The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

Oh dear. This idea is sinking rapidly. If it manages to get 50% support then that would be enough for a trial in one section. Two-thirds support would be needed for anything more than that, otherwise we could lose players over it. So it is looking like we will stay as we are for Season 4 unless there is a sudden change of heart. To those of you who have asked me about this issue over the last few seasons - well, I did try!

[gamercb]

I would be more supporting if the 4 points where shared, 3 points for the winner and 1 for the loser if the loser scored more than 50% casualties on the winner.

[stockwellpete]

I would be more supporting if the 4 points where shared, 3 points for the winner and 1 for the loser if the loser scored more than 50% casualties on the winner.

But I have explained earlier in this thread that I don't want the loser of a match to get the same number of points as someone who has drawn a match. If I did what you are suggesting then a player losing 50-65 would get the same as a player drawing 59-35, which I don't think is really tenable. So, to prevent this sort of anomaly I would then have to give 2pts for a draw, 4pts for a tie and 8pts for a win to maintain the differentials. I don't want to do this and that is why I have suggested the winner loses a point so that the current 4-2-1-0 tariff is retained.

[nyczar]

I would be more supporting if the 4 points where shared, 3 points for the winner and 1 for the loser if the loser scored more than 50% casualties on the winner.

But I have explained earlier in this thread that I don't want the loser of a match to get the same number of points as someone who has drawn a match. If I did what you are suggesting then a player losing 50-65 would get the same as a player drawing 59-35, which I don't think is really tenable. So, to prevent this sort of anomaly I would then have to give 2pts for a draw, 4pts for a tie and 8pts for a win to maintain the differentials. I don't want to do this and that is why I have suggested the winner loses a point so that the current 4-2-1-0 tariff is retained.

I have to confess that I don't quite understand why the suggestion of 3-1 creates an "anomaly". It does break the point relationship that has been established and that has worked the past seasons (and would continue to work if there are no changes).The relationship as is now is a win is 4, a tie (both over 60%) is 2-2, and a draw (with no winner), is up to one point each if a 20% rout amount is inflicted on the enemy. The 20% was a new addition to encourage aggressive (and fun) play; this 20% modification has work brilliantly to eliminate points being awarded for 0-0 draws. The creation of a new win/loss type, like the creation of a new draw type (the 20% rule) rewards players that wholeheartedly embrace the spirit of aggressive competitive play. Draw or loss, if you play hard and "put on a good show" that disposition and skill is reflected in the score. You can fight for a rout threshold and earn a point for a draw, and you can fight to a point threshold and also earn a point when you lose. I have issues with the slitherine tournaments but one thing the Swiss rules do capture is the degree of a victory in that the more devastating the win the more one scores and the less decisive the less points. Some affirmative recognition (they win a point) for the efforts of a skillful yet losing general ought to be recognized IMO. A very competitive loss, at least 40%, IS the same a draw from a point perspective for the loser, again IMO. Like the 20% rout rule with draws, a 3-1 win/loss relationship further optimizes competitive play.

There is something else I want to add: I think the overall scoring for a division would be very exciting to watch. With more possible outcomes, the drama of league play will increase.; no longer are things so clear. To use extreames for the ease of an example, a 9-0 season no longer means certain victory. If the 9-0 player won only marginal victories, he would score 27 points. This player could be overtaken if another player went 7-2 and won all his fights decisively, earning 28 points. This of course is an extreme example and near impossible to occur, but the permutations of adding a 3-1 win/lose result adds many "what ifs" and other uncertainties that I think would add excitement for those playing in the league.

A tie is awarded 2-2 because both players crossed an arbitrary threshold at an arbitrary point in time. what I am advocating is that if a loser crosses a threshold, he wins a point (and the winner earns 3 for a marginal win).

It would look this:

• A Decisive win (loser routs less than x% ---at least 40%-but i can see sense to this being higher) =4 for winner, 0 for loser

• A marginal win -loser routs over x% =3 for winner, 1 for loser

• A tie (both cross 60% on on last turn) = 2 for each

• A draw with no winner, 1 point for any player that routs over 20% of the enemy

I respect immensely the time and efforts it take to run a tournament, so my thoughts are offered here in that spirit.

[nyczar]

I posted this in the "Indicative poll marginal victory rule threshold now 50%" thread. As it further illustrate the evolution of my thinking, I wanted to share it here as well: my post was in response to some others that I quoted in the other thread. I didn't paste those in here. here is a link: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 01&t=88607

My post:

I have to confess that I don't quite understand why the suggestion of 3-1 creates an "anomaly". It does break the point relationship that has been established and that has worked the past seasons (and would continue to work if there are no changes).The relationship as is now is a win is 4, a tie (both over 60%) is 2-2, and a draw (with no winner), is up to one point each if a 20% rout amount is inflicted on the enemy. The 20% was a new addition to encourage aggressive (and fun) play; this 20% modification has work brilliantly to eliminate points being awarded for 0-0 draws. The creation of a new win/loss type, like the creation of a new draw type (the 20% rule) rewards players that wholeheartedly embrace the spirit of aggressive competitive play. Draw or loss, if you play hard and "put on a good show" that disposition and skill is reflected in the score. You can fight for a rout threshold and earn a point for a draw, and you can fight to a point threshold and also earn a point when you lose. I have issues with the slitherine tournaments but one thing the Swiss rules do capture is the degree of a victory in that the more devastating the win the more one scores and the less decisive the less points. Some affirmative recognition (they win a point) for the efforts of a skillful yet losing general ought to be recognized IMO. A very competitive loss, at least 40%, IS the same a draw from a point perspective for the loser, again IMO. Like the 20% rout rule with draws, a 3-1 win/loss relationship further optimizes competitive play.

