Thirty-Five - Nil Scoring

[philqw78]

In my experience FoG games tend to be a bit more decisive than some earlier rule sets, but not enough.

35-0 scoring doubles the points you get for taking points from the enemy. So a 12-8 now where you have taken 2 points from your opponent and lost none would become 14-8. Destroying the enemy army and losing none would be 35-0: 10 points of your own not lost; (10x2) 20 of the enemy taken; plus 5 for an enemy rout.
You could also get scores like 27-18. Lost all but 2 points and routed the enemy.

These scoring systems have been tried, but not often enough to see a difference.

I would like to see it go 1 stage further to make games more conclusive and fun. Use the above scoring, but make the competition a knockout as well. (those knocked out going into a plate competition using Swiss draw so they don't have a wasted weekend.)

Each round of the competition would though need more players than normally needed for a straight knockout. A 4 round competition would need at least 30 players, and would be a cut by points scored for that round. Highest scorers going through.

With 30 players this would happen
15 games, best 14 scorers qualify for next round (16 into plate comp)
7 games, 14 players, best 6 qualify. (8 go into plate)
3 games, 6 players, best 2 qualify for final. (4 to plate)

So you need to score more than your opponent for a chance to go through, but still have a chance of not progressing if you do not score highly enough. Also with a 35-0 system a player that destroy a lot of his opponents army still has a good chance of going through even though he may have actually lost his (or her Lynda etc) game. Indeed the final could be a re-match of one of the round three games, a 28-19 nail biter run again.

This means players must be aggressive in their play to get through the rounds.

More than thirty players just means a more drastic cut in each round. So 60 players would be 30, 12, 4 games and then the final. This makes attacking and taking points even more important.

It could be done with less than 30 players, or a 5 round comp. Have 2 completely random drawn round to start, then go into a cut for the final rounds.

Players in the plate would simply carry their points through to the plate competition. Swiss draw for that and win it as normal.

[kevinj]

There are 2 quite separate points in this thread which possibly should be separated so that discussion of each can be more focussed.

I think that if you want to see a different scoring system introduced then you will need to provide:
1) Evidence of what is wrong with the current one.
2) Some idea of how the proposed one will fix this.
There has been significant debate about scoring and a few alternatives have been tried (including something similar to the one you've suggested), but but so far nobody has proposed anything that has generated sufficient enthusiasm for widespread adoption.

I also think that knockout tournaments are unlikely to be popular, especially as the format that you've suggested requires a large number of players to be viable. Nobody wants to turn up to a major event (which would be the only type where there would be sufficient players) and end up being relegated to a secondary competition after an unlucky draw in the first round.

[hazelbark]

Nobody wants to turn up to a major event (which would be the only type where there would be sufficient players) and end up being relegated to a secondary competition after an unlucky draw in the first round.

Not so sure about this last part. In the heyday of DBM there was a large number of people who felt their purpose was to be the gibbon/chum for the sharks to feed on. There is still a sense that a certain group always is at the top and that competition is for their benefit and others are there to enjoy something other than top 5 positions.

Again in the heyday of DBM in the US a popular event was the one running simultaneously to the NICT. (NICT was only previous comp winners allowed) So the non-NICT was perceived as a more relaxed and equal comp and basically DBM has survived here in that player pool.

Phil's ideas don't currently work in most US comps as our large distances do not create the large player pools. We also have a large proportion of 3-round events dictated by geography. We mostly need solutions that work for smaller numbers.

Also I think for the health of the hobby having more evenly matched games helps. Few want to repeatedly be the vulture's prey. If you had a system where there was a prize for best of 2nd tier or such. Then simultaneously you have better players facing each other and hopefully having good games. Then players play against (after x rounds) players closer to their own skill level. That could create more volatility in standings which is fun too.

[spike]

Kevin,
I've been thinging about this and while Phil makes a good "statement of case" I think his answer is too complex, and actualy discribes a "Knock-out" cup competition. Which I agree with you is not that appealing.

If you want to make people be more agressive, and go for outright victory, I give you the solution they went for with football (, no not the game only the Americans play!)
They went from 2 points for a win to 3, with a draw being still 1 point.
So using the current 25 point scoring system to discribe the equivlent of "Goal Difference" in the score, and winning being defined as getting the 5 point "Army Break" bonus.

