FoG NEW SCORING SYSTEM

[jdm]

I would like some help and your ideas please.

We would like to finalise a scoring system for the rules and develop a programme for competition organisers to use across the world so we can easily host international events. It should be new and fresh and special to FoG.

It should have certain features

1 Be a checksum system if possible
2 Allow seeding where competition organisers desire it, so it should be an option
3 Allow exclusions eg father/son, husband/wife etc
4 Prevent club or same country opponents from playing against each other for “x” rounds and this variable should be easy for the organiser to set
5 Allow tournaments to be “x” rounds, again “x” should be easy for the organiser to set
6 Where players are on the same score and it is possible that their opponent could be from a different club or country the draw should ensure that they play the non club / country opponent.
7 Ideally we could produce this in French, Spanish and Italian etc as well

We will then add an attractive front end to make it a FoG added value item for free distribution from the FoG web site

Does anyone have the skills to do this, I can supply some existing templates which might help that already have many of the features listed here, or you may have a better system already which we could model on. If you are interested e mail me at jdm@slitherine.co.uk

Ideally I would like the programme ready and on the web site available for free download by competition organisers by end of December if possible

Any other design parameters I have missed to me by end of November or sooner if we can manage it

Decision on how to proceed to be taken by end of this week.

Can we achieve this?

Best Regards
JDM

[sagji]

8 ability to manually adjust the draw after it is made - to correct problems.
9 ability to produce printouts of
The Draw - with table number / name, and idealy armies
The Standing - with points so far and position,
Players - with seeding, "club/country", and army.
10 ability to produce (in electronic and printed form) complete results that can be used for Glicko and other National/World ranking systems.

Nice to have
*ability to run on low spec machines, and on max / linux machines.
* ability to add other scoring / tie break systems.
* open source - so others can provide the above.

[terrys]

I could probably ammend the existing system (and seriously update the presentation!)

1 Be a checksum system if possible
2 Allow seeding where competition organisers desire it, so it should be an option
3 Allow exclusions eg father/son, husband/wife etc
4 Prevent club or same country opponents from playing against each other for “x” rounds and this variable should be easy for the organiser to set
5 Allow tournaments to be “x” rounds, again “x” should be easy for the organiser to set
6 Where players are on the same score and it is possible that their opponent could be from a different club or country the draw should ensure that they play the non club / country opponent.
7 Ideally we could produce this in French, Spanish and Italian etc as well

1) A scoring system has to be agreed first. The current one used in the UK (at Britcon/Warfare etc) is acceptable, but I wonder whether or not we should have a system based on 25pts - i.e. you get a score out of 100 for a 4 game competition. I personally would prefer a system that gave you slightly more of a bonus for victory - breaking your opponents army.
2) No problem - Should it be for just the first round, or perhaps the first 2.....or should we use the accelerated pairing used for the IWF in Australia (not very successfully to my mind)
3) No problem
4) No problem - there have been suggestions that this should also apply in later rounds where both players are below half way in the competition. (i.e. they have no chance of winning)
5) No problem
6) No problem
7) I'm sure we could find translators - after all, most of the programming will still be in english.

8 ability to manually adjust the draw after it is made - to correct problems.
9 ability to produce printouts of
The Draw - with table number / name, and idealy armies
The Standing - with points so far and position,
Players - with seeding, "club/country", and army.
10 ability to produce (in electronic and printed form) complete results that can be used for Glicko and other National/World ranking systems.

Will always be a requirement - of course, if the program's written correctly it shouldn't be needed
9) The Draw - Yes - adding armies will certainly take away the need for players to have to look up the player/army list before every game
The Standing - Yes
Pleyers - Yes
10) Can be done. It depends on agreeing a universal scoring system. Does anyone know the acceptable scoring system(s) for Glicko?

