unwilling of rebuilding the whole thing again.

I can appreciate the amount of work that's gone into the rankings. But there's no guarantee the scoring system won't change in future, so I assume they made that part of the calculation code modular. After all, ELO comes from chess, which uses an even simpler 1 - 1/2 - 0 scoring system!

Well, that is exactly the way it works: You get 10 points minus your percentage of lost attrition points, which is quite the same as a bonus for own remaining attrition. (minus times minus gets plus )

I know exactly how it works - my point is that the table is presented in a counter-intuitive way as your sentence "10 points minus your percentage of lost attrition point" amply illustrates! I've seen players very confused by it.

(To be pedantic, it's a minus minus, not a minus times minus).

[hammy]

Well rather than have a table you could simply put the formula:

Base score= ((Own Starting AP - Own AP lost) / Own Starting AP) * 10 + (Opponents AP lost / Opponents Starting AP) * 10

Round to the nearest whole number, round halves up if above 10, down if below.

Add 5 points for breaking opponents army without losing your own.

I can understand why the chart works the way it does as then you don't need to work out how many AP you have left but it is counter intuitive.

[berthier]

Hammy,

I can tell you now that giving the players a formula to try and work out would create a whole new bag of issues with getting the correct score. We have a hard enough time as it is getting the correct attrition points recorded for the organizers to put in the score from the table.

While I don't see that the scoring formula is broken, anything that would increase the "fun" level of FOG is a good idea.

Viva FOG

Christopher Anders

[hammy]

I can tell you now that giving the players a formula to try and work out would create a whole new bag of issues with getting the correct score. We have a hard enough time as it is getting the correct attrition points recorded for the organizers to put in the score from the table.

My point exactly.

Yes the current system is logical from a pure mathematical stand point but players struggle with it and it doesn;t take many players struggling for the end result to be chaos.

A clean simple system with nothing more than counting, adding and subtracting is IMO far more preferable than a mathematically correct one.

The old DBM scoring system was far from mathematically perfect but it did work. Ok there were issues with being able to get your opponents army so that 1 element from anywhere on the table meant it broke but despite no losses yourself the actual score was a 5-5 draw or where you broke a tiny command and lost several times as much yourself without losing a command but ended up with a 6-4 'win'. Players were happy to use the system and all they needed to do was count broken commands. After a while the BHGS introduced a %loss function to scoring at their events which meant that there was a little more granularity in the system and because people mostly knew the basic system it was not to hard for them to cope with the extra bit.

[gozerius]

It' just a ninja. It's not like you ran over a puppy.

[KillingZoe]

Yes the current system is logical from a pure mathematical stand point but players struggle with it and it doesn;t take many players struggling for the end result to be chaos.

Hm, I still don't really see a problem.
Why does it struggle people? Actualy, players on tournaments don't have to do the scoring themself anyway. I think its a bit like calulating the pre battle initiave bonus - I hardly remember how it is done, since the army calucator is doing it for me.

[philqw78]

Base score= ((Own Starting AP - Own AP lost) / Own Starting AP) * 10 + (Opponents AP lost / Opponents Starting AP) * 10

But people don't know this. They have seen so many scoring systems for many rules. If they knew this it would be better. They don't have to do it, the organisers normally will, but because they know what is happening they will be happier.
If you wanted to get rid of the decimal I would be happier with % own AP left + % enemy AP taken, +50 for enemy rout*.
A 0-250 score.

*providing you don't

[philqw78]

Yes the current system is logical from a pure mathematical stand point but players struggle with it and it doesn;t take many players struggling for the end result to be chaos.

People do not struggle. People are intrinsically lazy. The maths is easy. The table on the score sheets is crap.
When I ask you a question about the rules Hammy it is not because I think I do not understand. Its because I cannot be arsed to find the answer. If I could be bothered I would look it up and get it right without having to confirm your opinion with Dave as well.
Its different when I ask an umpiring question. Thats because someone else does not understand. (and I cannot be arsed to explain since they may not agree with my, the correct, version)
If the calculation, as you stated above, was on the sheet people would sit and work it out, both players generally want to know. They check each other. Providing, as happens now, both sides starting AP and AP losses are known the organisers check anyway.

[Ghaznavid]

I like that not the least because it's 0-25 points. Everyone that suggested something as silly as 3-2-1-0, please let me know where you live exactly so that my Elite-Ninja hit squads can minimize collateral damage, thank you.

Your comment would be more useful if you outlined why you object to 3-2-1-0... or indeed any simplified scoring system for that matter. It doesn't have to be 3-2-1-0, but I certainly feel the current system is broken for the reasons I outlined above, and Nik helpfully clarified.