There is something else I want to add: I think the overall scoring for a division would be very exciting to watch. With more possible outcomes, the drama of league play will increase.; no longer are things so clear. To use extreames for the ease of an example, a 9-0 season no longer means certain victory. If the 9-0 player won only marginal victories, he would score 27 points. This player could be overtaken if another player went 7-2 and won all his fights decisively, earning 28 points. This of course is an extreme example and near impossible to occur, but the permutations of adding a 3-1 win/lose result adds many "what ifs" and other uncertainties that I think would add excitement for those playing in the league.

A tie is awarded 2-2 because both players crossed an arbitrary threshold at an arbitrary point in time. what I am advocating is that if a loser crosses a threshold, he wins a point (and the winner earns 3 for a marginal win).

It would look this:
A Decisive win (loser routs less than x% ---at least 40%-but i can see sense to this being higher) =4 for winner, 0 for loser
A marginal win -loser routs over x% =3 for winner, 1 for loser
A tie (both cross 60% on on last turn) = 2 for each
A draw with no winner, 1 point for any player that routs over 20% of the enemy
I respect immensely the time and efforts it take to run a tournament, so my thoughts are offered here in that spirit.

[melm]

I would be more supporting if the 4 points where shared, 3 points for the winner and 1 for the loser if the loser scored more than 50% casualties on the winner.

But I have explained earlier in this thread that I don't want the loser of a match to get the same number of points as someone who has drawn a match. If I did what you are suggesting then a player losing 50-65 would get the same as a player drawing 59-35, which I don't think is really tenable. So, to prevent this sort of anomaly I would then have to give 2pts for a draw, 4pts for a tie and 8pts for a win to maintain the differentials. I don't want to do this and that is why I have suggested the winner loses a point so that the current 4-2-1-0 tariff is retained.

But you grant 59% side, who is about to lose, the same points as 35% side, who is about to win, because the game is draw. Does it be considered as anomaly?

If the threshold is introduced, it is more fair to apply it to all the games, no matter win-lose game or draw game.

[stockwellpete]

But you grant 59% side, who is about to lose, the same points as 35% side, who is about to win, because the game is draw. Does it be considered as anomaly?

If the threshold is introduced, it is more fair to apply it to all the games, no matter win-lose game or draw game.

But that is not me, is it? The 25% difference required for a victory is a rule of FOG2. A player leading 59-35 has not routed the enemy according to the rules of FOG2.

I would also say this to the players wanting a 3-1 points allocation in matches where the losing player scores 50% or more - 3-0 is closer to what you want than the current situation of 4-0. The possibilities are 4-0, 3-0 or 3-1. Surely you would support 3-0 as being an advance on 4-0 even though it doesn't give you everything you want?

[stockwellpete]

I have to confess that I don't quite understand why the suggestion of 3-1 creates an "anomaly". It does break the point relationship that has been established and that has worked the past seasons (and would continue to work if there are no changes).

That's it right there.

[ianiow]

Just a heads up to all the guys currently waiting for a turn with me.

Three times now I have loaded my game with ZygfrydDeLowe and shortly afterwards my computer turns itself on and off again. I am trying to figure out why but don't want to trigger the 'anti-cheat' code.

The computer doesn't die during normal use, just when playing fog! I have tried leaving my computer off for the day to cool down but this didn't work. Next I will undo the 3D setting changes suggested by lapdog666 in the main forums. Then I will uninstall and reinstall the Chinese armies mod used for ZygfrydDeLowe's game.

Will let you know if this works tonight (I'm a postman/parcel guy so work late this time of year - 7 days a week - so don't have the patience for an unruly computer!)

[melm]

But you grant 59% side, who is about to lose, the same points as 35% side, who is about to win, because the game is draw. Does it be considered as anomaly?

If the threshold is introduced, it is more fair to apply it to all the games, no matter win-lose game or draw game.

But that is not me, is it? The 25% difference required for a victory is a rule of FOG2. A player leading 59-35 has not routed the enemy according to the rules of FOG2.

I would also say this to the players wanting a 3-1 points allocation in matches where the losing player scores 50% or more - 3-0 is closer to what you want than the current situation of 4-0. The possibilities are 4-0, 3-0 or 3-1. Surely you would support 3-0 as being an advance on 4-0 even though it doesn't give you everything you want?

FOG2 rule provides the condition of draw. However, draw may not mean the same points for each side if taking the reference of Slitherine tournament scoring system.

