Competition Points systems

[Ghaznavid]

There is also another detail to take into account. As a tournament organiser I would be less then happy having to use what effectively a double scoring system. Now tournaments in Germany tend to be small and we use always use the Software provided by Thomas Peters, so its not to difficult here (assuming Thomas would add a win-draw-loss system). Having seen how several large tournaments run using excel sheets or even pen and paper or any combination of those I would imagine the organisers of large competitions are likely to tell anyone asking for added complexity in scoring to either volunteer to run the event or get lost.

While we will testing a slightly different scoring system here in summer I don't think there is enough to gain from adding a win-draw-loss system to bother with it. (And as one of those maintaining the current HoH and Rankings I see a lot of problems connected to using such systems, making me not exactly likely to support them. I simply don't think the gain outweights the drawbacks.)

[hammy]

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...

I agree that you need wins to get to the top 20% but my experience of tournaments in DBM that used 3-1-0 and 15-0 both of which were aimed to get more 'results' was that players didn't play any differently and my [erception was that I faced more negative play under these systems than the normal DBM system. Now part of that might have been the high level of negative play I found at the ITC in Ghent where I think 5 out of my 8 games were draws and 3 of the 8 were only ever going to be draws from deployment either due to my opponents army choice or their deployment but overall the impression I got from playing under these systems was that personally I ended up with more draws and I can assure you I was not playing to draw.

[mbsparta]

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

................ Mr. Hammy to quite correct here!
"
Try this: If two players end the game with a draw, go with a "golden goal" Have each side pick their best unit and fight them one-on-one unitl one BG breaks.

No draws; One side wins, the other looses.

Pele

[hazelbark]

I agree that you need wins to get to the top 20% but my experience of tournaments in DBM that used 3-1-0 and 15-0 both of which were aimed to get more 'results' was that players didn't play any differently and my [erception was that I faced more negative play under these systems than the normal DBM system. Now part of that might have been the high level of negative play I found at the ITC in Ghent where I think 5 out of my 8 games were draws and 3 of the 8 were only ever going to be draws from deployment either due to my opponents army choice or their deployment but overall the impression I got from playing under these systems was that personally I ended up with more draws and I can assure you I was not playing to draw.

Well Ghent is a different kettle of fish. You have team status and some may feel pressure to get a 1 for the team rather than risk a zero.

[berthier]

My own experience at Teams last year in Lisbon was completely bereft of negative play. I had one game time out and that was the very first one against Paolo Morais but it was not because anyone was playing for a draw.

Rounds 2, 3 & 4 played to a conclusion well under time (vs Mr. Graham Evans of UK, Joao Especial of the Greek Team and Javier Sesma of the Spanish Team).

Yes there was some pressure on day 1 to get at least one point from the team but that quickly resolved itself before the start of day two.

Those who are going to intentionally play for draws are going to do so no matter what scoring system you use, IMHO.

Christopher Anders

[hammy]

My own experience at Teams last year in Lisbon was completely bereft of negative play. I had one game time out and that was the very first one against Paolo Morais but it was not because anyone was playing for a draw.

I am not trying to knock any event and I am sure that lots of other people have had plenty of great games at team comps.

The ITC both times I was fortunate enough to go was a super event but both times the gaming left IMO a lot to be desired. Granted both times I went we were playing DBM but at the ITC and other team comps in general I have had massively more dull games than in open comps.

If I ever manage to be high enough in the GB rankings to make the team for Lisbon I will be happy to go and hopefully will actually get four decent games.

[muz177]

4) all games have the issue of players playing not to lose against better players. This is something that the better playrs have to find a way to deal with and being able to do this is a key to being a top player.

I don't think it's a question of players playing not to lose, this is normal. It's a question of the high BG numbers and the percentage-based scoring system combining to encourage armies that are to all intents and purposes unbreakable in a normal competition game.

In Australia, the vast majority of people play to win (just the way we are)! And if we don't win we go down big.

The main problem we have with the scoring system revolves around the temptation for people to max out on the number of BG's because it makes it very difficult to break the army, and the proportionate scoring system also delivers a points advantage.

The other problem is that bloody draws don't get rewarded - often we might get 9 or 10 out of 11 BG's broken on each side, resulting in a 11/9 or 10/10 result - certainly both sides got stuck in but this is not recognised in the scoring.

