Slitherine

hammy wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Of course, with 3-1-0 this is all irrelevant.

You can take an army of crap, or an army of quality. All that matters is you win, lose or draw.

Well actually with 3-1-0 the tiebreak system is actually very important and most of the proposed 3-1-0 systems seem to use 25-0 as a tiebreak.

Yes the tiebreak 25-0 system is important but it is secondary to winning each game.

I've been in a situation once where all I had to do was to sit my MRR in terrain (which deployed nicely in one corner) in my last game to win the tournament against a skirmish army and it's happened to others too several times (I also believe this happened one year at Britcon: G. Evans vs Olivier? Not sure to be honest). With a 3-1-0 system it would not even have been an option.

Julian

jlopez wrote:I've been in a situation once where all I had to do was to sit my MRR in terrain (which deployed nicely in one corner) in my last game to win the tournament against a skirmish army and it's happened to others too several times (I also believe this happened one year at Britcon: G. Evans vs Olivier? Not sure to be honest). With a 3-1-0 system it would not even have been an option.

Sorry Julian, I don't see how that can be the case.

I have played 3-1-0, when for example I am in the lead with three wins playing the only other player with three wins and a good 25-0 score how is someone with 2 wins and a draw going to overtake me?

To be able to settle for a draw to win a comp you have to be 16 points clear of third place in 25-0. If you are on 9 3-1-0 points and 16 points clear on 25-0 of everyone on 7 3-1-0 points then it is exactly the same.

If anything there are more cases in 3-1-0 where a top player can safely draw than with 25-0. If a player for example 'draws' a couple of games 18-2 and wins the other one 25-0 they will have 61 points going into round 4 which means that even a player with 3 25-0 wins can be caught after a 10-10 draw yet on 3-1-0 even a win in the last game is not enough for this player to overtake the one on 3 wins if he loses.

If anything there are more cases in 3-1-0 where a top player can safely draw than with 25-0. If a player for example 'draws' a couple of games 18-2 and wins the other one 25-0 they will have 61 points going into round 4 which means that even a player with 3 25-0 wins can be caught after a 10-10 draw yet on 3-1-0 even a win in the last game is not enough for this player to overtake the one on 3 wins if he loses.

This is because a 3-1-0 system requires a player to win games to progress. If a player A has only won 1 game while player B has won 3, then by the final round it is too late. even if Player A wins and Player B does not, Player B has still won more games so he ranks higher. The 0-25 FOG points are irrelevant because one player has more wins than the other.

All good discussions about this but until someone (in the UK for me) decides to give this a try ie 3-1-0 less all BHGS events as I think they have worked into the 25 - 0 system. It will never be changed and we'll carry on using the 25 - 0 system for all UK(for me) events?

wildone wrote:

If anything there are more cases in 3-1-0 where a top player can safely draw than with 25-0. If a player for example 'draws' a couple of games 18-2 and wins the other one 25-0 they will have 61 points going into round 4 which means that even a player with 3 25-0 wins can be caught after a 10-10 draw yet on 3-1-0 even a win in the last game is not enough for this player to overtake the one on 3 wins if he loses.

This is because a 3-1-0 system requires a player to win games to progress. If a player A has only won 1 game while player B has won 3, then by the final round it is too late. even if Player A wins and Player B does not, Player B has still won more games so he ranks higher. The 0-25 FOG points are irrelevant because one player has more wins than the other.

Which was actually my precise point. There are more opportunities for a player on top table in the last round to draw their way to victory in the tournament under 3-1-0 than under 25-0

Any scoring system can end up with a player so far in front at the end that a draw in the last game will win the comp. 3-1-0 is actually slightly worse for this than 25-0 IMO.

Under 3-1-0 is you end up drawn against a slow player or heaven forbid someone who is using light horse en masse so as to avoid being defeated then by the time it gets to the last round you are really fighting an uphill struggle. You also know that once you have 'drawn' 2 games you are out of contention. Under DBM in one 3-1-0 tournament Iafter three agames I had something like one 10-0, one 8-2 and one 7-3 but as the latter two games were not actual army breaks I was totally out of contention for a place never mind a win. Another 10-0 would have given me as many points as a player with three 10-0s and a 5-5 but by 3-1-0 as I had two evil all my fault 'draws' that was it. I might as well have packed up and gone home after game 3.

as I had two evil all my fault 'draws' that was it. I might as well have packed up and gone home after game 3.