I don't object to a different system (I do object to removing the decimal places from the current one though). Actually I would like a system that isn't rewarding large number of BGs beyond what's follows from the rules already (more opportunities for flanking and a higher resistance to army routs). I don't like that under the current system you can actually be on a losing draw, but then end up even or slightly ahead in points just because you had 50+% more BGs.

I am strongly against any system however that does not fit in with the current 0-25 scores. As to why, isn't it obvious? I've no desire whatsoever to adapt the current ranking system to work with it, especially as it would then have to accommodate two completely different scoring system (after all there is no guarantee that some people would not continue using the old system). So I will oppose everyone in any way possible that is suggesting a scoring system that does not fit into the 0-25 scheme currently used. (I don't need to be a prophet to tell you that Thomas would not feel like adapting his program either.)
Edit: Actually the pure ELO-Rankings would be least affected (still would be work I would rather not have to do. There is after all no compelling reason why a new system couldn't fit into the current range). A lot of the other options (like points totals, points-average, etc.) would become instantly useless though (and probably some other stuff I'm not even thinking off right now.) I would also have to retract my offer to include the various national ranking systems, creating and maintaining all those for two different scoring systems ... well only if you pay me for it.

Aside of that 3-2-1-0 is lacking granularity. So it will require an additional score as tie-breaker (for example points lost/destroyed or whatever) otherwise especially large tournaments will have lots of people on the same place. Such a tie-breaker score is most likely not ending up on the result sheets, making it more difficult for players to figure out why they are at the place they are. (Not to mention (going back to the ranking system) it would probably turn out to be extremely difficult to get those tie-breaker scores from the organiser ... it tends to be difficult enough with the round-by-round results.)

[philqw78]

All you need on the score sheet is this

[philqw78]

... well only if you pay me for it.

But you love Wargaming and showing off your efficiency. Being paid for love sounds a bit like...........

[hammy]

All you need on the score sheet is this

Not far off Phil but there is still the rounding issue to cover. Unlike Karsten I see no major value in fractional scores.

[philqw78]

Not far off Phil but there is still the rounding issue to cover. Unlike Karsten I see no major value in fractional scores.

But they are used for tie break situations, so why not see them? There is no rerason not to use them.
It would be a sad situation where at a major competition the top 3 players were on a very close score. The top two went to tie break, but with decimals added the third player would have won. It is possible if just using simple rounding.

Who comes first here

Code: Select all

Player 1		Player 2		Player 3
19.6	20		20.6	21		20.4	20
21.5	22		17.6	18		24.2	24
16.6	17		15.2	15		12.8	13
15.7	16		20.7	21		17	17
73.4	75		74.1	75		74.4	74 Final Score

With rounding player 1 and 2 draw and go to tie break, Player 2 wins. With decimals player 3 wins fair and square

[philqw78]

I suppose you would need to design an army with a decimal sweet spot to overcome this. Tibetans suffer.

[hammy]

With rounding player 1 and 2 draw and go to tie break, Player 2 wins. With decimals player 3 wins fair and square

True but as the player with the lower rounded score should in theory have had a slightly softer draw so been able to score more as a result......

No system is perfect. What is needed is a system that players understand and that is good enough.

As for finding a 'sweet spot' for army size it is nearly impossible as unless you always break your opponent the size of your opponents army will always be a factor in the rounding.

Back to DBM again, because of the way the 32-0 system worked there were distinct advantages to a 60.5 element or larger army. If you won 10-0 then you could lose 3 elements and still claim a 32-0 and 6 elements while getting a 31-1.

[nikgaukroger]

All you need on the score sheet is this

Well it'd be one way to reduce the number of games at Britcon on the Saturday to 2 not 3 - it'd generate so many errors and queries when being filled in that we'd never manage the time table

[philqw78]

Since we are all so stupid then this is all that should be put on the sheet. An explanation can be added for those of intellect enough to figure it out.

[Cynical]

All you need on the score sheet is this

What about the loss of your camp. Those 2AP aren't included in your starting AP and would therefore upset the percentages.

If we take a 10 BG army and assume no enemy losses for simplicity we get:
1) Lost 5AP, we get a score of 5.
2) Lost 3AP +2AP for the camp, we get a score of 7!

If we add in 2AP for the camp so we have a starting AP of 12 then:
3) Lost 5AP, we get a score of 5.8.

Personally I don't have any problems with the current system.

[philqw78]

What about the loss of your camp. Those 2AP aren't included in your starting AP and would therefore upset the percentages.

If we take a 10 BG army and assume no enemy losses for simplicity we get:
1) Lost 5AP, we get a score of 5.
2) Lost 3AP +2AP for the camp, we get a score of 7!

If we add in 2AP for the camp so we have a starting AP of 12 then:
3) Lost 5AP, we get a score of 5.8.

Personally I don't have any problems with the current system.

What I show is the current system. Which I don't think you understand
3+2=5, and camps only count towards losses