[jdm]

I could probably ammend the existing system (and seriously update the presentation!) Sounds excellent Terry

1) A scoring system has to be agreed first. The current one used in the UK (at Britcon/Warfare etc) is acceptable, but I wonder whether or not we should have a system based on 25pts - i.e. you get a score out of 100 for a 4 game competition. I personally would prefer a system that gave you slightly more of a bonus for victory - breaking your opponents army.>>> All good points, and I agree, we have to decide if thats achievable with a checksum system or not?
2) No problem - Should it be for just the first round, or perhaps the first 2.....or should we use the accelerated pairing used for the IWF in Australia (not very successfully to my mind)... I would like it to be an option set by event organiser. Definately no AP
3) No problem
4) No problem - there have been suggestions that this should also apply in later rounds where both players are below half way in the competition. (i.e. they have no chance of winning)>>> Good idea lets do this if possible
5) No problem
6) No problem
7) I'm sure we could find translators - after all, most of the programming will still be in english.>>> Agreed

8 ability to manually adjust the draw after it is made - to correct problems. >>> Yep everything should have manual override. The existing system has that
9 ability to produce printouts of
The Draw - with table number / name, and idealy armies >>> all already in the system except does not show armies. We had difficulty fitting all the info into a page
The Standing - with points so far and position, >>>> agreed existing system has this
Players - with seeding, "club/country", and army. >>> agreed and existing system has this except for armies
10 ability to produce (in electronic and printed form) complete results that can be used for Glicko and other National/World ranking systems. >>> Agreed existing system does this, who played who is the key feature here.

10) Can be done. It depends on agreeing a universal scoring system. Does anyone know the acceptable scoring system(s) for Glicko? ... This is not a criteria for the programe

[davidandlynda]

Great minds and all that,I was just musing this morning that this is an ideal oppotunity,as we will all start from the same place, to have an internationally accepted scoring system,then take it one step further and have all results collated at some central place to give us one ranking list ,it would be the most 'accurate' list available for future IWF and EIC and whatever else.
Unfortunately my musings didn't extend to a scoring system
David

[jdm]

Our intention is to make this sort of resource available on the Field of Glory web site. Local clubs, Federations, etc will be able to down load.

Regards
JDM

[jdm]

Terrys first pass. Can we have feedback please

JDM



I'd like a mix of the win/lose/draw system and the current proportional casualty system.
i.e. Keep the cuurent scoring system, but add a bonus for actually defeating the enemy.

It would run something liek this:

Score out of 10 for each 10% of your army remaining
Score out of 10 for each 10% of your opponents army remaining
Score out of 5 for wining - giving a total points of 25

This would give a score out of 100 for a 4 game competition.
The only problem with an odd number is that it's difficult to add the odd point if the game is an exact draw.

This would leave 2 options:
a) Score out 20 (8pts each for armies and up to 4 for winning)
b) Score out of 25 (10pts each for armies and up to 5 for winning)
The odd point is given to the player with the initiative in case of a 'Draw'
(He's supposed to have the initiative - and hence should be pressing for the win)

Points for winning would be (5pt system):
Decisive or Major Victory: 5:0
Moderate Victory: 4:1
Marginal Victory: 3:2
Draw: 3:2 in favour of the player who didn't have the initiative.
This has the advantage of using the 'friendly' scoring system in the book.

or for the 4 point system:
Defeating the enemy: 4:0
Defeating the enemy, but being wthin 2 points of losing yourself: 3:1
Any other result: 2:2
This has the advantage of being simpler - and doesn't require the players to note who had the initiative on the scoresheet.

In both cases, if the system is computerised, then I'd only expect the players to have to note down the number of points lost - the computer will have a record of the number of BG's in an army, and so can work out the score itself. (taking away human error). For the 5 point system there would have to be a check box for the player with initaive.

[babyshark]

JD:

With regard to each "10% of your/opponent's army remaining" do you mean unbroken? How do fragmented BGs, baggage sacked, and generals killed fit into that calculation? For instance, a player who somehow contrives to lose two generals and the baggage could be halfway to demoralization without having a BG break.

Or, , did you mean percentage of break point remaining?

Seeking clarity,

Marc

EDIT: for spelling

[davidandlynda]

The only good test is to try it,Don are you up for it this weekend at warcry?
David

[terrys]

With regard to each "10% of your/opponent's army remaining" do you mean unbroken? How do fragmented BGs, baggage sacked, and generals killed fit into that calculation? For instance, a player who somehow contrives to lose two generals and the baggage could be halfway to demoralization without having a BG break.