I agree with the other comments that most play to have fun, try new armies, and explore army lists. Even though all are competitive in the games, and get frustrated by poor dice (let me tell you about my last 3 comp games - maybe another time).

Muz

[ethan]

My personal feeling is to go with a non-zero sum scoring system (double points for things you break as opposed to your own trops or such).

At least in the US we have used the 15-0 DBM system with no problems.

[timmy1]

Ethan, with the 5 point bonus for breaking the opponent, FoG is already at non-zero sum.

Muz, while I can see some merit in the statement 'It's a question of the high BG numbers and the percentage-based scoring system combining to encourage armies that are to all intents and purposes unbreakable in a normal competition game.' That MIGHT be true of Girlie Skythian LH armies (I stick my hand up - I have one but have never used it under FoG), the downside of the small BG size to get a larger number of BG in the list is that they are VERY fragile. Not only do they break VERY easily (getting 1 per three or 1 per two is very much easier) but if they are in a line, when they DO break (and they will) they don't just force CTs for the adjcent 2 BG - they also force them for the 2 beyond that, does not occur for the 6 BG deployed 3 wide. Finally you don't have to pursue them for too long as they get down to one base after 1 round of pursuit (usually) - meaning your pursuing BG can be back in action very quickly and is close enough to make a useful flank or rear attack on the main line or go for the filler. I've seen 2 BG frag from Steady in one bound doing this.

What you to do is make sure that you hit them hard with concentrated force. If you can break one and make 4 take a CT, to improve the chance of passing it or bosltering, your opponent has to commit 4 commanders. Even if you have 14 BG, if you have one BG broken and 4 Frag it does put one at a disadvantage. Each of those commanders is improving the CT (or CMT) of less bases per BG and you should then be able to achieve local supperiority somewhere else.

Finally, it is much more difficult for the small BG to damage the big ones enough unless they are very well handled. Once they are out of position, collecting lots of small BG together can take an age.

One sneaky way of dealing with them is to use drilled shooty Cav. A BG of 4 anything against 4 shooty Cav is not enough (generally) so the small BG user more often than not needs to send more than one BG against you. You don't need to charge them but if they charge you, they each make a seperate pursuit roll so if they don't catch you they will most of the time be out of alignment. Overlaps and flanks become available. A small BG of something like Armoured Superior HF will not like anysort of flank contact.

I had a game this weekend, where the two most difficult units my opponent had were 8 LF Bow and 10 Mob. My 6 base skirmishers really struggled. Those enemy BG should have been his weakest but were not; the two bagged 4 AP and turned a winning draw into 22.3/2.7 loss.

[ethan]

Ethan, with the 5 point bonus for breaking the opponent, FoG is already at non-zero sum.

I suppose it isn't zero-sum, but practically you allow for probabalistic type deals like:

The game is currently a 10-10 tie. let's each roll a die agree the high roller wins, we'll report a result that is 9-11 or 10-10 before the bonus points for victory so each of us has a 50-50 chance of scoring a 16-9 or 9- 16. Actually you could just agree at the end to roll a die for the 5 points and assume the game ended with an army break at the current score...

Or you could also do some more elaborate dances...Igive you an extra broken BG and a Frag and you consider your army to be broken so we both gain VP from where we stopped...still this requires a fair amount of collusion.

I consider that pretty close to zero sum tbh. What I really meant was to allow double points for hurting the enemy as opposed to preserving your own troops. Which to be fair is much more open to collusion, let's just both agree these battle groups are lost and we each up our score. But as I said, that never has been a problem in the US.

[hammy]

What I really meant was to allow double points for hurting the enemy as opposed to preserving your own troops. Which to be fair is much more open to collusion, let's just both agree these battle groups are lost and we each up our score. But as I said, that never has been a problem in the US.

I think that might be an interesting scoring system. Wether it would change behaviour.... is anyone's guess.

[dave_r]

An interesting counter to all this talk about winning games meaning more is the recent IWF tournament. I lost my first game 25-0. I then proceeded to break my opponent's army in the next four rounds. I was asked many times if losing the first game was "tactical" or not. I was the only player in the tournament to get four army breaks.

If a system is introduced whereby win's count so much more than draws would an inevitable consequence be that people are rushing to lose their first game massively so they get an easier draw through the tournament?

These things need to be thought of.

[philqw78]

would an inevitable consequence be that people are rushing to lose their first game massively so they get an easier draw through the tournament?

You mean other people, besides you. Damn snake in the grass.