[kevinj]

If the aim is to encourage more wins then a better solution may be to increase the win bonus, say from 5 to 10. That would preserve the current balance where you are equally rewarded for preserving your own army and destroying the enemy which doubling the points for destroying enemy would break.

However, previous debates on this have highlighted that player attitude is the biggest problem. Given that your overall score under the current system will generally be higher if you get 2 wins and 2 losses than 4 winning draws, will any scoring system be able to change the behaviour of risk averse players?

[philqw78]

will any scoring system be able to change the behaviour of risk averse players?

No, but risk averse players will end up in the plate competition in what I propose

[spike]

will any scoring system be able to change the behaviour of risk averse players?

No, but risk averse players will end up in the plate competition in what I propose

Phil

As I said, I'm not interested in a "knock-out Cup", its too random in its nature- Intersting in the FA Cup, but not in Wargaming.

I agree with your view that there are too many "risk averse" players, playing with low risk armies (,which are too busy either: hiding in terrain or running away from real fights or doing both).

I think doubling the win bonus has been rejected before, but it would I agree with Kevin, encourage agressive play. Still think my idea is equaly valid though as an alternative.

S

[dave_r]

will any scoring system be able to change the behaviour of risk averse players?

No, but risk averse players will end up in the plate competition in what I propose

Phil

As I said, I'm not interested in a "knock-out Cup", its too random in its nature- Intersting in the FA Cup, but not in Wargaming.

I agree with your view that there are too many "risk averse" players, playing with low risk armies (,which are too busy either: hiding in terrain or running away from real fights or doing both).

I think doubling the win bonus has been rejected before, but it would I agree with Kevin, encourage agressive play. Still think my idea is equaly valid though as an alternative.

S

This was tried at the ITC for a number of years. It was found the 3/1/0 scoring system practically encouraged people to play so their army didn't break as that guaranteed a 1-1. You could then wait for somebody you could absolutely slaughter and pick up the 3 points, knowing people weren't that far in front of you.

[philqw78]

As I said, I'm not interested in a "knock-out Cup", its too random in its nature- Intersting in the FA Cup, but not in Wargaming.

Any draw causes random things to happen, as do dice. But a knockout where less than 50% of the top scorers go through, and you could even lose and still go through will create less random events and more killing.

[dave_r]

Or it could cause people to be ultra cautious and play for a 12-8 win.

[philqw78]

Or it could cause people to be ultra cautious and play for a 12-8 win.

Which would mean that someone who lost but was aggressive went through instead of them.

[titanu]

The 35-0 suggestion has some merits and I can see where Phil is coming from. But you have to be careful not to give the good player who stuffs a bunny in game 1 too big an advantage. You may also get the position where two top players draw with one another in game 1 and are both eliminated.

Another suggestion that I have used in the past is to use the normal scoring system for the draw but at the end of the competition the scores used to decide who wins are what you score as opposed to the average score of the player who you played. E.g. I play Dave R and draw 10-10 but over the x games is average score is 14-6 wins - so I get a plus 4. If my average score was a 12-8 win then Dave scores 2 points in our game. Thus who you play is irrelevant as it is a relative score.

[spike]

This was tried at the ITC for a number of years. It was found the 3/1/0 scoring system practically encouraged people to play so their army didn't break as that guaranteed a 1-1. You could then wait for somebody you could absolutely slaughter and pick up the 3 points, knowing people weren't that far in front of you.

Dave
Well I can illustrate how that tactic means you won't win, only playing for draws.....

Score illustration 3 1 0.jpg (194.99 KiB) Viewed 3687 times

Score illustration 25 nil.jpg (196.24 KiB) Viewed 3687 times

As you can see from the images above, I have re-calculated the scoring from from last years Pick and Mix, where I came 2nd originally. if you change to the 3/1/0 system Dave Fairhurst (who as it happens was well beaten by me 25-0 in game 2 - sorry Dave) beats me in to 3rd, as he has 2 wins and a loss, whilst I got 2 good Draws and only one win.