I just say the system is not consistent if we just offer threshold for one situation but neglecting the other. It is the inconsistency which introduces paradox that creates the difficulty for dear Pete to think out all the possible anomaly. To be honest, in this aspect, the old scoring system is more consistent than the so-far discussed one. We may have fewer conflicted situations.

[stockwellpete]

It would look this:
A Decisive win (loser routs less than x% ---at least 40%-but i can see sense to this being higher) =4 for winner, 0 for loser
A marginal win -loser routs over x% =3 for winner, 1 for loser
A tie (both cross 60% on on last turn) = 2 for each
A draw with no winner, 1 point for any player that routs over 20% of the enemy
I respect immensely the time and efforts it take to run a tournament, so my thoughts are offered here in that spirit.

As I have explained in the other thread, I cannot agree to any circumstances where a high-scoring losing player gets the same number of points as a drawing player (or in the case of a rare 0-0 draw a high-scoring losing player would actually score a point more than the two drawing players). This is a "red line" for me.

Given this is the situation, I cannot understand why those players who are advocating a point for a high-scoring defeated player cannot support the proposal for a 3-0 points allocation when the alternative is to leave the scoring at 4-0. Surely 3-0 is better than 4-0 for this category of matches?

[stockwellpete]

Hope this doesn't end up like Brexit.

It is getting more and more like Brexit although I am not at all comfortable being cast in the role of Theresa May. But I do have to say that my deal is the only deal and if it is not supported then there will be "no deal".

Edit: there may be a "new deal".

[NikiforosFokas]

Maybe the solution is:
a decisive win (40%)= 4 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
a marginal win= 3 points for the winner, 1 for the loser
tie or draw with actual fighting= 2 for every player
draw with no fighting= 0 for each player.
Just an idea... Since I understand that many players (and me too) want the defeated player to take something from a battle that they fought well this maybe is the solution, Also since ties are so rare I do not see the reason to have different point system than a normal draw.

[stockwellpete]

Maybe the solution is:
a decisive win (40%)= 4 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
a marginal win= 3 points for the winner, 1 for the loser
tie or draw with actual fighting= 2 for every player
draw with no fighting= 0 for each player.
Just an idea... Since I understand that many players (and me too) want the defeated player to take something from a battle that they fought well this maybe is the solution, Also since ties are so rare I do not see the reason to have different point system than a normal draw.

Yes, this is interesting and it doesn't cross my red lines. If I can flesh it out and modify it a bit . . .

a decisive win where the losing player scores less than 50% = 4 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
a marginal win where the losing player scores 50% or more = 3 points for the winner, 1 for the loser
a tie or a draw where an individual player scores 25% or more = 2 points
a draw where an individual player scores less than 25% = 0 points

Can I have some feedback on this idea please? If there is some support then I can poll it as well.

[stockwellpete]

We have had out first agreed 0-0 draw this week. It was because the two players had not realised after two turns that the terrain was prohibitive for both of them. For Season 4 I will increase the turn limit for agreeing a draw from 2 to 3.

[nyczar]

Hope this doesn't end up like Brexit.

It is getting more and more like Brexit although I am not at all comfortable being cast in the role of Theresa May. But I do have to say that my deal is the only deal and if it is not supported then there will be "no deal".

Edit: there may be a "new deal".

That's why you are the Moderator, you have to make the final calls based on what you think is best. I'm of course in, though I may peck away like Cato the Elder and rather that saying "Carthago delenda est", I will just say "let there be a 3-1 win loss relationship!"

[ahuyton]

Hope this doesn't end up like Brexit.

It is getting more and more like Brexit although I am not at all comfortable being cast in the role of Theresa May. But I do have to say that my deal is the only deal and if it is not supported then there will be "no deal".

Edit: there may be a "new deal".

Pete, I see you more as the Michel Barnier of the situation, taking a firm grip and deciding. Which is fine by me.

[nyczar]

Maybe the solution is:
a decisive win (40%)= 4 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
a marginal win= 3 points for the winner, 1 for the loser
tie or draw with actual fighting= 2 for every player
draw with no fighting= 0 for each player.
Just an idea... Since I understand that many players (and me too) want the defeated player to take something from a battle that they fought well this maybe is the solution, Also since ties are so rare I do not see the reason to have different point system than a normal draw.

Yes, this is interesting and it doesn't cross my red lines. If I can flesh it out and modify it a bit . . .

a decisive win where the losing player scores less than 50% = 4 points for the winner, 0 for the loser
a marginal win where the losing player scores 50% or more = 3 points for the winner, 1 for the loser
a tie or a draw where an individual player scores 25% or more = 2 points
a draw where an individual player scores less than 25% = 0 points

Can I have some feedback on this idea please? If there is some support then I can poll it as well.

Collaboration is awesome, I like this, though I also like the lower thresholds of 20% and 40%. my reasoning is that 40% is the initial win threshold set by the game.

That being said, I do understand the desire to make this a rare event (I think it was 1 in 10 games from what you studied) and the fact that when you score 50% and lose (as another commented someplace), much may be due to chance and timing. No doubt a lost with greater than 40% routed but less than 50% routed is more attributable to the play of the winner, rather than any die roll.

[ahuyton]

This proposal makes a lot of sense

[harveylh]

I like it.