Slitherine

Let's take a vote

They get what they are given

You haven't asked the full question Richard. What about tie breaks?

philqw78 wrote:You haven't asked the full question Richard. What about tie breaks?

Well that is another issue. I thought finding out people's preference on the main issue would be worthwhile.

nikgaukroger wrote:They get what they are given

Indeed, and this poll is an attempt to find out how they feel about what they are currently given.

I voted indifferent.

But then I think both with and without decimal places, the scoring system at present is overly complex. Not only that, I also agree with the original post, the scoring system is in itself broken. It's encouraged a relentless rise in the number of BGs in armies under the philosophy "you can't break me, and if I can't break you, we can swap BGs so I win on percentages". It's daft, and there seems to be more and more draws as a result.

Personally in DBM I preferred the French 3-2-1-0 scoring system or some such simple variation. It's very easy to use and encourages an attacking game style. It would be easy to adopt to FoG. 3/0 for a win/loss, 2 if it's a draw but you rout 4 (or 5 say, whatever) or more BGs than your opponent, otherwise 1. I suspect very few players would be totally incapable of working that out. You could tie-break on attrition point differences.

But really, anything would be better than now.

peterrjohnston wrote:I voted indifferent.



Personally in DBM I preferred the French 3-2-1-0 scoring system or some such simple variation. It's very easy to use and encourages an attacking game style. It would be easy to adopt to FoG. 3/0 for a win/loss, 2 if it's a draw but you rout 4 (or 5 say, whatever) or more BGs than your opponent, otherwise 1. I suspect very few players would be totally incapable of working that out. You could tie-break on attrition point differences.

Don't underestimate the capacity of the the players themselves to over-complicate even the most simple of systems.

peterrjohnston wrote:I voted indifferent.

But then I think both with and without decimal places, the scoring system at present is overly complex. Not only that, I also agree with the original post, the scoring system is in itself broken. It's encouraged a relentless rise in the number of BGs in armies under the philosophy "you can't break me, and if I can't break you, we can swap BGs so I win on percentages". It's daft, and there seems to be more and more draws as a result.

A lot of people seem to think that having loads of BGs is the solution to everything but as I have said before the armies that win UK tournaments at the moment generally seem to have sensible if not what some people would consider low numbers of BG.

I would say that 12-14 BG is the norm. The only mega BG armies that win singles tournaments seem to be those used by Graham Evans.

I still think 10 + AP inflicted (max 10 and army break = 10) - AP lost (max 10 and army break =10) +5 for breaking your opponent without being broken would be both fair, simple and slightly disuade people from using armies with loads of little skirmisher BGs.

hammy wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:I voted indifferent.

But then I think both with and without decimal places, the scoring system at present is overly complex. Not only that, I also agree with the original post, the scoring system is in itself broken. It's encouraged a relentless rise in the number of BGs in armies under the philosophy "you can't break me, and if I can't break you, we can swap BGs so I win on percentages". It's daft, and there seems to be more and more draws as a result.

A lot of people seem to think that having loads of BGs is the solution to everything but as I have said before the armies that win UK tournaments at the moment generally seem to have sensible if not what some people would consider low numbers of BG.

I think this misses the point a bit.

I don't think Peter is saying that a large number of BGs is a route to winning a comp, however, it is a route some players see as a way of avoiding defeat and, possibly as a bonus, will get the better of the points split on unfinished games as the attrition on their army will matter less. (IIRC Tim Porter mentioned this about his game with Graham Evans at Britcon last year).

The upshot of this is more unfinished games as it is harder to break swarm type armies. Whether this matters is moot as opinions vary between any unfinished game is a bad thing and who cares as long as the game is fun

nikgaukroger wrote:I think this misses the point a bit.

I don't think Peter is saying that a large number of BGs is a route to winning a comp, however, it is a route some players see as a way of avoiding defeat and, possibly as a bonus, will get the better of the points split on unfinished games as the attrition on their army will matter less. (IIRC Tim Porter mentioned this about his game with Graham Evans at Britcon last year).