Why?
As I commented in an earlier post my record so far in 2 tournaments is 8 losses. In both of those tournaments we had a pretty good idea who would win them even before the first game, but everyone involved played their games and seemed to enjoy themselves.

The idea of a 3-1-0 or 5-1-0 system (which I prefer) is to make draws an unattractive option so that players have more motivation to play to win rather than take a draw so as not to lose.

wildone wrote:

as I had two evil all my fault 'draws' that was it. I might as well have packed up and gone home after game 3.

Why?
As I commented in an earlier post my record so far in 2 tournaments is 8 losses. In both of those tournaments we had a pretty good idea who would win them even before the first game, but everyone involved played their games and seemed to enjoy themselves.

The idea of a 3-1-0 or 5-1-0 system (which I prefer) is to make draws an unattractive option so that players have more motivation to play to win rather than take a draw so as not to lose.

The problem is that there are a small minority of players for whom where they place in a torunament doesn't matter one bit and all that actually does matter is not getting beaten. Most games seem to have a way to play for a draw and scoring systems like 3-1-0 (and to be honest 25-0 as well) effectively penalise players who get drawn against those players who don't want to play the game for a result.

I play games to try to get a result, if I lose so be it but even then it doesn't always happen. I have no issue with a bonus for a 'win' but I also don;t see anything actually wrong with hard fought uncompleted games. All that scoring systems like 3-1-0 and its cousins do is massively emphasise the 'win' and I really don't think that emphasis is required. There seems to be an attitude among some players that unfinished games are totally sinfull and the 'fault' of both players so if you draw you should be shunned and sent to the corner like a naughty boy. My comment was trying to point out that a player through no fault of their own might end up heavily penalised just because they didn't actually kill that last AP of one or more of thier opponents.

My point exactly. A 3-1-0 system makes it even more a important to win, hence will increase frustration if it is not possible for some reason forced on you. You could of course lower the threshold as to what constitutes a win, but that would probably end up with so many wins that in the end placing is decided by the 25-0 tie breaker system anyway, so why bother slapping anything on top if it to start with?

I also don;t see anything actually wrong with hard fought uncompleted games. All that scoring systems like 3-1-0 and its cousins do is massively emphasise the 'win' and I really don't think that emphasis is required. There seems to be an attitude among some players that unfinished games are totally sinfull and the 'fault' of both players so if you draw you should be shunned and sent to the corner like a naughty boy. My comment was trying to point out that a player through no fault of their own might end up heavily penalised just because they didn't actually kill that last AP of one or more of thier opponents.

I don't really disagree with you about the "hard fought uncompleted games", its those games where either, one of the players refuses to compete and plays not to lose or where both players decide its a draw well before times up that cause the problem.

Using the combination of a win-draw-loss system with the 0-25 pts to sort out ties seems to me the best way to sort things out.
In my opinion any draw, apart from a mutual army break, that is called before time is up should count as an incomplete game that gets no points of any kind. Also any player that that is clearly refusing to compete should count as losing the game.

its those games where either, one of the players refuses to compete and plays not to lose or where both players decide its a draw well before times up that cause the problem.

Those people are going to be an issue whatever ruleset or scoring system you choose, so I don't think it's right to base a scoring system on the fact that they exist. I think that they have beome less numerous since the advent of FOG.

I've got to agree with Wildone. Many of the most active posters appear to be saying that there is no point in playing in a tournament unless you are going to win it. There also seems to be a problem in the UK with players trying not to lose more than they are trying to win.

I've not been in that many tournaments, but I've got to say I've not noticed this problem in the States. Most players that I have faced (and I certainly include myself inthis category) play to win each game and know going in that they have little or no chance of winning the tournament. In my last two outings I don't think I won a single game outright. Sure, I would have preferred to win, but I entered the tournament to play FoG, to socialize, and (I hope) to improve my own play by playing better players.

And even though my troops sometimes appear to be all medical students (first, do no harm . . ) I expect continued participation in FoG tournaments (no matter how they are scored) to improve upon my so far dismal showing.

Kevin

viperofmilan wrote:There also seems to be a problem in the UK with players trying not to lose more than they are trying to win.
Kevin

With all due respect I don't think there is a problum in the UK with this at all.