A bit of clarification needed - (it's a first pass after all)


Score out of 10 for your own army points still remaining
i.e.
own original army size - points lost *10
own original army size

Score out of 10 for enemy army points destroyed
i.e.
opponents army points destroyed *10
opponents original army size


There will be rounding of course.
The intention would be that the players only need to enter the points lost on the score sheet (and remove the need for using calculators or complicated cross-reference tables)
The score sheet would also contain the details of how the score is calculated, so that players may, if they wish, work their score out before handing it in, but this isn't needed by the computer system.



Other ideas will be happily received and considered!!!!!!!

[terrys]

The only good test is to try it,Don are you up for it this weekend at warcry?
David

I think it's a bit early for that. We're only looking for ideas and putting forward suggestions at the moment.

[expendablecinc]

Another nice to have:

To be able to not only seed the draw with pretournament rankings but also to seed the draw with army rankings. A factor of the two being used to give an "underdog score".

[terrys]

To be able to not only seed the draw with pretournament rankings but also to seed the draw with army rankings. A factor of the two being used to give an "underdog score".

I'd certainly evisage being able to provide 'player stats'
Things like:
Most number of BGs killed
Most number of BGs lost
Highest difference
Best giant killer - Player gaining most points from seeded players (non-seeds only)
etc.

The advantage of developing specifically for FoG is that we can add anything we wish.

We just need a concensus on what scoring system is preferred internationally.

[nikgaukroger]

We just need a concensus on what scoring system is preferred internationally.

Nothing difficult then ...

[babyshark]

Score out of 10 for your own army points still remaining
i.e.
own original army size - points lost *10
own original army size

Score out of 10 for enemy army points destroyed
i.e.
opponents army points destroyed *10
opponents original army size


There will be rounding of course.

Terry:

Thanks for the clarification. It helps a great deal. Still have a question, though, with regard to points lost. It is possible to lose more attrition points than one initially had. For instance: going into the final bound you need one more AP to break the enemy army, and in that bound two of his BGs go broken, he loses a general in combat, etc. This could lead to scores higher than ten. Would all scores be capped at ten?

Also, for the rounding, may I suggest that scores for opponent's points taken be rounded up, and scores for your own army points preserved be rounded down? This might be a goad to agressive play.

Marc

[terrys]

For instance: going into the final bound you need one more AP to break the enemy army, and in that bound two of his BGs go broken, he loses a general in combat, etc. This could lead to scores higher than ten. Would all scores be capped at ten?

You can't cause more points damage than the BG size of the original army, because the game finishes as soon as you reach this point.
i.e. if the enemy has 13 BGs, then even if you break 7 Bgs, you cause 13BGs of damage, rather than 14.
So in effect the scores are capped at 10.

Also, for the rounding, may I suggest that scores for opponent's points taken be rounded up, and scores for your own army points preserved be rounded down? This might be a goad to agressive play.

The incentive for aggressive play is the extra points you get for actually breaking the enemies army.

i.e. if you win 12 BGs to 0, you'd get something like 19pts to 1 (if we stuck to a straight 20pt system - which would in effect be a scaled down version of the current 32pt system)
Adding the extra points would make it either 24 to 1 or

[terrys]

to continue......(I pressed 'submit' by accodent!!!!)
21 - 3 depending on which system we went for.

although the biggest difference is where both sides are close to breaking and one pushes the other over the limit

[olivier]

I don't understand why did you split the "victory " point. I think it's better to keep it as a bonus for finishing a game.
And it's easier for player to compute themselves the final scoring.

[terrys]

I don't understand why did you split the "victory " point. I think it's better to keep it as a bonus for finishing a game.
And it's easier for player to compute themselves the final scoring.[/u]

You're probably right.
I was trying to organise it so that the score was out of 25 (giving a score out of 100 for a 4-game comp).
Allocating 20 points for casualties and a 5point bonus for breaking the enemy army works OK. The problem occurs when you don't break the enemy and you have to allocate the 5 points - any ideas?

Of course it may be easier to stick to 16pts for the casuaties and a bonus of 4 for breaking the army (with 2pts each if none broken)

[olivier]

For me, you can only attain 100 pt if you win all of your game. If you Draw the max decrease by 5 point. A player who draw 4 time in a comp have a score with a max of 80 (60 in fact because he can only gain 15 point max per game). This way is a definitive incitation to win a game
In France, we always search a scoring who's help the winning side against the draw because we think it's better for the game and the interest in the play.