The upshot of this is more unfinished games as it is harder to break swarm type armies. Whether this matters is moot as opinions vary between any unfinished game is a bad thing and who cares as long as the game is fun

Hmm, playing Graham Fun. Never a thought that occured to me.

Obviously my 33 BG Tarascan will sweep all before it...

grahambriggs wrote:Obviously my 33 BG Tarascan will sweep all before it...

Another one of THOSE Grahams

Having played one of those Grahams at the ITC in Lisbon last year, it was not the swarm army that made the difference. Graham handled his army better than I handled mine. I lost 25-0 and still enjoyed the game. Hope to get another crack at him some day.

I haven't had a problem figuring out the scores with decimal places when I am running tournaments. And I do it by hand, as my laptop is a Mac and I can be bothered to set up something in Excel to do the calculations. I think that players appreciate--at least a little bit--the extra granularity provided by the decimal point.

On the other hand, I don't really care that much one way or the other. For instance, the 3-1-0 system is fine with me, too. I know that if I win my games I will do well in the tournament, whatever the scoring system. And if I lose my games . . . .

Marc

hammy wrote:I still think 10 + AP inflicted (max 10 and army break = 10) - AP lost (max 10 and army break =10) +5 for breaking your opponent without being broken would be both fair, simple and slightly disuade people from using armies with loads of little skirmisher BGs.

I like that not the least because it's 0-25 points. Everyone that suggested something as silly as 3-2-1-0, please let me know where you live exactly so that my Elite-Ninja hit squads can minimize collateral damage, thank you.

Well added my votes and so far it's 8/7/8 so no great swing just yet.

I voted for a decimal place and like Karsten would not like the 3/2/1/0 approach. We are in a doubles competition this weekend with 50 teams. It would be entirely plausible after the first round to have 25 teams on 3 points and 25 teams on 0 points. I wouldn't want to be the person allocating second round opponents.

Rob

Ghaznavid wrote: I like that not the least because it's 0-25 points. Everyone that suggested something as silly as 3-2-1-0, please let me know where you live exactly so that my Elite-Ninja hit squads can minimize collateral damage, thank you.

Your comment would be more useful if you outlined why you object to 3-2-1-0... or indeed any simplified scoring system for that matter. It doesn't have to be 3-2-1-0, but I certainly feel the current system is broken for the reasons I outlined above, and Nik helpfully clarified.

peterrjohnston wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote: I like that not the least because it's 0-25 points. Everyone that suggested something as silly as 3-2-1-0, please let me know where you live exactly so that my Elite-Ninja hit squads can minimize collateral damage, thank you.

Your comment would be more useful if you outlined why you object to 3-2-1-0... or indeed any simplified scoring system for that matter. It doesn't have to be 3-2-1-0, but I certainly feel the current system is broken for the reasons I outlined above, and Nik helpfully clarified.

When the Elite-Ninjas arrive, it is too late to sweat the details behind their motivation.

Spike

Fears Elite Ninjas

Robert241167 wrote: I voted for a decimal place and like Karsten would not like the 3/2/1/0 approach. We are in a doubles competition this weekend with 50 teams. It would be entirely plausible after the first round to have 25 teams on 3 points and 25 teams on 0 points. I wouldn't want to be the person allocating second round opponents.

Well, unless you have some special play until you win rule, 25 wins out of 25 games seems entirely unplausible based on current tournament results

Like I said, I'm indifferent to either the current system with or without decimal places as it's overly complex and seems to encourage swarm type armies; gaming the scoring system too much. (Also, I see the current calculation chart as counter-intuitive, as you get the points gained from your attrition points lost, which is like, huh? Points gained from attrition points remaining would be far more intuitive.)

I can see some merit in Hammy's 10 + attrition points inflicted - 10 attrition points lost + 5 for the win, with a fixed break at 10. Unfortunately I think 10 is a little low as it makes armies very fragile, especially those with no quality/superior troops. So 12 would be better, but that's above the theoretical minimum sized army attrition points of 10 at 800AP.

spikemesq wrote: When the Elite-Ninjas arrive, it is too late to sweat the details behind their motivation.

You want me to be afraid of guys in pajamas?