What you may be getting mixed up with is people using skirmishers I don't see this as not wanting to lose sorry disagree with you there.

Out of 53 games I have played at UK events in the last two years I have honestly came across a person playing for a draw only once. In other games people kept away from my proper troops or I did the same but i see that as playing the game.

viperofmilan wrote:I've got to agree with Wildone. Many of the most active posters appear to be saying that there is no point in playing in a tournament unless you are going to win it. There also seems to be a problem in the UK with players trying not to lose more than they are trying to win.

It's not that there is no point in playing if you are not going to win the tournament. Heck if you win you get a trophy and well that is about it. I suspect that a lot more players play to have fun than play to win. Probably 75% of players go not expecting to have any chance at all of wining the whole comp but if they have fun along the way they are more than happy.

There are a small number of players who seem to be more worried about not losing that anything else. This not lose attitude is not common among players at the top of the draw but may be more prevalent in mid table. It seems to be the case that some players with a not lose attitude may be reducing the fun of other players simply because they will not engage. If this is causing people to be less interested in playing then it is a bad thing. The real question is can anthing be done about it.

Some people have proposed that changing the scoring system will change attitudes. Personally I don't think that is the case but as I rarely encounter players playing not to lose I am not really in any possition to comment. So far the vast majority of my tournament FoG games have been good fun, even when I managed to lose three games in a row and only get a narrow winning draw in the fourth and thus solidly claim last place

No offense intended, so I hope none taken.

Maybe I've just been lucky in my opponents. I can see where it would be an enjoyment killer to take on somebody who didn't come to play. Personally, even though there are times when I hate this game (like when my entire center collapses in one bound due to three sets of "2" on CTs), on the whole have found the tournament experience to be very enjoyable. Sadly, I have become very familiar with last place. Not all bad though - no place to go but up!

Kevin

Sadly, I have become very familiar with last place. Not all bad though - no place to go but up!

Thats what I keep telling myself. One day I might even listen.

wildone wrote:

Sadly, I have become very familiar with last place. Not all bad though - no place to go but up!

Thats what I keep telling myself. One day I might even listen.

To be honest just came from the Challange were I made a point of staying down at the bottom. I had great games against new armies and people. Top tables are over rated just joking, and yes I've been there too. All joking aside top middle bottom its the spirit of the game that counts, TBH I've found that in all tables that I have been on.

I have only won one game of FoG in 2 years and that was 7 days ago. In my one FoG competition I had 3 big losses and one draw (where I was 1 AP from losing). Never stopped it being fun 95% of the time - sometimes the dice frustrate me - and I have NEVER been tempted to play for a draw, be it using Swiss, Parthians, Principate Roman, or Medieval Crown of Aragon and usually finish with my BGs either close to the opponents baseline or broken. The comp players at my club all have similar experiences.

hammy wrote:Some people have proposed that changing the scoring system will change attitudes. Personally I don't think that is the case but as I rarely encounter players playing not to lose I am not really in any possition to comment.

There are two problems.

- Players who just want draws. They are indeed rare but pretty terrible when you encounter them.

- Players playing to preserve their points. They are playing to "win" but play a very careful game, don't take risks as the feeling is that you can still win (or place reasonably well) if you get a draw or a winning draw. These people might well change their behaviour based on the scoring system.

ethan wrote:

hammy wrote:Some people have proposed that changing the scoring system will change attitudes. Personally I don't think that is the case but as I rarely encounter players playing not to lose I am not really in any possition to comment.

There are two problems.

- Players who just want draws. They are indeed rare but pretty terrible when you encounter them.

- Players playing to preserve their points. They are playing to "win" but play a very careful game, don't take risks as the feeling is that you can still win (or place reasonably well) if you get a draw or a winning draw. These people might well change their behaviour based on the scoring system.

And changing the scoring system is unlikely to affect the behaviour of either of these types of players. I have had more 'draws' proportionally under 3-1-0 and other systems designed to encourage 'results' than under the various standard scoring systems

hammy wrote: And changing the scoring system is unlikely to affect the behaviour of either of these types of players. I have had more 'draws' proportionally under 3-1-0 and other systems designed to encourage 'results' than under the various standard scoring systems

I agree on the first, but not sure about the second. If you are trying to creep up to the top 20% and have no chance of getting there without wins...