Slitherine

use a Rampage style uneven point army system

What is Rampage?



In FOW tourney organizers have started throwing out odd army points limits for tourneys to break up the cookie cutter, copy off the internet lists. Something for FOG like 725 points instead of 800, etc

hammy wrote:As you wish



So if you want to win lots of games take armies with 16-17 or 12-13 BGs but not 14-15 or 18+

Thanks for posting, hammy, and producing the fascinating discussion which allows me, cut-off in no-gamer's land, to enjoy wargaming life vicariously.

I'll beg your indulgence to play devil's advocate with your data / statistics since I think I know a thing or two about this kind of stuff.

First, I'm sure I don't need to caution anyone that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. True we have the anecdotal experience of tournament players, but it seems that positions have been staked out (even if no vampire are in sight) and data viewed with an eye to confirming these positions (aka - confirmation bias). Fortunately, we have the rules / tournament scoring to provide reason for causation - e.g., higher breakpoint for larger armies, maneouvreabiltiy of armies of small size BG, etc. My own view on this regard are that, in the hands of a competent player, 2 BG have the upper hand over one double size BG since one of the small BG can fix the large BG frontally while the other attacks the flank.

There are also other factors to consider. Are these results "static" (i.e., would we find the similar results a year ago or a year hence). Perhaps there is a question of fashion - one player has success with a "swarm type" army which means there's a spate of "swarm" armies followed by a demise in "swarm" armies.

All of which says that game results are due to a complex set of factors. However, it's useful to generate the discussion as the most important issues are the perceptions and enjoyment of the players.

I did some playing with your numbers – as posted vice the raw numbers. I noted that your percentages are percentages within each BG size series. It would be useful to know how many data points there are in each series as the graphs actually look quite variable making it questionable whether or not there are statistically significant differences between the series – with the exception of the 11 minus BG series.

Anyway, using the midpoints of the scoring categories and 22.5 for the top category I computed averages and slopes per series. What is shows is that overall the dominant trend is that fewer players win with higher scores – not surprising. The expected / average score for each series (using the percentages as the distribution probabilities) is:

11 minus BG = 9.7 pts
12-13 BG = 11.0 pts
14-15 BG = 10.9 pts
16-17 BG = 12.6 pts
18+ BG = 11.2 pts

Not much to choose amongst the 12 plus group. Maybe 11 minus BG suffers but its difference from the average across all groups, which, weighting each group equally, is 11.1, is less than the difference for the 16-17 BG group (i.e., 1.4 pts versus 1.5 pts). Either there is no significant difference or 11 minus BG are not game winners and there’s something unique about 16-17 BG which might be due dominant troops types in those armies.

Looking at the slope (i.e., the decrease in the percentage of players per increase in points scored) we get…

11 minus BG = -1.1% per pt
12-13 BG = -0.6% per pt
14-15 BG = -0.7% per pt
16-17 BG = 0.0% per pt
18+ BG = -0.5% per pt

Again, except for the two BG groups mentioned, not much to choose amongst the rest.

All of which shows that if you torture the data long enough it will say what you want.

Thanks for the vicarious fun.

jlopez wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

jlopez wrote:The competition I umpired last month in Montmelo was the most pathetic example of combat dodging I've seen so far and consisted mostly of draws. The organisers are considering alternatives to FOG for next year.

Well, assuming that the organisers are responding to the players comments on their enjoyment of the game, then I'd actually suggest that if it is most of the games then it is very much in the way the players have chosen to play the game. I'd also ask, since you've been banging on about the situation in Spain for some time now, whether the organisers have tried alternative scoring systems, etc. in an attempt to get things moving?

They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy and a fear that tinkering with anything might lose them players. I've sent suggestions to the design team as they won't listen to anybody else.

Julian

Hi Julian,

It's a risk to comment on someone else's circumstance but if this is the case it would seem that the problem is you either need to find another group of find a way to shake up this group. You say, in an earlier that they are losing players (i.e., numbers are down) but that they fear tinkering as it might lose them players. Maybe if you invited some more aggressive, good players from somewhere else to participate in a tournament that might open some eyes. Best of luck with trying to invigorate the group.

With a table including:

A player ID
B player BG count
C Score
D Win,Draw,Loss
E Comp placing (as a percentile)
F Opponent ID
G Opponent BG count
H Opponent Score
I Opponent Win,Draw,Loss
J Opponent Comp placing (as a percentile)
K Player comp finishing quartile


Determine the statistical significance of the correlation between B and C, controlling for the effect of E and J. Then restrict the above by each group of K to see if there is an effect of BG size only for th top table but no effect for the others.

SPSS would be handy for this.

hammy wrote:Perhaps we should be more worried that lancer cavalry are too powerful?

I don't think so!

azrael86 wrote:

jlopez wrote:
They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy
Julian

Sounds like they expect the... never mind, I'll get my coat.

ROTFL

jlopez wrote: They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy and a fear that tinkering with anything might lose them players.

Well if they choose to refuse to try changes and play the same way then they have only themselves to blame. Meh.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote:Perhaps we should be more worried that lancer cavalry are too powerful?