Paul Longmore who scored identically to Pete Riley in 25-0 scoring, also loses out has he got 3 "good" draws, whilst Pete won one game and got losing draws in the other 2, the win counts for more, and even if Pete had lost one of those loosing draws, he would still have beaten Paul.

Score illustration inc bonus to 10.jpg (190.25 KiB) Viewed 3687 times

However this situation is mirrored if you use the 10pt win bonus rather than the current 5 points. So as I said Kevin's idea is of equal merit as it rewards winning, not playing for draws!

S

[philqw78]

None of that helps me does it Spike!!!

[philqw78]

The 35-0 suggestion has some merits and I can see where Phil is coming from. But you have to be careful not to give the good player who stuffs a bunny in game 1 too big an advantage.

The only advantage is that he qualifies for the next round instead of being relegated into the plate competition.

You may also get the position where two top players draw with one another in game 1 and are both eliminated.

if they do enough damage to each other they will still both get big scores so have a very good chance of going through compared to players who do little damage. Remember a 16-9 would become a 31-18. A 10 all with no casualties is still 10-10, Dave's cautious 12-8 becomes a 14-8.

[grahambriggs]

This was tried at the ITC for a number of years. It was found the 3/1/0 scoring system practically encouraged people to play so their army didn't break as that guaranteed a 1-1. You could then wait for somebody you could absolutely slaughter and pick up the 3 points, knowing people weren't that far in front of you.

Dave
Well I can illustrate how that tactic means you won't win, only playing for draws.....S

I don't think either of these examples is that relevant. The ITC competition is unusual: it's a team of four competition with a relatively small number of teams and (historically) some teams were significantly weaker than others. Picking up 10+ points against a weaker team was often the key result of the weekend.Teams playing a stronger team would frequently play for draws, presumably reckoning that four points was their maximum possible achievement.

I'm not sure Spike that looking back on a competition played under one system and measuring by another helps Spike. A lot of players will adapt their army design and style of play to the scoring system on offer. So if you had that competition again under 310 scoring you may have got a deffierent set of results.

[petedalby]

I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with the current system Phil?

It is granular enough if the scores go to decimal places.

And I can't see many players finding a knock-out format appealing - I certainly don't - other than for maybe a very local competition. I've been to overnight / distant events and a poor 1st round match-up has given me a poor start but there's always a chance to recover.

I think you need to make a stronger case for change to move from what we currently have. If it ain't broke - don't fix it. And I'm struggling to see how or why it's broken?

Or is it because Dave is at the top of the ranking?

[Robert241167]

Good point Pete

With Phil's scoring Dave would have been knocked out in the 2nd round at the Challenge.

I'm with Phil !!

Rob

[philqw78]

I'm struggling to understand what is wrong with the current system Phil?

It rewards saving points as much as taking them which can lead to negative play. This was brought to the forefront of my mind at the Challenge where I spent a whole game running away from Dave Saunders (except for a couple of suicidal charges). I knew my army of protected mounted could not face french ordannance. So hid

And I can't see many players finding a knock-out format appealing - I certainly don't - other than for maybe a very local competition. I've been to overnight / distant events and a poor 1st round match-up has given me a poor start but there's always a chance to recover.

if you go out in any round you could still win the plate competition.

I think you need to make a stronger case for change to move from what we currently have. If it ain't broke - don't fix it. And I'm struggling to see how or why it's broken?

We could join the Aztecs then. Glass swords, llamas and large manpacks weren't broken either. But they were sub-optimal

Or is it because Dave is at the top of the ranking?

Do you need another reason?

[spike]

None of that helps me does it Spike!!!

No it probably doesn't, as I said earlier I dont like the idea of an "FA Cup" competition, So I made an alternative suggestion, as has Kevin.

However I do agree with you, that the current system encourages a certain style of negative play (ie the not losing at all costs- and seeing if they get a bunny the can beat at some point in the comp).
We need to have a system which encourges people to go for a win, (not armies which either hide defensively in terrain, or runs off at the first sight of real troops).
If that means people have to change their army selection and style of play to cope with the system change, it acheives what it set out to do.

Your suggestion is valid in acheiving this aim as well, I'm just not interested in knockout competitions.


S