Slitherine

philqw78 wrote: What I show is the current system. Which I don't think you understand

What I was trying to point out was that:

((Own Starting AP - Own AP lost) / Own Starting AP) is not the same as (Own Remaining AP / Own Starting AP)

Cynical wrote:

philqw78 wrote: What I show is the current system. Which I don't think you understand

What I was trying to point out was that:

((Own Starting AP - Own AP lost) / Own Starting AP) is not the same as (Own Remaining AP / Own Starting AP)

Oooh. Sorry. But if you take what you have lost from what you start with you have what remains. Which is where the confusion arrives. Which according to Nik is insurmountable. So just showing AP lost in the game on your score sheet would be best. But then people would not know their score

philqw78 wrote:

Cynical wrote:

philqw78 wrote: What I show is the current system. Which I don't think you understand

What I was trying to point out was that:

((Own Starting AP - Own AP lost) / Own Starting AP) is not the same as (Own Remaining AP / Own Starting AP)

Oooh. Sorry. But if you take what you have lost from what you start with you have what remains. Which is where the confusion arrives. Which according to Nik is insurmountable. So just showing AP lost in the game on your score sheet would be best. But then people would not know their score

But not if you lost your camp as the 2AP for the camp is not included in the starting value

philqw78 wrote:Oooh. Sorry. But if you take what you have lost from what you start with you have what remains. Which is where the confusion arrives. Which according to Nik is insurmountable. So just showing AP lost in the game on your score sheet would be best. But then people would not know their score

This is I think why the current score calculation chart is done the way it is. You know what you have lost and what your opponent has lost. Your score is 10-what you lost + what you took from your opponent. The alternative is that your score is what you started with - what you have lost + what you took from your opponent.

People not knowing their score is the main reason for errors not being spotted as the draw is posted.

Cynical wrote:But not if you lost your camp as the 2AP for the camp is not included in the starting value

Its not supposed to be included in the starting AP. It is not included in the starting value of AP ever. It is only included when lost and only as lost AP. The rules are clear about this.

philqw78 wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:... 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...........

Well being bloody practical I've no problem with being a w**** sometimes; also precisely because I love wargaming I feel the need to get (read as: paint) a new army every now and then. Painting time and time to work on the rankings come out of the same time allotment however. Only way around that is to pay someone else to paint my figures ... so now we've completed a cyclic argument.
Bottom line: Whatever new ranking system one wishes to develop it better adheres to the 0-25 points range.

philqw78 wrote:

Cynical wrote:But not if you lost your camp as the 2AP for the camp is not included in the starting value

Its not supposed to be included in the starting AP. It is not included in the starting value of AP ever. It is only included when lost and only as lost AP. The rules are clear about this.

I see, I think. My confusion was with the phrase "Own Remaining AP" which when I think about it is obviously (Own Starting AP - Own Lost AP). Sorry to waste your time, I blame senility.

Ghaznavid wrote:

philqw78 wrote:But you love Wargaming and showing off your efficiency. Being paid for love sounds a bit like...........

Well being bloody practical I've no problem with being a w**** sometimes;

I was going to say Professional Footballer. But its the same I suppose.

Ghaznavid wrote: Bottom line: Whatever new ranking system one wishes to develop it better adheres to the 0-25 points range.

I agree. And I also like the decimals.

Cynical wrote:Sorry to waste your time, I blame senility.

Not a waste of time, looking at it from another view helps understanding. But then can increase wordage.
Some of the rules would benefit and suffer from an increase in words.

You don't start with Attrition points and then lose them.

You start with BGs (which does not change) and you gain attrition points.

So the formula would be

score = 10 x (Own BG- own AP)/ own BG + 10 x (opponent AP/opponent BG) + 5 (if only opponent routed)

If you only collect and use the BG and AP, but print the formula on the sheet, players can work out their scores if they want to.

Victims of our modern mathematical education system can get a numerate friend to produce a lookup table for their army showing what

10*N/(own BG) is for N=1 to number of BG.

If you produce a table which does that for all army sizes then you will have the equivalent of the current table. If people understand where it comes from, they might be less prone to errors.

There is a guy at our club who has to use his fingers to add two dice, but he doesn't play FOG.

This should suit all, and I'll then return to my humdrum life.

If you're Dim, like what Nik finks, just fill in the boxes with a double border. If your a bit clevererer than the rest of us use the rest to work out your score.

philqw78 wrote:This should suit all, and I'll then return to my humdrum life.

If you're Dim, like what Nik finks, just fill in the boxes with a double border. If your a bit clevererer than the rest of us use the rest to work out your score.

Simples.

You're not content to let me be bored are you Richard

Its dead easy, look



And you only have to look at those boxes delineated by the arrows pointing from the yellow, amber and green boxes. And only one row of those, winner or loser. For most of us, top or bottom. These boxes have a double border for the colour blind.

Then if you feel like you didn't drink enough the night before you can have a go at the rest. "Play with these bits", or for clever people, "calculations".

Its a bit like sudoku, but the numbers are random. Once you have finished you will then want a beer.

And at least one hundred percent of those who voted like decimals.

You could colour code it too. A mix of purple, blue, red and yellow should be sufficiently clashing to make it clearer (red on blue tends to wobble, especially after a few beers, or other substances). Then make the text white with a hint of the background colour so that it blurs just a bit more.

Then submit it to Slingshot.

philqw78 wrote: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.

... and that man wins a coconut! Seriously, I have found myself struggling to accurately subract a -ve decimal number on the scoresheet on occasion, as post-battle stupidity sets in, and it's only a simple arithmetical mapping in the real-number domain, not exactly rocket science . The organisers inevitably check our working by recalculating the score from the recorded losses and BG count anyway, so it makes perfect sense to confine the user input to the bare minimum and leave the calculations off the form entirely.

Personally, if we were starting from scratch, I would favour rewarding naked aggression. When I was running the Battle Cry tournament at the WBC a couple of years back, I ranked players during the Swiss stage separately for the USA and CSA by ...

1 most wins
2 most flags taken (ie. enemy units destroyed
3 most enemy figures removed

Everybody played the same scenarios, so there was no need to normalise the scores. For a FoG tournament, I like the idea of tanking players by most wins inside the time-limit, taking winning draws and the raw number of attrition points inflicted as a tie break. Apart from simplicity, it would discourage passivity. Like this

1 most armies broken
2 total wins
3 attrition points inflicted

... that should produce some action

peteratjet wrote:For a FoG tournament, I like the idea of tanking players by most wins inside the time-limit, taking winning draws and the raw number of attrition points inflicted as a tie break. Apart from simplicity, it would discourage passivity. Like this

1 most armies broken
2 total wins
3 attrition points inflicted

... that should produce some action

True but essentially it boils down to most attrition points inflicted doesn't it?

If there are two players on 3 wins then the one who has fought the largest armies (something over which players have no control) wins.

Personally I still don't think any of the contributors have it right!

Any scoring system should start with prime numbers, add a dash of infinititis, divide this by relatavistic theory and mutiply the coefficient by the the speed of light in an alternative universe.

A recent BBC Radio 4 programme on infinity gives us all hope.

In an infinite universe of infinite universes an exact copy of me exists and in that universe I won - even if in this universe I lost.
So I can take great confort from knowing in this alternative reality I always throw 6's.
I'm a winner not a loser - hurrah.

But somewhere else I lost and you won even if I've never met you.

Ow my brain hurts