I don't think so!

It's all down to player skill... just ask Dave.

Walter

waldo wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote:Perhaps we should be more worried that lancer cavalry are too powerful?

I don't think so!

It's all down to player skill... just ask Dave.

Walter

I would have...... last year. This year won't have the same effect. But I blame it all on foot bow being over powerful.

shadowdragon wrote: Hi Julian,

It's a risk to comment on someone else's circumstance but if this is the case it would seem that the problem is you either need to find another group of find a way to shake up this group. You say, in an earlier that they are losing players (i.e., numbers are down) but that they fear tinkering as it might lose them players. Maybe if you invited some more aggressive, good players from somewhere else to participate in a tournament that might open some eyes. Best of luck with trying to invigorate the group.

They've all drifted to FOW and they ain't coming back as things stand.

hammy wrote:

jlopez wrote:They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy and a fear that tinkering with anything might lose them players. I've sent suggestions to the design team as they won't listen to anybody else.

I don't think that the suggestion was that you should change the rules but that you could perhaps change the tournament format.

Use tighter themes, changes the points, change the table size, use a Rampage style uneven point army system, change the scoring system or any of a number of other things I have not heard of.

Personally I am no longer excited by standard point level open tournaments on a 6 by 4 table.

In the UK we have:
800 point open
800 point lose theme
800 point tight theme
900 point open doubles
900 point themed doubles
65- point open on a 5 by 3 table
and variable points per game

You raving heretic! You'll burn for this!

Seriously, the last time someone tried something different he had to switch back to 800 point open to get enough entries to make the competition worthwhile. Besides, you could give them 10.000 points and they would still play cautiously. They just don't want to risk those 10 points they start the game with.

jlopez wrote:You raving heretic! You'll burn for this!

Seriously, the last time someone tried something different he had to switch back to 800 point open to get enough entries to make the competition worthwhile. Besides, you could give them 10.000 points and they would still play cautiously. They just don't want to risk those 10 points they start the game with.

As long as you don't bring out the comfy chair.....

I find the comment that the players have moved to FoW interesting. what scoring system to they use for that? The reason I ask is that the Battlefront scoring system has one version where if neither player wins then they both lose. Perhaps you could use a FoG scoring system where you start with no points and only get points for what you kill?

It does sound rather like the issue may be the players. That said I will repeat that for me 800 point open (or 400 point open in DBM) is and was my least favourite type of Ancients wargaming.

jlopez wrote: You raving heretic! You'll burn for this!

Seriously, the last time someone tried something different he had to switch back to 800 point open to get enough entries to make the competition worthwhile. Besides, you could give them 10.000 points and they would still play cautiously. They just don't want to risk those 10 points they start the game with.

Change the win bonus from 5 to 10 then.

Change the win bonus from 5 to 10 then.

Don't change anything ! People who won't lose, don't care of the bonus for winning.
But when you want to win a game and you fight against a "Bumper" , it's really a pain if the you know you going to lose is to big...

olivier wrote:

Change the win bonus from 5 to 10 then.

Don't change anything ! People who won't lose, don't care of the bonus for winning.

Exactly.

There is very little worse that ending up playing a player who does not want to play for a win in a tournament where you both need a win to get anywhere.
My worst experience of this was in the last round of a team event where my team and my opponents team were in with a shout of a place or even a win if our teams got a maximum or close to maximum score. Rather than going for a slim chance of him winning (I had the army advantage) my opponent decided to go for the certain drawn which meant that neither team could win the event.

Im having some great games of FOG at home with a wide variety of armies of all shapes and sizes, but we are finding heavy foot armies struggle generally.... find the tourneys a bit of a turn off..... can I ask a couple of questions:

@ Jlopez - what sort of armies are 'popular' on the waning spanish tourney scene? not necessarily name of armies, but what style of armies?

@ britcon winners - what happened in the last game to make it a 10 -10 draw... mutual destruction I hope?

cheers

jon

stecal wrote:

use a Rampage style uneven point army system

What is Rampage?

At Rampage each player submitted a 700, 800 and 900 point list. Then over the four games each army had to be used at least once. Players decide which army to use at the start of the game and then there are bonus points for doing well with a smaller army against a larger one.

There are full details on the Rampage thread.

@ britcon winners - what happened in the last game to make it a 10 -10 draw... mutual destruction I hope?

I lose 10 AP and 1 general, Pete lose 9 AP and 2 General.

At end of the last bound, Pete had a Longbow men BG fragged in close combat with Pike and a 3 base of mem at arms disrupted against swiss pike
and I had a fragged Kn and a fragged LF in range of longbow men....

So pretty close to mutual destruction I think

thats sounds like a game I would liked to have seen! blood and snots left right and centre! good stuff!

jon

chubooga wrote:thats sounds like a game I would liked to have seen! blood and snots left right and centre! good stuff!

jon

If that's what we want then you need to incentivise bloodbaths over stalemates somehow. Previously there has been concern over fixed results in that arena, because it isn't a zero sum game.